Pages

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA
for February 15, 06 Septic Flu in Sewerville

Verdict First, Evidence later! Then it’s Hi-Yo, Silver, Awaaaaay!

Oh, dear, Roger Briggs, Executive Officer of the Regional NON-Water Quality Control Board, has hopped on his hobby horse and is galloping off into an extraordinarily embarrassing folly.

Roger has targeted 50 random people in the community with Cease & Desist Orders (CDO’s) requiring that they pump their septic tanks 6 times a year. Random? That’s like the Minister of Healthiness of Kloppkovnia declaring there’s an outbreak of avian flu, which he will “fix” by shooting 50 random ducks. Nevermind that the ducks don’t have avian flu, or even come from a province of Kloppkovnia that has avian flu in it. Nope, fifty random ducks will do the trick. And when they’re dead, our Minister of Healthiness will go shoot fifty more random ducks. See? Problem solved.

Don’t laugh, yet. It gets worse. Mr. Briggs stated in the Tribune that this pumping “will decrease the amount of suspected nitrate pollution from each tank by 22 percent.” There are and will be no studies or evidence presented to back up that claim. Weirder still, it’s not the nitrogen in the tank that’s of concern; it’s the total nitrogen load in pounds throughout the basin that should be the legal concern of the RWQCB. Randomly targeting tanks instead of focusing in on a coherent plan to deal with known high groundwater “hot spots” simply makes no sense as “science.”

As “politics,” however, conflation between the issuance of the CDO’s, guaranteed to scare the wits out of people, and the official start of the petition campaign to dissolve the CSD was an interesting piece of work, causing some suspicious minds to wonder, did a few someones in the community perhaps place a few untraceable phone calls here and there? Or was the conflation purest coincidence?

Well, divide and conquer is an old political tactic and frightened people may not stop to think that CDO’s and Dissolution Petitions will have absolutely no effect on each other. But it’s the illusion of “safety” that’s undoubtedly a critical selling point on the part of the Dissolvers and signers alike.

Ironically, the very CSD they wish to dissolve recently passed a resolution that they will be filing as an “Interested Party,” (boy, are they “interested”). The staff has already met with their counterparts at RWQCB to begin looking at some coherent, scientifically sound alternatives to reduce the nitrate load, a measure that may allow the Regional Board itself to come to their senses and replace Briggs’ Mad Scheme with a solution that would actually deliver more bang for the buck. In addition, the CSD will be doing everything they legally can to stand by The Los Osos Fifty, as well as the rest of the citizens as they come under the gun, while various folks throughout “The County” are already on record as wanting nothing to do with the beleaguered Citizens of Sewerville.

But, beyond the irony of politics, here’s the real folly in Briggs’ plan: Properly functioning septics should only need pumping every 3 -5 years. Pumping 6 times a year will simply harvest waste WATER. Since Mr. Briggs intends to target the entire prohibition zone, assume the average septic tank holds 1,000 gallons of wasteWATER. Multiply that by 4,000 homes and 6 times a year and you will see that the ultimate effect of this mad scheme will be the removal of 24 million gallons of WATER from our aquifer, WATER that will be transported to another county (Santa Maria) and dumped.

Right now, our lower aquifer is in serious overdraft and in danger from increasing salt water intrusion. Our upper aquifer is carrying an average nitrate load slightly higher than state allowed standards, a problem which will slowly be solved when the new sewer is built. But even with nitrates in it, the water is still in our aquifer. Transporting that water to Santa Maria removes it forever.

If you’re wondering where the “science” in all this is, you’ll have to wonder away. Most of the community would probably agree with CSD Director Cesena’s waggish comment that what we’re looking at here is political science. And that kind of science is what the Regional Water Quality Control Board is specifically forbidden to engage in.

I know, I know. Now you can laugh.

21 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

The best I can figure is that you don't believe the state should have any authority to regulate discharges from septics or that you don't believe they should have the ability to enforce discharge requirements.

Churadogs said...

I think what I'm saying is that I have NO confidence that the RWQCB knows what they're doing, and after last night's "informational" meeting that lack of confidence increased 10-fold. Yikes!

Anonymous said...

What she saying is why should we allow them to make our situation worse? Come on don't act like a bunch of sheep who are scared of those hypocrites! Water quality my arse!

Shark Inlet said...

The question here about whether the water leaving the system is good or bad depends on how much of the aquifer recharge is due to rainfall and how much is from ... um ... our sewage.

If 90% is from rainfall and 10% from us, and if pumping six times per year eliminates 20% of the human input, pumping would be good for the environment. Approximately 20% lower nitrates heading into the system but at a cost of only 2% of the input to the system.

If our aquifer is half filled by rainfall and half by way of the toilet, clearly such pumping would be a huge mistake.

The fact that we are in overdraft isn't really relevant to the RWQCB. We could always choose to conserve more water and balance that out. If you get a speeding ticket, does the judge care if you've already chosen to spend your last dollar on a fancy dinner? Nope, she'll impose the fine even so.



To What The Hell ...

If a mother commits a crime and the crime merits a prison term ... don't the kids pay a penalty too? Do you really think that a felon should be able to avoid prison time just because she has kids? The situation is entirely of our making. The RWQCB is just using the enforcement tools they've been told to use to (hopefully) keep us on track. If we choose to not listen to their gentle discipline, we'll make it worse. Wait until 2010 if you don't believe me about worse.

To Ann ...

I don't have confidence that the RWQCB is doing the "perfect" thing ... but they certainly have chosen to take action. There will be more randomly sampled properties every month or so until the entire prohibition zone is covered by red flags. What troubles me most about this entire discussion is your attitude that the LOCSD and the residents should be given even more time to start over yet again. Did the informational meeting at the RWQCB contain more or less information than a typical LOCSD meeting, complete with an hour of propaganda, blaming the current situation on everyone but the CSD board?


Might I remind you all, however, that had this board not stopped the TriW construction, we wouldn't even need to be worrying about this issue. As a group, far too many Los Osos residents seem to point the finger (haha) at the RWQCB all the while cheering on the actions of the LOCSD board to continue pollution.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey,
Common sense tells me that houses built closer to the aquifer will have a much higher nitrate load to that aquifer than say houses built on hundreds of feet of sand.
Do you think that is something that should have been concidered by the "Water Gods" when choosing the "Doomed 45"?
Or do you think the "Random shock and awe" Is a political ploy to incite panic?

Anonymous said...

Hey Sharkey,
If the RWQB told you to crap in your pants and walk it to Santa Maria twice a day, what would you do?

Mike Green said...

HOO BOY! Feb 15th Bay Snooze,
The Disolvers File their petition!
I just can't wait to hear what the County Board of Supervisors has to say about that! Heloooooo!
Remember Us?
We're Back!

Ron said...

Dearest Sharketh,

I'll give ya a week.

You said (in comments from Ann's last post):

"(Ron) cites the poll taken by the CSD in 2001 as showing that the citizens weren't wanting a park at the TriW location. A careful reading of the wording suggests that this is not a reasonable conclusion. Similarly, I've dug up CCC documents that seem to disagree with the "facts" that Ron has cited."

Hmmmm, "... citizens weren't wanting a park at the Tri-W location..." Uhhh. That's a gut blow.

Shark, please don't take this the wrong way, but how stupid are you? In all the writing I've done on this subject, I have never said that. Once! In fact, I think a park at that location is a great idea (as long as Los Osos wants to pay for it), just without an industrial sized sewer plant jammed in the middle of it.

So, now that I've cleared that up, I'm sure you'll understand, and I'm kind of sorry for, that whole "stupid" remark.

What I have been saying for almost two years now, is that there was never a "strongly held community value" to include a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant and then have that park dictate an expensive, environmentally sensitive, highly controversial, downtown location for said sewer plant. Obviously! I mean, c'mon, think about it.

Shark, please post your "CCC documents" here that show that "strongly held community value." I've been looking two years for that "value," and everything I find shows the exact opposite, so thank God you've finally found some documents that show that "value" actually exists. Can't wait to see 'em.

So, you've got a week. Post them here. I'll check back.

By the way, in case you've forgotten, the County's got two sets of "free blueprints."

Shark Inlet said...

Mike,

I think that the reason they adopted random is that it is arguably more fair than attempting to pick the most likely polluters 1st. The reason is that one could always argue that they shouldn't have been in a later round ... that there isn't scientific proof that they are actually doing more damage, etc. With a straightforward random sample, no such argument could be made because there was no attempt by the RWQCB to put people in order. Sort of like the CHP goes after all speeders and will eventually ticket them all rather than the CHP hunting down the 100 worst offenders 1st and the next hundred next month. When you consider that they'll pretty much have sent out CnD notices to everyone within a year or so, it doesn't really matter too much whether you're in the 1st, 2nd or 10th group ... you're still on the hook.

Personally, I would have preferred a hybrid approach with randomness being used but the chance of being included in the sample based on factors such as estimated distance to groundwater. With this approach, the whole town would still be filled in with red flags ... but the more problematic areas filled in sooner. There would still be the benefit of randomness, however ... no one could argue that they were "targeted" for any reason.

Shark Inlet said...

Hey anonymous,

If the LOCSD told you to write a monthly check for $200 for no good reason whatsoever every month for the next several years and then told you you would have to pay a higher sewer bill than was absolutely necessary, again for no good reason other than to satisfy their personal pride, would you be happy to do it?

Oh yeah ... they did and you seem to like it.

Pardon me if I complain about waste and stupidity in government.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

Perhaps I misunderstood when you wrote on your blog "That great evidence is the CSD's own 2001, $28,000 public opinion survey that showed almost zero support, obviously and reasonably, for the idea of including a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant and then have that park dictate a very expensive, highly controversial, environmentally sensitive downtown location." Sorry.

To quote someone else relevant to this discussion, "For those of us that are stupid, would you please explain (your point) slowly?"

You may be right that the community didn't really want a park at TriW, especially if the plant wasn't a fancy ponding system. However, you keep saying that the key reason TriW was chosen was because of the park. The CSD documents at the time show that this was only part of the decision ... that if there were two sites which were tied in every way, that the site which would provide for public recreation should be preferred. You seem to be arguing that this should have not played any role in the decision at all. So, let me ask you ... which site would the CSD have chosen had the park not played any role at all?

Your argument is a good one ... if you can show that another site would have been chosen. So, why don't you dig up that matrix of benefits and drawbacks and show us which site should have been chosen based on information available in 2000? Bruce and the previous CSD have been pretty clear. They said that even without the park, TriW would have been chosen.

As to the CCC documents that seem to contradict your claims ... I already spent the time to dig them up and post direct links to them on your blog right before you turned the comments off. I'm still sort of pissed that right after I put an hour into finding them and writing up those comments that you decided you didn't want anyone to read any of the comments people had made. Can you retrieve those comments? I would rather not have to do the same thing for you twice just because of a choice you made. (This is much like being asked to re-submit one's homework assignment to a professor who lost the 1st assignment.)

If you can't recover my comments in your blog (even by temporarily turning comments back on to see what I wrote, making a copy then turning them back off), I'll be able to get those links for you again, but not necessarily within a week. Considering I've already done the job for you once, it seems a bit much for you to ask me to work on your time schedule. If you want to find the documents, you can use google's advanced search. Perhaps if you search for pdf documents at the CCC website that have the words "andre" and "Los Osos" you will be able to find them. One key point from those is that the CCC three times rejected the CCLO claim that the LOCSD lied to the CCC about the site selection.

Parting shot ... the County plan for a WWTF at Pismo is outdated and would need some considerable work to fix it up compared to the TriW plan which is ready to go. Certainly less work than to put a plant at Andre, however.

Let me know if you can figure out how to dig up my earlier comments in your blog or not.

Ball's back in your court.

Churadogs said...

To go back to Inlet's first comment at the start of this run. What concerns me ever since reading it is this: If Inlet's precis accurately describes what he thinks was the point of my column, or accurately reflects how he read and understood what I was saying, then we've got a real problem here. Inlet's precis is so far off the mark that I've had to seriously question whether Inlet is capable of reading and understanding what I've written. I refered to this before. I often wondered if your remarks were intended to be taken seriously or if you were all pulling our legs. Too often they distort and twist what was actually said. I've thought that distortion was deliberate, but now I'm beginning to wonder if it's not a comprehension problem, a difficulty in reading the comprehending correctly what you've read. I've seen it so often in these dialogues and discussions. Person X will say X and Inlet paraphrases the comment but it comes out as Y. Then there's a whole lot of, But I never said that. And so forth. So, maybe, readers might be warned that Inlet's information processing is either deliberately off the mark (that would require malice and I'm not ready to go there at all) or a genuine comprehension problem. Either way, caveat lector may be in order. Of course, caveat lector is always in order anytime.

Shark Inlet said...

What the hell...

I'm talking about the Solutions Group and especially the current board.

As someone (here?) said recently ... we cannot change the past. The Solutions Group board has been voted out. If I focus my complaints on them and their choices it won't change anything. (Besides that, I think they learned quite a lot during their first three years ... among other things, they learned that you can't fight the state government and win unless the law is on your side.)

However, this current board might learn from complaints about what they are doing and make some changes in their direction. For example, perhaps they'll become convinced that TriW should be included in any comparison of sites and technologies because it might save money to do so.

On another note, the new board provides such a wealth of material. Pity that Ann doesn't mine for the gold anymore ... it's easy work.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

You got me. I was just being snippy and I apologize. I figured the snippy remark was funny. Probably it wasn't. What took you so long to call me on it?

Typically I err on the side of being far too serious. Perhaps it is because I am not very successful when trying to be funny with my writing. With the spoken word I am sure that there are many who think I am unfunny as well.

The serious point I was trying to make is that you seem to keep complaining that the RWQCB is just doing things wrong from your point of view. The problem is that you've not really suggested how they should take the enforcement action they feel compelled to take.

Churadogs said...

Dear Inlet, I have called you on it before. I wondered then if it were an ADD problem or some such. Or whether you were deliberately going off mark for fun or to deliberately get a rise out of people you were deliberately misquoting and such like.

Well, "humor's" hard to do well and often gets misunderstood. so does "snippy" especially when it so badly represents what someone has said.

Well, I'll say it again to all who blog on the blog: Caveat Lector.

Shark Inlet said...

"Deliberately misquoting"?

How do you get that from my initial comments?

I did not quote you. I did not suggest that I was quoting you.

I apologize if you think I was commenting on your article. I was commenting on the general tone I get from all your comments on the RWQCB.

If you feel that the state should have authority over our discharges and that the RWQCB should have the ability to take enforcement action (even if you disagree with their most recent enforcement action choice), just let us know ... some of us are really wondering.

Churadogs said...

Dear Inlet, I just posted just a few possible enforcements I think the RWQCB could/should be engaging in if they're serious about nitrates on the comment section of the blog entry abvove this one. All of my suggestions would be waaaaaay better then this mad pumping scheme they're proposing. Would get things moving way faster than the tack they're taking, which is just bound to end up in court in endless litigation. As good old Dr. Phis says, Do you want to be right? Or do you want to be happy? I would paraphrase that: do you want to be "right" or do you want to reduce the nitrate load until the sewer system can be built?

Shark Inlet said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Shark Inlet said...

If I remember correctly, your idea was to allow some sort of onsite system to reduce nitrates ... or am I wrong?

That is actually a part of what the CnD order says. Pump every other month or come up with a proposal for how you are going to eliminate your discharges (presumably the nitrates are the chief issue here).

When you get this order I hope you propose an onsite system to them and I hope they agree. I just fear that the cost buying the system, hooking it up and of verification that the nitrates are reduced will far excede the cost of pumping every other month. Perhaps after Jan 2010 you would be far better situated to avoid high pumping charges after your leach field is disconnected.

Any other enforcement ideas that I may have missed?

Oh, by the way, the RWQCB cannot require we all use onsite systems. They may require we stop discharging.

Churadogs said...

What happens to onsite will ultimately depend on the final wording of AB885. So far, the density of Los Osos generally precludes onsite systems. Furthermore, the requirement that everyone hook up to the sewer by 2010 wouldmake an onsite system unaffordable for such a short time use. Also, by requiring a $900 a year "discharge permit" plus X # of test samples per year, at Y$$$,& whatever other rules they can come up with, once again, the cost wouldn't pencil out. Not even as a temporary solution. (Is the RWQCB deliberately making onsite impossible -- even as a temporary mitigating method -- in order to keep people from thinking they don't have to hook up to the sewer plant, i.e. as in, Hey this onsite system reduced nitrates 98% (2% nitrate discharge,) so why should I hook up to a town-wide system that finally results in a worse nitrate discharge (7%) than what's coming out of my tank, & etc You tell me)

Shark Inlet said...

Good questions.

I actually don't think that onsite systems were designed for as high a density area as Los Osos where ... in theory ... a sewer and WWTF could meet the needs at a lower total cost. In Los Osos we're facing some unique challenges in that the town was pretty much fully built before a sewer could be put in. Only La Canada Flintridge comes to mind when thinking of other communities in a similar pinch. (By the way, WilDan deisgned their sewer system ... how much did it cost?)

Presumably onsite could be a good thing if the requirement that people hook up to the sewer after it is built was not included. [Note: you said the requirement was that we hook up by 2010 ... the requirement is that we disconnect a leach field at 2010 and hook up within 60 days of the sewer coming online.] I suspect that the costs of onsite would be comparable to the costs of a sewer, even the way we're spending on lawyers and fines and even with our willingness to take on higher than necessary interest rates.

Why should they be forbidden? I have no good idea.

Why should they be promoted as the savior of our community? Again, there seems to be little reason to do so.