Oh, Shut Up And Eat Your Gruel!

I have long believed that the world can be divided into two basic groups, each almost equally balanced: Adults and children, or, if you prefer, wolves and sheep, or good children who do as they’re told, and wicked children who disobey and keep asking, Why, and then go on to spill chocolate syrup on the rug, and when chastised, run their tongues out and make rude noises, and so forth.

Society runs as smoothly as it does because we humans have an innate need for order (and peace and quiet and safety and security), so we tend to do what we’re told – for the good of all – and mind our P’s and Q’s. For those who don’t obey, we have rules and laws and enforcement mechanisms that range from polite frowns to whips to guns to tanks and bullets in the brain.

And for the most part, even the threat of something dire is enough to keep the good little boys and girls in line. It’s a mechanism that you can see working perfectly watching a Border collie run a band of sheep. There is no need to nip at a heel. All the dog needs is The Look, and the sheep will panic and run. Simple.

I was thinking of this while reading Lori Okun’s “Central Coast Water Board Prosecution Staff Rebuttal, ACL Complaint No. R3-2005-0137, November 28, 2005.” Ms. Okun is Senior Staff Counsel to the Prosecution Staff, and the Rebuttal is for the Dec 1st hearing between the Los Osos CSD & the Regional Water Quality Control Board as to whether the RWQCB should “revoke & impose,” and announce FINES!FINES!FINESWE’RE ALL GONNA DIE IN THE STREETSLIKEDAWGS!

Amidst the legaleze, there on p. 10 and again on page 12, the game is given away in very human terms: “. . . Allowing the District and its residents to disregard and Basin Plan prohibition and flout the Water Board’s direct orders will encourage other dischargers to do the same. . . . “ and “. . . “most dischargers take immediate action to put their best foot forward before the hearing. They typically come into the hearing explaining how they have attempted to mitigate past violations, are back on track to compliance. . . . . In this case, however, the District has not only shunned this typical strategy, it has actively sought to continue the pattern of noncompliance. . . . “

And there it was. The Regional Water Quality Control Board’s “Look” had not spooked the sheep, had not frightened the wicked children. Indeed, those wretched ingrates, instead of coming cap in hand (“Oh, mommy, plueeeze don’t spank, we’re sorry, see, we’ve been moping up the mess all day, boo-hooo.”), these rotten little children from The Dogpatch had the temerity to affront the dignity of our Regional Board and Staff by coming out with all guns blazing, questioning our authority, questioning our staff’s behavior, indeed challenging our majesty and power. Why, the absolute gall!”

Of course, also on page 12, Ms. Okun writes something that is truer than she may realize: “The District has more culpability than do similarly situated dischargers, such as individual homeowners or residents. The residents formed the District to cure this problem and build them a treatment plant. The District assumed the obligation to operate a treatment plant within the district. The residents relied on the district to provide this service. The district failed them.”

Oh, my Dear Ms. Okun, truer words were never spoken. However, I suspect that you and I might disagree on just which “District” you are referring to.

Well, like the eponymously named movie, the Squid of the CSD and the Whale of the RWQCB will be locked in battle in the deeps come tomorrow morning. I suspect, whatever the outcome, it will all go to law. Which is what happens when “districts” fail to understand that problems get solved only when all parties are honest about what they’re doing – no spin, no fudged numbers, no Madison Avenue hype, no lies, no hidden agendas, no hidden costs, no bait & switches, no surprises – and when they keep their citizens in the loop with a voice and a vote on decisions that will affect them for years to come. Simple.

Sewerville, Take a Deep Breath

Whilst wating for the Dec 1, 1 pm. Regional Water Quality Control Board Meeting at 895 Aerovista Place, Rm #101 (?) (which will go over unti 8:30 the next morning, if necessary) , said meeting to decide whether to shoot Los Osos and all our hound dawgs, anyone interested should go read the(item No. 19) Staff Report for Regular meeting of July 9, 2004, Prepared on June 18, 2004, State of California California Regional Water Quality control Board Central Coast Region [a pdf file] which, hopefully can be found at www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/BoardAgendas/070904/ There's an interesting "staff response" on page 10 to Rebecca McFarland's question, which states ". . . moving the project to the Andre site is not a feasible option." If that's that level of information given to the Board(s) by the "Staff," then it's no wonder that the Board(s) often end up making bad decisions.

Then, of course, go to the Los Osos CSD website and read the CSD's prepared response for the upcoming hearing. And, if it's not posted yet, do stop by the CSD office to get a copy of Rob Miller's price comparisons for the in-town, out of town plant siting that was discussed in the State negotiations that weren't negotiations and ask yourself, "What's with the page 10 staff reply mentioned above? Not feasible? Huh?"

Then take a deep breath and start placing bets on the number and kinds of "mis-information" that will be or already has been placed before the poor RWQC BOARD MEMBERS and cease wonding why GIGO still has such a powerful effect on all our lives.

Then hide the dawg.

Follow The Money

If you go back to the home page (www.newsmission.blogspot.com) and click on the Los Osos News Link, Steve Paige has an interesting evaluation of the financing of the Hideous Los Osos Sewer: Is It Real or Is It Memorex? -- i.e. when is a tax not a service fee and vice versa. Uh, call my attorney.

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons for November 23, 05: The Bay News, Los Osos, CA

O Loooocy, It’s High Noon in Sewerville. Tell Gary Cooper to bring the cheese!

Doooo nawt forsake meeee, O mah darlin’, twang-twang-twang. . .

The CSD met Thursday night to mull over the State Water Board’s New! Improved! ultimatum: Get the townsfolk to betray their voice by re-voting to rescind Measure B, agree not to sue the SWB for breach of contract, and now (now?) pass a “do-over” Proposition 218-type vote to assess their property in order to continue to build in the middle of town a sewer plant they just voted to get out of town. If not, the SWB will pull the low-cost loan and thereby make history – 15 years of granting loans and this one would be the first that failed.

Amazingly enough, the New! Improved! deal didn’t also require that the three recalled CSD board members be reinstalled.

In all the well-orchestrated huffle-duffle (“Sheriff, the noon train’s a-comin’ we’re all gonna die in the streets like dawgs!”), what’s gone missing are the answers to some questions. And since I’m really stupid, perhaps Mr. Katz of the State Water Board could explain the answers slowly.

1. Just why is this loan in crisis? Could it be because this loan never had a Prop. 218-type vote to secure it? Instead, it was to be repaid by the service fees earned when the sewer plant went into operation. The original loan was then later increased some $40 million dollars on the say-so of three CSD Board members under threat of recall, AND before the Measure B vote that could also put the loan in jeopardy AND despite pleas from two board members and the community to wait on indebting this community until after the election. Was that decision by the SWB ill-advised? Or illegal?

2. If the State Water Board screwed up on the original loan, why is this community being blackmailed into burying the corpse, assuming all the liability, and then taking the fall?

3. Just who is in breach of contract when the State stopped payment? And why would the state now require that the CSD drop any legal attempts to answer that question? People usually do not resort to blackmail unless they know somebody’s got the goods on them and they’d better take them out before they can spill the beans.

4. Is it legal for the CSD to use tax money to pay attorneys to go into court to oppose a taxpayer-supported initiative – Measure B? If it’s illegal, why does the State Water Board require that the CSD violate the law?

5. Why does everyone keep forgetting to mention that this loan is from The State REVOLVING Fund. Folks are acting like it’s a once-in-a-lifetime Lottery. It’s not. Unless, of course, the appointed board members administering the loan have illegally and improperly turned it into some sort of personal patronage, punishment or reward fund, and if that’s the case, then that needs to be addressed without delay.

6. In the CSD’s “Response and Request for Continuance” brief to the Regional Water Quality Control Board [copies available at the CSD office], the CSD’s attorney notes, “Although LOCSD staff has only had time to review a limited amount of [RWQCB] staff’s written and electronic documents relating to the September 27th Special Election, it is already apparent that [RWQCB] staff was coordinating efforts with the opponents of the recall and Measure B initiative both before and after the election. More troubling still is the fact that this information reveals [RWQCB] staff’s motive in issuing the Complaint: to bushwhack the new LOCSD board before it did anything and to punish the electorate for failing to vote the way [RWQCB] staff had wanted.” (p.8)

Is “punishing” or “bushwhacking” or attempting to influence an election what these Boards are suppose to be doing? If these Boards or their staff have lost their professional objectivity or are violating the law, then that needs to be addressed by (1) a federal and/or state Attorney General’s investigation or (2) in a court of law.

If the original SRF Loan came in a box that already smelled from day one, the New! Improved! box the State Water Board is presenting to this community on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, now has creepy scrabbling and squeaking noises coming from inside it. Personally, I smell a rat. Several, in fact.

And if the CSD is trapped and blackmailed into buying that box without the right to demand a legal peek inside, then this community will have been betrayed and locked into spending gazillions to buy a lifetime supply of unwanted but very, very expensive cheese.

Blog Note:

Since the Can(n)on was put to bed before the Tuesday night CSD meeting and vote, an update: The Board voted 5 - 0 to have the CSD request the "Inspector General of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to investigate the circumstances surrounding the State Water Resources Control Board’s issuance of a State Revolving Fund Loan,” and they voted 5 – 0 to request the "San Luis Obispo County District Attorney investigate certain activities pertaining to the Los Osos Community Services District.”

Then, at about 2 a.m., they voted 5 – 0 to “respond” to the State Water Board’s Byzantine New! Improved! deal by politely and regretfully pointing out that they are constrained by law from accepting it, oh, dang, BUT, they’d be happy to accept the original deal negotiated and voted on at the October 30th CSD meeting.

Anyone holding their breath for the State Water Board’s answer will be blue, then comatose, then deceased.

And then, the following day, this snippet in the 11/23/05 New Times: Montgomery Watson Harza, project design engineers for the controversial Los Osos sewer, reported Monday that files and computers had been stolen from their local office at Sunnyside Elementary School. The theft coincides almost perfectly with an announcement from the CSD of a resolution to investigate activities pertaining to sewer contracts, spending and design.

Dooo-deee-dooo-dooo, dooo-deee-dooo-dooo. Now, stealing and fencing stolen computers, I can see. But I have to wonder about those files. Last I looked, bid contracts, bonding agreements, budgets, engineering reports, and other miscellaneous paperwork and emails concerning sewer design wasn’t a really big seller on e-bay. But then, I could be wrong. At any rate, it now remains a mystery to puzzle over whilst munching dead bird in front of the telly.

So, Happy Turkey Day. Chapter II of the Great Sewer Wars starts up again Friday.

View it and weep.

I went to the CSD office yesterday and checked out the videotape of CSD’s in-house engineer, Rob Miller’s Nov 7, ’05 power point presentation of the comparisons that were run during the negotiations with the State Water Board, the CSD’s negotiating team and Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee. Darrin Polhemus, the Assistant Division Chief of the State Water Resources Control Board (Sacramento), vetted the numbers. Mr. Polhemus has been described by all parties as an expert who has a wide base of knowledge and extensive experience about all the systems that were looked at and compared. All the numbers were in “real time,” and did not include any "fines" or the millions that may have been lost when the previous board started pounding state money into the ground weeks before the recall election. (The additional heartbreak comes in knowing that if the previous CSD board had honestly run these same comparisons in, say 2001 or 2002, all the numbers would have been waaaaay cheaper overall than what this community is faced with now.)

The results were shocking. The three treatment plants (not the collection systems) compared were the ponding, the ditch/oxidation and the MBR (what’s proposed for the TriW site). Not surprising, the MBR plant (Tri-W) was the most expensive, without question. Yet, no matter how you looked at the numbers, all three plants came in cheaper overall with the out of town site. This was because the out of town site allowed more flexibility in long term O & M costs, deferred costs such as ag-exchange, dewatering, and on-site sludge treatment and disposal.

In short, when the previous CSD repeatedly told this community that the out of town sites had been considered and had been found to be either undoable or waaaaay more expensive than the plant at the Tri-W site, how could that possibly have been true? The plants would have been the same, the comparison points would have been the same, the overall results would also have been the same.

So, now, here’s some of the concerns and the questions that this community MUST ask at tonight’s CSD meeting, 11/22/05: (6 p.m. at the Community Center: Public comment prior to going into closed session: Public portion of the meeting will begin at 7:30 - 2 items on the agenda)

1. Democracy can only operate with an informed citizenry but that information must be accurate and correct. False information can only lead to bad decisions. The previous CSDs have repeatedly and adamantly maintained that they had carefully studied all options and the Tri-W site was the cheapest and best. We were told there were NO alternatives.

2. The Nov. 7 presentation makes it clear that there were, indeed, alternatives available. Were the numbers run and vetted by the state during the negotiations false? Or did the previous CSD lie about doing a comparison study of the out of town costs? If so, was the community tricked by demonstrably false information into “signing onto” a fraudulent project? (No matter how the numbers are run, the Tri-W project and site can’t ever be described as being the cheapest, especially when the “deferred” costs of ag-exchange, O&M & R, sludge treatment and importing State water are factored in.)

3. Was this community locked into massive debt by the previous CSD, a debt also based on patently false information? Does this constitute fraud? If so, then this community really shouldn’t sign onto anything until there’s a full investigation into this matter.

Meantime, I would urge everyone in Los Osos to check out the tape and watch it. Rob’s presentation is the first item up and it doesn’t take long. I’m sure copies of the spread sheet of his numbers can be made available at the office, if they aren’t already in the Board Book.

Then it’ll be time to ask the saddest question of all: Were we all conned and defrauded and sold a false bill of goods by our previous CSD? If so, then it’s time to set this right and do it now.

Look, Mummy, is it a raven?! A writing desk? Are we in Wonderland? Oz? Wait, it looks like . . . there, up in the sky . . . Will the REAL, oh, like, whatever, please stand up?

Remember when two CSD members, Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee and a representative from the State Water Board spent a week negotiating, and then came out with a negotiated resolution, which the CSD unanimously passed and sent up to the State Board and the State Board reps said, Nuh, huh. Negotiations? We don’ know nuttin’ ‘about no stinkin’ negotiations.

And everyone else said, Huh? Whaaa? If those folks weren’t in that room negotiating, what were they doing, playing Boggle?

Well, the mystery is apparently solved. The following is an “official” letter to State Water Board Member, Gerald Secundy, from Los Osos General Manager, Daniel Bleskey. which should be available for public viewing at the CSD office.

Dear Mr. Secundy,

I am writing this message to provide you the information regarding my understanding why I believed that the discussions that the LOCSD entered into with SWB SRF staff on Octover 24, 2005, were in fact “Structured Negotiations.” Attached is a copy of the letter from your staff entitled “AGREEMENT FOR STRUCTURED NEGOTIATIONS; LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT (DISTRICT); WASETWATER COLLECTION, TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL PROJECT; STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOAN PROGRAM PROJECT NO: C-06-4014-110.” This letter was sent from Celeste Cantu [exe. dir] to Assemblyman Blakeslee setting the conditions of the discussions between state SWB staff and representatives from the LOCSD.

Although you were emphatic, on two occasions during the November 16, 2005, State Water Board meeting, that these discussions were not a negotiation, the attached document shows otherwise. This is but one example of the lack of detail your staff provided your board on the 16th. There are other examples of insufficient details and lack of “facts” in SWB staff report that were minimally necessary for you and your fellow board members to make a fair assessment of the situation and an informed decisions.

If you would like to discuss this further please le me know,


Very Respectfully Submitted,

D. M. Bleskey.

Ah, well, there you have it in a nutshell. Appointed (or elected) boards can only make decisions based on correct and accurate information given to them by their staffs. It’s the old GIGO dilemma. Bad info = bad decisions. But when regulatory boards get bad information, whole communities can be forced to pay a fearsome price. And our system of governance is set up to limit the ability of these Boards to back-track and correct bad information, thus adding insult to injury.

I have said before and I will repeat again: Water, wastewater and sewer issues are NOT rocket science. The issues are also NOT personal. There are many ways to solve the various problems, with each solution presenting both assets and drawbacks. BUT, the ability of a Board (or a community) to make a correct decision depends absolutely on the truthfulness of the information given to them. Lies, distortions, spin, hype, hidden agendas, missing information, wrong information all lead to bad decisions that then injure or destroy communities and the people living in them.

This letter is a case in point, and raises related questions about the staff and board of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, for example. That Board will be holding a hearing on the matter of “fining” Los Osos on Dec 1. The LOCSD has already filed a “Response and Request for Continuance” which raises some questions about the accuracy of the information that has already been submitted. Which begs the question: Like the State Water Board, have they been given misinformation like the misinformation cited above? If so, how can even the most honorable among them possibly be expected to render a correct judgment? And if they don’t, what remedies do the citizens have that don’t involve lawyers, courts and even more delays?

My sister worked for years for Ma Bell. After its break-up into mini-bells, her one unrelenting complaint was as follows: How it is that management never has enough money to do the job right the first time, but they always have enough money to do it over again at twice the cost?

Welcome to Oz.

Do Not Pass Go. Do Not Collect $200. Instead, click on over to www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com and see what Ron's got up his sleeve now.

As usual, Ron keeps asking questions that nobody wants to answer. But then, that's half the fun, isn't it?

Note re Posting Documents on the CSD Website

One of the folks who regularly comments on this blog tried to access the LOCSD's website to find the LOCSD's "Response and Request for Continuance" (to the RWQCB's Dec 1 hearing on 4 CSD properties, NOT individual homeowners) and found the documents weren't posted. I asked in the CSD office and was told that Annie Mueller is in charge of getting those documents posted and she's tap dancing as fast as she can. If anyone wants a paper copy in the meantime, they can stop by the office and ask for one.

I would urge everyone interested in Sewerville, to attend the RWQCB's hearing on December 1. It's in SLOTown and apparently will start a 1 pm. And, of course, get a copy of the "Response" and do read it. Lots of interesting stuff in there.

Showdown At High Noon in Sewerville. Where's Gary Cooper?

Dooo nauwt forsake meeee, O mah darlin', twang-twang-twang.

In today's Tribune headline, a showdown with the State Water Board and an ultimatum: Get this particular loan and build a sewer plant in the middle of town OR betray the people who voted for an initiative to get the sewer plant OUT of the middle of town and betray those who also voted to remove the prior CSD directors because they refused to move the sewer plant OUT of town.

Gone missing from the headline and story and, apparently, from the State Water Board itself is this: The State Water Board is appointed to oversee the distribution of federal and state funds in a State REVOLVING Fund, to disburse it to communities on the list in need of low cost loans to help build and/or improve their water/wastewater infrastructure. Every year, communities submit their plans, get approval or not, get placed on a hold list and wait. Certain communities are given top priority because of the severity of their problems. Right now Los Osos is at the top of the priority list.

So, what needs to be decided by the CSD is also this: Do I betray the electorate who put me into office, and betray WHY they put me into office, or do I vote to move ahead with an out-of-town site and/or do a review of an alternative plan (Step/Steg), then resubmit the plans to the State REVOLVING Fund and get back on the list?

In the meantime, what's critical for this CSD Board to do is to formally request a full investigation into the State Water Board's original loan. Was it properly handled? If it was, then there was and is no need for any "deal" that was proposed by the SWB a few days ago. Instead, it should be a straight up or down decision. If there were irregularities in how it was originally set up, then that must be cleared up before this community signs onto anything because just as sure as God made little green apples, somebody in town will sue and any action will be delayed that much longer.

In addition, the matter of the breach of contract must be settled before anybody signs on the dotted line for anything because God and his little green apples will show up in court over that matter as well. It also needs to be explained just why the State Water Board was so concerned over the breach-of-contract issue that they made it a requirement that the issue be dropped before the loan would be granted. You don't normally blackmail people unless you know they have the goods on you so you'd better shut them up before they spill the beans.

Of even more importance, both the State Water Board and the Regional Water Quality Board's staff and CEO need to be investigated to see whether or not they have been improperly engaged with prior CSD members or each other in an effort to unduly manipulate or coerce this community.

In his LOCSD's "Response and Request for Continuance" brief sent to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the CSD's attorney notes, "Although LOCSD staff has only had time to review a limited amount of CCR [RWQCB] staff's written and electronic documents relating to the September 27th Special Election, it is already apparent that CCR staff was coordinating efforts with the opponents of the recall and Measure B initiative both before and after the election. More troubling still is the fact that this information reveals CCR staff's motive in issuing the Complaint: to bushwack the new LOCSD board before it did anything and to punish the electorate for failing to vote the way CCR staff had wanted." (p. 8)

Is "punishing" or manipulating or attempting to influence an election what these Boards are suppose to be doing? If these Boards or their staff have lost their objectivity, then that needs to be addressed before this CSD takes any steps.

The original low cost loan was immediately challenged in court for not having secured an assessment vote of the homeowners. So far as I know, that lawsuit is still on appeal. Furthermore, the loan was increased some $40 million on the say-so of three CSD members under threat of recall and despite pleas from the community and two board members to wait until after the recall election and the Measure B inititive were voted on.

Before the CSD decides anything, it would be prudent to investigate as to whether the original loan was properly done. As the CSD attorney notes in his "Response" brief (p7) " . . . it [SWB] apparently agreed to fund the SRF Loan without first considering what impact the approval of Measure B would have on the SWRCB's obligation to comply with those code provisions . . ."

In short, this original loan came in a box that already smelled from day one. The New! Improved! box the State Water Board is presenting this community with on a take-it-or-leave-it basis, now has scrabbling and squeeking noises coming from inside it. Personally, I smell a rat.

And unless the CSD votes to take a legal peek inside that box, this community will be betrayed into spending gazillions to buy a lifetime supply of very, very expensive cheese.

Oops, my bad, my bad

Doggone, I forgot to ask an important question.

On page 7 of the LOCSD's Response and Request for Continuance to R3-2005-0137 ACL Complaint, the CSD attorney cites three code sections -- 33 USC section 1383 (d) (1) (c); 40CFR section 35.3120(a)(1)(4) and California Water Code section 13480(b)(1)(c) and states in the next paragraph, "The LOCSD asks the CCR board to take official notice of the above three provisions. The SWRCB's reference to those provisions constitutes an admission on its part that (1) it apparently agreed to fund the SRF Loan without first considering what impact the approval of Measure B would have on the SWRCB's obligation to comply with those code provisions; and (2) that Measure B must, at this time, be accorded a presumption of validity."

Then in Wednesday's Tribune, you will note that a key provision in this "new deal"is that the community must NOW vote to pass a Prop 218-type assessmen district which will ensure aNEW dedicated revenue source, i.e. property taxes instead of the old "fee for service."

Which, of course, begs a few questions:

*Was the original State Revolving Fund loan improperly or illegally secured in the first place?

*Did it violate the various codes cited?

*Is that original loan illegal?

*If it isn't, why is the State NOW demanding a do-over so it can be done right, this time?

* And are they maybe hoping nobody will notice? Especially if the threats are scary enough?

Well, all I can say is this: The CSD better resolve the question of whether the original loan was properly done. Otherwise, done-deal or not, no matter what kind of blackmail, threats, carrots, or booby-prizes the State dangles our way, somebody's gonna sue just to find out. Thereby delaying this project even further.

Nope, time to go back to the start of this loan and have a judge clear up, once and for all, whether the loan itself was legal and proper. And if it was and is, then there's no need for any mail-in election to form a taxing district.

Mommy, how do you spell B*L*A*C*K*M*A*I*L?

Once again, thrilling headlines in this morning's Tribune. The State Water Board apparently offered it's "new plan" to the Tribune BEFORE sending it along to the CSD. But then, why should that be surprising since it's clear from this "new plan" that the CSD and the voters of Los Osos are merely annoyances to what remains a Done Deal.

The "new plan" says, "If you want the low-cost state loan you have to build the sewer plant in the middle of town, set aside your Measure B vote, and form an assessment district and vote to fund the very plan and plant that you recently voted out. In short, if you want the nice money, you have to go back to square one and do what the recalled-3 previous Board locked you into, a deal you voted to get out of, but since you're of no account you'll do what the previous board decided.

And buried on the jump page, the most interesting little snippet of all: First up on the "new deal," is this: "The district must agree not to bring legal action against the state for witholding loan payments." i.e. the breach of contract that occurred when the CSD notified the state that they had apparently violated their own contract by abruptly cutting off the money.

Curious, no? Why would the State Water Board make that not only a priority but an absolute requirement?

A few days ago we read that if this loan defaults, it would make history by being the first one. Also very interesting because if anyone would bother to examine why this loan is even on the verge of default, they would have to ask and answer some peculiar questions, like Why did the State Water Board grant that loan in the first place on unsecured revenue, when its own statutes require it to have a secured, dedicated source BEFORE signing off on the loan. They didn't do that in this case. Why not? Also, why on earth would the State Water Board not only sign off on the loan but increase it some $40 million -- also unsecured -- on the say-so of three board members who were under threat of recall and against pleas by two other board members and members of the community to simply wait until AFTER the election.

Meantime, before anyone in the community panics (the intended result of this "deal," methinks), they need to get down to the CSD office and get a copy of the LOCSD's "Response and Request for Continuance to R3-2005-0137 ACL Complaint." Page 8 is particularly interesting. Aw, heck, it's all interesting.

Then, do plan on attending Thursday's CSD meeting. Maybe somebody there can answer one missing question: Why didn't the "new deal" include requiring the recalled-3 CSD Board members be reinstated?

More great reading for Sewer Fans: The CSD's Official Response and Request for Continuance in the Administrative Civil Liability Complaint No. R-302005-0137, better known as the December 1st Regional Water Board's official meeting to consider "fining the CSD out of existence," & etc. is at the CSD office for your review and entertainment. It makes for reading that can best be described as, "verrrrry interesting." Not yet known when it'll be available on the CSD's website. I'm sure Ron over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com will have it linked in no time. Read it and snort through your collective noses. Then it's time to start asking some very, very serious questions.

Mommy, just who was that masked man who came to town to meet for a week with a negotiating team from the CSD and Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee? Apparently, he was supposed to be some guy who SAID he was from the Staff of the State Water Resources Control Board, but couldn't possibly be because after hammering out a "deal," which the CSD then voted to approve, the "Staff" of the State Water Resources Control Board just posted their Item 8 Staff Recommendation for the full Board's hearing on November 16th, and there's not one single word in it about the merits -- pro or con -- on this "Deal" -- just a recommendation to "disagree" with the [unspecified] deal and continue to deny any further SRF funds. So, who the hell came to SLOTown, under whose authority was he acting, what was he doing here for a week, and why no discussion/analysis of this in this staff report? And should we hold our breaths that Wednesday morning, even a single State Water Resources Control Board member will read this staff report and say, "Uh, What "proposed compromise" are you talking about here? Shouldn't we have an analysis of it in this staff report before we vote?"

The Staff report is at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/agendaas/2005/november/1116-06pdf

Well, this is cool. Ghost negotiations. Seeing people who aren't there. Deals done before the negotiating room door is opened. Fait accompli. Disappearing information. Ah, it's all a mystery, my child! Best call my lawyer.

Uh-oh, Mummy spoke too soon, Dooo-deee-doo-doo, Dooo-deee-doo-doo

Dang, when I wrote the last posting it was a Friday, a holiday, and I had hopes that when I peered out into the morning gloom for the next few days and saw the Tribune gleaming white at the end of the dark driveway, I wouldn't have to keep nitroglycerine tablets handy in order to open the thing and see the headlines without suffering heart failure. But Noooooo. There was Saturday's headline, "Loan default would make U.S. History." And a sub-head, "Federal program has given out 14,200 loans for water projects in 15 years without one failure."

Really? Now, what's interesting. Said EPA spokesman Dale Kemery, that "never in the program's $47 billion history has any state given money to a borrower and seen the loan fall apart."

Reeeeeely? So, should that tell somebody at the state or federal level that something clearly went wrong here with the original loan?

I know, let's start a list. In the comment box below, you can add your ideas as to just what went wrong here. Let's start:

1. There had not been a Proposition 218 vote on the project, on the loan, not even on the $40 million requested increase of the loan.
2. There was a lawsuit in the courts contesting the loan for NOT having a Proposition 218 vote for it. If that suit prevailed, the entire loan would be ruled illegal/improper, ka-Poof!
3. There hadn't even been a non-binding, "advisory vote" by the community for the loan and certainly none for increasing it by some $40 million. That increase request was done by three board members who were under threat of recall.
4. People HATE recalls. They will suffer under any sort of crappy governance forever (school board, city hall, whatever) rather than lift a finger to make a change. This is especially true in small towns when the folks being recalled are often friends and neighbors. People HATE recalls, so when a recall actually qualifies for a ballot -- which is what happened in this case -- red flags should have gone down all over Sacramento. Boing! Boing! Boing! Warning! Warning! Warning!
5. Giving pots of money to three guys under threat of recall is like a bank giving an unsecured loan to a guy who's just been put on notice that he may lose his job. Do you know of any bank reckless enough to make that loan?
6. The State Water Board granted that gazillion-dollar loan despite pleas from two CSD members and a bunch of citizens asking that they hold off until after the recall. The Water Board refused. Is that a sign of prudence? Or damned foolisheness? Or collusion? Or grotesque incompetence?
7. Jon Seitz is the CSD's attorney. It's his job to protect the CSD from legal and financial ruin. I do not remember Mr. Seitz, at a public meeting where this loan was discussed, warning his clients (the Board) and the public (who pay his salary and would be the ones ultimately injured) NOT to lock in a huge debt on the community without either a Prop. 218 vote, an official "advisory vote," and/or waiting until after the recall to sign any contracts. Do you remember such a warning from Mr. Seitz? What kind of "feasance" -- mal or mis -- would that be, do you think?
7. Do you think the various Federal spokespersons quoted in the Trib story know the full story of what happened here? Do you think they should, perhaps, find out just what happened before making threats and comments? Bwa-hahahaha. Sorry, you're right, What was I thinking?
8. IF the tentative brokered "deal" that the State Water Board tentatively dismissed MIGHT HAVE moved this project forward while POSSIBLY offering both a compromise and improved bang-for-the-buck solutions for some critical, unaddressed WATER issues, then what's the problem here? Shouldn't the State WATER Board and the Regional WATER Quality Control Board and the citizens of Los Osos who want to solve their WATER and wasteWATER issues --but just didn't want a sewer treatment plant in the middle of their town-- be able to figure something out here?

It's not rocket science.

One of the most telling things happening here happened at the October 30th CSD meeting, after the election, after the train-wreck, after smoke and rail-cars and dead bodies were piled high, after millions were pounded into the ground, after pipe was laid, after the trees were cut down, when the tentative brokered "deal" was still in play. During public comment, folks who, before the election had been adamantly anti-recall and pro-Tri-W project, stood up and said, "Well, actually, I was never really married to the in-town site. If you can build a project cheaper out of town, then that'd be fine with me."

Hello?

There, Dear & Gentle Reader, may be a suitable epitaph for this town.

Uh, how DO you spell P*R*U*D*E*N*C*E, Mummy?

As expected, Ron Crawford over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com has posted a few observations on State Water Board Spokesman William Rukeyser's comments on same in the recent Tribune story.

His notation about the millions in "amenities" granted to Los Osos while other communities go begging for the same millions to build, not a wave wall or an ampitheatre or a Tot Lot, but an actual sewer treatment plant, do, indeed make one head for the dictionary to start looking up the words beginning with, "p" and "r" and "u" and etc.

And scratching a head wondering if the State WATER Board should be renamed the Sate RECREATIONAL AMENITIES Board instead.

Meantime, I can only thank my ears and whiskers that it's a holiday (state offices closed?) so maybe we'll have a few days of quiet. It's getting so I absolutely hate to peer out my front door into the early morning gloom and -- uh-oh -- see the Tribune sitting there in the middle of the driveway. The creepy Dooo-dee-dooo-dooo, dooo-dee-dooo-doo theme runs through my head as I cautiously scuttle out in my bathrobe, snatch up the paper and peer at the headlines. Will it be another shocker? Done Deal! Undone Deal! Money! No Money! On Again, Off Again, Did So, Did Not, Oh No You D'd-uh-nt! Neener-neener, Yeah? Well, So's Yer Mamma!

Makes the heart thump and the mind race and the adreneline rush one awake even before the sun's up. Of course, a cup of coffee can do the same with much more pleasant effects.

Bwa-hahahahah. Will the State Water Board's Spokesperson Tell Us Another One? Bwa-hahahah!

Oh, it just keeps getting worse, if that's possible. According to this morning's Tribune story, the CSD's General Manager has sent the contractors back to work, but now it's not clear where the nice money to pay them is coming from.

The State Board's letter says only that the State Water Board will consider resuming the loan, uh, maybe, sometime, whenever, like who knows, not guaranteed. Also not known is what action has been taken on the breach of contract matter. Well, no matter, it's Gong Show West and here's the Laugh of the Day:

State Water Board Spokesman, Willliam Rukeyser, when asked by the Tribune "if it was irresponsible to fund the sewer project right before a heated recall election" skirted the question but said, "We've been absolutely prudent with the state's money."

Bwa-hahahahahah.

LOOK OUT, MA, THE SAVE-THE-DREAM TEAM JIHADI TRIP-WIRE BOYS ARE TAKING A NUMBER AND LINING UP EVEN AS WE SPEAK!

Well, well. Apparently, work will resume on the collection system of our famed Middle of Town Sewer Plant, here in beautiful downtown Sewerville, which means that the State Water Board must have released some nice money, or guaranteed they would release some nice money, or perhaps saw merit in the Los Osos General Manager’s argument that they had indeed breached their contract by withholding nice State Revolving Fund Money, or . . . .

And, since working on the collection system apparently doesn’t violate Measure B . . .?

All this occurring since, apparently, the "deal" recently yanked and declared dead as a doornail has popped back to life and has been added to the State Water Board agenda for a Nov 16th hearing, which indicates that perhaps the SWB will accept the "deal" that was recently voted on by the CSD?

Meantime, keep your eye on the Tri-W site. Does the work slated to resume include putting in the road on the sewer-plant side of Ravena St.? If so, then might that cause you to ask, “Gosh, if the “deal” is quasi- approved and work is moving ahead to move the sewer plant out of town, which is what Measure B and the recall were all about, why would anyone continue putting money into a road for a non-existent sewer plant?”

Ah, my children, take a peek at the non-negotiable “deal” brokered by representatives of the SWB, Assemblyman Blakeslee, the CSD and others, a “deal” that the CSD voted to approve in order to keep the State’s Revolving Fund low-cost loan. There, under “Terms,” is item 3. “Commitment to complete entire project within 2 years of original timeframe. . . . This task list should indicate the decision points at which if a task is not completed, the LOCSD will continue to construct the current approved project.” [at the original Tri-W site] (emphasis mine.)

In other words, there's the built-in trip-wire. If any delays come up that push the out of town project past the two years, no matter that the out-of-town project might end up better, cheaper, or offer more bang for the buck, then poof! despite any of that, the sewer plant goes back into the middle of town. No ifs, no ands, no buts.

Quick, listen carefully, my children. Hear that rustling in the bushes? Yes, it’s the army of Dreamers and Dreamer Wannabes, strapping on a myriad of trip-wire detonators and taking a number and getting in line. In just a short while, you will begin to hear their soft, carefully timed poofs! And, before you know it, before the collection pipe even finishes getting laid, you will see the ginormous sewer plant rise at the Tri-W site, complete with Tot Lot next to it.

True, that will be exactly what the voters didn’t want for their community, but who the hell are the voters, anyway? Nope, the Dreamers have a Dream for this community and nothing and nobody will stand in the way of getting THEIR sewer plant put in the middle of THEIR town.

Everything that has gone before is merely sideshow, entertainment for the unwashed rabble, citizens who thought they should have a say in what happens in their “Chinatown” community.

Poor Dears.

Calhoun’s Cannons, The Bay News, Los Osos, CA for November 9, 05

Oh, Look, Mommy, it’s the old wallet in the street full of cash tied to a string and when Old Mr. Harris bends down to pick it up I yank the string and pull the wallet into the bushes, Bwa-hahahahahah!

Yes, folks, the Los Osos Sewerville Gong show continues. The Tribune headlines blare, “State Rejects Osos Sewer Deal,” this after a week-long earnest negotiation and a compromise “deal” voted on by the CSD at their Sunday, Oct 30 meeting.

Turns out first of all that the State Board, uh, “forgot” to put the item on their agenda, even as a place marker. (In an October 31 letter to Celeste Cantu, Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board, CSD President Schicker queries: “We are unclear as to why this item had not already been agendized for tomorrow’s meeting (November 1, 2005) as we all began acceptance of the negotiation process twelve days ago.” [The Board requires a 10 day agenda notification.] Uh, let’s see, 12 days, 10 days, uh, Gosh, good question.

Another puzzle is this: If the SRF Loan in question really was site specific, why did the State Water Boys even show up for a wasted week of negotiations, then sign off on a tentative “compromise-with-lots-of-non-negotiable-strings-attached” in the first place?

Is Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, who risked a lot of political capital and wasted a lot of valuable time here really, reeeeely irritated at being played the fool? Oh, I hope so.

Weirder still, the state loan amount in question was vastly increased at the request of the previous CSD Board and sent down with no secured revenue stream, no Proposition 218 vote, and full knowledge that there was a recall pending and a Measure B initiative pending, and letters to the State Board pleading for them to hold off on encumbering this community with that vastly increased loan before the recall election – all of which was totally ignored by the State Water Board at the time. But NOW we hear that the loan can’t possibly be used to keep this project going (but with an out-of-town treatment plant) because, according to Water Board spokesman, William L. Rukeyser , “We cannot go ahead and risk millions of dollars that belong to the citizens of California.” Oh, Mr. Rukeyeser, that horse left your barn with nary a peep months ago.

Mr. Rukeyser is also quoted in the Trib as saying, “If I get a car loan from the bank, I can’t go out and buy a gym set for my kids.” “Gym set? Last time I looked, Los Osos got the loan to build a wastewater treatment system and after a week of negotiations, was ready to continue laying pipe for a wastewater treatment system, the only difference being the treatment plant itself wouldn’t be located in the middle of town. Mr. Rukeyser’s analogy should have been, “If I get a car loan from the bank, secured by my property as collateral, and I buy a Pink Cadillac instead of a Blue Cadillac, and despite the color change I repay the bank on time and with interest, why would the bank have a cow?”

And finally, said CSD President Lisa Schicker of the negotiations and compromise plan now tossed into the trash can, “If they weren’t going to enter into good faith negotiations, what was the purpose of dragging us through this?”

Good question, Ms. Schicker. Good question. At the Oct 30 CSD meeting, someone mentioned Trojan Horses and lack of trust. Gosh, you think?

Well, in the meantime, here’s my modest proposal: Call the lawyers. Mr. Seitz is still on retainer so he can certainly have everyone wanting to sue the CSD (and vice versa) take a number, then tell them to have a seat and he’ll get to them in a few years. Then, with the advisory committees back on the job, and the various financial audits finished, the CSD can set its house in order.

After which, the community can start workshops on penciling out costs on two or three options of sewer plans, including putting Step/Steg back on the table, complete with full long-term operating, maintenance and replacement costs for each system, and a look at possible self-bonding and or builder-designer financing, then present the options and costs of each to the citizens for a vote to see which one they want to “buy.” Pink Cadillac? Blue Caddillac? Yellow Yugo?

Then, while the lawyers and regulators waste decades in a futile recreation of Charles Dickens’ Bleak House, Los Osos can build a self-selected, Proposition 218-approved, Measure B-compliant sewer system.

Note: Since the Bay News Can(n)on was "put to bed,"' there's an interesting wrinkle in today's Tribune: State Water Board spokesman, William Rukeyser, says that perhaps the only way to revive the loan is if the CSD Board actively acts to overturn Measure B. In other words, you can have some nice money but only if you work to overturn a vote of the people.

Right now, California's Attorney General Lockyear has filed an amicus brief intended to urge the appeals court to overturn Measure B. What Lockyear should be looking into is whether or not the State Water Board, the Regional Water Quality Board and the previous (recalled) CSD Board Majority acted in collusion to put Los Osos in financial jeopardy in order to influence an election.

Here's some of the questions Mr. Lockyear needs to ask: Why would a state funding agency not only recklessly loan taxpayer money to a community heading for a recall, but increase the amount by some $40 million at the sole request of a Board majority under threat of that recall and despite pleas from the community to hold off on committing those funds until after the election? And I would remind Mr. Lockyear, this loan was increased without even a hint of Prop 218 complaince, not even a CSD-sponsored Informal Advisory Vote. In short, the loan was increased, based on nothing but the say-so of a Board Majority facing recall and a citizen-sponsored initiative, both of which would put that loan and the taxpayers in jeopardy.

Worse yet, Why would the previous CSD Board majority then sign off on the loan, thereby indebting the citizens of this community shortly before a recall and an initiative that would directly threated that loan? And then why would the CSD start spending that money as fast as possible before the recall vote, thereby ensuring -- should the recall be successful -- that the citizens would be financially punished. And/or be put into the impossible situation of making any other decisions but the ones made for them by a CSD Board majority they voted to remove in order to stop a project they didn't want? And why would certain citizens send emails to Roger Briggs of the RWQCB urging -- demanding -- that he "fine the CSD out of existence" -- forgetting that it's their fellow citizens who will be paying the fines?

Does this spell or smell like collusion to you? If so, maybe that's what Mr. Lockyear should be looking into. So should Assemblyman Blakeslee and our Congresswoman, Capps.

If democracy means anything, then what's happening here in Los Osos, is a perfect example of whether or not this country will be ruled by law and by the electorate, or operate under a famous, utterly cynical line from an eponymous and apparently apt move: "C;'mon, Jake, It's Chinatown."

Yes, Child, That's Why They Say Surgeons Just Bury Their Mistakes.

Professor Ron Crawford, over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com has just connected the dots for all you folks wondering just why and how Los Osos (aka Sewerville) got into this mess. Read it and weep and ask yourself why The System isn't trying to right the wrongs, but instead has brought its full might and power down to ensure that the wrongs stay in place and the community pays the full price for The System's failure.

Gee, did we leave some sponges and clamps inside you that killed you? Oooo, my bad. Sorry. NEXT . . . .

Look, Ma, Lemmings! Let’s Jump, Too!

The smell of fear in the room was palpable. Fear fed on half-truths, untruths, fragmented truths and sheer made up stuff that was woven into grand End of the World scenarios and breathtakingly inventive “What Ifs” that were then presented as “real.”

I’m speaking, of course, of the Thursday, Nov. 3rd. Los Osos CSD meeting right here in beautiful downtown Sewerville. The State Water Board had pulled the low cost loan and rejected the CSD/SWB’s tentatively agreed to, negotiated “Deal.” Yes, the old wallet tied to a string trick.

If you ever wanted to see how easily people can be buffaloed and herded, if you ever wanted to see how quickly people will change their convictions and directions, abandon their choices to rush into the arms of whatever appears to be “safe” when threatened, how easy it is to spook people into running, then that meeting was a perfect place to witness the process.

Luckily, after some hyperventilating, a few interesting bits of information slowly emerged.

Our new General Manager, Daniel Blesky, self-identified himself as primarily being “A Contract Guy,”and as such he has written a little billet doux to the State Water Board. He read pertinent sections that pointed to parts of the contract for the State Revolving Fund Loan, a contract that the State Board wrote and that they and the previous CSD signed for the State Loan, the parts of that contract that the State Water Board apparently violated when they stopped the already-agreed upon last payment installment. Mr. Blesky pointed out that contracts always have in them “remedies” which must be followed. Indeed, contracts ARE little more than a set of “remedies” organized in a logical fashion – basically, an agreement that if I do X you must do Y and if I don’t do X, you must do A first, then if that doesn’t work, you move to B and so forth – all spelled out. What you cannot do is to go from X to immediately shooting my dog. Doing so puts you in breach of contract, which Mr. Blesky says the State did in their unseemly haste to terminate the town (That’ll show ‘em!)

In short, the State didn’t do A, followed by B. They just shot our dog. Apparently, that’s a legal no-no. (I presume the state will argue that they shot our dog because they thought we MIGHT do X and they weren’t gonna wait around to see if we actually did. But I don’t think contract law provides for anticipatory dog-shooting. Of course, I could be wrong.)

More interesting still is this: All contracts have “wiggle room,” that’s what they’re all about – encompassing a scope of work and setting forth the best way to get it done at an agreed upon price & etc. All contracts (good ones) have built into them the ability to be modified as things change on the ground, i.e. prices change, physical situations on or in the ground turn up, etc. Again, that’s what good contracts are all about. In short, if all parties agreed that what this contract was all about was building a sewer treatment system and the only thing to be modified was the treatment plant and its site, and IF that modification failed, the original plan and site would be back in play, then IF all parties agreed, then the contract could be modified as to the scope of the work. This sort of thing happens all the time IF ALL PARTIES ARE AGREED. So, there’s the question for the State: The CSD agreed to modify the original contract. The State refused. Why?

Also of interest, according to Mr. Blesky, the CSD first agreed to all terms required by the state to enter into formal negotiations. The CSD brought a proposal to the negotiating table. They all considered that proposal and then the State came back with their non-negotiable Proposal, as a “counter offer.” The CSD voted to accept the counter-offer, which the State then promptly dumped. As per Mr. Blesky, that’s effectively another breach of “contract,” another “deal” broken by the state, not the CSD.

At present, Mr. Blesky said he’d try to get the letter he’s sent off to the state posted on the CSD website so folks can read the pertinent info themselves.

Furthermore, according to Mr.Blesky, the contract written by the State Water Board clearly states that everyone signing on to the contract MUST obey all laws and regulations and statutes & etc. And when Measure B passed it was considered law, and until it’s formally overturned by the courts, it still IS the LAW, so everyone, including the CSD and the contractors and the State Board itself had to abide by Measure B, or be put in jeopardy of being charged with criminal activity. (Oddly enough, the way the Measure is written, it appears as if the collection pipes could have continued to be laid – the “Deal” the CSD agreed to – without running counter to the Measure, since the Measure only concerned the site of the sewer plant itself.)

As for measure B, there’s a December 14 hearing in the appeals court, after which the court has 90 days to render a ruling, which can be appealed to the State Supreme court. Not known is whether the CSD is required to defend the case in court (it’s forbidden to spend money to defeat the measure in court, but I don’t know if it’s required to defend and appeal.)

Also not known, is whether or not the State violated Proposition 218 when they originally issued the loan (increased vastly) without having the community vote on whether or not they wanted to be encumbered with that loan and agree to repay it & etc. Also not known is whether any Federal rules were broken in the way the original loan was set up, since Federal money was also involved.

Even more interesting was a Mr. Fergus who got up to note that according to the Regional Water Quality Board’s documents, fines are base on ability to pay. Ability to pay? What’s that? The previous CSD Board refused to do an “affordability study” for pricing out the sewer, so nobody knows what the “ability to pay” of the prohibition zone folks is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if the RWQCB was required to do what the previous CSD Board refused to do and that is to at least find out our “ability to pay” by having to do an “affordability” study in order to fine us?

And what would happen if such a study found out that the folks in the prohibition zone only had the ability to pay $100 a month? How then, were they expected to have the ability to pay $200 a month for the Tri W Sewer? Ability to pay? I can hardly wait to find out what that means and see those numbers.

Meantime, the CSD and/or the Advisory Committees, which are being re-started, will hopefully be making public the crunched numbers for the out-of-town plans that were presented and examined in the negotiating room. It’s critical that this community take a good, long hard look at those numbers. The previous CSD repeatedly told us that they had examined ALL options, that any out-of-town site would be waaaaay more expensive and simply couldn’t be done, that the Tri-W site was the ONLY option. It’s important that this town know just what those negotiators were looking at when they arrived at their preliminary “deal” that indicated that not only would the out of town site be cheaper and/or give more bang for the buck, but could be “permitted” and work started within the two-year window.

Meantime, folks in the community need to take a deep breath and stop thinking that Roger Briggs of the RWQCB will come to their door and hand them an individual fine for $11 million. From some of the fearful comments made Thursday night, I have an awful feeling some people out there think that’s what’s going to happen.

Which is why it’s critical for everyone in the community to be very, very careful about what they hear and from where and whom. For example, one of the “Dreamers” announced that there’s a petition circulating to dissolve the CSD. When certified, the CSD must call another election and the voters can vote on the matter. What wasn’t said was whether or not such a de-certification process requires that LAFCO sign off on the deal, a process I’m told can take a year or more to complete. Nor did the “Dreamer” indicate whether the county would even take on the burden. Instead, what was clearly implied by the speaker is if the election was held and the CSD dissolved, then POOF! the State Loan would arrive the next day and the Tri-W sewer site would begin a-building overnight!

If the community isn’t to be Lemmingized by fear and rumor and snappy misleading campaign slogans, then everyone better keep a pound of salt handy, start attending the CSD meetings (or catch them on TV), and/or take a gander at all the various original documents kept on file in the Giant Big Huge Board Books in the CSD office.

Otherwise, there’s the cliff. Start your furry little engines! Bwa-aaaaaaaa-ieeeee!

Ah, Yes, It's a little Open Billet-Doux from our world Famous Sewer Watch Historian Guy, Ron Crawford, to our own Regional Quality Control Board Guy, Roger Briggs, regarding Mr. Briggs threats to Los Osos: FINES!FINES!FINES!WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE IN THE STREETS LIKE DAWGS!

Well, should we start an office pool to see how many days will elapse between the Tribune's headline, "State rejects Osos sewer deal," and "Fines!Fines!Fines! We're all gonna die in the streets like dawgs!" Read all about Mr. Briggs' dilemma and the history of same in a new blog posting at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Ron's "institutional memory" of this whole hideous project is always an eye-opener.

Oh, Look, Mommy, it’s the old wallet in the street full of cash tied to a string and when Old Mr. Harris bends down to pick it up I yank the string and pull the wallet into the bushes, Bwa-hahahahahah!

Yes, folks, the Los Osos Sewerville Gong show continues. This morning’s Tribune headlines, “State Rejects Osos Sewer Deal,” this after a week-long earnest negotiation (Bwa-hahahaha) and a compromise “deal” voted on by the CSD at their Sunday, Oct 30 meeting.

Turns out first of all that the State Board, uh, “forgot” to put the item on their agenda, even as a place marker. (In an October 31 letter to Celeste Cantu, Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board, CSD President Schicker queries: “We are unclear as to why this item had not already been agendized for tomorrow’s meeting (November 1, 2005) as we all began acceptance of the negotiation process twelve days ago.” [The Board requires a 10 day agenda notification.] Uh, let’s see, 10 days, 12 days, uh, Gosh, good question.

Another good question is this: The SRF Loan in question is project specific. So why did the State Water Boys even show up for a wasted week of negotiations, then sign off on a tentative “compromise,” in the first place.

Weirder still, this loan amount was vastly increased at the request of the previous CSD and sent down with no secured revenue stream, no Proposiiton 218 vote, and full knowledge that there was a recall pending and letters to the State Board pleading for them to hold off on encumbering this community with that vastly increased loan before the recall election – all of which was totally ignored by the State Water Board at the time. But NOW we hear that the loan can’t possibly be used to keep this project going (but with an out of town treatment plant) because, according to Water Board spokesman, William L. Rukeyser , “We cannot go ahead and risk millions of dollars that belong to the citizens of California.” Bwa-hahahahah. Selective "due dilligence," doncha think?

Mr. Rukeyser is also quoted in the Trib as saying, “If I get a car loan from the bank, I can’t go out and buy a gym set for my kids.” Gym set? Uh, Gee, Mr. Rukeyser, last time I looked, Los Osos got a loan to build a wastewater treatment system and after a week of negotiations, was ready to move ahead on laying pipe which is part and parcel of building a wastewater treatment system, the only difference is the treatment plant itself wouldn’t be located in the middle of town. Mr. Rukeyser’s analogy should have been, “If I get a car loan from the bank and I buy a Pink Cadillac instead of a Blue Cadillac and the loan is secured by my property as collateral, and I repay the bank on time and with interest, why is the bank having a cow? Why should it care whether the Cadillac is pink or blue?”

And finally, said, CSD President Lisa Schicker of the negotiations and compromise plan that was accepted by the CSD, “If they weren’t going to enter into good faith negotiations, what was the purpose of dragging us through this?”

Good question, Lisa. Good question.

At the Oct 30 CSD meeting, someone mentioned Trojan Horses. Gosh, you think?

Well, at this Thursday’s Nov 4 CSD meeting, the Board may have an interesting option to consider: Call the lawyers, (O.K. all you guys who wish to sue us, stop jostling, everybody, take a number and get in line, we'll get to your court cases as they comes up, no hurry, our attorney is on retainer so we've got all the time in the world.) then start setting the CSD’s house in order, start work on penciling out two or three options of sewer plans, including Tri-W and putting Step/Steg back on the table, complete with full long-term operating, maintenance and replacement costs for each system, and a look at possible self-bonding and or builder-designer financing, then present the options to the citizens for a vote to see which one they want to “buy.” (Pink Cadillac? Blue Caddilac? Yellow Yugo?)

Then, while the lawyers spend decades in a futile recreation of Charles Dickens’ Bleak House, Los Osos can get busy building its self-funded, self selected sewer system.

It’s doable if the citizens of our bearish community wish it to be so, which has always been the case.

Mommy, How Do You Spell, "Negotiate in good faith?"

So, on Sunday October 30th, the CSD votes unanimously to accept the non-negotiable proposal hammered out in a week-long negotiation that up-front required that "Everything Must Be On The Table." At those negotiations was a representative of the State Water Board. A tentative deal" is struck, the CSD takes it back to the community for public input, a vote is made and in the the next morning's TRIB story, we learn that the State Water Board needed to put the item on its agenda 10 days in advance of the meeting (a standing regulation that they had to have known about forever) and turns out they, Oh, gosh, uh, "forgot" to put it on the agenda, not even a place holder (in case the negotiations went on longer, at least there would be an allotted time to report-out about the ongoing negotiations) , oooo, my bad!

Meantime, since the state money is frozen and the contractors aren't getting paid, if they walk, the whole brokered deal could collapse and everyone will have a fine time heading to court.

Hmmm, let's see. Any hidden agendas here? Behind the scenes schemers rustling in the underbrush? How do you spell, Negotiate in good faith, anyway?

And for the classic Let's Carve That In Stone Fifty Feet Tall quote of the week: "I'd hate to see a good deal go south because the process failed," (Assemblyman) Blakeslee said. "This is numbered in days, not weeks."

The process failed? Since day one, I'd say.

So, will that be be the epitaph for Los Osos? If so, let's carve it on a huge stone portal arching across both entrances to the town. Put it next to the Bridge Bears: Welcome to Los Osos, Home of The Failed Process. Be Sure To Visit Our Ginormous In-Town Unaffordable Sewer Plant, Placed There By A Failed Process. Hourly Tours at 11 a.m. Ajacent Tot Lot open at Noon. Have a Nice Day.

Well, Stay tuned.