By Howard Carlip, Agua Duce 805-268-8626 9-15-97

These are my comments on the "proposed action plan/well-head protection plan" for nitrate in Agua Dulce groundwater - date July 7, and August 7, 1997, by Ken Schmidt.

Lets start with page 3. Ken has made his very first misstatement. I’m going to give him the benefit of the doubt and a lot of leeway because, as he stated earlier, he is a California Certified Hydrologist.

That means he is not a chemist, geologist, fertilizer scientist, or anything else. He is only qualified to give an expert opinion on groundwater issues, nothing more. His opinion cannot be counted on in any other area.

On page three our newly hired expert has taken his opinion and tried to pass it off now as a fact. A fact, I might add, that contradicts every previous published report from the government on down, for the last 100 years. He states that the only natural nitrate source is "Outcrops of the Vasquez formation in the south part of Agua Dulce". Every USGS map has shown, including the map (1958 Meulberger) I personally sent Mr. Schmidt that the rock formations containing Nitrates go all the way up to Sierra Highway. This would include most of Agua Dulce, not just Vasquez Park.

I pointed this out to the two authors of the Riverside Report and they did not correct this inaccuracy. Now it is being passed off as truth in this new report. They are wrong, the nitrate bearing rock areas have tested up to 797 ppm in the Riverside Report, and were also shown in the Alan Seward report, which I also mailed to Ken. This was ignored, and when I talked to Mr. Schmidt, he said to me "I’m not allowed to discuss this with you Mr. Carlip, on orders from Ms. Smith." This is while I was on her committee, which’s why I can’t work with her.

Let’s move on! The poorest excuse for an expert opinion on fertilizer occurs here. This is where the man totally contradicts himself. He states, right out of the textbook he copied from, that commercial fertilizers, legumes, and manures are applied for fertilizers.

First, we’ll look at legumes. The widespread use of legumes as fertilizers is based on their unique function that takes nitrogen from the air and stores it in nodules in the roots themselves. One particular crop, Alfalfa, will send these roots down 30 feet. An acre of legumes will take as munch nitrogen from the air as is contained in 10 tons of manure. Much of this is stored up in the soil, and much or all of the rest is returned to the soil when the plants are plowed down.

So, if all the standard scientific theories state this, why is Ken promoting (July 7, Page 6) "Planting alfalfa and clover, or a high nitrogen consuming crop can reduce the potential for nitrate leaching into the groundwater." I would him to identify those crops because as far as I know there are none.

He’s just plain unqualified in this area! Even though the my comments about alpha error was leaked to Smith’s group and it was corrected by the August 7^th paper, Ms. Smith still insist we were wrong and Ken was right. Here’s more proof! On page 4, he discusses the use of "Anhydrous Ammonia" for fertilizer, also the use of "Sodium Nitrate". Anhydrous Ammonia is normally injected into the soil as a gas (Not available to the consumer).

I would guarantee that there is no use of Anhydrous Ammonia in Agua Dulce. Let’s also take a quick look at Sodium Nitrate. Ken wants to trace back and chart the historical uses of fertilizers in our town, but no commercial fertilizers have contained Sodium Nitrate for over 30 years!

It sounds like he has no clue about fertilizers and has been possibly getting this info from an old high school textbook, probably one from High Desert School Library (the smallest, sorriest Library in L.A. County!).

Let’s have Mr. Schmidt stick to Hydrology and stay out of the manure spreading business. Page 7 (animal wastes) states that "This soil seal can be broken and some investigations have found nitrate and Ammonium moving through the soil profile and reaching groundwater." Which investigations? Certainly not the UCR Report! They proved that in every single well test in the area, "No Ammonium was detected."

I mailed my report (#1) to Ken, critiquing the Ammonium situation, in other words, proving that UCR shows that there is no contamination to the groundwater by Ammonium, but he must of missed reading that. After all, my first report was 4 pages.

Moving on, at the bottom of page 7 he states that "Areas of known historical and current feedlot, or high density animal holding facilities will be investigated." They still have not found the pig farm.

He just drove by and passed the pig farm. He told me he read my paper (#1) but has now forgotten to mention the pig farm. You know the one, the ten-acre, almost 1000-ppm in nitrates, 30 feet deep, pig farm. That’s right, the same one UCR claimed was "pristine". Who are you guys trying to kid? As long as you ignore the facts presented from the testing from CM-2-Hill at that area showing the high nitrate plume from the pig farm, running down the Blue Line and polluting the wells feeding from it, you’re wrong! Plus the historical fact that pig farm manure is one of the highest sources of nitrate pollution in the United States.

The State Water Quality Control Board is well aware of this problem, but Lillian Smith and her Realtor friends keep sweeping it under the rug. So, now Mr. Schmidt is too!

I wonder how the residents in that area would feel if they knew that this fact has been known since 1989, but no one from the water committee has warned them of the impending danger of nitrate poisoning from the pig farm, except us.

Do you think there could be a possible conflict of interest. The water committee has taken donations from Realtors who have not disclosed to homebuyers in that area, the real truth of this main source of nitrate pollution from the pig farm. Ten areas -1000 parts per million, 30 feet deep- will always be present until it is finally cleaned up by the owner. Ms. Phillips agreed with us and said that the state would look into it, but nothing has been done.

Now we come to the part of the report that deals with Hydrology. Send in the expert.

He first states on page 9, that "While the use of individual septic tank systems on large lots may not cause a noticeable increase in nitrate concentrations in groundwater, the cumulative impact of multiple drain fields in a housing development with smaller lots may be noticeable." So far so good! Now only do I agree with that statement, but the State Water Quality Control Board (SWQCB) stated as far back as 1989 that septics on a one acre minimum lot would not pollute the ground water, and are legal and safe.

He now talks the fact that even though everything is hunky-dory at one acre, now we need to spend more money on a new, improved septic system that removes more nitrates than the present technology can. Why bother? Most of the homes in Agua Dulce are on a minimum of 2.5 acres to begin with, now coupled with the fact that most homes are on 5-plus acre lots, anyway!

The real bottom line is this: I did the testing of a septic tank in a home with a family that proved very astonishing facts. The regular water system on this property had a nitrate reading of approximately 65-ppm nitrates, but the septic output was 0-ppm nitrates and 14 ppm Ammonium! The copy of this test is on file with the SWQCB from last year.

I will have no problem getting a certified testing Lab to go out to ten volunteer families to pull samples to totally confirm my findings.

This now proves that septics are not the cause of nitrate pollution, in fact, this system might now be used as mitigation solution to the nitrate problem, and it didn’t cost the homeowners one red cent.

Ms. Smith, last year, submitted a proposal to SWQCB saying that the town council approved the State to force upgrading septic systems and requiring upgraded well designs.

I think she should be the first to shell out the $10,000-plus on her home. I’m stating for the record, again, that the town council never voted this on but she personally submitted this to the board as a passed motion. Here she goes again! "The septic system task force will also be responsible for evaluating and researching the development of septic systems that can remove nitrogen". (Page 10) These people are already aware of my findings, but are still trying to force the homeowner to pay big bucks for nothing!

Now the report goes on and on about faulty well seals. I have already discussed this, time and time again, in Ms. Smith’s group. According to local well companies, there are no wells with faulty seals! Now see the fact that in the UCR group could not find one well with a faulty seal! There was, to my knowledge, only one home in the whole town that has enlarged his seal. That was drill site #1. His situation was discussed in my report #3. His was the house next door to the 20 cows that flooded the pen into his yard. I asked him why he spent the money even though the nitrate levels went down after the neighbor removed the cows, and he said he was concerned for his health.

Lets look at this in perspective. Compare ten acres of manure, 30 feet deep, draining into the water table and into neighboring wells, to a non-existent well seal or uncovered hole 3 feet wide!

You are not solving the problem and this is not the first time I’ve pointed this out.

Now on page 14 he states "Such information would be used to develop recommended procedures for drilling new wells in high nitrate areas to provide nitrate concentrations below the mcl".

What Mr. Schmidt is completely unaware of, and this fact is left out of his analysis, is that the levels only went above the mcl of 45ppm after the historically high 50-year rain. Then they went down, except from the pig farm run-off area.

This would now prove that there are few, if any, wells with bad seals, because all the levels would spike every time it rained at all, proving that the nitrate source in the un-populated pig farm/Airport area. It is not from well seals and septic design problems, but truly from you know what.

The rest of this report, from page 11 to page 37, consists of total manure. Why does this town need to spend all of this money training and hiring all these private individuals to test themselves? What are these people up to? Would you feel comfortable having only a handful of individuals controlling and testing your well? I certainly would not.

What strikes me the most that this plan is biased is the fact that I landed the certified testing Lab to do all the testing, gathering, sampling, to completely assure everyone concerned that this is fair, and not subject to chain of custody shenanigans by private individuals who might have their own reasons for tainting the samples.

Let me repeat, it’s very easy to take an eyedropper full of nitrates to change a sample. I don’t trust anyone but a certified Lab, and Wendy Phillips, Debbie Smith, and the entire Board has always agreed with this position. They in fact insisted that it was the only position that they would approve. Now they have changed their mind. Could you government folks please try to APPEAR objective?

I’ll close with two quotes (page 22). "If an acceptable comparison is obtained, then the field kit will be used in the future to replace most of the laboratory analysis".

If this does not give someone an opportunity for monkey business, I don’t know what will. On the other hand, if the "water committee" thinks it’s such a great idea, that no certified Lab is needed, then they will let our group do all the collecting, testing, and we too will keep the results locked up in our file cabinet. They wouldn’t buy it and neither should you.

Quote II - "The Agua Dulce well monitoring program sampling should be sufficiently rigorous to generate reasonably accurate, consistent, repeatable and reliable data" - Ken Schmidt.

What amazes me is that Ken Schmidt is not even aware that the method he chose is no longer approved by the EPA. It was phased out over a year ago and nobody from their group even bothered to call the lab to see if their self-testing would work. I have enclosed the letter from the lab to me stating that California code requires a certified lab using EPA approved methods only. Failure to adhere to these regulations may invalidate data. Also, it was stated that these well tests would not hold up in court.

Code 64415 states that testing shall be performed by laboratories approved by the department, only. This is also found in Section 116390 Health and Safety code.

The newer requirements for testing are stricter, not less. They cannot self-test, and you know it.

Ken Schmidt did not offer any "Expert Opinion" that added anything new to any of my research. In fact, his report showed a very unscientific and unprofessional "Copy it out of a textbook method" in his research. You should be sticking with my data. It has all been double-checked. Alfalfa indeed!

This man is strictly a newcomer in this town and should have actually shown up to do research in the field, rather than jump on a plane to come to a few meetings at the Chamber of Commerce. If he had even stepped out of the car, he would have surely realized that there is no farming in this town. If there was, he would have seen the 5,000 gallon tankers of anhydrous ammonia all over the place. This might be true in Fresno, where he hails from, but not in Agua Dulce.

In fact, the only places where anhydrous ammonia is used are in the Imperial and Central Valleys. His report is wrong. He is not an expert and Ms. Phillips said that only someone with experience in this area could be considered for hire. Now that he is here, I will work with him to get his facts straight.

WHERE’S MY STEWARDESS? I NEED A DRINK!

Ms. Smith’s goals are very questionable. She has been flip-flopping for more than two years. But one thing is for sure… no wells have been tested! Their latest comment to me is that they won’t test wells until their proposal is accepted as is, with no corrections or additions from Ms. Phillips.

Great attitude guys! You folks from the Board should really sit in on one of their meetings. These people know nothing about science. They only know how to have boringly endless meetings with pecking order personality squabbles, with a large heaping helping of anti-government yahoo pseudo-militiaman paranoia about our dear Ms. Phillips. To hear them talk you would think that Wendy and Debbie work for CalMat and are just waiting for Lily to fall asleep so they could sneak in and hook up the pipe to her John. I am not kidding. They have publicly stated that their plan is to stall, stall, stall, and give Wendy nothing.

I grow weary of their childish disruptive behavior. I, Howard Carlip, will be your Steward today. Also, my dear friend, Tana Lampton, and our committee, "The Homeowners Association or Ha", will be implementing the real plan to monitor and mitigate the nitrate problem (And there is one) in Agua Dulce.

This plan has already been submitted six months ago, and it is the only way to go. Even if our group is not picked, the issues raised here should be required for their group.

1. Certified well tests - four times a year. These will not be done in secret and all testing will be made public. At the time of a well test, the homeowner will sign a release to allow this data to be used and analyzed by the Board, and by anyone else. We have nothing to hide. I’ve already proven that septics did not contaminate the groundwater. The database cannot be made secret from the Board or the community.
2. Pig farm testing and cleanup. We will test heavily downstream from the pig farm, in the Blue-line stream an area not recognized by Lillian and Ken as even existing.
3. Nitrate bearing volcanic mountain ranges, from Sierra Highway all the way down to Soledad Canyon Road (CalMat).
4. Nitrate testing at $17.00 a test, voluntarily. If a certified test shows over 90 ppm No3, then a repeat test and possibly a small panel of four different tests, not the full panel of twelve or so, should be done. Let’s make it clear now that the State is not going to force people into an expensive, unnecessary battery of tests, they can’t require it anyway. I will work with the State to devise the proper testing requirements.
5. Full cooperation with the Board. This is still our government and they are trying to help us. With my scientific method, there is no way the findings can be fudged.

In the UCR report, it was stated that the main reason they were hired in the first place was because of the public mistrust over the previous reports. For the record, UCR also gave us a bogus report and now another group is going to test themselves in secret. The opportunity to cheat is just glaring and anyone on this Board who allows this will be put on notice that the community will not cooperate.

I will be the first one to notify the entire town to say, "If you don’t have a warrant, get off my land."

There is the appearance that somebody at this table is a lying Sidewinder and is pulling cards out of their sleeve. I have documented, endlessly, the statements that are complete lies that have been made by pro-growth-paid-off locals, university shills, and hypocritical government bureaucrats, who have their own agenda to sewer and water the whole US of A.

We are willing (And they should be too) to do it the right way because we can prove that septics have not polluted the groundwater. We will be monitoring for the next ten years plus, to assure everybody that our town is clean and cool!

If you require all the things in your September 5, 1997 letter to Lillian, plus certified testing, she will refuse and you will either have to go with our proposal or give us the moratorium. It will clearly be their fault. These people do not represent this town.

Let’s work together,

Howard Carlip