Pages

Friday, January 06, 2006

Kumbaya

Regional Water Board member Gary C. Shallcross was quoted in the Jan 6 Tribune story today on the $6.6 million fine they levied against Los Osos as saying “that seeing a community ‘go at each others throats in such an ugly way’ was one of the saddest things that has come before the regional board.”

Clearly, Mr. Shallcross remains curiously clueless about how communities in general and Los Ososians in particular, deal with such a complex issue as sewering a whole town years after it’s built. He is also apparently clueless as to the complexity of this process and apparently believes that accomplishing the task in about 4 years is “reasonable.” It never was “reasonable.” But Mr. Shallcross apparently remains clueless that the time line schedule always was nuts and that all of Los Osos' problems can be traced back to that insane time line and the failure of the previous CSD Board to demand a more reasonable time schedule as newer information came on line.

Sadly, Mr. Shallcross went on, “It makes me sick to my stomach . . . Hopefully someday you’ll all get together and hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But I don’t think that’s going to happen,” once again proving that Mr. Shallcross hasn’t been paying attention to what’s supposed to be his area of concern: Los Osos.

On October, 30th, had Mr. Shallcross been paying attention, he would have heard strains of Kumbaya wafting from the community center as die-hard opponents, one by one, went to the podium for public comment and said of the “Negotiated Deal That Wasn’t Negotiated,” things like, “Well, it’s not what I wanted but I can live with it.” or “Well, I never was really married to the in-town site and if we can get a better plant out of town, I’ll vote for that,” and such like. Kumbaya doesn’t sound sweeter than that.

But Mr. Shallcross wasn’t paying attention. He had old tapes playing in his head and was not able to see what was going on in front of his nose despite three grueling days of hearings. Oblivious, was Mr. Shallcross, except for his single-minded search for assets in Los Osos that could be converted to cash and paid to the Regional Board.

And, for me, that was one of the “saddest things that has come before the regional board.” It made me sick to my stomach – a WATER board that spent NO TIME discussing how to move ahead to fix a WATER and WASTWATER problem. Nope. Not a whisper about water. It was all about money.

And another sadness: Had Mr. Shallcross and his fellow Board members been interested in WATER and WATER QUALITY and WASTEWATER, I have absolutely no doubt at all that the “negotiated deal that wasn’t negotiated” would have gone through, with their help and encouragement, and we’d be on our way to finishing this project.

But doing that would have involved focusing concern on WATER, and that’s clearly not the job of Mr. Shallcross and the Regional WATER QUALITY Control Board: Money and the getting of money, that’s their job.

So, now everyone will wander into court. Too bad Mr. Shallcross is not able to see just how sad that is and just what he has had a hand in making. But his head is just too full of old tapes, looping endlessly, bearing old, out-of-date information.

Kumbaya, indeed.

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

The worst part about Mr. Shallcross's comments is that he seems to accept no responsibility for the situation in Los Osos. His board is one of the main reasons Los Osos is "going at each others throats".
Did he forget about all the meetings of our they attended where thay were so rude to the public?
Did he forget about the phony declaration and certificate they gave to the old CSD board giving them kudos for ignoring the people of Los Osos in an effort to try and influence the recall process?
Did he forget about the collusion between his staff and Pandora to "fine us out of existance" just minutes after the election?
I could go on but whats the point... maybe we should all unite and go after his throat. Now there's something we can agree on.

Anonymous said...

Government hypocrisy at its best…

The whole strategy of the water board staff, as was revealed in e-mails to and from Pandora & Co. and Roger Briggs, was to fine the new LOCSD out of existence and get the project into the hands of someone else. Presumably that someone else would be able and willing to continue building at the Tri-W location.

For those of you that thought the reasons for fines was to encourage clean up of our ground water, i.e. the whole purpose of the RWQCB, you must now realize from watching the recent meetings that the water board had indeed adopted the Pandora/Briggs “Fine Out Of Existence” Strategy.

Here’s the problem… that strategy really sucks. As it currently stands:
• All but one contractor has walked off the job.
• Pipe and equipment to be used for the project is being sold off.
• The loan is cancelled.
• The permits, that were contingent on the loan, are now invalid.
• Montgomery Watson Harza has walked off the job and is under investigation for an illegal contract.
• Nitrate levels (the whole reason for the need for a sewer) continue to fall.
• Taxpayer Watch, according to a recent article in the Tribune, has not even started gathering signatures to disband the LOCSD.

Wake up people, the project is dead!!! There is no saving it. No “someone else” can take over and continue to build at Tri-W.

So after realizing that the Pandora Briggs strategy wasn’t going to work, did the water board back off? No. The fines were levied with no hopes of achieving their goal. The Tri-W plant will NEVER be built.

So why doesn’t the water board get back to its original purpose and help Los Osos clean up its ground water? Because there are hypocrites, and to do so would mean admitting the Pandora/Briggs Strategy was a bad idea… and folks, if you haven’t noticed, the water board doesn’t have bad ideas. At least none that they admit to.

Shark Inlet said...

Anonymous ...

I would simply suggest that it is the current LOCSD board which is hypocritical and that are the group who cannot admit to having made poor choices.

This board has chosen to delay the only project that is likely to achieve the goal anytime within the next 5-10 years, thus declaring their intent to continue polluting the groundwater of our community. They have also chosen to pass up a low interest loan (2.3%) which would cover the bulk of the cost of the TriW project and instead are pursuing a project that will likely cost more money due at least to the higher interest rate we'll be paying (8% would be a good guess ... because no one in their right mind would lend $150M to someone who just sued their last lender at anything close to the market rate).

I could go on and on. The key point here is that the LOCSD board has taken actions which will raise our bills and won't help water quality one lick. The only thing they've been consistent about is that their actions seem all designed to make sure that no plant will ever be built at TriW.

I would argue that public servants (and after all, elected officials are public servants) should do what is best for the public. This group seems to think that the best choice is to delay building a sewer and treatment plant and to attempt to put one out of town, in someone else's backyard and to raise all our bills in the process. I can imagine that some would relish the opportunity to pay an additional $100/month to put the plant out of town, but I would hazard a guess that far less than half of us in Los Osos would view such a trade-off as a wise choice.

So, how much would you personally willing to pay extra every month just to have the plant out of town? Me, if it cost me more than an additional $10/month, I would say that the trade-off is not worth it. If nothing else, this board should have taken a poll of the prohibition zone households and asked them whether they would be willing to pay more to have the plant out of town and if so, how much more. Had they realized that pretty much none of us want an extra $100/month they might not have taken the shortsighted action of stopping construction. [Note: just so that Ann doesn't bitch at me again, let me clarifiy and say that this CSD chose to "temporarily halt" construction ... in any case this CSD did not have the authority to do so and that action was the first domino that was knocked over ...]

Frankly, I don't know what we can do now to get out of the mess this CSD board has put us in. My suspicion is that if this board were to eat some crow and to admit that they had made a huge mistake, they might be able to solve the problem. Perhaps they could start by clarifying whether Measure B really does prohibit a TriW plant or not. Then, once a court verifies that it doesn't, they could go to the SWRCB and beg for another SRF loan. I suspect they would only get one conditional a 218 vote of the property owners and even then it would be a loan that would only cover a portion of the total bill. They would then have to convince the property owners that they won't do something stupid like stop construction yet again. The only damage would be inflation, lost time and some $10-40M in fines and other costs.

Certainly this board which ran with a plan (that they've not revealed to us yet) hasn't given us any concrete idea of how they intend to do anything less expensive than TriW or even my "let's apologize and grovel" plan outlined above.

If they don't show some thoughtfulness damn soon, I am willing to sign onto the petition to dissolve the CSD because it is clear that the current CSD leadership is incapable of making wise choices. Perhaps we would be better off letting someone else (like the County) take over. Until recently I was opposed to the idea of dissolving the CSD. However, now that the board is talking about selling off TriW and Broderson to pay their bills, I would sign quickly ... mostly so that the board could be dissolved before they take actions that would make impossible the development of the TriW plant. To me it still seems like the least expensive and best option we have.

My question is this ... if a dissolution were to be something the people were to vote on ... would this current board take action to sell TriW and Broderson right before the election ... just to spite us? I guess the irony itself would be delicious but should the board take such an action they would have proven themselves ... yet again ... to be more interested in getting their way than in listening to the residents of this community.

Anonymous said...

Hey Sharky,
I find your comments about hypocracy comical. This board is trying to do what they said they would do.(Put a sewer out of freakin town) The old board did the opposite of what they were elected to do.(cheaper and better) A question for you Sharky. If you were on the previous board (maybe you were)and you had a choice between puting the sewer in town on the bay or out of town, where would you put it? What if you knew it would be cheaper out of town because of maintanence and transportation costs, would that make you decision even easier? I understand the logic behind the in town sewer park. I mean what kid wouldn't just love the log rides.

Shark Inlet said...

Hypocrisy? Me?

So you feel that a board should do only what they say they they intend to do. This board told us they were not going to be fined and that they wouldn't lose the SRF. Sounds like you should be mad at both groups.

Grow up. Elected officials are voted into office to make tough decisions based on the information they have. When the old board learned what they were up against (fines if the project wasn't built in a particular timeframe or in a particular way) they changed the plans. Any reasonable board would.

I suppose that had the previous board continued with their initial plan of step-steg to collect only half of the homes and so use a ponding system (even though the RWQCB said it wouldn't be appropriate to solve our nitrate problems) you would have supported them. I suppose they wouldn't have been sued by CASE or Bud or CCLO either.

Had their initial plan, the plan they ran on, been implimented, we still would be polluting the groundwater in a way that would cause us to be fined. Is it wiser to make choices to lower our longerm costs or to raise them. I suppose that because you like the old board's initial plan and seem to oppose changing it for any reason you prefer higher costs. Well, with the current board you have your wish!

Okay, to stop being snotty, you did ask a good question. What would I have done had a study shown that an out of town plant would be cheaper? I would have chosen the out of town plant. On the other hand, please remember that the process of siting the thing began back in 1998 and that we very well could have lost valuable time had we started all over again every time a "new, improved!" site came along.

The previous board made (mostly) reasonable choices based on the information available at the time. Now you want to say that they were UNreasonable but you're not offering any evidence to show the out of town site would be less expensive. I would suggest digging around in the sewerwatch blog. Ron links to a document that shows the likely cost of an Andre site would be higher than TriW. The only way to make an out of town plant less expensive than an in-town plant is to make it uglier and more prone to smell. Not something that the people outside the LOCSD would approve of. Frankly, the idea of putting the plant out of the LOCSD's perimiter would seem to beg yet another lawsuit.

Mike Green said...

Dear Sharkey,
As I see it one mistake you keep making is that you assume that political leaders
are elected into office to make the hard decisions that you would prefer.
To use your own words "Grow Up!"
They are elected on what they say and the voters past experience.
If the former CSD had been as flexible as what you think the new one to be now,
they would have resigned in mass.
When it became abundantly clear that the plan that they had sold the electorate of Los Osos was unworkable and that they couldn't come even close to "faster, better, cheaper" The hard decision that was NOT made was to step back and ADMIT a failure and allow the county to implement the plan that was ALREADY approved. Dissagree on the county plan all you like, but the fact remains that if we had not voted in a CSD in the first place, we wouldn't be talking about this now.
Personaly, I'm quite dissapointed at ALL the players in this mess, even myself for my support for local control.
What I would really like is for one of our more lawerly people to figure out a way that individual property owners can get out of this fiasco on their own.
If I could buy one of those toilet gizmos and remove myself from this sordid mess I'd do it in a heartbeat, I don't trust any of our government entitys anymore, The only thing I can say for certain about their actions is that it appears that the only real thing that is wanted is my money.

Shark Inlet said...

Fair point, Mike.

I would hope that elected leaders would be willing to make the right choice in a tough situation. It seems, however, that many of them pander to those they feel beholden to.

The problem with your idea about the CSD implimenting the County's plan is that it wasn't already approved. It had gone through some of the approval process but the process was not complete. If I recall correctly, the CSD did consider quite a variety of sites, including some "out of town" and even the Pismo site where the County had indicated they intended to build the plant.

I share your disappointment with the both boards. I guess that the difference is that you are more frustrated with the first group and I am more frustrated with the second.

I do see the board as being different in one key way. The previous board was willing to bend to the will of the state and this new board doesn't seem to be. This I consider unwise and costly.

Ron said...

Shark said:

"Ron links to a document that shows the likely cost of an Andre site would be higher than TriW."

That's not true. It's just the opposite. Here's the link.

Shark, please be more careful. The last thing your beautiful town needs is more confusion.

Mike said:
"If I could buy one of those toilet gizmos and remove myself from this sordid mess I'd do it in a heartbeat"

Mike, I highly recommend you do that. Get one of the big ones. You know, the kind that are built to accommodate a wheelchair. Then decorate it, if you want, then take a picture of it, then take that picture to small claims court and argue that Pandora Nash-Karner should pay the monthly cost of the "toilet gizmo" for her actions in 1998... even though that was eight years ago, and small claims court only considers cases within the last five years (I believe), the RWQCB is just now figuring out how to fine individual property owners, so you could argue that the consequences of her actions in 1998 are just now affecting you (even though they have been affecting everyone involved in this "sordid mess" for eight years now. The aggregate amount of people-hours consumed by Nash-Karner's marketing efforts in 1998 is mind blowing.)

If you're up for it, I'll draft your argument (and it would be an excellent, air-tight argument) pro-bono.

When you win, then anyone in Los Osos that wanted to stop polluting the groundwater and get the RWQCB off their back could order a "toilet gizmo" and put the cost of said "gizmo" on Nash-Karner.

The hardest part of the argument would be getting around the five-year-limit thing. Arguing that Nash-Karner is responsible for your "gizmo" would be easy, albeit lengthy.

By the way, Ann, I believe the lyrics go a little something like this:

(a 1, a 2, a 1, 2, 3, 4)

Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya
Oh, Oh, Kumbaya

Kind of makes "Why Don't We Do It In the Road" look like "Imagine."

Mike Green said...

Please, please!
Draft it up and post it on: http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/
If there realy is a chance of individual emancipation from this particular aspect of our CSD. I think it would be terrific.
Of course, we could all just sell.

kumbaya ha ha

Shark Inlet said...

Ron, you forget that the MWH memo shows that Andre would likely cost more than TriW ... seems pretty clear to me. It is only with your spin that you conclude that Andre costs more than TriW. MWH says otherwise.

That is without inflation.

Maybe you can give us a document that shows your claim more clearly.

Ron said...

Mike, you got it. I'll draft something up and post it at SewerWatch... it might take a few days. Remember, I'm very lazy.

Hey Shark, does this make it any clearer:

"It appears that moving the site out of town may indeed be cheaper."
-- State Water Board Chief of Financial Assistance, Barbara Evoy, October 24, 2005.

Also, please don't confuse the previous board's deliberate exclusion of multi-millions of dollars of estimated cost from that study so they could low-ball their numbers as me spinning. I didn't spin a thing. I just put one and one together. As a citizen, you should be appreciative that I caught that. You're welcome.

Shark Inlet said...

The problem, Ron, about the "cheaper" out of town site is that it isn't cheaper at all. It is unfair to compare a site that is fully permitted with no lawsuits to one which has yet to go through any part of the permitting process. If an EIR shows some problem, the "Andre" site becomes more expensive ... or impossible. If lawsuits delay construction by, say, 2 years (which would not be unheard of), that is an additional 20% on the costs. In that case, the "Andre" site plant would need to be $30M less than the TriW plant to make the deal a good one.

Ron said...

"The problem, Ron, about the "cheaper" out of town site is that it isn't cheaper at all."
-- Blog lingerer speculating with some numbers, Shark Inlet, January 8, 2006

"It appears that moving the site out of town may indeed be cheaper."
-- State Water Board Chief of Financial Assistance, Barbara Evoy, October 24, 2005

Shark, I actually get a kick out of you, your worn out keyboard, and your calculator, but I think I'll stick with the latter source on this one. I'm sure you understand.

By the way, Mike, I started my small claims argument. As I thought, it's coming out excellent... better than I originally thought.

Damn, this entire story is so rich. I call it "the cheesecake of stories." The Trib really missed out over the past 5-6 years. Too bad for The Trib, and too bad for Los Osos.

Anonymous said...

>>> Roger W. Briggs 10/24/2005 6:26 PM
As far as out of town possibly being cheaper, they need to factor in lots of potential added costs for mitigation (the site would mean crossing over wetlands, possibly a creek with pipelines); probably added O&M for more raw sewage pumping costs; litigation costs (they were significant for the existing site - and you can count on more legal challenges from a variety of parites); land acquisition; sunk cost for existing planning and design which would have to be redone ($); the new Los Osos CSD bid factor (potential bidders will bump up the contingency costs due to the recent history of the CSD and the bidders will be fewer and farther between than they were before); inflation; COstal Commission wild card;,etc.,etc.

>>> Barabara Evoy 10/24/05 5:52 PM
"They ran through different scenarios and penciled them out. Tomorrow they will add detail. It appears that moving the site out of town may indeed be cheaper, but that is without the addition of RB fines, and many of the external costs associated with a move - and without a discussion of what alternative financing may cost."

Shark Inlet said...

Thanks, anonymous.

So, Ron, if you are looking mostly to what the primary sources are saying, we have two quotes here that suggest that the out of town costs are likely more, not less.

When given in context, Barbara's quote says nothing like the more limited version you've given us above. It would seem that you are interested in making the old board out to be the black hats and the new board the guys with the white hats. Why cut one group so much slack when you are clearly quite capable of digging?

Mike Green said...

Sounds like two nieghbors aguing about whose dead parrot could save more money.
"My Crackers was cheaper!"
" My Skeeter nearly paid for himself!"
They are both most likely dead.
You know, "pineing for the fiords" "nailed to the perch"?
If we all don't start looking for reality solutions,
(and that, sadly, leaves out the CSD, The RCWB, The SLO Co. Board of Supervisors, A-Z of Government Entitys And Grover "beach" City)
We will most likely die of old age before this ends.
(maybe the best scenario of all)
Can't wait to read Ron's draft, should be a hoot!
So What should we do now?

Shark Inlet said...

"What should we do now?" Mike asks.

Beats the heck out of me. It would seem that there may only be one realistic option.

Probably the wisest thing to do would be to continue with their plan (presumably they'll tell us their plan at tomorrow's meeting because if they don't give us some details about the plan they claimed to have before the vote in September some people will be more than a bit pissed) to move the plant out of town. Hopefully they'll have already figured out an independent consultant they can hire to compare the various options (including TriW one would hope) so that we can fairly compare the longterm costs of various possibilities. If I remember, Ann and others complained back before the election about the previous board making decisions about the location without asking for our input and without a full and fair comparrison of the options. What would be simply ironic is if this board continues to pretend that Measure B somehow forbids a TriW plant and doesn't bother even telling us the costs of continuing the TriW project.

My question is ... what if we discover through a fair comparrison that the TriW project (as previously designed) would be far less expensive than the likely costs of designing and building a new plant? What if we discover that the key longterm difference in the costs is due primarily to two things, an increased interest rate and due to the costs of a new plant design.

Could this board then admit they had made a mistake? I would hope that they would be the sort who would be able to admit a mistake that is staring them in the face.

That raises questions in my mind, however. Considering Lisa seems to blame everyone but Los Osos and the LOCSD for the woes we seem to be facing nowdays, would this board really be willing to hire an independent consultant who would tell them the truth when comparing the various options?

I'll be watching in the long run and if the ultimate costs are less than $250/month per household I'll be okay with it. If, however, the costs are considerably higher with the out of town plan that eventually gets built than the TriW plan I wonder whether any of the current board members will be willing to admit that those of us who said "we delay we pay" were right?


Nice touch, Mike about the dead parrots. My question about why Ron stripped the context from Barbara's quote is still on the table. If Ron wants to make it sound as if even state officials thought the out of town plant is less expensive, he'll need to find a different quote than Barbara's. I would suggest he look to Darrin Polhemous' testimony before the RWQCB where he told us all that the likely costs of the out of town plant were higher than the TriW costs. Of all people, shouldn't Darrin be the one who knows what the LOCSD suggested they would do for an out of town plant?

Anonymous said...

I gotta say, 'fair' comparisons in these types of situations don't amount to much.

The new board does not have a plan. A plan would consists of an engineering company evaluating alternatives - it has to be funded.

The plan is to litigate. Lisa has pretty much admitted there is no plan. You would think 4 CalTrans employees would recognize revising a project like this will take a couple of years to revise.

Mike Green said...

Dear Sharkey,
Your realistic option is missing only one thing,
Reality
I have no confidence that the CSD can get out of this mess, concidering the consrtaints put on them by the state commissions.
A fair comparison? of ALL the choices?
Not without a court order!
There is too much political turf at stake here.
I'm nearly convinced that it will come down to "every man for himself"
Scofflaw, Pirate, Los Osos forever!

Mike Green said...

P.S.
I'm kind of hurt you guys didn't even comment that I suck or not on Los Osos Views, I know I suck, but I'll get better, I hope, Mike Green

Ron said...

Jeeze... I've got to check in more often. Every once in while I say to my self, "Oh that's right. I posted something on Ann's site. I should check back to see if someone commented" -- and comment they do.

Shark said,
"So, Ron, if you are looking mostly to what the primary sources are saying, we have two quotes here that suggest that the out of town costs are likely more, not less."

At the risk of sounding like one of Mike's parrots (squawk)...

Oh, Sharkster. Please comprehend what Evoy said. It's actually very profound. She said:"It appears that moving the site out of town may indeed be cheaper."

That means two things:
1) It would have been cheaper to build it out of town.
and
2) It could be built out of town.

Here's something that's always bugged me, and I've never seen this written anywhere, and the distinction is CRUCIAL to this entire story. If I'm not mistaken (and if I am, Ann, please correct me on this, because I want to be as tight as possible) but I'm fairly certain that there was only ONE EIR done for the CSD's TWO projects. That means, and this is very, very important, when the initial CSD Board was searching around for potential sites to include in the EIR, they were looking for sites that had to be big enough to accommodate about a 50-acre ponding system and a public park. So, only sites that met that criteria were included for evaluation in the EIR. But when the "better, cheaper, faster" Community Plan understandably flamed out in spectacular fashion, and the footprint of the facility dropped from about 50-acres to about 7-acres, the criteria for site inclusion in the EIR changed dramatically, however, that change was never reflected in the EIR. If it had been, how many additional sites could have been evaluated? Dozens?

If I'm right about all of that (and I admit, I'm not 100-percent sure about the whole "EIR only included potential sites that could accommodate a ponding system" thing), but if I'm right on that, and I think I am, then that was a HUGE F-up, and one that needs to be HIGHLY scrutinized.

The evidence is already overwhelming. There was absolutely no rationale whatsoever for the Tri-W siting in the CSD's second sewer project.

There's no doubt about it, when the Community Plan crashed and burned in 2000, Tri-W should have went with it.

Mike nails it:

"The hard decision that was NOT made was to step back and ADMIT a failure and allow the county to implement the plan that was ALREADY approved."

The Tribune absolutely needs to address that point. Incredibly, to date, they have not, and it is critical, vital to this entire story.

My question now is this: When all of this comes out (and it will come out... it's just a matter of time), will I be eligible for journalism awards?

Ronnie want a cracker.... squawk.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron, you get 2nd place in this race ... Mike gets first.

When the "ponds of Avalon" plan went belly up, the previous CSD could have widened the search and done another study or simply gone with the County plan which was at least as far along as what the CSD had been able to accomplish.

At that point in time the LOCSD made their 2nd really big mistake. (The first is one that you cover well ... that the didn't pay enough attention to the people trying to tell them that the "cheaper" plan they envisioned wasn't going to pass muster. The third was much more recent ... the timing of the election versus the start of construction. I still argue that putting the construction before the election is what caused them to lose.) I would be far happier today had they clearly considered a wider variety of locations. I suspect that many of the anti-sewer and anti-TriW activists would still be complaining about whatever choice the CSD had made, but their complaints would have gotten far less traction with the general audience and the recall would have failed.

If you want to know the really really big CSD mistake it is the stopping of construction right following the election. That stupidity has caused a great amount of pain in our community already and will cause considerably more. If we all had known then what we know now, I suspect that the recall would have failed by 70% to 30% ... Measure B by an even wider margain.

As to your contention that we could build out of town ... Envoy and Katz and everyone at the SWRCB has always told us that we could. They just didn't say that they would fund it. The problem here has been Lisa and Dan's presumption that they could move the plant and keep the SRF. Why not simply pay the state back for the money borrowed and start over. We could then re-apply for a new SRF loan a few years down the road (maybe five) after the plan is approved? The reason is that Lisa and Dan realized that they didn't have the money to even study an out of town site without keeping the SRF construction loan. They wanted to have the state money on false pretenses.

Cheaper? Envoy makes it clear in her expanded quote (as does Polhemous) that it is only "cheaper" in a limited way and that if you consider a more complete picture it isn't cheaper at all.

Nope, had this CSD board wanted to change the plan and move the plant out of town, they could have. It is the way that they have done it that has been the biggest problem. They should have first told us it would cost us big time and asked our permission. They should have warned us that we would be fined. They should have asked for an assessment to get the money needed to design an out of town plant.

Nope, they wanted to have their way and not ask us, the citizens and property owners for our input at all. They figured their only chance of being able to pull off their out of town promise was to cut corners with state money and the state called them on it.

Now we are all pretty much going to pay because of the lack of wisdom of both groups (but mostly the recent group).

Shark Inlet said...

One additional comment ... even though the Trib hasn't published the story about how the Solutions Group messed up and how the original board had an opportunity to change things some 5 years ago, this doesn't necessarily mean that to stop the TriW construction was best for our community. Honestly, even if there were other options that could have been pursued 5 years ago that weren't, the TriW plan was still pretty good. Certainly from the vantage point of 2005, continuing with TriW was arguably far smarter than starting over out of town and adding all sorts of costs (the sort that Barbara was sure to mention: "but that is without ... many of the external costs associated with a move").

Summary: the sins of the previous board do not justify further sins by this board.

Churadogs said...

Mr. Inlet forgets history. If the recalled Three had waitied to spend the SRF loan until AFTER the election, it would not have been necessary to STOP work because work wouldn't have been STARTED and not a penny of the money would have been spent. The citizens could then have voted, and if they wanted another site, the money wouldn't have to be "given back" because it wouldn't have arrived in the first place. Inlet forgets that the mess we're in today is because the recalled Three started pounding money into the ground, money that is not recoverable, BEFORE the people could even vote.

Shark Inlet said...

Ms. Calhoun forgets to check her math.

The new out of town site is more expensive than TriW, period. Even if there hadn't been money spent on TriW construction before the election (a mistake) the conclusion would be the same, to start all over will require spending money on a new design, new EIR, new permitting costs, new legal costs and more time. When you consider that time is money here (especially with respect to inflation) it is clear that "Andre" or any of these possible alternatives will cost us more.

Let's wait until WilDan (oh yeah, they can't do it, we have to delay things a bit more and hire someone else) confirms this and then ask ourselves ... "why did we stop TriW, the cheapest possible project?"

Anonymous said...

Because it is the stupidest most irresponsible site possible, & is reason #1 why the PREVIOUS BOARD WAS RECALLED!! Damn I take a hiatus & what do I come back to?
Inlet's tired old prognostications, "calculations", & pure BS. At least there is some progress: an admisssion that the saintly martyred trio actually made some tiny eensy little mistakes. Of course nothing compared to the lying subhumans who occupy, without any community support, the now expendable LOCSD. AAARGGH!!!
Hypocrites & Sycophants..."Oh great & powerful water Gods fine us out of existence as only your edict matters"...next to the agendas of big builders & their cronies of course.

Shark Inlet said...

If you had been here since September, Dogpatch, you would know that I am far more reasonable than the "Dreamers" and far more reasonable than those who would support moving the sewer, "no matter how much it costs."

I am sorry that you find calculations to be BS. If you don't agree you have every opportunity based on what I've posted here time and again to argue with each and every assumption I've made and to re-calculate to your heart's content. You have the opportunity to actually show how an out of town plant could actually be less expensive for us in a way that matters ... what we'll individually be paying over the long haul. Ron is pretty good but seems to keep neglecting to include very real costs of an out of town plant like the cost designing one and the cost of inflation and the very real cost of a higher interest rate.

Just becuase the new board came into power because the previous board was voted out doesn't mean the new board has to do something they presume the majority would have wanted on Sep 27. What about what the majority today would want? I strongly suspect that most thesedays would prefer TriW and the previous board's plan to what we're likely facing now. As a point of fact, in casual conversation I've talked with some 15 people who said they voted for the recall and a full 10 of them say that they now regret their votes ... shoot, if even 5% of those who voted for the recall were to now have changed their minds, this board now represents a minority of us who voted.

I'm sorry ... I slipped ... that was a calculation and you don't like them.

Sorry to intrude on your dreamworld with a rude awakening. You may go back to sleep now and dream of free sewers and fancy ponds.

Anonymous said...

>>Just becuase the new board came into power because the previous board was voted out doesn't mean the new board has to do something they presume the majority would have wanted on Sep 27. What about what the majority today would want? I strongly suspect that most thesedays would prefer TriW and the previous board's plan to what we're likely facing now. As a point of fact, in casual conversation I've talked with some 15 people who said they voted for the recall and a full 10 of them say that they now regret their votes ... shoot, if even 5% of those who voted for the recall were to now have changed their minds, this board now represents a minority of us who voted.<<
And I'm asleep in a dream world??
Calculations are often specious, Estimates are always wrong. Your "reasonable" is anything but & you should change your moniker from that beautiful piece of estuary , which you probably don't know a damn thing about & change it to "Centrifuge" or "Brown Recluse" or "Pinwheel". You spin like sin & you do it because you are afraid of what these blogs represent. This board has of strong support in this community & that deserves respect. They & Ann & Ron & Blakslee & Belsky & anyone working for real money or volunteering or devoting endless hours of their lives to rid this community of this boondoggle deserves respect & support. They have it from MANY here. Deservedly so, this is real Grassroots, David Vs. Goliath stuff. Yet there you are constantly railing away, waving your hands in the air, trying to bully, trying to obscure good efforts with your tripe and disdain. Go send Briggs a fan letter.

Shark Inlet said...

Again, if you think my numbers unreasonable, you should propose your own that you think more reasonable. If you are interested in a discussion of substance or are willing to do a bit of work an think through the numbers I've proposed or even to sugggest your own, I'll be waiting.

Otherwise, all the best to you ...

Churadogs said...

To all out there with your little calculators: The point I've been trying to make is this: We don't know what Tri W would have cost because the numbers were either missing or fudged. For example, the previous Board claimed that they saved, what? $5 million by buying sludge pressing machinery that would result in wetter sludge. Yay! Saved five mil? you say? Uh, no. Since transporting wet sludge would cost MORE, I emailed Gordon and asked, Uh, aren't you going to eat up that five-mil "savings" in higher transportation costs and his answer was, Yes, that's right. So what they did was move a capital cost over to the O&M side and then announce a SAVINGS! Which of course, made one side of the ledger look better but the real-world result would simply remove the same amount of money but take it out of another pocket.

As for deferred costs, we still have absolutely NO IDEA what importing water will cost, or the cost of Ag exchange and/or a dewatering pipe up the valley (both recommended in Cleath & Assoc reports) Ag exchange was NEVER penciled out, per Bruce Buel.

And so it goes. Inlet keeps maintaining that Tri W costs X amount. It doesn't and didn't and won't. Since you don't know the real costs of X, you can't say Y is "more" or "less," at this point. What's needed, what was needed all along, is a genuine, real, truthful, honest comparison, including long term O&M&R costs between the two projects. That went missing from day one.

For some reason, Inlet doesn't seem to understand this. And so he keeps running numbers that of necessity because of missing information, may be entertaining and fun but which are ultimately meaningless.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

Give it a break - Shark provides a forum for making a cost based decision - respond to him with a reasonable estimate. That's your style of prose that you do - it's your schtick that all you do is ask questions - fine, but it's a form of advocacy that just creates paralysis to solve a problem.

NOT having a treatment plant for another 5-10 years or more means MORE state water SOONER, would be required to meet water demands than without the old project. Example, with the Tri-W plant it was projected to import about 200 acre-feet, PLUS it did not preclude the use of harvest wells for additional water and ag exchange that could have ELIMINATED the need for state water. YES, that would have added more deferred cost for ag exchange. EVERY major project has deferred cost - get over it. If another project comes up, it WILL have deferred costs, because that's how projects get done.

Furthermore, really significant water conservation may have precluded the need for importing state water (except for full build-out) with the old project.

It's one thing to complain about the cost of Tri-W, that's valid. It's another to miscontrue a major project simply by making partial or unfounded assertions, that are not backed up.

Sharks's calculations are not meaningless, they are very meaningful because they provide an approach that is used to asses risk in an imperfect world where one can NEVER have all the available information one would really like when one needs to make a timely decision.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

You forget that during the November meeting when Lisa complained for an hour (with powerpoint) about the lack of negotiations during the "negotiations" she did a short bit on the longterm saving on O&M with an out of town system (ponding of some sort, I believe) veruss TriW. At that time I took out my calculator and figured that it was a $10/month savings she was claiming. Are you telling us that you know of some magic additional excess costs of the TriW plant that Lisa, Rob, Dan and Darrin don't know about? I would like to believe (at least when it is convient to me for the sake of argument) that Lisa has a pretty good understanding of all of of the defficiencies of the TriW plan.

What you are asking us to believe is that we'll save more on O&M by moving the plant out of town than we'll pay in increased design inflatin costs (let alone the interest rate which, while huge, I'll grant you for the moment). I don't have time now to "run the numbers" on this question but you could and you could show us your conclusions. Go for it. If you are willing to wait a while, I'm sure that I'll be able to get to it by the end of the long weekend.

The primary reason for ag exchange, as I understand it, is to deal with the saltwater intrusion and nitrate issues. The TriW plan was designed to deal with those issues (while you may disagree that it would have done so effectively, you've not offered evidence that there were flaws) so why should Bruce price out an expensive system that shouldn't be needed? I don't get it, it seems like TriW foes keep grasping at straws here, trying to find all the things that were not fully studied to death by minutiae and then claim the previous board was incompetant for taking action before getting all the facts. What about this board? Didn't they take quick and decisive action (stopping the project) before they had even studied the alternatives carefully? They didn't really have full knowledge of the costs of an out of town plant before they committed to one. That is even worse than what they are complaining the previous board did.

So, if the longterm TriW plant doesn't cost about $205/month, maybe it costs $230/month ... so what? If you want to give specific numbers, do some research and tell us what you think the costs would have been. The key here is that this board has committed to an out of town plan that would save us some $10/month on O&M but we'll have to pay at least $50/month more in design and inflation costs to obtain that $10/month savings. Stupid!

Furthermore, it can be argued that if saltwater intrusion is serious (and it is) that delaying a solution by 5-10 years is downright criminal. This board, in their pursuit of the "ideal" and "best" solution is willing take a pretty high chance that we'll lose so much of our drinking water that we'll be forced into taking state water. By the way, if we do that, developers won't be far behind.

I understand more than most people that it is important to try a cost comparrison. That is why I've been one of the few people who has even tried to work with excel and figures reported in the newspaper and by Lisa to figure out whether there really is some chance of saving money. What I find frustrating is that while you criticize my ameture attempts, you've not botherd to try yourself and you've not been unable to come up with any specifics assumptions I've made which you think to be unreasonable. Work with me and we can explore the issue together. Argue with me and look lke a pigheaded "move the sewer, no matter how much it costs" flack. You have a choice.

Anonymous said...

Inlet calling Ann a "Flack". Works telling her to "give it up". Hah. That is funny. Soft science supporters. Pious projection pimps. Bad policy apologists.
Project cost only counts in dollars.
Obey the edict. Ignore the vote. Ridicule dissenters. Attack them when they gain power with the ballot. Disrespect & expect to be respected. I repeat: THEY FEAR THESE BLOGS BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY REPRESENT. The political landscape is changing. Successful recall elections happen how often?? Someone have that calculation handy? Here's a formula: Lawyer time = Discovery Time. I calculate that we will have much clearer picture when the truth("we smell sewer rats")of this Boondoggle's development sees the light of day in court.
By the way, Piracy was often seen as a revolutionary act, based not just as reaction to poverty, but in reaction to the precieved criminality of the State.

Shark Inlet said...

I've not called Ann a "Flack".

I wrote that she could choose to be viewed that way if she wants to. Big difference.

As to you, how do you want to be viewed?

Churadogs said...

Let me see if I can try this again. The Tri W site was presented to folks with a "price tag." When the anti-Tri-W'ers countered that an out of town site would be either less expensive or would offer more bang for the buck, they had to have based their price comparisons on the price given for Tri W since they didn't have any other numbers to go on since the deferred costs and hidden costs and not-yet-penciled-out costs were UNKNOWN. Not even Bruce Buel would make even a "guestimate" as to the cost of importing state water. So, please explain to me how anyone can compare prices when you don't know the price of whatever you're comparing? If you make figures up then you can compare made up figures, but can you then claim them as "fact."

As for the Tri W site and sea water intrusion, Mr. Harris from Cleath & Associates said, at the original meeting where they presented their first report, "the (Tri-W)sewer plant won't cure salt water intrusion." That is a direct quote. As for "curing" the nitrate issue, that would take years and years in hopes that eventually the mound of treated, de-watered and treated again, then discharged at Broterson etc. water would eventually make its way down to the lower aquifer (The guestimate was that about 10% would get there) and thatthe blending of the upper and lower waters for consumption could reduce the lower aquifer's drawdown. (By the way, only now is Cleath & Assocaites studying the Title 22 "bad stuff" that may or may not be found in the upper aquifer, a stunning example of putting the cart before the horse: Building a system that depended on use of upper aquifer water as a drinking source BEFORE testing the water to see if there was "bad stuff" in it.

As for a direct ag exchange pipe, that would be useful for stopping the immediate drawdown of the lower aquifer: build a pipe to suck out nitrate-laden upper aquifer water and ship it to the farmers and in exchange they stop pumping clean lower aquifer water under their land and send that down another pipe back to Los Osos. Straight exchange. Cost of doing this? Unknown because it was never penciled out. Possibility of doing this IF the new report finds "bad stuff" in the upper aquifer, not just nitrates? Unknown. Will Cleath & Assoc look into this? Since that was in their list of recommendations, it may come up for consideration.

As for my asking you to believe something, I'm not asking you to believe anything. I have been asking for honest numbers, correct numbers, fair assessments and a chance for the voters to decide -- based on truthful information, complete information -- what sewer plant they wanted to buy. That did not come to pass with the old Board. Will that come to pass with the New Board and their new project report and comparisons? We'll see.

Anonymous said...

Geez Ann, nice try. We do know a lot of information about prices, and we can make choices.

Just because Cleath said the project didn't 'cure' seawater intrusion, does not mean it was not beneficial to stem seawater intrusion - nice twisting of information there. The fact is the old project helped to stem seawater intrusion as oppposed to no project and no WORSE than a project out of town. This is because the old project had a provision for ag exchange - just like a new project. You either pump raw sewage out of town and pay for more piping, or you pump aquifer water out of town and pay for piping. Los Osos is going to pay for piping out of town, NO MATTER WHAT.

ACCORDING TO CLEATH, Broderson provided the best site for disposal, and the upper aquifer provides the highest source of re-charge into the lower.

You're willing to take the risk that it's better to wait 5-10 years with all the ramifications of not taking action. Shark is willing to take the risk of some deferred cost, because he knows he's beginning to stem the problem now, and history tells him that waiting will make the problem get worse.

Also, maybe you weren't listening when the Cleath report was given. It was asked about the constituents in the upper aquifer. The response from the Cleath rep was that he was not concerned about it. Listen to the tape.

This is what I think. About 25% of this town simply want to take whatever court action can possibly be taken to use every possible challenge to somehow hope and get by with septic tanks alone.

And I think that when these court challenges fail, the legal bills will probably hit about $2 million, there will be no project, and there will be no one left to blame but yourself.

But I'm sure you'll still have a lot of questions left for all your readers then.

Anonymous said...

Inlet, as far as how you or the other hardcore apologists for the legally and democratically deposed regime view me. View me hindermost. Here's what I think, 3% of this town can't stand the fact that a corrupt, co-opted, & incompetent 7 year farce has come to an end. They still have big money cronyism behind them. Greed, fear, and OLD misinformation are still their fuel. $165+million worth of "could be beneficial" my ass.
One more time just for yucks, cuz it is obviously impossible for core dReamers to comphrend this truth: It is NOT "no sewer", it is, rather, NOT THIS BOONDOGGLE!

Churadogs said...

Jeeze, I get the feeling that Publicworks thinks I'M responsible for this train wreck. And here I thought I was just a small-town, ink-stained scribbler. Who knew? Bet you folks had NO IDEA of my POWER, heee-heee-heee, my pretties! I'll get you AND your little dog.

Apparently the CSD is concerned about what's in the upper aquifer because they've asked Cleath & Assoc to test it. I hope it comes up clean now and clean enough to be ahead of the increasingly stringent Federal regs.That would be really good news.

As for Publicworks estimates of what this town wants, First of all about 30% didn't bother to vote. So that leave 60% who did. Since it was a close election, let's say we're dealing with about a 30-30 split. I find it implausable that 25% of the community wants to stick with septics tanks, as Publicworks speculates. I think what you can say is about slightly over 30% of the community didn't want a sewer plant at Tri W at the cost that it was guestimated to be. And from what I heard during public comment during the Oct 30 meeting, I would guess that some of the anti-recallers, who weren't "married to the site" would also prefer an out of town site if it could be done cheaper or at leat not more expensive. So, saying 25% of the town only wants septics, just doesn't ring true to me.

And as for my continuing to ask questions. Yep. I'll do that, thanks.

Churadogs said...

Gosh, Publicworks thinks I'm to blame for this train wreck? Nobody to blame but myself? And here I just thought I was a small-town ink-stained scribbler. You had no idea of my POWER, did you? Heee-heee-heee, I'll get you AND your little dog my pretties!

Anonymous said...

Ann, I can see why you're a writer - you specialize in twisting words! I never said nor do I think you're responsible - other than if you voted for the original Solutions Group along with the rest of the gullible crowd back then. You're questions are actually quite important.

I think I'm pretty accurate on the percentages. It's one thing to say you want a sewer. Of course, 98% 'want' a sewer in the abstract. But the question is, if you have to pay $150/200/250 a month for a sewer, do you want one? That's where my estimate comes from, and it's likely pretty darn close.

And to think I envisioned you more as Dorothy :).

Shark Inlet said...

It seems that while I was busy, publicworks was able to respond effectively to Ann's points. Probably far better than I could.

If I had replied my key points would have been that Ann seems to want continued pollution for quite a while (most would say it will be at least five years before any "out of town" construction could start) so that we can get a better plan than TriW. I would suggest that each additional year of delay puts about 450M gallons of effluent directly into the ground in the prohibition zone and that it would take many many years of "perfect" versus "very good" to make up for about 5 years of "no treatment" at all.

She would also argue that because we cannot know every aspect of the actual TriW costs (some are deferred) we cannot know whether a new out of town plant would be more expensive or not. (Funny, she was pretty quick to point out that there would be savings for the out of town plant when Ron claimed there would be or that we would be saving on energy costs for the out of town location when Lisa told us we would be but she's not too willing to admit that inflation and lawsuits and the costs to design a new plant will raise the bill.)

In any case, Dogpatch raises a few interesting points ... first, it is sort of silly to call me a hardcore apologist for anything, let alone the previous CSD. The current board was elected and most of them during a recall election. About 2/3 of the people I know who voted for this group (and that is a whole lot of people) now says that they regret their vote because of what has happened since the election. I know that they've done pretty much what they've said they would do but most of their supporters (at least those who supported them during the election) that I talk with say that they felt they were lied to, that they were promised not to lose the SRF and that we would not be fined and that the RWQCB could not go after individual homeowners.

I would suggest that if the election were held today, the majority would vote against Measure B and the recall. I would suggest that (for better or worse), if the CSD doesn't change quickly and show some definite progress, they'll face a dissolution movement and I think there is a good chance they'll lose unless they can show their plan will cost us less than whatever the County could likely do for us.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey sez.
"I would suggest that if the election were held today, the majority would vote against Measure B and the recall".
Damn you Sharkey, It's going to take a whole roll of paper towels to clean my monitor of the spew , note to self, dont drink beer and read Sharkey at the same time!,
Would we be here today if we could have "unvoted" five years ago?

Anonymous said...

Here, here, Absolutely Mike,

Knowing what I know now.....In 1976 I would've moved to Ohio and voted for Gerald Ford to swing the election and the Russians would not have invaded Afghanistan, and the World Trade Center would still be standing, and we would have won lots of Gold Medals in 1980 and Mary Lou Rheton would've been an also-ran Silver in 1984, and we wouldn't have to have seen Leonard Breznev kissing Carter (oooouuuhhh), and George Bush would've gotten stuck as the head of the CIA for two decades, and George W. would have been spared weekly ridicule on Saturday Night Live.

Voters remorse is defined in the medical dictionary as: an addictive illness defined by interminable 20-20 hindsight, and suspected of being caused by an unidentified virus with an extraordinary number of diagnosed cases in a small area of California's Central Coast.

Shark Inlet said...

I am not trying to suggest that we should be allowed to go back and re-vote but that those who keep saying "but the majority wants to move the plant" should re-phrase themselves "but the majority on Sep 27 wanted to move the plant if it wouldn't cost any more."

Mike Green said...

The majority said "We like your story better".
Thats the only choice anybody was given.
The individual voter has almost NO SAY in what realy happens.
People base their votes on the published voter pamplets and experience.
It's not a perfect, (or in this case, a very good) system, but it's the only one we got.
(Sharkey for King Of Los Osos! problems solved!)

Mike Green said...

Or Queen (I do not know if Sharkey is a him or her)

Churadogs said...

Sorry, but I think I'll have to claim the crown. Public works wrote, "I think that when these court challenges fail, the legal bills will probably hit $2 million, there will be no project and there will be no one to blame but yourself." (meaning me)

I responded with surprise that I didn't know I had such power -- NO ONE TO BLAME BUT ME??? -- Public Works then claimed I was twisitng his words. But there it is, No one to blame but[yourself], NO ONE, so clearly the power, Bwa-hahahahh, my pretties, resides in MOI! So, gimme that crown!

Anonymous said...

You got me, chura -- but as a writer, I still would have not expected you to take it so literally (only your portion of the blame for your vote).
You win one months free wastewater fees for your scribing.

God Save the Queen.

Shark Inlet said...

Oh, I don't know. I think that Ann should get credit or blame for everything that happens in Los Osos. Shoot, just the other day I was at Carlocks and they were out of old-fashioned donuts. Ann should have prevented that!

Seriously, I think that publicworks was writing to the greater Los Osos audience when he wrote "there will be no one to blame but yourself." At least that is how I took it.

Mike Green said...

Lets have a vote! Who should be Queen of Los Osos?

Churadogs said...

Dear Inlet, Oh-oh, sorry about that. Old fashioned donuts are my favorite, too, so I ATE THEM ALL UP. Bwa-hahahahahah my pretties, AND I gave some to your little dog, too.

Ron said...

PublicWorks said:

"I think that when these court challenges fail, the legal bills will probably hit $2 million, there will be no project and there will be no one to blame but yourself."

Hey! What about me??? Helloooo.

Wow, you guys are clever and funny:

Mike Green said:

"Damn you Sharkey, It's going to take a whole roll of paper towels to clean my monitor of the spew, note to self, dont drink beer and read Sharkey at the same time!"

Note to self, don't drink coffee and read MG at the same time. Where are my paper towels?

In response to Shark's regrettable line:

"I would suggest that if the election were held today, the majority would vote against Measure B and the recall".

PublicWorks said:

"Knowing what I know now.....In 1976 I would've moved to Ohio and voted for Gerald Ford to swing the election and the Russians would not have invaded Afghanistan, and the World Trade Center would still be standing, and we would have won lots of Gold Medals in 1980 and Mary Lou Rheton would've been an also-ran Silver in 1984, and we wouldn't have to have seen Leonard Breznev kissing Carter (oooouuuhhh), and George Bush would've gotten stuck as the head of the CIA for two decades, and George W. would have been spared weekly ridicule on Saturday Night Live."

That is so good.

I would suggest that if the 49ers had Peyton Manning, Steve Smith, Dwight Freeny, Shawn Alexander, and Bob Sanders, they would win more games.

Dogpatch said:

"This board has of strong support in this community & that deserves respect. They & Ann & Ron & Blakslee & Belsky & anyone working for real money or volunteering or devoting endless hours of their lives to rid this community of this boondoggle deserves respect & support. They have it from MANY here."

I can't tell you how much that means to me. I may not live out there, but I covered your quirky and beautiful community as a reporter and an editor throughout the 1990s, and I love Los Osos. Where are those paper towels? I'm misting up here.

Anonymous said...

Ron,

You are absolutely WAY off base. If the 49rs had Manning, they'd chock in the playoffs EVERY year.

Mike Green said...

If the 49ers used their cheerleaders as linemen they would win more games

Hey Ron, hows the draft going?