Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt. 7.5

Sewage leak shuts Coast Highway in Laguna Beach

Is this really what we want for Rincon??

'Nuff said.

Cleaning Up Rincon Point? Pt 7

This began as a response to a poster's comment, but has expanded to deserve its own its own blog entry. So here is the anonymous comment in full, followed by my response.

Anonymous said...:

Bensciousness, I am sure you will want your readers to know the real truth of what is going on at Rincon, and to know that the recent (April 4, 2008) letter by Rincon Point Foundation is full of errors.

The RPF lettersays:
"The Pacific Ocean at Rincon Point is currently 303(d) listed for "Indicator Bacteria." Your fans need to go to http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/final/r3_final303dlist.pdf
and look at page 17. It does not say "indicator bacteria." It says the pollutant/stressor is Fecal Coliform and Total Coliform. the Pacific Ocean at Point Rincon (mouth of Rincon Creek) ARE 303(d) listed.

The RPF letter says "The DNA investigation of Rincon Lagoon showed that the majority of coliform DNA matches (for which only trace amounts were found, all non-pathogenic) were NOT from human sources/species."
If your fans go to the DNA report itself they'll find this statement is not true. Go directly to the chart on page 21 - it's very clear:
http://www.healtheocean.org/articles/dna_report/index.htm

that big, high purple column represents the number of DNA matches made for HUMAN bacteria, and anyone reading the report will see specific discussion on pathogens. Human fecal material IS pathogenic, saying otherwise does not make it true.

The RPF letter says "Routine beach testing throughout Santa Barbara County demonstrates that Rincon is NOT one of the most contaminated beaches..."
That's because RPF is looking in the wrong place. Ventura County Environmental Health tests Rincon, not Santa Barbara County. Go to: http://ventura.org/rma/envhealth/programs/ocean/log.htm , and check out 2008, 2007 and 2006. You will find Rincon posted with warnings in 2008 for 16 days already (three days in January, 13 days between January and February); in 2007, Rincon beach was posted in May and July, and in 2006, Rincon was posted with warnings 11 times during the year - February, April, May, July, August, September, October. Heal the Bay has given Rincon 'BEACH BUMMER' status for 2006-2007. To see Heal the Bay's denouncement of water quality conditions at Rincon, go to: http://www.healthebay.org/brc/annual/2007/counties/ve/analysis.asp

(The "Beach Bummer" for Rincon will be very noticeable in upper right corner of screen.)

Rincon Point Foundation says "the Questa study shows there are NOT failing septc systems in the area." Your fans should go directly to the Questa study, see the chart on p. 158; summary on page 162, and they'll see the above statement is also not true: http://www.santabarbaraca.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2B27EA-CE1C-4829-966F-D4D7468BE52D/0/WaterQualityReportSepticSystemSurveyforSBCounty.pdf

I'm sure you don't want to be spreading misinformation. The above documents and charts are the real deal. How RPF makes up the stuff it says is mystifying.

Dear Anonymous:

First of all, Rincon Point Foundation is not myself. But I thank you for your comments, and would like to respond to your points.

You're correct that 0.06 mile of Rincon Beach is 303(d) listed for Fecal + Total Coliform. However: the source of pollution remains listed as "Unknown." Keep in mind, Rincon represents only about one ten-thousandth of the total California beachfront that is 303(d) impaired; to clean up the entire coast at this price point would bankrupt Bill Gates, even presuming the sewer would help at all. If our goal is to improve the environment, this amount of money is far better spent somewhere else, beginning by identifying and fixing any problematic septics. A scorched-earth attempt to sewer all of Rincon just to keep half a teaspoon of fecal coliform out of the creek is ludicrous overkill, to say the least.

From the DNA study, approximately 80% of the DNA matches came from non-human species. The fact that none of those other species individually came in above 20% is irrelevant; your argument is like saying that most people alive today were born in 2007. (Think about it.) You also overlook the bigger picture, which is that the study found only trace amounts of pollution during the testing period; the ocean and lagoon water met all recreational standards for water quality. Significantly, only on a single day of the study (the very last day) did the human DNA tallies spike, suggesting a fault in the data or collection methods, or at least demanding some alternate explanation. Gradual septic leakage would not cause a spike like this, but a dirty diaper would. As the author of the DNA study states: "One human with an infection can contaminate an entire beach. It doesn’t take much if the bather has a highly contagious illness. Babies at the beach are like bacteria tea bags." Also, it stands to reason that a background level of pollution from septics (if any) would be relatively constant; the spikes that result in beach closures (due to increased creek flow) are likely to contain a higher proportion of animal bacteria, due to increased runoff from the watershed, yet this has not been explicitly tested for. The sewer will do nothing to reduce animal pollution; even in the original DNA study, the fecal traces from ducks + dogs outnumbered those of humans. Good luck teaching mallards to use indoor lavatories.

On fecal coliform and pathogens, here's what the DNA report says: "Unfortunately, the limitations inherent with this particular scientific method and application in this setting does little to identify pathogens, or measure any significant infectious levels (doses) within the watershed. E.coli is a coliform bacterium that has many subspecies; the majority are hosts of normal intestinal flora. Only a few, such as E. coli 0157:H7 have been found to be pathogenic... Dr. Samadpour did examine each of the species matches to determine if the E.coli isolates were pathogenic E.coli 0157:H7. Dr. Samadpour reported that no E.coli 0157:H7 was present in the isolates tested from the Lower Rincon Creek Watershed... As indicated above, the presence of E.coli alone does not address pathogenicity per se... Sterilization of the creek, via removal of all fecal coliform bacteria would devastate the ecosystem of the creek. Some level of nonpathogenic coliform is essential to preserving creek biota."

From the Questa study, page 5-7, regarding Septic failures: "The areas reporting the lowest number and rate of failures were Rincon Point, Orcutt area, Ballard, Painted Cave, and Mission Canyon. " Table 5-1 of the Questa report shows that for the period 1983 - 2002, Rincon Point septic systems had zero cases of surfacing effluent, zero incidents of deliberate public discharge, zero incidents of deliberate sink drain discharge, zero plumbing problems causing backup or surfacing, zero reports of suspicious orders, and two false alarms; complaints that turned out not to be septic-related. Table 5-2, likewise, shows zero septic failures at Rincon. The Questa study states: "No direct link between septic systems and beach closures has yet been established." So with all due respect, I'm not sure what you're inhaling, but I doubt it's from a failing septic.

Now, granted, Rincon may not be best-case for Septic. It is incumbent on us to inspect and upgrade our onsite systems now and then, as problems arise. However, Rincon is not best-case for sewer, either! The Questa report glosses over the excessive costs, complexities, and environmental impacts and risks of the sewer, and treats it as a black-box miracle solution. It is not. On top of the $88,000 per household for sewering our streets, PLUS $500+ per year for service, PLUS inevitable re-assessments when the project runs over budget, we are dealing with the installation and maintenance of an inordinately complicated and mickey-moused piece of infrastructure, that by the Sanitary District's own admission has NOTHING TO DO WITH WATER QUALITY. We all want cleaner water, but it is our duty to tackle the problem in a way that's both meaningful and cost-effective. The sewer is a crushingly misguided boondoggle that will only allow further mansionization of the Point, and increase our net footprint on the environment. For the record, Beach Club Road residents concur unanimously. It's no coincidence (to my knowledge) that all the surfers who live at Rincon, who have the most to actually gain from improved water quality, have done their homework and unanimously concluded that, regardless of the question, the sewer is not the answer.

I look forward to your comments.
-Ben