Mailbag: Politics is winner in marine reserve

The tyranny of good intentions, terribly off target, was on the march at the April 6 City Council meeting. The ladies of the majority persisted in their insistence that all fishing off Laguna be banned. Common sense and balance was abandoned in the service of their “zero tolerance” agenda.

I repeatedly queried the council and their numerous out-of-town supporters as to whether they really believed that the handful of locals fishing off of Laguna were responsible for any damage to our waters. Their answer was that we were not really the problem and nobody was blaming me for the ills of the sea.

But still, they believed that the reserve could only function as absolutist regime devoid of all nuance. They claimed that only a total ban could be enforced, and the rights of the innocent and the lawful must be sacrificed for their flawed ideological concept of the greater good. This is collective punishment.

The real problems of pollution and globalized over-fishing were ignored as being off the agenda.

Laguna is cursed by its location between the “miraculous” ground water springs of Crystal Cove and our ever dependable toilet of Aliso Creek. There has been a massive civic failure at all levels of government regarding our polluted watershed. Our own city’s negligently maintained sewer system has added more hurt to our coast than any 10 generations of traditional local fishing. Where is the political will to tackle the real part of the problem that might actually make a difference? Transgressors of this closure will face jail time, but our civic leaders are excused by paying large fines which come out of the taxpayer’s pockets.

This is all about eco bragging rights. In five years the situation will be worse because the real problems are being willfully ignored in the city’s haste to build a monument to our local politicians.

I have fed my family from Laguna’s waters since the early ‘70s, and have earned my living as a marine life sculptor. Until this ban threatened my right to feed my family from our local waters, I considered myself a conservationist and protector of the seas. I do not apologize for eating fish, or anything else. We have evolved as omnivores.

This is our shared human heritage, however embarrassing this may be to the numerous vegans cheering on this closure. For my fellow taxpayers who feel that you can never err on the side of overprotecting the environment, the published estimated cost of enforcing this statewide system is some $40 million to $50 million a year for starters, bound to increase ad-infinitum. All while California’s schools are starved for funding. This will be a jobs bill for its promoters.

No one has a greater interest in a healthy ocean than people who love to fish. The Department of Fish and Game is already funded by the sale of licenses to regulate every aspect of fishing with near-infinite adjustability. The real problems can be addressed without a total closure.

But there are darker aspects to this than the expected vanity of self-important politicians. Elitism, NIMBYism, racism and a prominent sexual division are lurking about in these murky waters. The full burden will be felt by those with the least financial means to access alternatives.

The grand size of this reserve is based upon ideological purity, a futile time-out for fish as forces way beyond local control continue to flood our shores with poison. But the facts do not seem to matter, because this is not about saving fish. It is about achieving a sort of immortality for its advocates with the creation of the “Toni Iseman Marine Reserve.” Congratulations Toni, you will live forever on Google Earth!

Don Beres

Laguna Beach

Creek diversion should be denied

Diversion: An activity (sleight of hand) that distracts the mind, an “amuse;” a tactic used to draw attention away from the real threat or action (military); the act of diverting and moving it into a different location, often secretly and with dishonest intentions; the taking of water from a stream or other body of water into a canal, pipe or other conduit.

Like the magician with “nothing up [its] sleeve,” South Coast Water District has used all of these ploys (plus attorneys, lobbyists, etc.) in its aptly named Aliso Creek Diversion Request (State Water Board application No. 31741). Pulling yet another rabbit out of its hat, its “Reconsideration Petition” (March 25), however, could truly be a case of “now you see it, now you don’t” for our Aliso Creek, and it is no laughing matter.

SCWD is asking for 890 acre feet per annum (afa) rather than their original 89 afa to irrigate a maximum of “300 acres” per year, instead of the “approximately 30 acres” on their original application. Rather than admitting error(s) on their original petition (SCWD crossed out the 89 afa and changed it to 890 afa, but failed to change the 30 acres to 300 acres) it now accuses the State Water Resources Control Board of reducing their reclaimed water project. Another “diversion”? Houdini should take lessons! Try proofreading and editing!

Where to begin? Behind the curtain is the real story. Don’t be fooled. First and foremost, no one has been allowed to “take” water from Aliso Creek until now.

A precedent has been set. With a wave of its wand (and very creative figuring), SCWD has now gained three things:

1. The “senior appropriator” title, meaning they acquire the right (priority) to the water’s future use before later users.

2. “Beneficial use” rights (for irrigation) to extraction (taking) of water in not only a true, highly protected “riparian” habitat, but also, as Roger von Butow aptly revealed in his letter (“District’s mistakes hurt its credibility,” March 26), a protected wilderness area, without benefit of needed approvals, an EIS and even water testing. SCWD has no geographical limitation for said water’s place of use.

3. Approval to build a costly, ineffective treatment facility at the SCWD rate payer’s expense (per their supporting documents), for the “benefit” of a select few (49), in particular two golf courses: the Monarch Links (already a SCWD customer using 274 afas in 2009) and one “potential customer (a large golf course) prepared to join the recycled water system pending water quality improvements” (per Miles-Chen Law Group letter to State Water Resources Control Board dated Jan. 18).

Is this “customer” the now defunct Aliso Creek (aka Ben Brown) Golf Course, cottages and residential area plan? Is it rising from the dead? Or is SCWD still using this project as their main justification for their 300-acre “maximum area to be irrigated in any one year” rather than “approximately 30 acres” already given to them in their original permit? Do we really need to upgrade our “reclaimed” water to “better” irrigate (green) our golf courses? What about our carbon footprint? Beneficial use, mitigation or something else? Rabbits just keep coming out of the hat!

The hits just keep coming. Both the reclaimed water treatment and facility are being allowed against our city’s own water consultant advice. Environmental and recreational impacts of this diversion are far-reaching and could prove disastrous.

Read the Philip Williams & Associates Ltd. Aliso Creek Stabilization analysis report (dated May 29, 2009, and revised June 5, 2009, page 16). They do not support the district’s higher amount requested, nor their method of treating the water (for TSS and bacteria then reusing for irrigation).

They indicate the amount as unnecessary (remember, this is not drinking water “” just reclaimed water) and a threat to the creek and its inhabitants.

“The main problem (is) there is more supply than demand for reused water.”

Now comes the ultimate vanishing act: “It is assumed that this alternative would de-water the creek between the treatment facility and the ocean.” (In other words, the water there would be gone). Not only does this impact the steelhead trout, but also the tidepool and ocean sections that we are trying to “protect.” Is this really the way to clean up Aliso Creek?

A few more rabbits:

1. This “diversion” is actually a stream “reconfiguration” making the creek wider and shallower (negatively affecting dissolved oxygen levels and leaving the fry and juvenile steelhead trout vulnerable to predators);

2. As Devora Hertz noted, the water treatment is not tertiary;

3. The proposed facility has only a 62% recovery rate, with the potential for being offline more than on, making water cleaning minimal. A similar facility has already cost $3 million, with a quarter of a million in maintenance costs per year. At 89 afa, the numbers don’t justify building a treatment facility and federal/grant funding money, the real thrust of this diversion;

4. A state-of-the-art Latham Treatment Facility (in Dana Point) is scheduled to go online in 2011. It will treat 7 million gallons of landscape water a day, polishing it to a high-value irrigation water. (Note: none of these facilities are producing “potable” drinkable water.) Is there real “need” for SCWD’s diversion amount? The State Water Control Resource Board did not think so, and I urge our city to support them in their findings. Deny SCWD’s reconsideration petition. Abracadabra. Make it vanish for good. It is not the best plan for Aliso Creek or Laguna Beach.

JOANNE SUTCH

Laguna Beach