Pages

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Does Mother Calhoun Have To Explain It All To you, AGAIN?
The following letter was sent to Los Osos Sheriff Commander Hall, with ccs to The Bay News, and the CSD and thanks to the miracle of email, it’s now all over every known email list serve from here to Outer Mongolia. It’s from Joyce Albright, who’s involved with the group of folks who are working to gather signatures to dissolve the CSD. (apologies if the paragraph breaks end up not working: the blog and/or my computer seem to be having hissy fits)
The letter is reprinted STET.
Dear Commander Hall:
I represent Ta! xpayers Watch, an organization that is collecting signatures for a petition to dissolve the Los Osos Community Services District.
Our supporters currently collect signatures at both of the grocery stores, and at Farmers Market on Monday. They are encouraged to behave in a civil, courteous manner at all times, and not to respond to hecklers.
However, Joey Riccano has become very intimidating to our sitters on three occasions that I know of. They have actually called me at home from the markets and said they were frightened. S! ome our sitters are women and reserved gentlemen and Joey is a very big and loud man. The last report indicated that he actually FOLLOWED a woman who had signed our petition, pestering her about why she signed. There have been incidents with other very rude men and women who represent the opposition.
What can we do about this situation without endangering our right to collect signatures? We don’t want to be thrown out because of disturbances caused by Joey and others who are threatening our people.
We hope you can help us.
Sincerely,
Joyce Albright
Cc: Bay News
Lisa Schicker, President, Los Osos Community Services District

O.K., children, listen up. Mother Calhoun has some rules for you:
#1. Karma. That inexorable law of return – what you put out there, gets back to you somewhere along the line. If, for example, you use your public comment time during CSD meetings to forcefully and nastily Denounce The Wickedness of the CSD Board (both old and/or new) or spend your time reading carefully written opinion pieces positively filled to the brim with dazzlingly polished vitriol and thoroughgoing nastiness aimed at Whoever Disagrees With You, (New Board, Old Board, Fellow Citizens, Whatever) you should expect that Some People will not think kindly of you and will positively delight in sticking pins in you whenever they get the chance. It’s a sad fact of life that if you stick pins yourself, you’ll surely get stuck back. It comes with the territory. Deal with it.
#2. So far as I know, the Constitution does not grant police protection from people who are “big and loud.” Lord, that it were so. Big, loud, annoying, “intimidating” people are part and parcel of the Free Marketplace of Ideas. If people are “women and reserved gentlemen” who are frightened of Big & Loud & Annoying & Edgy & Irritating & Infuriating & Nasty & Stupid & Rude & Silly, then they need to stay home with their doors locked and beeswax in their ears.
On the other hand, the law is very clear on interfering with the right of free speech, right of assembly, right to petition, and the right NOT to be actually threatened, harassed or intimidated by any real action –not just the feeling of “being uncomfortable.”
#3. You can catch more flies with honey than vinegar. Big & Loud & Annoying & Edgy & Irritating & Infuriating & Nasty & Stupid & Rude & Silly is vinegar and is always counterproductive to whatever it is you’re trying to accomplish. So, knock it off.
#4 Here’s a useful a middle ground: MIND YOUR MANNERS!
It’s a sad fact of our civic life that Los Osos has a LOT of people in it who have been so polarized and angered and frightened by The Hideous Sewer Wars that they’ve lost sight of the fact that this is an Issue, not a Personal Vendetta. So, lighten up, everyone. Please.
If you believe that dissolving the CSD will put us in the arms of a Loving County That Wishes The Best For Us, then by all means, sign the Dissolution Petitions. If you believe that signing the Dissolution Petitions will somehow stop the RWQCB’s most recent Cease & Desist Order, the conflation of which appears on the latest mailer I received from the Taxpayers’ Watch group, then I would beg you to do your homework. One has nothing to do with the other and the conflation of the two is dishonest spin designed to mislead the public. (Unless, of course, there actually IS illegal and secret collusion between the RWQCB and the Dissolvers? In wich case, that's a matter for the District Attorney or Attorney General, not Mother Calhoun.)

As with all things Sewer, hard as it is to do, it’s critical that you get as much FACTUAL information before you jump off any more cliffs. We’ve had enough “spin” and conflation and Madison Ave manipulation on this matter to last a lifetime.
And if you oppose the dissolution of the CSD, set up a table of your own and pass out information of your own explaining why you believe that there is no way in hell that The SLO County Board of Supervisors will ever vote to take back what the Bay News editor used to refer to as, “The County’s Red Haired Stepchild,” i.e. Los Osos.
AND THEN EVERYBODY CAN LEAVE EVERYBODY ELSE THE HELL ALONE. Please. Thank you.

On another note:
Ron Crawford, over at http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/, has posted an amazing litany of “facts” that acts as a kind of “time line” showing clearly some of the ways where this entire Sewer Train started going off the tracks from way back. Read it and weep.

And for an update of Tree Man, i.e Joey Racano, who was arrested for tree sitting during the groundbreaking ceremonies on the Tri-W site, to see his version of his day in court, go to his blogsite at http://www.stopthewaiver.com/.
Ah, so much drama. My beloved Bangladesh By The Bay puts Desperate Housewives and Payton Place to shame. Bring on the dancing bears!

37 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Legs,

It sounds like you are complaining that some people are making decisions based on false information being repoted as factual.

Unfortunately that is part of how our political process works in the US. Witness the recent recall and Measure B votes. We were told (repeatedly) by supporters of both that we wouldn't lose the SRF, wouldn't be fined and that the RWQCB would not take any action against individual homeowners.

They lied, we all lost.

Two wrongs doesn't make a right. Fearmongering to gain signatures on a dissolution petition is wrong. Intimidating people to get them to sign (or not sign) is wrong.

Anonymous said...

Dissolving the CSD is really shortsighted. Why not wait to see what the RFP brings in? It might be better than just giving up...by the way, it's posted on the LOCSD website and is an interesting read for those who appreciate facts and science. And trying to nail down THE BEST WATER PROGRAM the Central Coast has ever seen. Don't live in history...it's time to make history! P.S. I will say this again to save you some time - I am not Joey. Nuf said.

Mike Green said...

Down! you lowly mortals! The Queen of Los Osos has spoken! Behave like the good children she has raised us to be!
Raise hell, but do it politely!
Meanwhile, the Water Gods are angry beyond comprehension!
They DEMAND a sacrafice!
They want 50 virgin septic tanks pumped untill dead!
(oops 45)
They will brook no delay!
They will pick the doomed!
Some mortals will scurry in fear!
"Go back to the old Gods! They will deliver us from the Water Gods!"
They forget that it was the Old Gods of County that first delivered us to the Water Gods!
"Here take this red haired stepchild that is a pain in our posterior,
" Do with them what you will! they listen not to us!"

Anonymous said...

Sometimes you get it right Ann. We make the Palestinian/Israeli debate look calm sometimes.

Example: “it is undemocratic to sign a dissolution petition” is a personal judgment, not based on fact, and a bunch of meaningless drivel.

As opposed to: "Here are some potential thoughts as to the benefits and detriments of dissolving the CSD one should consider":

'On the minus side, Dissolution will lead to loss of local control of water resources. This is because rate structures will be decided by county supervisors. Dissolution will put the deciding authority for water and wastewater with the Board of Supervisors instead of district residents. This might be bad, because the Board of Supervisors is likely to take actions that would minimize financial risk to the County General Fund, but may not be in the long-term interest of Los Osos. This might be good, because district residents have repeatedly not demonstrated the functional ability to implement a wastewater project. On the minus side, the dissolution process will be essentially worse than a bankruptcy action by the district, because the liabilities of the district will be assigned by a legislative body composed of partisan individuals (LAFCO) as opposed to an impartial body (Court). On the plus side, Dissolution will provide a higher degree of security to the property owners because the actions of a significant proportion of non-liable parties (rentors and non prohibition zone residents) can no longer veto or skew the interests of the property owners. On the minus side, Dissolution will further erode the interests of property owners within the prohibition zone because the authority will vest to the entire County. Or, on the plus side, even if authority vests to the entire County, this is a better prescription for property owners within the prohibition zone because the interests of the County in avoiding enforcement action from the state are more clearly aligned with the interests of property owners in avoiding further enforcement action. This is due to the fact that the RWQCB has little recourse in applying and collecting monetary penalties against an enterprise services district. In essence, an enterprise services district is like a ‘virtual’ corporation and possesses authority but no assets of it’s own – it’s a ‘teflon’ agency. (But it’s absolutely a wonderful vehicle for making money on initiatives and other actions if you’re a law firm, wink, wink!!) On the plus side, Dissolution will result in a wider array of funding instruments and a higher probability of securing lower interest funding available for a wastewater project. On the minus side, Dissolution will impair the ability of residents to secure special legislation for the district in matters of funding and authority. yada, yada, yada.'

Then again, shouting at and chasing people around town is probably good exercise.

I suggest that it might be easier to just flip a coin, then pop upon a brew, and see what transpires by year-end.

Mike Green said...

Amen. Publicworks, let them send the bill to --___What IS an enterprise service district?

Shark Inlet said...

Okay, here are some of my comments.

Ann,

On your original post you suggest that over at sewerwatch Ron is citing "facts". I would submit that both his choice of "facts" and his spin on the "facts" end up providing the reader a very biased understanding of what happened. As an example, he 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.

I am not arguing that his interpretation is unreasonable, just that other interpretations are also quite reasonable.


As to the anonymous comment that suggests that we wait until the engineering firm completes a study of all sites and technologies (except TriW) to see if dissolving the CSD is a good idea. While I like the idea of studying all the options, it seems like now is not the time to do so. Nearly all of what they want to study was considered and rejected on reasonable grounds some five years ago. If you want to wait some six months to find this out (again) before you choose to sign on to a dissolution measure you've lost six months toward the only project that could possibly by online by 2010 and protect the entire prohibition zone from pumping some 5 times per month.

Yes, we are lacking places to truck the septage and there aren't enough trucks around just yet. However, supply and demand would suggest this just means that the price to pump will go up considerably. If we hit Jan 2010 the price to pump will skyrocket once the pumping requirements increase tenfold for each occupied home.

Nope, I think that homes will simply go vacant to avoid the pumping charges. People will move out and sell their homes to investors at a huge loss to avoid these charges.

Dissolving the CSD now is the wisest thing any of us can do. It will limit the scale of the financial disaster this board has brought upon our community. It will stop pollution as soon as possible. It will allow the aquifers to start to heal.


I didn't reach this opinion lightly. I have a great amount of respect for the CSD and the the idea of local control.

I am convinced by the CCLO lawsuits, Al's lawsuits, Bud's actions and the current board's strategy that there are enough people who will, even if they lose the majority in November, will fight any progress toward the quickest and cheapest project. These are people who are willing to trade higher bills (on my part) for a location that they believe to be better.

Here's my idea. Let's see if this CSD board has any realy willingness to do what is best. Why don't they take a poll (of homeowners, of residents, whoever) and see whether people would rather go with the TriW plan at a cost of $280/month or go with "somethign else" at a likely cost of $350/month. Let's see what the residents say. Do they care more about their bills or about the location? If it's the cost, this board could immediately work against Measure B and work toward starting construction again.

This is not exactly how representative government was necessarily designed to work. However, considering the spirit of Measure B was to let the people decide, why not let us? Why not allow us to choose from all reasonable sites? Why would Steve and Chuck and Lisa want to keep us from choosing TriW ... even if it is what the majority of us want?

Sure, it's political hardball. However, this is the board who promised to be open, transparant and accountable. This is the board who promised us a cheaper solution. They appear to be about only one thing ... killing TriW even if it doubles our bills.


Yes, I'm pissed. If you aren't yet, you will be when you get your CnD order and realize that this CSD board could have prevented that by simply doing the right thing.

What sort of moron switches horses in midstream? In Los Osos it would appear that just a hair over half of us would even though we're getting soaked.

Anonymous said...

WE need a sustainable sewer systerm that care for our envoironment. The town or Los Osos is afflicted with salt water intrusion that it why we must conserve water to keep it at bay. The water board is accting corrupt by actually encouraging salt water intrusion on our community by having millions of gallons of our most precious resource water pumped an hauld out of town. All the extreme measures of water conservation we have started (since the new board has been in and never encouraged by previous board) will be wasted by the removal of our water. This can not happen because it would be against water quality and the environmnet. The RnotWQCB. needs to be stopped. Ans the Watchers should take a chill pill.

Shark Inlet said...

Chill,

Should I take your comments to mean that you think waiting some five years before a WWTF comes online is a good thing? That the benefits of a "New! Improved!" CSD plan will so outweigh the pollution during the next five years to justify the waiting?

Myself, I don't see that tradeoff as good. A quick calculation would suggest it will be at least 50 years before we could recover from the additional leach field discharge over the next five years.

TriW would do something towards the saltwater intrusion problem and nitrate problem. Waiting just makes these problems worse.

Besides, the expense of the new plant will almost certainly be far more than whatever TriW would have been. Ten percent inflation in construction costs per year puts the monthly bill over $300 (if we get another SRF for the total costs) or $400 (if we need to borrow at market rate).

Nope, waiting is not good at all. It would be far better to go with TriW and fix the other problems after the WWTF is running.

Anonymous said...

Right on, Chill! By the way, let's not forget that most of the pollution that we are accused of creating comes from agriculture. And the TriDubya Megasewer wasn't going to show significant changes in pollution for some 20 years. And how come only part of our community has to pay for it? Do you think that's fair? And doing it wrong and then fixing it later? How short-sighted can it get? That's why we're in this mess to begin with - it's all wrong.

Shark Inlet said...

"Most of the pollution we are accused of creating comes from agriculture."

Where do you get that from? How does that statement match up with the maps of nitrate concentrations in the aquifer that show the nitrates are highest directly below the town and are considerably lower to the East?

Nope, the nitrates are high because of our lack of sewer.

The fact that it will take some time to reduce the nitrates is part of the process of fixing the problem. The fact that it takes a week for one person to pick up all the litter on a beach is no reason to simply ignore the litter and let it accumulate. What would make things worse is five or more additional years of no sewer. That amount of additional time would make the aquifer even worse and even harder to clean up. Would you rather spend some 30 minutes weeding your yard per week or ten hours every two months?

Mike Green said...

Sharkey sez.
"Dissolving the CSD now is the wisest thing any of us can do. It will limit the scale of the financial disaster this board has brought upon our community. It will stop pollution as soon as possible. It will allow the aquifers to start to heal."
Wow, thats a lot of assumptions you are making there Sharkey.
How do we know that if the sewer issue is turned over to the county they will build at TriW?
By the lame comments of Shirley Bianchi during the last election?
She probably wont even be there when you finaly (but not likely according to Sam Blakesly- Quote from the Dave Congleton show) get the CSD canned.
Remember when we didn't have a CSD?
We had about one third of one fifth say in what went on around here.
That's why its such a mess today.
Sure I'd like to see the county step up and ADMIT their responsibilty in this and come up with a plan to DO something about it.
I cant hear them, where are the board of supervisors on this issue?
Are they DEAF?
They sure are MUTE!

Mike Green said...

Here is a thought, If the Dissolvers realy want their effort to succeed, they only need to get all the county board of supervisors to make statements in the press that if the CSD is dissolved, they will build at the TriW site and the TOTAL cost will be less than ANY other option.

Plain and simple

Mike Green said...

Also, it would help if they hosted a free BBQ with entertainment and speeches by said county supervisors, and dare I say--- FREE BEER!!! how about holding it down around the end of Doris St.?
You know,

Shark Inlet!

Shark Inlet said...

Okay, let's tackle Mike's good questions.

Why would the County build at TriW? Because they wouldn't need to invest any money to speak of in a new design and any alternative site and design would cost some $5-15M. While they would likely pass the cost on to us, the County would probably rather not have to put as much cash up front.

I actually don't think the County as very much responsibility left. Years ago they caused the original problem, but after they tried two (or three, depending on how you are counting) times to put in a sewer and after the citizens of Los Osos stopped these plans the County pretty much satisfied all their obligations.

The only reasons that TriW is (even now) much cheaper than another site is that the cost to design the plant and the delay before the construction can start and resulting inflation. All supervisors could sign that pledge today.

Why the LOCSD board doesn't realize the same thing is beyond me? Maybe they do and are simply refusing to tell us what they know to be true.

Yes, I'm making an assumption. A reasonable assumption. Certainly a suggestion that they would do anything else other than the quickest and cheapest plan should come with an explanation.

Shark Inlet said...

Um ... Mike, Shark Inlet is West of Sea Pines ... the place where the sandspit joins up with Los Osos...

Mike Green said...

Oops, my bad.
I ment at the road that goes through Monarch Grove, you know, the one that ends where the vultures roost? there is a trail that is beyond beutifll through the eucalyptus trees....

Mike Green said...

Reasonable assumption?
Lets review the track record
"The county cares about what the people of Los Osos will pay for living there."
Survey says--
Jack Squat!
Thats right! We have no evidence or even history that the County board of supervisors have made any attempt to solve this problem after handing it off to the original Dreamers.
Their silence has been deafening
Trust them now?
Oh! please!

Anonymous said...

Read the technical reports yourself. To saddle 5000 people with the expense of a megasewer when many others are contributing to the problem is absurd.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Inlet doesn't seem to mind paying for state water or sending all of our s--t down to Santa Maria. Come on let's get it going! It's an awesome plan!

Shark Inlet said...

Mike,

I never wrote that the county cared about what we will end up paying ... just that they want to avoid as much financial risk as possible. Along those lines, they'll take the cheapest way out. Let me ask you ... do you really think the County would spend some $5-15M to design a new site if they could avoid it?

This is why I think the LOCSD is considering selling TriW. I don't think they'll see one dime from the sale because of all the bills they've got. They would still be in debt by millions of dollars either way. The only real benefit (from their point of view) would be to throw up roadblocks to any construction at TriW, the County's likely first choice.

No, I don't trust the supervisors to do anything but try to save their own money. However that will likley mean they will end up saving us money (compared to delaying the construction by some 5 years by attempting to move the site out of town).

As to our anonymous friend's suggestion that the huge expense should be borne by those outside the prohibition zone, that battle was lost 20 years ago. Not much we can do about it now. Furthermore, to suggest that the best way to reduce our costs is to delay the sewer more is simply absurd. If you don't like the high cost, why not blame those who delayed the sewer for some three or four years by lawsuits and other obsructionist actions. Those folks are named Al, Julie and Bud.

For our 2nd anonymous friend, it is probably worth stating again that state water is likely what we're a gonna git either way. I don't like it one bit, but our delay in fixing the saltwater intrusion problem and nitrate problem for years has increased the likelihood that we'll feel the need to take on that additional project. However, because you brought it up, considering one of the key issues Lisa raised in the RFP is the need to find a site that would allow for expansion of the plant. Essentially she was saying that she wants to design a plant that is big enough to handle not just the prohibition zone at buildout but additional homes. Considering that there is zero chance that folks outside the PZ will want to join in, this means that Lisa either wants to pay for a bigger WWTF than we need or that she wants to allow for additional development. Those extra bodies mean state water.

As to the trucking of solid waste ... what's your plan? By the way, be sure to explain carefully how we'll end up saving money. Are you really interested in paying $100 more each and every month (due to inflation and additional fixed costs associated with the siting and design) just to avoid spending $10 per month on extra electricity and trucking charges?

No, the TriW plan is not awesome.

However, on the two measures I care about, money and pollution, it beats the crap out of whatever plans I've heard from any of those who support alternatives. The only smart thing I've heard from the new group is the idea of pursuing Ag-Exchange ... something the previous board members indicated they intended to do ... after getting the most important thing done first.

If you would care to explain how this new board's ideas are going to save us money or to stop pollution of our groundwater any sooner, please, I'm really interested.

Just because you don't like the TriW plan doesn't mean it isn't the best option we have left.

Anonymous said...

No inlet,propaganda consortium that you are, Tri w is not the best option we have left, it is the MAIN REASON, other than the high handed incompetent governance of the RECALLED board are no longer in power, and now that they are not, you want to see the CSD dissolved. Dissolve the CSD, measure B goes away, maybe you get triw back. Thats the real reason the dissolvers want the csd gone. that and they know they can't win in November. maybe that charmer Crizer could run?? except he is too busy suing each board member PERSONALLY for doing their civic duty and keeping their political promises. Maybe the great republican advocate Joyce Notsobright could run. Maybe her little dog too. Maybe You could. All of you.

Shark Inlet said...

Okay, 45 ... Gauntlet time.

If TriW isn't the best from the point of view of my monthly bill or stopping pollution, what site and technology is?

Unless you can provide a fairly detailed answer I'll assume you're just blowing smoke here and that you just don't like what I'm saying. Seriously, you made a claim, show us your better option.

I actually don't care if the plant is at TriW or out of town. (To be fully honest, I would prefer it be out of town if the costs were comparable.) The only reason that I prefer TriW is that it would cost less and would solve pollution problems sooner than any of the alternatives mentioned.

Arguably you may have a different idea of what is "best". (Who knows, you might think that "best" means "furthest from Steve Senet's home ... we all have our point of view.) I would argue that most of our community thinks that best would roughly equate with cheapest. One of the key reasons that the recall won is that residents were thinking "how the hell could it cost $200/month?" and "there's got to be a cheaper way" because those running for the recall promised us cheaper. They lied or they didn't have the knowledge to know for sure that it would, indeed, be cheaper.

I won't argue that dissolving the CSD is a great idea. However, if the current board persists in tilting at windmills on my dime, dissolving the CSD sounds far better to me.

Tell me, do you like paying for nothing? That is what you're getting and gonna get a whole lot more of from this board.

Churadogs said...

Went to the RWQCB's Informational Meeting last night (Feb 15)for the Los Osos Forty-Five.

Some interesting comments: Matt Thompson (staff)was asked about transporting millions of gallons of wasteWATER out of the Los Osos basin for disposal in Santa Maria (the pumping scheme) and replied, "We're not in the water supply business, we're in the water quality business," and then indicated both that he was not aware that Los Osos was in overdraft NOR did he know what effect the transporting of the water would have on Los Osos.

Then, someone, I think Burkhardt (was hard to see the dais) was asked If the CSD were dissolved what effect that would have on the CDOs (none) and Does the County have any plans to build a sewer plant (no, not that the staff knew of, no plans). So much for the Dissolver's "spinnish" flyer conflating dissolution with stopping the CDOs and building a plant etc.

What the meeting also made clear last night is that the Staff is winging this scheme. For example, the staff reccomendation requires pumping OR "alternatives", but when I asked about the acceptable target numbers for "alternatives" (i.e. enhanced on-site systems, etc.) they didn't have those numbers, would have to think about it and figure out what those numbers would be or make up some numbers and then make those available. What kind of massive scheme like this one goes into a legal hearing with official documents listing "alternatives" without having those alternative perameters already in place?

Also, it was clear that the point of this pumping is a shifting target. First we were told that the idea was an overall 22% reductiion in total discharge. That number is a "guestimate" since the RWQCB does not have the water records for the area (The CSD hasn't released them, presumably they're checking into privacy issues, etc. I don't know if Cal Cities has released theirs, & etc.) Absent those actual use per house records, this whole scheme is mere guestimate.)

Then, when asked about nitrate loading, it appeared that nitrates are (may be? who knows?) the real target, but even that's not clear. In the RWQCB's own hand-outs, it cites three issues they're involved with in Los Osos: higher than state standards of nitrates in the upper aquifer, drainage and runoff in streets,and seeps by the bay. Two of those issues are the proper function of a government entity, not the individual homeowner, i.e. I can't go out and start digging up the street to get better drainage. And the seeps issue by the bay must also be dealt with in an organized coherent fashion because they involve both individual septic tanks AND drainage. Forced pumping of tanks won't deal with two of those three issues.

Most of what I heard last night does not give me any confidence that the RWQCB knows what it's doing. This is Seat of Your Pants stuff and the CDO plan is not ready to fly. Furthermore, Sorrell Marks stated that they'd never done one of these before for a whole community. So you can bet they're gonna be making stuff up as they go along since there is no prescedence. (The industrial model really is a bad fit.)

What you're seeing with this RWQCB is a perfect example of "regulators" operating without checks and balances and (meaningful)oversight. Alas, I have very little confidence in this staff or the Board itself and NO confidence in this scheme. There are waaaaayyy smarter ways to deal with this issue. I think Chuck Cesena' waggish comment that what we're looking at here is "political science," not science is correct.

Anonymous said...

I agree that Shark seems to be quite intelligent. Too bad he (she?) won't help us with a new and improved project - one that is indeed awesome! Maybe some peer pressure would work...after all he (she?) likes hanging out here with us...

Anonymous said...

Yo Shark! What's your response to blogwatchn? BTW "my" sludge plan is to use ponds which only need to have it hauled out once every five or ten years, duh. The process allows decomposition right here not somewhere else. It also COSTS ALOT LESS.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Some of my response to the RWQCB action is in another comment section. Some will follow.

Just one quick comment, though. At the ACL hearing the LOCSD lawyer argued that the CSD could not be held accountable for any discharges save those at the three sites they own. The LOCSD lawyer argued that individual CnD orders and/or fines would be the only acceptable way of dealing with enforcement against our community for our community problems. Your suggestion that the community as a whole bears the responsability for the problem is one the CSD has already rejected.

For my friend Joey, if the RWQCB forks for the developers, who does Gail McPherson work for? Does the plan to have a Los Osos sewer large enough to expand its capacity work to the advantage of developers or to the advantage of those who want to keep our community small? At least the TriW plant was designed to cover the needs of our community at build-out and no more, reducing development pressure and our need for state water.

Blogwatchn,

Even if your statement about the "out of town" sewer would be $25M less than TriW (which Darrin seemed to deny during the ACL hearing) is true, once you add in $10M to site design a new plant and five years of construction inflation (assumed at 10%) the total cost is higher than TriW's total cost. If you factor in an interest rate change (SRF=2.3% to junk bond=8%) and additional costs we'll have to cover like fines and the like (say another $20M) it means that we'll have total bills that are perhaps $75-$100 per month higher than what TriW was offering.

The key number here isn't so much the cost right now if you could pay cash for immediate construction but the cost at the time it gets built and the cost of money for the construction loan.

I don't believe that TriW would be all that bad from the point of view of odors and the other things you mention. Certainly property values will be noticably higher if the sewer costs are lower ... we all know that.

I guess it all comes down to whether a person wants to pay more (perhaps about 50% more) every month to avoid the plant in town. Some would and some wouldn't.

I don't think it is honest or appropriate, however, to suggest that an out of town plant will save us money. It won't.

You suggest a good argument that the County might start all over again because of problems with TriW. Do you really think that if the County was burned once for $5M that they'll choose to spend another $10 to site and design another plant when they are given ... for free ... blueprints that will get a sewer online ASAP. Do you really think that they'll want to delay for additional time and suffer the wrath of the RWQCB again? Considering fines are based on an ability to pay and the County has deep pockets (compared to the LOCSD), they'll do pretty much anything to get the thing built ASAP. While your argument is a good one, I remain unconvinced that the County would screw it up as badly as this new board seems to want to do.

Your best question is about an assessment vote. How would it go? I think that the RWQCB CnD orders make an assessment vote by either the LOCSD or by the County far more likely to pass than without the fines.

Maybe that was Chuck's point.

Anonymous said...

Looks like you are trying to recall the wrong board. You shouldd start circulating a petition to disolve the RWQCB (and SHARKINLET)

Anonymous said...

Yes, please dissolve Inlet and others who refuse to join in and work towards helping the community! As opposed to throwing it away to the County. The skate park costs kids $2.00 - you call that a park? My friends were married there when it was green and beautiful. The movement in this town to create a new CSD with a new agenda is about progress, vision, and good planning. Ever since I moved here I have wondered - where is the planning? Please, please, don't give us back to the County! Shark why do you want to do this to our community?

Shark Inlet said...

Who says that I am refusing to join in and work towards helping the community?

I can certainly see the point of view of those who don't want the CSD dissolved. I have very mixed feelings myself. I think it is sort of a last resort option. I hope the CSD board takes actions that convince people that dissolving the CSD is a bad idea. I suggested (over in the trib's discussion site) that the CSD could easily convince many people to work with them and to stop the dissolution if they were simply open to compromise:

-----------------------------
Something stuck me in the meeting of Thursday Feb 16.

Lisa put out a plea to those who right now are attempting to dissolve the CSD, suggesting it would be better to "work together" to come up with a project that the whole community could support. She lamented that some of the key players in the current opposition group were not at Thursday's meeting.

She also made a snippy comment about people who would e-mail and blog rather than doing something constructive. Funny, I don't remember her making that comment when folks on her side were in the minority of the board. Back then, blogging and e-mailing were just ways of trying to "make the truth known."

She has a good point though ... perhaps our community, by itself, could come up with something better than what the county would impose on us if a dissolution were to take place.

On the other hand, I don't think that the current CSD board has done much to convince those in the opposition that they are welcomed or that the current CSD would be willing to compromise at all. Maybe if the CSD offered the first olive branch it would be a good idea. After all, right now they are the group with all the power and authority and for them to ask the opposition to compromise but show an unwillingness to do anything themselves, their words of "concensus" and "compromise" sound really hollow.

Some examples of why their desire to "work together" and "compromise" may not be heard by those in the opposition:

1 - Dan arguing with those making public comments
2 - Lisa reacting to public comments with anger (rare, I know, but she still does and it really puts a damper on any "reaching out" they are trying to do)
3 - Lisa stating (like she did last night) that "there is a lot of misinformation out there" and when commenting on what members of the public say, implying that people who disagree with her are misinformed rather than reasonable
4 - Gail and the like saying things like "TriW is dead" and "you lost" and "get over it"

Lisa had a good insightful comment last night, that the reason TriW failed is that one group of people in power seemed more interested in getting their way than in working toward a concensus. There is pretty much no way we're going to get any concensus in Los Osos on the sewer, but at least those in power should strive to work for what is the best for the greatest number of people and they most certainly should not blow off the comments of anyone willing to come and speak.

What could the current board do to make sure that people in the opposition know that the board is open to compromise? They could put TriW back on the table. The could include TriW in any engineering evaluation of costs and benefits. If an unbiased engineering firm agrees that TriW is the cheapest (in current dollars per month over, say, 40 years) and best, this board should commit to work to repeal any aspects of Measure B which would appear to prohibit a TriW WWTF so that the citizens could vote for what they want. If TriW appears to be more expensive or environmentally worse than an alternative site, it would appear to prove their point, that the previous board had forced a TriW project on us even though it was not ideal.

In any case, if this board chooses to include TriW in the comparrison and makes a committment to at least consider a TriW option if it appears best in some ways, they will have done a lot toward their goal of building concensus.

If they cannot even make this small step ... they will have shown themselves to be more interested in winning than in doing what is right or doing what is necessary to build concensus.

If this board would listen more to Joe Sparks and less to Gail McPherson than they do now they would be very wise. If they would solicit the opinions of Stuart Denker and ignore what Joey Racano says they would be making the right choice. (Please don't take this to mean that I think that Gail and Joey are saying should be ignored, just that the more strident of the Recall/B supporters won't really help bring concensus just like Karl Rove won't. People who are good at winning elections for you aren't often as good at the actual nuts and bolts of governing.)

Anyone who wants this board to be successful should make sure that Lisa and the rest of the LOCSD board knows that *they* have a responsibilty to make the first step toward concensus. If the board doesn't take that first step and *soon*, the dissolution movement will have gained so much steam that it will not be easily stopped without another serious battle that will distract the LOCSD board from their real task ... getting a sewer and WWTF sited and built before Jan 2010.

Churadogs said...

To Inlet, a question arises: In the recent Bay News, the head of the Taxpayers' Watch group said that IF the sewer element was given up to the county and the TriW plant begun gain, they would stop the dissolution proceedings. That is, What's more important to the Dissolvers? A CSD or having a sewer plant in the middle of town? I find it fascinating that that's the ONE thing in their litany of reasons to disolve the CSD that's the dealmaker. TriW or nothing. Why, I keep wondering, is that site and that plant worth destroyong a community over?

Shark Inlet said...

It would seem that what is most important to those interested in dissolution is getting a project underway as fast as possible.

It is pretty clear that they think TriW is the fastest possible project and that the County would take over and build at TriW. I'm not so sure myself that the County would build at TriW. On the other hand, even if they don't choose TriW, I think that the County might very well be able to get something built before the CSD.

I ask you the same question ... is the refusal to build at TriW worth destroying a community over? I guess that this CSD board feels so strongly that the TriW plan was so bad that they would rather the entire community pay higher bills just to make sure that the plant is not at TriW.

What do you think, Ann? Do you think that TriW is so bad that it is worth this massive battle? Personally, I don't care if it's at TriW or out of town ... as long as it's online by Jan 2010, the date when pretty much everyone will need to move out or be wealthy enough to afford a $2000/month pumping bill.

Churadogs said...

A $2,000 a month pumping bill? Where'd THAT come from? More attempt at humor?

A question arises out of your question: Why was the Tri W site so important that the previous original CSD boarddid not fully disclose to the community that their Ponds of Avalon wouldn't be o.k.ed by the RWQCB, why when two years later, when it officially crashed and burned, did they cling so ferociously to that site,repeatedly telling the community (falsely) that there were no other options, that the "out of town" sites were waaaaay more expensive, adamantly refusing to allow a vote on two vetted projects, etc. So much of where we are today stems from those deceptions. And I'm still at a loss as to WHY. It wasn't science. It wasn't fact. It wasn't truthfulness. It wasn't even common sense. Something else was driving that project and the single-minded fury to keep it at Tri W at all costs.

Shark Inlet said...

If one used 300g/day and had a septic that held 1500g, that would mean that as of Jan 2010 they would need to pump every 5 days or about 6 times per month. At $350/pumping it would run just over $2000.

Perhaps you ought to read the CnD order more carefully ... it says that as of Jan 2010 or 60 days after a sewer coming online one would need to disconnect one's leach field or seepage pit from the septic tank.


Again you seem to persist in saying that there were other options that should have been explored. If you recall our discussions in September, there is another reasonable explanation for what transpired (besides the "weasel dung" theory).

However, let's just say that we disagree about what did happen way back then. I'll concede, for the sake of this comment, that there was a silly and obnoxious reason to pick TriW and that back in 2001 they should have allowed for a vote (because two years of public discussion isn't enough). Fine. Let's fast forward to 2005. Just because something should have been done differently some four years earlier doesn't mean that one should go back and start over.

Suppose you are driving to San Francisco and instead of taking 101 all the way you do a brain-fart and hang a right in Paso and take highway 46 toward Fresno. If, once in the Fresno area you realize that you took a horribly wrong turn that would add about 1.75 hours to your trip .... do you turn around and drive back to Paso just to do it the right way? No way. The extra time and cost of gas to go back to square one would make the wisest choice to just take I-5 up the valley.

To focus repeatedly on the past mistakes (and I am not yet sure that they anywhere near as bad as you insist they are) and insist we "do it right" is to insist on taking extra time and money to accomplish the goal that could be accomplished another way.


So, getting back to the question I posed, is it worth it to you, Ann, to rip our community apart by insisting that we do the sewer plant your way instead of at TriW? I know that I am a pretty strident supporter of building at TriW but only because it will do our community less damage (money-wise and pollution-wise) than pursuing an out-of-town plant. How do you justify your willingness to rip our community apart? At least I have my friends in mind, people who will be forced to move out of town if you get your way ... widows and young families who can no longer afford to live in the community of their dreams ... all because Julie and Lisa and you think it is better that they pay more than the plant be in a downtown location.


Along those lines, did you hear that thee new board is considering putting in many many small plants (like those for the Monarch Grove neighborhood) all over town. If a plant in the center of town is off the table, why not the idea of many many plants all over town? I don't get it. Do you know why they would be willing to consider this option that seems to go against their rhetoric.

Anonymous said...

Duh Shark I can't take it anymore. You can't see the difference between small, unobtrusive neighborhood plants and the megasewer sludge factory? I don't get it. BTW, you are so good at numbers, what do you mean by "many, many?"

Anonymous said...

They are probably considering the small plants because they are less expensive.

Shark Inlet said...

Okay, let's see. If it is a plant like the Monarch Grove plant it would be able to service about 100 homes. I guess if those sort of plants are called for it would take about 50 such plants. If the cost of the plants are each about $750k (that's a WAG) we are talking a figure pretty comparable to the TriW plant cost.

Where there might be some savings is that perhaps fewer sewer lines would need to be put in.

On the other hand, the disposal of treated water should be done in a place that would most effectively recharge the aquifer. If discharge could happen local to the plant, there may be some savings. If the discharge would need to be centralized, any savings from the sewer lines would be eaten up by the need to put in pipes to Broderson.

"Megasewer sludge factory" ... nice rhetoric.

These small packet plants go with the need to truck sludge, just like the TriW plant. Presumably there would need to be more operators to manage 50 small plants than one big one.

I guess that if Lisa and the rest want to study the idea of many many (um ... 50) plants, they are welcome to do so. It would seem to me that many small plants all over town is not preferable to one central plant. Maybe it was silly of me to think that people who didn't want a WWTF in town because of smells and the like wouldn't want fifty.

Presumably there are at least a few who didn't oppose TriW for reasons of sludge and odors and want a small plant near their home.

Anonymous said...

Good points, Snarkie. Makes more sense to me now.