Santa Cruz Observer

Do you think the desalination debate is about water? For the opponents, it's not

By TOM HONIG

Those of us who think that Santa Cruz County has a water crisis are witnessing a frustrating political fight over a proposed desalination plant.

What's frustrating is that the two sides aren't fighting over the same thing. The pro-desal people see it this way: "We're worried that there won't be enough water and that when the next drought hits we'll be in a real fix."

But the anti-desal people would be happy not to have enough water. They won't say so, but it goes back to an old theory -- limit services and you limit growth.

All the things that a lack of water brings are growth limiting: things like building moratoriums, fewer water hookups, increased housing costs that limit an influx of new people. And that's what a number of people want. Take for example the huge cost of developing second units, unimproved lots or even the proposed Aptos Village development out in the Soquel Creek Water District.  If you don't want new people here, you say to yourself, "No new connections? Great!"

Anti-desal folks really don't want any new supply of water. Not that there's even one available -- except desal. Just try proposing a new reservoir. (In fact, doing so wouldn't even do much good; the problem Santa Cruz has is that most of its water comes from collected runoff -- and if and when there's a serious drought there won't be enoughwater no matter how many dams you build.)

Desal opponents have done nothing but attack an environmental impact report on the desal project since it came out. Wouldn't you think that at least one person might say something like: "Hmmm. Maybe the report makes sense."

It won't happen. Instead, they focus on more conservation (Santa Cruz already conserves more per capita than anywhere else around) -- and pit toilets, no lawns, fewer showers and -- yuck! -- recycling sewage runoff.

Meanwhile, Soquel Creek Water District, which unlike Santa Cruz utilizes groundwater, faces severe overdraft on its wells. Now. Today.

That's why the argument shouldn't be about growth. But that's where the anti-desal folks focus -- even though they're not saying so.

 

New center a huge addition for Santa Cruz and for the Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary

By TOM HONIG

When President George H.W. Bush designated a huge area of California coastal waters are the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary back in 1992, no one really knew exactly how the designation would impact life here.

Actually, one important impact was known immediately: a ban on offshoroe oil exploration here. At the time, opponents of drilling expressed surprise bordering on shock that Bush -- a longtime oil man -- would protect such a huge area, running from the waters off Marin County all the way south to San Luis Obispo county. (More on that later).

But this week -- 20 years after the sanctuary designation was announced -- the federal government and local officials completed a most important step in the evolution of the sanctuary: the opening of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Exploration Center. The facility -- at 35 Pacific Avenue, near the Municipal Wharf -- features 7,000 square feet of exhibits. It doesn't have fish or other "squishy"' things; it instead concentrates on exhibits on concentrating on biodiversity, geology and marine conservation.

The center does a couple important things for Santa Cruz:

1) It lends an educational element to the Beach Area. I've long thought that environmentalism is much more than just limiting growth; it's about educating people about science and the environment. Those out in the ocean -- sailors, surfers, divers and swimmers -- already know how special and important the marine world is. Now, with all the fascinating scientific displays in the center, the offshore world is being brought even to those visitors and residents who have never event gotten their feet wet.

2) It gets Santa Cruz noticed as being an important part of Monterey Bay. Those fascinated with the undersea world know about the Monterey Bay Aquarium at Cannery Row -- and maybe other facilities like the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.  Now, Santa Cruz has its own major destination -- the Sanctuary Exploration Center. And, this new center can also increase the visibility of another important coastal-related destination -- Long Marine Lab's Seymour Center, a facility whose exhibits feature live animals on display and one that's a great complement to the new center. Visitors to the Exploration Center just might be motivated to add the Seymour Center to their itinerary. (Note to UCSC officials: How about funding a shuttle that would connect the two facilities?

The new center was dedicated this week with all the usual pomp and speeches from various city and federal officials. One nice note: in addition to the elected officials, the ceremony also featured Bonnie Lipscomb, shown at left, Santa Cruz's executive director of economic development, whose behind-the-scenes coordination with the federal government facilitated the entire project.

Also speaking was U.S. Rep Sam Farr, who gave considerable credit to those in Santa Cruz who have supported marine conservation over the years -- former U.S. Rep. Leon Panetta, former supervisor Gary Patton, longtime activist Dan Haifley and others. Still I was amused by his downplaying of key Republicans in the process -- former U.S. Sen. Pete Wilson for one, who played a role in stopping the sale of offshore oil leases and who also worked hard in support of the sanctuary. Likewise the man who designated the large sanctuary area -- former President George H.W. Bush; Farr intimated that Bush was kind of forced into the decision and that he did so only as an election-year ploy. (Of course, Democrats never stoop to that, right?)

I mentioned the dismissal of Republicans to a politically savvy friend, and he brought up an even better strategy for Farr and the Democrats -- point to the environmental record of "old-school" Republicans like Bush and Wilson and point out how far the current-day GOP has turned its back on the environmental movement.

Hey -- all that political talk detracts from the genuinely important development that's signified by the new Exploration Center. It's an important part of Santa Cruz, of the Monterey Bay Area and even the entire Marine Sanctuary system. Federal officials have already predicted that this Exploration Center will prove to be the most-visited such spot in the entire national system.

Why we're fat and what to do about it

By TOM HONIG

CAPITOLA -- Science writer Gary Taubes questions the medical community’s conventional wisdom about why Americans get fat, and he’s bringing his message to Santa Cruz County.

The author of the best-selling book “Why We Get Fat,” Taubes takes aim at the role of refined sugars and carbohydrates – and says that dietitians and doctors are misreading “fairly obvious” data about why America has an obesity epidemic.

Taubes spoke Wednesday at New Brighton Middle School in Capitola at an event sponsored by the County Office of Education. County Superintendent of Schools Michael Watkins introduced him by saying that obesity and Type 2 Diabetes have reached epidemic proportions in Santa Cruz County.  According to the California Healthy Kids Survey, 38 percent  of  students in grades 7, 9 and 11  in Watsonville are overweight and 30 percent of teens in Santa Cruz are overweight or in danger of being

Taubes, in an interview, said, “It’s clear that refined carbohydrates and sugars lead to insulin resistance in the human body.  And that leads to a suite of the diseases well known in Western civilizations. It comes down to getting carb-rich foods out of our diets.”

Taubes studied applied physics at Harvard and aerospace engineering at Stanford before receiving a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University in 1981. He’s the author of several books and is on the staff of Discover Magazine. He also is a fellow at UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health.

But it was a cover story for the New York Times Magazine in 2002 that brought him into prominence as an expert on diet and weight loss. The article, “What if it’s all been a big fat lie,” questioned whether the often-recommended low-fat diets popularized by the likes of Dean Ornish actually benefited Americans who have only been growing more obese each year.

Taubes, a college football defensive lineman and a man who himself was overweight, had lost weight on the controversial Atkins diet – which favors meat, other animal products and vegetables. It excludes most carbohydrate-rich food like rice, bread, potatos, cookies, pasta and, perhaps most of all, soda pop.

“The typical advice from the medical community is that people are fat because they eat too many calories and don’t exercise enough.”

Surprisingly, he said, the evidence doesn’t support that statement. “It’s sugar that does it.” And that’s not just sugar, but also the carbs that convert to sugar.

“If I’m right, they’ve got it wrong,” he continued. Fewer calories and more exercise is “a paradigm of energy balance.” Rather, he sees obesity as resulting from a “hormonal defect” – and that can be the result of taxing the insulin system.

And more exercise isn’t necessarily the answer to weight loss. In fact, he argues, that exercising won’t help if it leads to someone chowing down on unhealthy carbs.

“Look at it this way. A basset hound is chubby and is basically a couch potato. A greyhound is sleek and fast. You can withhold all the food you want from the basset  hound and put him on a treadmill for hours every day, but you won’t get a greyhound. You’ll just get an emaciated basset hound.”

Taubes asserted that doctors and the U.S. government have misinterpreted scientific data on dietary research. Counting calories and eating low-fat foods exclusively has been proved not to be true. His evidence? That Americans continue to get fatter.

He said that research essentially proves what American parents told their kids prior to  the 1960s --  go light on bread, pasta and sweets. “Those people were right all along.”

“It’s’ not about eating less and exercising more,” he repeated. “The issue is this. Is a bowl of oatmeal with skim milk better for you than eggs and bacon? The data say that eggs and bacon is the healthier way to eat.”

At the COE-sponsored event Taubes repeated an oft-sounded call to get sodas and fruit juices out of the schools. But substituting those items for sugar-rich carbohydrates isn’t the answer.

Taubes  is the second speaker in the field of obesity to be invited by the COE. Last year, Dr. Robert Lusting – who recently was featured on 60 Minutes – brought a similar message.

For a YouTube presentation by Taubes, go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6vpFV6Wkl4 

 

The subject is water -- not just desal

By TOM HONIG

You have to feel some sympathy for anyone trying to follow the debate over a proposed desalination plant in Santa Cruz.

It's like trying to watch a sports event in which one team is playing hockey and the other is playing basketball.

City leaders -- as they have for the past 30 years or so -- are trying to figure out how to provide an adequate supply of water. And, the neighbors to the south in the Soquel Creek Water District are trying to stop an overdraft of their water supply. (Santa Cruz relies mostly on surface water while Soquel relies on wells. That's important to keep in mind.)

Meanwhile, opponents of desal aren't really focused on water concerns. They're fighting against desal and then secondarily addressing what to do about a lack of water. (They're seriously concocting a scheme in which the two thirsty districts would somehow share water and that would solve the problem.)

Shifting the topic of conversation is an old political trick. Opponents are making desal the topic. They're not focused on the real problem -- not enough water. Actually, it's a bit more complex than that. Santa Cruz's water supply is dependent on rainfall. Rain water in winter can be stored in facilities like Loch Lomond and then used all summer during the dry period. But in years (like this one) when there's little rain, the water supply dwindles. A couple years of that, and you can't water your garden or even flush your toilet very often.

But some on the opposition say that a desal project is actually about allowing growth -- at UC Santa Cruz in particular. And that's where another false debate is raging. One can argue about whether UCSC should grow, but trying to limit growth by withholding services really doesn't make much sense.

As for the Soquel Creek district's needs -- they differ from Santa Cruz's. Soquel Creek wants the desal program because in normal, wetter years, the water could be shipped off to Mid-County, where it can recharge the groundwater supply. 

Again, desal foes don't want to see that. 

The problem is that they continue fighting about the desal project and tend to ignore the pressing need for a more secure water supply. In fact, they even characterize the desal project as being "rushed through," even though it has been a topic of study for three decades. Even now, while an environmental impact report and other studies are proceeding, desal is being carefully and slowly considered. 

The question of whether to build a desal plant is one worth studying. Any actual project is still months away and is still subject to a lot of discussion.

But here's' what that discussion should be about: the water supply. That's the subject at hand, even if one group has made it all about the construction of a desal plant.

 

 

 

Occupational education and the economy

Second in a series

By TOM HONIG

Last week the Chamber of Commerce presented data about the local retail economy. The night before,  the County Office of Education presented its first Regional Occupational Program Advisory Night -- an opportunity for business people to get involved in local career education.

The two events have a connection.

One of the problems that retailers have in Santa Cruz is that an astonishing 85 percent of retail purchasing by Santa Cruz residents goes outside the county. There are a lot of reasons for that, but one big explanation is that so many people -- 30,000 or more -- travel outside the county to go to work. They shop where they work. At the same time, local employers fret that they have jobs available for qualified workers -- but they can't find them here in town.

That's where the County Office of Education's ROP program fits in. Yes, it's vocational education, but with a big difference from the old days. Mark Hodges, director of the program, explained it this way: "We've come a long way from the vocational ed of the past. Our program gives kids a reason to learn and stay in school."

In other words, ROP actually blends vocational ed with college prep. Hodges explained it this way: "If I was going to learn to fly a plane and could choose to be taught by someone with a degree in civil aeronautics who hasn't flown a plane or some who has flown -- I'd choose the one who had actually flown a plane."

That's who teaches in ROP -- those with work experience who go through a special credentialed program. The list of available programs is impressive -- from agribusiness to web design, from athletic training to construction.

These applied programs don't subtract from scholastic programs. They add to it. For example, imagine a student trying to memorize biology concepts. Take that same student and put her in a sports medicine class and she'll be motivated to learn about injuries at the cellular level.

This, in a nutshell, is how education can help the Santa Cruz economy. It won't happen overnight. But the ROP program serves more than 4,000 students a year in some 40 different courses. Also, the program coordinates its programs with Cabrillo College, also an important institution in the preparation for jobs.

That's not to say there aren't challenges. Rock Pfotenhauer, a dean at Cabrillo College, shared with the audience a shocking statistic: that only about 10 percent of incoming freshman are college ready. The question is whether there's a solution.

These are challenging times for education, both here and across the country. Is occupational learning the solution? It's worth a shot.

Desal and UCSC growth -- a student environmentalist's perspective

EDITOR'S NOTE: Recent posts have focused on growth at UCSC and the attitudes of some longtime residents. The following piece is written by a current student at the university -- a self-described environmentalist who has a unique and worthwhile take on an important issue -- water, UCSC growth and how local politics should function.

By ROBERT SINGLETON

I am first and foremost an environmentalist. Before I came to Santa Cruz to attend UCSC, I had worked for a progressive, slow growth, non-profit in my own hometown of Santa Rosa. During that time I fought against development of all types. I helped to pass Urban Growth Boundaries, enact slow growth measures, fought against ridge top development and even helped elect a slow growth majority to the city council. All of this I firmly believed in, and still do for the most part.

However, I have always attempted to be practical when dealing with local politics, and I would say that I am one of the few. I have definitely had long conversations with people I see eye to eye with 97% of the time, only to fight about something minor like prospective green building standards, or the phrasing in a campaign leaflet. To me these encounters are all part of the process, a process that albeit painstaking, is absolutely necessary for the proper adoption of policy.

In Santa Cruz this decision making process is very similar, there are those who stick to their ideological guns give hell or high water and then there are those like myself, who continually question, sometimes to the dismay of my peers, the stances of everyone involved. This has been my continual stance throughout the local debate concerning desalination. I have met the leaders of both camps, heard their perspectives and questioned their beliefs and assumptions, with rigor. In fact, I have felt more like an outsider looking in than I should given my previous work, but I can’t help but play devil’s advocate.

Given this experience, I have come to the following conclusions, some of them localized and unique to Santa Cruz, others transcendent and to some extent universal.

1. The Soquel Creek water district is in dire straights and must act quickly to develop a supplemental supply because conservation alone will not be enough to curb their current usage.
   1. Private well owners cannot be expected to reduce their consumption without some extreme coordination, and currently many refuse to even put meters on their wells, let alone take steps for major reductions.
2. The city of Santa Cruz is better off, but is operating on the same supply that it had during the 76-77 drought, despite its population having doubled. This has left the city particularly vulnerable to future droughts, even without considering the mandatory reductions needed to preserve fish habitat.
3. UCSC is going to expand, no matter how much local resistance it faces. It has a state mandate, an underlying agreement with the city for resources and the strong support of many a passionate and pragmatic individuals. Get over it.
4. People must be willing to overcome their hard-line stances on growth and be willing to compromise. It is a sad day when local progressives become the obstructionist conservatives they so typically despise.
5. If people on both sides are really serious about having a genuine political discussion than both must be willing to acknowledge one another’s opinion and more importantly, a common set of agreed upon facts. If factual disagreements remain, than a proper explanation must be given, with both sides championing a common explanation for the disagreement.

An impressive look at local education

By TOM HONIG

Sometimes, there's a community event that makes you feel better about the world. That happened Wednesday in Santa Cruz at the Cocoanut Grove in Santa Cruz at a celebration of "Your Future Is Our Business." The organization is associated with both Cabrillo College and the County Office of Education, and involves encouraging partnerships between the business community and education.

Sound boring? It's not. Many of those attending were students from around Santa Cruz County, many of them students or graduates of the local Regional Occupation Program sponsored by the county office of ed. Also attending were local business leaders, who talked informally with a number of students interspersed around the room. 

One of the speakers, Cabrillo President Brian King, pointed out that 80 percent of jobs are filled by those who have a high-school education, plus additional higher ed -- but something short of a college degree. Those students attending (and some who were speaking) are already on track for careers in fire prevention, dental tech and even medicine.

Student speakers presented their individual stories to an audience filled with local business leaders who -- as one speaker pointed out -- are always hoping to find future employees.

There's a lot of negativity these days about the state of our schools -- and even an assumption that they're not preparing students for jobs. Critics point to the lack of occupational ed on campus. Well, that assumption isn't true, at least in Santa Cruz County.  The county Office of Education's ROP program brings in non-teachers who might be expert at wood shop or bicycle repair or even emergency medicine and has them teach their specialty to high-school students.

That partnership between local schools, their occupational programs and the community was on display at the luncheon. As I said -- it was one of those events that makes you feel better about the world. 

Is there a reason to be optimistic about the public dialogue? Not when it comes to desal

By TOM HONIG

There's a strain running through a lot of political commentary -- both locally and nationally -- that's starting to sound hollow.

It's this: "... but I remain optimistic."

A new book by co-authors Tom Friedman and Michael Mandelbaum called "That Used To Be Us" describes an America that's struggling in both achievement and in the public dialogue. It's a call to arms, with all kinds of examples of how America is losing its ability to compete internationally. I haven't reached the last chapter yet, but even in the early stages of the book they insist: "We remain optimistic!"

I'm not sure I do. Take a look locally. There's a big decision facing many Santa Cruz County residents, and that's whether to use desalination as an emergency water supply in the event of a future drought. Some feel that desal is a kind of insurance policy to make sure that people won't suffer in the event of a drought such as the one in Santa Cruz back in 1976 and 1977. Others feel it's not needed.

What should happen is a thorough investigation of the costs and benefits -- both economic and environmental. And that's going on.

However, there is a group of people who have gone histrionic on the issue -- accusing anyone who might favor desal of all kinds of things. Here's one, taking verbatim from the Sentinel's website: "Shame on Rotkin and Matthews. Check their (likely gold lined) pockets"

Are you serious? Isn't it possible that some people honestly feel that the public good (not to  mention the public's health) depends on a good water supply? How about a real debate?

Full disclosure: From what I know, I'm leaning toward supporting desal. But I haven't made up my mind -- pending more education.

Second full disclosure: I'm sitting in on a committee that's sponsoring an invitation-only informational meeting on water next Monday. For reasons I don't understand, desal opponent Paul Gratz is angry, telling the Sentinel that he's troubled that "two esteemed former mayors should organize an invitation-only event that features highly paid department managers whose salaries are paid by taxpayers. It just brings into question transparency versus privacy?"

Huh? Isn't speaking to interested people part of their jobs?  I think he's angry that he's not invited. But he -- like other desal opponents -- have already made up their minds, so an informational meeting would be of little use.

I don't like the direction that this is going. Not all desal opponents are leveling bizarre accusations -- but enough are that I'm worried whether a rational public conversation can even take place. Stay tuned.

Desalination opponents step up the fight

By TOM HONIG

Expect every meeting about water in the city of Santa Cruz to take on the look of a fight as opponents of desalination gear up to fight against any effort to plan for that extra source of water.

A meeting tonight (Monday) will be populated more than usual, especially by a group called Santa Cruz Desal Alternatives, which is pushing what it calls a "Plan B" for addressing water challenges. What that means is no desal.

The no desal group has been fighting against the city's strategy of looking into desalination as a future source of water. This comes long after other fights against the city developing new storage facilities. The focus here seemes to be on sharply limiting water supplies -- and therefore sharply limiting any new development.

That means a battle as old as modern-day Santa Cruz politics -- limiting growth by limiting services.

Opponents of desal have already made up their mind to oppose any desalination. They want to put a stop to even studying the issue.

Yet, in an op-ed piece in Sunday's Sentinel by Desal Alternatives leader Rick Longinotti, he quotes a J.M. Keynes saying "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Well, what I do is make sure all the facts are in. And if it's too soon to know whether desal is a good idea, it's also too soon to know if it's a bad one.

Cell phones and cancer -- maybe so, maybe no

It'll be on the nightly news and the front page of just about every newspaper: a panel of experts says that cell phones might cause cancer.

The reality is far different from the scare factor. So far, the best explanation I've seen is right here at Web MD.

Writer Daniel J. DeNoon says it this way: "In finding cell phones to be 'possibly carcinogenic,' the IARC (the International Agency for Research on Cancer) means that heavy cell phone use might -- or might not -- cause a specific form of brain cancer called glioma. The finding means that research is urgently needed to find out whether cell phones actually cause cancer, and how they might do it."

Here's what's tricky for news organizations reporting the story: this announcement proves nothing. It will be adopted as fact by those already convinced that weird stuff results from cell phone use. But what the content actually says is that more research is needed.

Typically, that's not how viewers and readers react. When I was editor of the Sentinel, I hated these one-off medical stories because they cause a big splash and then disappear from view. Same deal with what we used to call "disease of the day" and "medical breakthrough" stories.

Science and daily journalism often don't work well together. Sure, this development about cell phones is newsworthy. And considering how many people are yakking away on their mobiles, the issue is important.

But the news actually is that more research is needed. That headline doesn't always sell papers.