Posted on May 12 at 1:06 a.m.

Sbreader,

The point is no doubt lost on you that my posts contain actual facts, and yours mere speculations.

The strong initial support for the sewer was reflective of homeowners' desire to clean up a perceived problem, and I admit I voted for the sewer myself in the early phases, out of ignorance, under the tacit presumption that the sewer was necessary. It was only when the actual facts behind the project began surfacing, and I became informed of the relevant issues, that my opinion changed. (The estimated costs have stayed relatively constant over the past several years, so that's not it.)

The saddest irony of all is that people like yourself may have influenced some timid voters to support the project, NOT because it fixes an environmental problem (it doesn't), but because it will "fix" a perceived PR problem, unwittingly generated by yourselves through the incessant parroting pro-sewer rhetoric. If only the "Independent" in this paper's name accurately described the thinking capacity of its readers. (And kudos to the above posters for whom that applies.)

On Septic to Sewer, Sewer to Lawsuit?

Posted on May 10 at 7:26 p.m.

David,

The legal citation does not specify whether the challenge must occur before or after the election. The letter from Woocher to the county registrar challenging the votes contains demonstrably false and fabricated information, and if that fraudulent information was used at face value by the county to disenfranchise those voters, that is a clear violation of the law and civil liberty.

Now then, if the voter registrations are eventually determined to be invalid, AFTER A PROPER APPEALS PROCESS, then of course they should be thrown out. BUT: the same level of scrutiny must apply to all ballots equally. (This is why the 2000 Florida recount applied to all counties, not just a few.) A search of 20 random ballots on the pro-sewer side would inevitably turn up its share of irregularities as well.

To respond to Huey's question, the ballots challenged by Woocher are all from households that voted against the sewer in the public October election, so presumably they are all anti-sewer votes. (I'm not aware of a single person who voted against the sewer in October who has since switched sides to support it.) However, many have switched in the opposite direction; if the October vote were re-voted tomorrow at Rincon, it would certainly fail.

Note that even after throwing out these contested votes, Rincon will have voted strongly against the sewer. (By my best estimate, 56 to 46.) This is a complete reversal of the October vote, and strongly reflects the anti-sewer sentiment of the majority of Rincon as we have become more informed about the project. It's a striking statement that, despite the slimy gerrymandering of all four communities together, the overall vote has turned out so close.

On Septic to Sewer, Sewer to Lawsuit?

Posted on May 10 at 10:42 a.m.

Sbreader,

Thanks for your response, but I still need to clear up some inaccuracies in your post. I never stated that septics are inappropriate for Rincon; merely that Rincon is not best-case for septic (but not best-case for sewer, either.) A 19 is not the best-case blackjack hand, but it sure beats a 16. Onsite wastewater treatment is far and away the most appropriate system for Rincon.

Don't you find it curious that the Environmental Impact Report for the sewer project states, "The project's objectives do not include improving local water quality"? I find it vanishingly unlikely that the sewer will significantly improve the water at Rincon, and any rational cost-benefit analysis shows that it is a massive waste of homeowners' and taxpayers' money. If any of our septics turn out to need maintenance, which has not been shown, then let's spend thousands to maintain them, not millions on unnecessary and wasteful (no pun intended) infrastructure.

Of course, if you're a developer and want to overbuild your parcel, the cost-benefit equation changes dramatically. But I am not a fan of sprawl, especially on sensitive ecological habitat like Rincon, so for me that changes the equation in exactly the opposite direction. Digging up a linear mile for sewer pipes in a protected Chumash reserve is not exactly my idea of environmental responsibility either.

By the way, I surf at Rincon two or three times a week, usually at the Indicator or rivermouth in the late afternoon. If you haven't noticed me, it's probably because I haven't snaked you. And I'm friends with quite a lot of surfers who live at Rincon; it's a big part of why we live there.

Finally, given that we live in an innocent-until-proven-guilty society, it appalls me that these twelve votes were pre-emptively discarded based on false and misleading information. This occurred without even notifying the affected voters, or allowing them the opportunity to appeal. The blatant falsehoods in Woocher's letter to the registrar made me laugh out loud, not to mention furious. Among other things, one does not need to be a full-time resident at Rincon to be legally domiciled there. (Many residents live part-time at several locations, yet they must pick one as their legal voting address.) The anti-sewer side was more effective at getting out the vote, and the pro-sewer side has now resorted to outrageous (and quite possibly illegal) tactics as a last-ditch effort to save their misguided boondoggle. It will be interesting to see how this develops.

Meanwhile, I'm going surfing.

On Septic to Sewer, Sewer to Lawsuit?

Posted on May 9 at 10:30 p.m.

David, SBreader, Stu,

Before your tongues get stuck to the bandwagon, I invite you to read my blog at www.benweiss.com/pages/blog.html to get some real information. Practically all of your comments are inaccurate or misleading.

First of all, Billy Taylor is just one person, yet 78 residents voted against the sewer, including (to my knowledge) every single surfer in the Ventura half of Rincon. I made up my mind based on the facts, before I even knew who Billy was. It takes a lot of guts to stand up to the pro-sewer faction, but as you'll see in my blog, the facts overwhelmingly support our anti-sewer position. It's absurd to peg our groundswell of support on Billy's shoulders; he is just not THAT persuasive. ;-)

No one has tried to derail the state grant, which is $2.1 million (one-fourth the cost of the project), not $21 million as you state.

The Carp sewage outfall (which would contain our waste stream) actually contains _more_ human coliform than was detected in the 1999 DNA study at Rincon. Worse, it then discharges straight into the surf zone, 300 yards off the beach into 20 feet of water, where the currents carry it straight back to Rincon. If you weren't aware, Heal The Ocean's other big project (http://healtheocean.org/grant.pdf) is to show how polluted the Montecito sewer outfall is. (Follow the link and read the project objective.) Rincon's septics have had ZERO reported failures in twenty years, according to the Questa engineering study. There is no reason to spend $88,000 per household to "fix" an already working system.

Finally, the voter fraud here is really on the part of the sewer proponents, who have sent blatantly false statements to the county registrars in an attempt to disenfranchise opposing voters. As I read it, their actions may constitute a felony under CA election law, section 18543:

(a) Every person who knowingly challenges a person's right to vote without probable cause or on fraudulent or spurious grounds, or who engages in mass, indiscriminate, and groundless challenging of voters solely for the purpose of preventing voters from voting or to delay the process of voting, or who fraudulently advises any person that he or she is not eligible to vote or is not registered to vote
when in fact that person is eligible or is registered, or who violates Section 14240, is punishable by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than 12 months or in the state prison.
(b) Every person who conspires to violate subdivision (a) is guilty of a felony.

In my book, the sewer has now been voted down, 78 to 73, across the four communities. (And voted down overwhelmingly at Rincon.) We will see what transpires.

On Septic to Sewer, Sewer to Lawsuit?

Posted on November 5 at 4:30 p.m.

Glenn,

The simplest alternative would be to identify any septic tanks that aren't functioning up to snuff, and repair or replace them. (That is, if any problems are found at all; keep in mind that the 1999 DNA study found the surf zone, creek and lagoon all to be cleaner than swimming-pool standards).

Another viable alternative is here: http://tinyurl.com/37gy6w. The Ventura Regional Sanitation District has the following to say about onsite treatment (as opposed to sewer): "This [onsite] technology is an effective solution to the problem of treating and managing sewage in an environmentally sensitive and geologically challenged area, and it represents the wave of the future for California, and the Ventura County area."

Keep in mind, perfection is not possible when it comes to bacteria levels on crowded beaches. In the words of the DNA study's very own author, Mansour Samadpour: “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.” (source: http://depts.washington.edu/uweek/archiv....)

With the proposed project, not only are all Rincon homeowners on the hook for $88,000 (at a minimum), but instead of trace amounts of bacteria possibly leaching through the soil and into the ocean, this sewer project guarantees that ALL of our waste will be pumped two miles up the coast, loaded with toxic chemicals to kill some (but not all) of the bacteria, and then pumped straight back into the surf zone; just 300 yards off the beach, into 25 feet of water. All things being equal, I'd say that we shouldn't leap headfirst into a ridiculously expensive infrastructure project, that comes with no assurance whatsoever of benefiting the environment, and may harm it considerably.

Sincerely,

Ben Weiss

On Rincon Septic-to-Sewer Plan Approved