Letter: Regarding Aliso Creek Breaches


Facts matter, and those who keep the pot boiling regarding the berm never mention the actual, not made-up reality.

The South Orange County Wastewater Authority has grab sampled (tested) both in the ponded water and ankle deep in the ocean. The differences were negligible, nil. Call Amber Baylor at SOCWA and she can confirm that not only do the parties named in the column know of those results but so does the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board. Notice the wording: an “investigative order,” but no direction, no sanctions?

They’re the ultimately responsible, legally empowered agency as they are the regulators and anybody see any fines being handed down?

Shouldn’t the Regional Board have issued a “cease and desist” or “cleanup and abatement” order, legitimate options, if there’s proof that it’s such a hazard?

So why not? It’s been several years and not word one. Call Chiara Clemente at the Regional Water Board’s Enforcement Division and ask her.

The polluted state is a binary question: If it is so contaminated, shouldn’t the County be litigated under the U.S. Clean Water and state Porter-Cologne Water Quality Acts? If these self-described protectionists want a resolution, then spend some of those millions that the Surfrider Foundation gets for license plate rims and T-shirts, use your attorneys, you know “protect the beach.”

Surfrider Foundation and the others could take grab samples, prove the contaminates are in such concentrations as to pose risk to human health and safety. Where is that proof?
If it is so contaminated, also press the issue, have an Orange County judge declare the pond both an attractive (children and the unknowing) and general public nuisance.
If it is so polluted, shouldn’t the County restrain the public from wading through and/or bodily immersion in the pond, to protect beachgoers plus taxpayers from possibly expensive personal injury litigation? Maybe put a fence around it,

And if it is so polluted, who has gotten sick and why haven’t they filed?

That berm is not natural—Aliso Creek Mouth ceased to be natural around 1971 when the County constricted/channelized the evacuation point, filled in and placed boulders to buttress the parking lot and frontage area. So how can the berm be natural if the historical elements of the beach no longer exist?

Laguna Bluebelt Coalition has never been a nonprofit since founded over 12 years ago.
Go online: “Donate to the Laguna Bluebelt Coalition, a fiscal project of OneOC.” So donations are paid directly to some type of corporate broker, not directly to the Coalition.
OneOC is a nonprofit according to my research. There are no names from the eco-protectionist community on its staff or the board of directors. If you don’t believe me, I defy anyone to name one person employed or on the Board who has enviro-community credentials.

Roger E. Bütow

Clean Water Now (Established in 1998)

Share this:


  1. I swim between Camel Pt and Goff Island every summer and I can definitely tell the difference when creek water has breached the berm. I guess my nose is more sensitive than test tube samples. You should try that some time and tell us that you could tell the difference.

  2. How far off of the point of discharge do you swim?
    Unless there’s a summer rainstorm, the discharges of fresh creek water are so minimal these days as to be undetectable only a hundred meters out.
    No, the solution to pollution isn’t dilution, but with the steeply slope beach, churning/mixing and dispersion are rapid.
    And noses are NOT scientific devices, very subjective, anyone who took a physiology or human biology class knows that.
    I’ll take independent science over anecdotal citizen input any time.
    If SOCWA is wrong, or the SDRWQCB, they can be litigated yet where’s the proof they lack?
    Why don’t you have your “berm buddies” from the Laguna Bluebelt, or maybe Surfrider and OCCK sample where you swim, where you allege pollution is systemic?
    They’ve got millions of $$$, certified water sampling staff and attorneys who know the laws.
    The evidence is just not there, it’s a manufactured confrontation that looks protective but is about self-promotion, not alternative facts.
    What smells are phony issues whose sole purpose is bogus product.
    Image over substance.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here