Pages

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

Speaking of Strongly Held Community Values . . .

Some of the comment/discussion threads on some of my blog entries below have centered on just what kept being used to self-select the Tri-W site and deselect any other site. In a recent CSD meeting, Boardmember Julie Tacker read excerpts from “The Los Osos Community Services District Wastewater Project Report,”(excerpts of which can be found at Ron Crawford’s blogsite, http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/ with the link to his New Times article, “Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown.”)

They make for interesting reading because it’s clear that other sites were “rejected” because they didn’t provide a community amenity in the form of a public use area. Here’s some examples from the project report:

“Although the Turri site would have less potential environmental impacts, its distance from the center of town precluded it from providing a community amenity in the form of a public use area.” Precluded, as in, ka-boom! No "community amenity?" Well, then, you're out of the running.

“[The Andre site] is 1.5 miles from the edge of the community and would not be able to provide the community with a readily accessible recreational area. On a non-cost basis this site was viewed as less favorable than the Resource Park site.” (A non-cost basis? As in, if you disregard cost as an important component of any evaluation, and focus only on a community amenity i.e. a centrally located park, then the “Andre” site’s out of the running? Gosh, and supporters of Tri-W have been relentless in telling us that cost is a really important factor, that Tri-W would “cost less,” that any out of town site would “cost way more,” etc. A non-cost basis??? What the hell does that mean?)

“Following is a description of the benefits of the project: creates a Community Amenity and Visual Resource. The wastewater treatment facility will be constructed and landscaped to maximize active and passive recreational space in the center of the community. Not only will this provide aesthetic benefits, but it will also provide park space for local schools and community groups near the existing community center.” (Playgrounds next to an industrial sized sewer treatment plant as a strongly held community value? Playgrounds next to an industrial sized sewer treatment plant as the driver to keep the plant sited on ESHA land, sited on some of the most expensive property in the middle of town, land requiring extensive, expensive mitigation, extensive, expensive engineering to even operate so close to homes and schools & etc, all being driven on a non-cost basis. Well, who knew?)

”It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect these strongly help community values.” And one of these strongly held community values is “creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community.” A recreational wastewater treatment plant? Now there’s a strongly held community value!

As Ron Crawford has so frequently pointed out in his articles and at his blogsite, the only time the community ever had a chance to vote to assess themselves a miniscule annual amount for anything “recreational” they voted it down. Yet there it was repeatedly in the project report and presented before the Coastal Commission, for example, a strongly held community value of desperately wanting a recreational asset next to an industrial-sized sewer treatment plant.

Plus, that wonderful notion that an alternative site would be viewed as less favorable on a “non-cost basis” when one of the driving themes of this whole sewer project from day one has been it’s “unaffordability.”

Well, go figure.

33 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Thanks for the selective quotes, Ann.

Just because TriW is in town and could provide a park doesn't mean that it isn't better for other reasons as well. The cost to pipe out to Turri or Andre and back with the treated water would raise the bill considerably.

Just because there are non economic considerations that would favor one site over another doesn't mean that there aren't economic considerations as well.

Sheesh.

I guess I need to write this again because you don't seem to be reading very carefully. (Perhaps you do read carefully, but you've certainly never taken the opportunity to correct any errors in the sort of analysis I'm about to write yet again.)

By the time we hit 2003, the cost to "start over" with the design work and EIR and permitting and inflation pretty much precluded non-TriW sites on cost grounds alone.

To quote an old cost comparrison and suggest that things are similar today is to compare apples and oranges. If we know that there would be an additional $20M up front cost to put a plant out of town (let alone inflation on construction costs), you are comparing OLD figures for Andre and TriW. You should at least update those figures to account for those fixed costs for Andre.

As to the question of park ammenities. I've cited CCC documents on Ron's discussion section (right before he closed it down) that show the CCC staff thought that CCLO's complaint about lack of ammenities (that's right, Julie complained about the missing Tot Lot) wasn't justified. The fact that the CCC itself agreed with CCLO that putting the park back into the project should not be held against the previous board.

Yes, Ron has repeatedly said that the park is the problem. Looking into things a bit further it seems that he's only seeing one side of a complex issue, the CCLO side. That is unfortunate.

If you would just dig a bit more, Ann and if you would take financial projections seriously perhaps you would change your tune a bit.

Anonymous said...

The Shark Inlet propaganda project, always writing for truth, justice, and a stinking, sludge producing sewer plant in the middle of town. All hail Tri W! All hail Roger Briggs! Pay no attention to history. Pay no attention to the vote. Only this board lies. Only the old CSD, who were miracle workers and were martyred, can help us. Better still, since the rightous no longer control the board, let's dissolve it. Anything to get our beloved Tri W back. F U shark.

Anonymous said...

Hey Shark,
Would there have been log ride for the kids at this sewer park?
Why can't people see that a sewer park would have brought so much fun to Los Osos families.
Hey, maybe if we dissolve the CSD you can help me convince the county just how fun log rides at the sewer park could be.
Thanks for setting people straight about the TriW site.

Anonymous said...

Why should Ann change her tune? You never do. All we hear is Tri-W, Tri-W, Tri-W! We had an ELECTION, remember? Hey Shark what do you think about on-site systems? WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY cheaper (since that seems to be your main concern) than the Tri-W sludge factory. Take a look at Stinson Beach in Marin County. Why is it that some people are so fixated on a megasewer to serve 5,000 people? This the year 2006! Are you a developer or what?

Ron said...

Ann... nicely done, as always.

However, you left out one of my favorite lines from the project report. This one just blows me away:

The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The sites on the outskirts of town, could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents...

As I so accurately wrote in Three Blocks (a year and a half ago, by the way)... with logic like that, why consider other potential sites all? In fact, when you think about it, with logic like that, considering any other potential out-of-town sites would be a complete waste! If the early CSD's overriding "project objective" was "centrally located community amenities," then why were out-of-town site looked at at all? Talk about a waste of time and money!

There's another great, great, great line from the project report:

"The clearest result of the first workshop was that the Resource Park (Tri-W) site was the preferred site because of its size and central location."

And that was that.

How many times were Los Ososans told that there were "hundreds" of public meetings regarding the Tri-W site selection? Yet, according to the project report, Tri-Dub was locked in after the first "workshop." Ouch!

I have a question, because I'm having a hard time understanding it: How can you people in Los Osos stand all of these lies? They're everywhere! Lie, lie, lie, lie ,lie.

When radio show host Dave Congalton called the anti Tri-W folks "angry children" last year, I thought that was very unfair. They were angry adults, and understandably so.

Also, Ann, you did mention the failed ballot measures that showed Los Osos taxpayers didn't want to pay for public recreation anywhere in Los Osos, let alone a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant, but you forgot my favorite piece of evidence that showed that the early CSD "lied through their teeth" (to quote my friend) to the Coastal Commission (the friggin' Coastal Commission) during the lengthy and expensive 2001-02 LCP Amendment process that made the Tri-W site possible.

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.

The early CSD Board had that study in their hand (along with those failed ballot measures that some on the board worked on in 1997) at the same time they were telling the Coastal Commission that their was a "strongly held community value" to include a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant and then have that park dictate a very expensive, highly controversial, environmentally sensitive downtown location.

They said that because it was the only way they could keep Tri-W in their second plan. Without that "community value," the Coastal Commission would have never approved, or even needed LCP Amendment 3-01 for the second plan. There would have been no reason for it. Out of town sites were cheaper, and less environmentally sensitive. It's a no-brainer.

(By the way, yesterday, I sent sent Coastal Commission staff member, Steve Monowitz, an e-mail asking him if CC staff would have still recommended a "Yes" vote on the LCP Amendment that made Tri-W possible if they had been shown that evidence above. He has yet to reply. In an earlier e-mail he told SewerWatch that he was "not aware" of the strong evidence that showed the exact opposite "community value" from what the District was telling the Commission in 2001-02.)

The early CSD lied to the Coastal Commission to keep Tri-W in the plan because they realized that if they could somehow keep Tri-W in the plan, they could just confuse everyone by saying their first plan -- the plan that got them elected and the CSD formed in the first place in 1998 -- was somehow still on the table and that it simply "morphed" into their second plan, and everything else was just a "design change."

When in actuality, the plan that got them elected and the CSD formed in the first place was doomed before the 1998 election, but they wasted two years chasing it anyway. There was absolutely no rationale whatsoever to keep the facility at Tri-W in their second plan. None.

They lied to the Coastal Commission from 2000-02 in a desperate attempt to keep it there, and it worked, and then that lie promptly ripped your beautiful community apart.

The question now is, why did they do that?

Is my rationale for a Grand Jury investigation becoming any clearer?

###

(I posted this comment at SewerWatch as well.

Anonymous said...

NO ONE would be drawn to a park around a huge sludge factory...no one would take their little tots to a sewer factory. NO ONE would like to attend an event at an amphitheater next to a sewer. NO ONE would want to ride a bike or stroll around a sewer factory. Grafitti artists might be very attracted to a huge cement wave wall to express themselves. Making our community look like a slum. NO ONE wants to pour their hard earned dollars into a sewer plant that does not do the job. I t will not address the problems of cleaning the water for 30 years and by that time it will require rebuilding or replacing most parts. In these days sustainability is necessary. Greed has generated the Tri W site. Hungry Greed that cares nothing for the environment or humanity. Parasitic Greed!! And for those that want to dissolve the CSD research the history and you will find who put us here.

Anonymous said...

THNK YOU ANN! You make me laugh and cheer me in these troubled times. Thankyou CSD who are giving us hope and working hard for a reasonable solution. Keep the faith.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

You seem to have a good idea of many aspects of the history of this project.

Let me ask you two questions that might help clarify our current situation in Los Osos.

At this stage, not being able to go back in time and change history, do you think it would be wiser to build a WWTF at TriW without a park or out of town at considerably higher cost?

The second question is similar.

At this stage, not being able to go back in time and change history, do you think it would be wiser to build a WWTF at TriW with a park or out of town at considerably higher cost?

Even though I partially disagree with your assessment of where blame should lie for the mess we are in (we could talk about that another time if you would like), we are in it, even so. We need to get out of the mess. This new board has the opportunity to make a choice that could (I believe) bring healing to the community. They could choose to look over the various options (including TriW) and make the decision to build the least expensive project (measured in terms of the total bills each individual household will have to pay between now and 2025 or 2050 or some such distant future). If they end up building at TriW because it is the cheapest, they will have saved us money ... great! If they end up building somewhere else because it is less expensive than TriW, they will have saved us money ... great!

What I am most afraid of is that this board will do the same sort of thing that you (and they) say the previous board has done ... to make decisions that are to the detriment of our community based on political and personal considerations. Essentially, I am afraid this board will torpedo TriW even if is is the best choice (based on cost, science, engineering, whatever) just because they are willing to pay more every month to have the plant out of town. Just because they are individually wealthy enough to pay lots more every month doesn't mean that I am and doesn't mean that our community will benefit from such a decision.

TriW was already too dang expensive. To replace it with something even more costly is a mistake.

Of course some will disagree with the premise of my question (out of town is more expensive), but those people should present a good reason for their opinion that out of town means cheaper.

ps to anonymous ... be careful about being rude, Ann has threatened to spank rude boys.

Churadogs said...

I know all of you are having fun posting opinions on this site, so I hate to spoil the fun, but it has occurred to me that all this speculating is, at this point, premature and a waste of typing. The RFP is out for the engineering firms to be selected to start the comparisons. When they finish their work, THEN we should know whether in-town, out of town, step/steg, gravity, etc. will be cheaper/better/more sustainable,OM&R costs, & etc. At that point the screaming and finger-pointing can commence in earnest?

Meantime, all this speculating and typing, while fun, seems like an awful waste of time until we get more information.

Ron said...

Shark, here's my answer to both your questions:

At this, or any, stage, I'm positive that building a sewer plant in the middle of your beautiful town based upon zero rationale, for no reason whatsoever, is a very, very poor idea, regardless of cost.


Also, Ann said:

"I know all of you are having fun posting opinions on this site"

Ann, I luv ya, but... I don't know if that was partially aimed at me or not, but, if so, I want to clarify a few things:

The early CSD commissioning a scientific poll in 2001 that showed almost zero support for the idea of a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant and then have that park dictate a disastrous downtown location is not my "opinion."

Measures E-97 and D-97 are not my "opinion."

Coastal Commission staffer, Steve Monowitz telling me that the CSD never told him of all the evidence that shows the only reason to site the facility at Tri-W was false, is not my "opinion."

All of those quotes out of the project report that show the only reason the Tri-Dubya site was selected was because of the park that Los Osos didn't want to pay for in the first place are not my "opinion."

Gordon Hensley e-mailing me saying he doesn't know why the park was still in the plan in 2005, is not my "opinion."

Buel and Gustafson ducking my hard questions is not my "opinion."

The site rankings missing from the project report is not my "opinion."

The CSD telling the Coastal Commission that there's a "strongly held community value" to include a park in the sewer plant and then have that park dictate Tri-Dub when they had an armful of evidence that showed the exact opposite "community value" existed, is not my "opinion."

A Coastal Commission staff report that says, "other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities," is not my "opinion."

The Solution Group is not my "opinion."

I've worked waaaaay to hard over the last 10 years, digging through documents, interviewing sources, attending meetings, and flat-out reporting my ass off, to have all of that be considered "opinion" and "speculation."

I've got $20 that says when that engineering firm is done with their work, their report is going to sound an awful lot like Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown.

If that "opinion" line was not partially aimed at me, as Emily Latilla (I think that was her name) would say, "Never mind."

Still luv ya, Ann ; - )

Anonymous said...

And we luv ya, Ron!

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Might I suggest that if this board intends to sell off TriW, if this board intends to not bother looking into the "real costs" of TriW and if Measure B (after being clarified by the courts) doesn't prohibit development of TriW it is very very reasonable to argue that at least studying the TriW plan and not selling off the site is a good idea.

Your suggestion (and perhaps I misread what you wrote) that we shouldn't complain about this board's actions until after they've screwed up so badly that we can't recover is sort of silly.

If this study comes back and shows what I've been suggesting for some months now, that the alternative locations are more expensive and that the alternative methods (like step-steg) aren't any cheaper, will you then start to complain that this board chose to ignore reasonable analyses to pursue an unrealistic wish?

Shark Inlet said...

While you disagree with the premise of my question (that money would be saved if we were to build at TriW), I find your answer troubling. Do you honestly think that to avoid building at TriW is worth any cost? What if the sewer bills end up being $500/month for the out of town plant? $1000/month? Doesn't it seem to you that harm will be done to the community if we end up raising the bills high enough? Do you really want Los Osos to be reserved for the super rich?

Nope, it is not true that "zero rationale" for the TriW site. It saves money and time, two huge factors that should not be ignored.

Shark Inlet said...

Just a quick question Ron ...

You keep saying that the CSD did a poll back in 2001 which showed there was little support for a park associated with the plant.

I've done some searching (well, with google, lexis-nexis and archive.org) and can't find any information about this poll at all.

Could you please let us know where we could find a copy of the poll questions and results?

The reason I am asking is that this seems to be one of the strongest parts of your argument that the previous CSD board lied to the CCC. I would love to be able to read these results myself.

Churadogs said...

Dear Ron, My comment wasn't aimed at "facts," just all the endless speculation on "What May Be." I'm sure sitting and figuring figures is great fun, but until the updated project report comes back, it's all numbers in the sky. It's also interesting that one of the new items in the new RFP is to make sure any project meets the new State Water Board standards concerning "sustainability," standards which were apparently added since the "old" plan was created. If "sustainability" is now "required," then who knows how that's going to play into the mix.

As for costs, the old Tri W plan had no caps. As I know, the new plan(s) will have a cap based on the affordability study and cost is one of the items listed in the scope of the new RFP study. (Interestingly, there's no mention of a "strongly held community value (i.e. parks)" mentioned in the siting criteria. With that limitation removed, it'll be interesting to see if previously rejected sites (too far out of town to create that centrally located strongly held community value park)what other items will be given a higher priority i.e. cost, sustainability, water recharge, etc.)

And again, as to cost, the RFP requires the inclusion of "deferred" items such as long term O&M&R, sludge treatment, site flexibility for future expansion & etc, all the things that were missing from the "final" Tri W costs. So it will remain to be seen, IF the new plan's total costs are the same as Tri W's minimun price, but that price includes all the deferred/hidden costs, then you'll be getting more bang for your buck which would mean the overall cost would actually be "less."

And to Inlet, alas I suspect you've once again misread or misunderstood what I wrote. Go right ahead and critize the new board all you want, what I was refering to was the fun-but-waste of-time endless "figuring" and speculating on What May Be. I'm just saying it's a waste of time at this point. The numbers will come in and THEN everyone can start shrieking all they want.

Shark Inlet said...

Fair 'nuff.

So Ann, how will this affordability cap work? What if the result of this engineering study is that there is no site, WWTF and collection system that meets all other goals that is deemed "affordable"? Would this mean that the board would need to choose affordability over sustainability or the other way around?

To me Lisa's list of things that the new plant will accomplish seemed reasonable, but she didn't indicate how these various items would be weighted in the ultimate analysis should push come to shove.

One more thing. Something Lisa said last night reminded me of one question I've got about TriW versus the vaguely defined alternative(s). Lisa claimed that the TriW plan didn't address saltwater intrusion. As far as I know, the disposal of treated water at the Broderson site was this method. In other words, recharge of the aquifer equal stemming saltwater intrusion and the Cleath study showed that the Broderson site was the best choice for the disposal to give us the best recharge rates.

Yes, I know about freshwater dams as an additional step one could take. However, it seems to me that one should not criticize TriW as not doing the job of stemming saltwater intrusion unless there is a collection system, WWTF and disposal method already in mind which would do a superior job.

Ann, considering you seem to be better connected with those at the CSD office and at least some of the boardmembers than I am, could you let us know what they've already got in mind which is better on the saltwater front?

Shark Inlet said...

One more question ... why would our WWTF need flexibility for future expansion if the County has set build out for Los Osos and if only the Prohibition Zone needs to tie in? Perhaps they want to provide for people in Cabrillo or East of South Bay but still within the LOCSD.

If this is the case, why not just ask those communities whether they would rather pay their share of the design costs upfront? If they say "sure, we'll join in" and if they write the CSD a check I think that such flexibility should be built in. However, if they say "hahahaha", the LOCSD should not weight possible future expansion highly.

In fact, some would suggest that flexibilty for future expansion is a negative. After all, if we build a plant and then the County says "hey, we've been given a mandate to add housing for 50k people within the next 15 years ... we could stick 15k of them in the Los Osos Valley near Turri Road" it would be a huge impact on the existing portion of our community. This is especially clear when we are already using more water than we should.

Clearly the way that flexibility for future expansion should play a role in site selection is very important and one should not simply assume that flexibility (which would likely mean growth) is a good thing.



And who put a bug up Dan's butt?

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

Shark is right about the affordibility 'cap'. The 'cap' is the cost that would be incurred if you have to disconnect your leachfield. That potential cost 'cap' is theoretically the loss of use of your home. In other words, unlimited. That's reality.

Affordibity is only useful in terms of getting financial aid. Lowest possible cost should be the overriding criteria, because it's the most important to 90% of the people anyway.

As to seawater intrusion, that has been one of the most misrepresented aspect by BOTH sides. The Tri-W plan did address seawater intrusion, in part. Opponents, especially Lisa (which is really irresponsible) give the impression it did or would do nothing, which is just flat out wrong - it was the fastest way to begin to address it.

Supporters often gave the impression it solved it completely - which is wrong as well.

Anonymous said...

Shark Inlet - I see you are promoting that folks begin a list of "snippy, personal, uncalled for comments" made by CSD staff/directors. Granted, things can get ugly at meetings and people do get out of line (been going on for years). But you, of all people, want to focus on this aspect? Although I sometimes disagree with you I have consistently admired your focus on costs, getting things done, and being practical and logical in solving this problem. Looks like you have sunken down to the level of those who post on the TT blog. Sorry to see it, Shark. Maybe you should keep your comments over there from now on.

Shark Inlet said...

Should I presume from your comment here that you feel it was okay for Dan to insult a citizen making a public comment?

I don't think so.

You are right that this is really a side issue compared to the big goal, the discussion of whether we're going to get a WWTF built before 2010 when we're all a gonna pay bigtime or not.

On the other hand, when this board talks about "healing" and "coming together" and the like, it doesn't mesh well with what they let staff members get away with.

Apologies for troubling you with comments that are not strictly dollars and sense. Probably my reaction to Dan's comments was over the top and uncalled for itself.

Anonymous said...

Shark,

You're comments are not unwarranted about Mr. Blesky. I would also refer to the ACL hearings and statements from both Blesky and Monterey Mechanical.

Credibility of the GM and the president (to the public and agencies) is a real critical issue to this project and the protection of the district reputation and it's assets. Maintaining one's cool and exercising disretion, while being intensely criticized, is vital.

Anonymous said...

Thank you both for your responses. I concur that their behaviors are crucial and I was not happy with it. But compiling a list? The point is? I worry about this discussion group degenerating...I find it the only place worth visiting as far as this issue goes.

Ron said...

Shark Inlet said...

"Just a quick question Ron ...
You keep saying that the CSD did a poll back in 2001 which showed there was little support for a park associated with the plant.
I've done some searching (well, with google, lexis-nexis and archive.org) and can't find any information about this poll at all.
Could you please let us know where we could find a copy of the poll questions and results?"

Excellent question.

I was able to get my resourceful hands on a copy (and it is a great document), but for me to make it into a pdf is going to take a lot of scanning and stuff (and my scanner's not even hooked up), so that's probably not going to happen. I'm pretty lazy.

Just go down to the CSD office and ask for a copy. (it's only about 20 pages. What's that? A couple bucks?). If you can't get one, let me know and I just might break down and scan some stuff in.

- - - - -

Shark Inlet said...

"...this seems to be one of the strongest parts of your argument that the previous CSD board lied to the CCC."

It is, along with the fact that they withheld Measures E-97 and D-97 from the Commission, and the obvious fact that no sane community would have 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.

There's that too.

Great blog, Ann. Thanks for hosting the comments.

Shark Inlet said...

Dictate is such a funny word, Ron.

The way you use it suggests that there were other sites which were preferable to TriW in every way except for the park.

If you would be so kind as to tell us which sites those were and how they were deemed better in every category (save "parkiness") you will have pretty near proven your point. As I remember the matrix of possible sites by site characteristics it seemed that cost played a large role and that the cost consideration of TriW versus other sites favored TriW. My memory may be fading these days, but it I certainly don't remember any slam-dunk sites that were rejected to favor TriW because of a park. Each site had some plusses and minuses.

Simplification of the facts can sometimes be a good way of coming to a first-order understanding of the truth. However, one will tend to miss many of the fine details with such an approach. Saying "it was the park, damn it!" over and over again may convince some, but the evidence you've offered thus far is only an opinion based on oversimplification.

Again, I remain open to being convinced, so please don't hesitate to toss that evidence out there.

But then again, even if you are 100% right about the siting decision and lies to the CCC, that doesn't mean that this board was wise to stop construction. While Pandora and Stan admitting in public that the Solutions Group and previous board had made some mistakes may be a good thing, unless Lisa is going to get up and say "and boy were we stupid too" it won't really bring any healing to our community.

Let me ask a leading question ... because I am really interested ... if you see some guy getting kicked in the stomach repeatedly, would you chase the bad guys away just so that you could take your turn kicking the victim? This current board seems to view that as their role ... the further dismanteling of any civic pride and sense of community that we still have.

Churadogs said...

Re salt water intrusion, the rep from Cleath & Assoc said during, I think, the second public report on the new water study that "The sewer plant will not cure salt water intrusion." There was some modification later to that statement that allowed that as best as they could figure only 10% of the Broderson discharge would eventually reach the lower aquifer. For the rest, they hoped that the growing mound of treated Broderson water would slowly, slowly force its way down to the lower aquifer, but it would take years and I don't know how much would be lost to the Bay as it stair-stepped down on the sloping clay lenses.

Right now, the fastes way to stop salt water intrusion is possibly sinking a new well east of town and shutting down the wells west of town and setting up some kind of water damn & etc. I presume Cleath & Assoc are looking into that and it'll come back to the board.

As for the suggestion that I have some sort of "in" with the Board. Hahahahah. When I want information, I GO ASK THEM A QUESTION, or send them an email and ASK THEM THE QUESTION. Most times, I get an answer back, or I'm told, We don't know but we'll look into it.

I know it may come as a shock to you, Dear Inlet, but talking to the CSD members is something anyone else in town can do. I know, it sounds amazing, but it's true.

Or I go to the CSD office and ask. New Board, Old Board, everyone in the CSD office has been nice as pie, always. Or I go sit in on a committee meeting and ask questions. Or I wander over to the Farmer's Market to the Ask Your CSD Member Table there and ask the questions. Or go ask people on the Technical Task Force, etc. Or attend CSD meetings and ask questions during public comment.

If this is somehow having an "in" with the CSD then, like everyone else in town, I must have an "in."

As for there being any "slam dunk" sites preferable to Tri W, the problem was, nobody seriously looked. The CC asked for that information but was only given a cursory "guestimate," which was ignored. So, without a serious side-by-side comparison, the community was given no options. THAT's what I find so disturbing about this whole thing. And, I've written before, even with that cursory sentence to the CC, the guestimate there was a million less or 5-6 million more and on a 150-180 million project, that amount is chump change either way and should have been left up to the voters to decide. They repeatedly asked for just such a comparison and vote and were repeatedly denied. Why?

Shark Inlet said...

I know that I can talk with the board members. I even know one on a social basis ... although not well enough that I would classify them as a "friend" ... perhaps friend of a friend.

I was refering to the business back in September about the meeting where they were going to approve a restoration bond for the TriW construction. You were the first one who reported ... anywhere ... that Julie stopped that process by making a phone call to the bonding agent and reminding them of what they should have already known from the bond application, that the property was marginally ESHA. I just assumed that the reason you knew and no one else did is that one of the boardmembers told you.

In any case, there is NO WWTF plan that would cure the saltwater intrusion problem. That is a problem based largely on our overdraft. The TriW plan would have done some good. Not doing anything for some 5 years (the current board's choice) is worse than a partial solution. Sure, only some of the disposal water would reach the lower aquifer. Right now only some of our discharges reach the lower aquifer. The point is that Brodersond discharge is vastly preferable to no action and I've seen no suggestion from Lisa (or anyone else who has complained about Broderson) as to the solution.

When referring to the site selection question, I was looking back to the 1999-2001 time period where the various sites were studied. You claim that no serious consideration was given to other sites, the previous board claimed to have thoroughly studied the issue. Maybe you are claiming they didn't do a thorough job largely because the conclusion they reached is one you don't like.

They did do comparrisons of all the various sites. During the two year period where the issue was repeatedly discussed, you and everyone else in our community had the opportunity to comment. Did you not attend those meetings? Did you not comment then? Did you not read their site selection comparrison information?

Churadogs said...

What I am saying and have said is IF you heavily weight criteria X, then that's what you'll get. One of Ron Crawford's points is that even though parks were about at the bottom of the community survey list, that "strongly held community value" kept coming up on the site evaluations and clearly carried a very heavy weight. Had that weighted criteria for a park in the middle of town NOT been there, what sites would then have been more closely considered?

And if you read the various flyers out during the recall, we were told repeatdly that Tri W will save our drinking water, will stop salt water intrusion, & etc. The reality is far different.

Shark Inlet said...

Oh, I understand very well what you mean, Ann.

If you stack the deck or load the dice, you can pretty much get the outcome you want.

So, the question again is this. Which site would have done better than TriW ... with the exception of the park? If you can't tell us which site would have been preferred to TriW, I suggest you go back and re-read the documents produced at that time. Presumably they will tell you which site was better ... other than the park.

I would agree that TriW is better than no plant at this point in time. A quick calculation I did earlier (and I believe I mentioned here) shows that even if the new plant is far better (99% nitrate removal instead of, say, only 95%) than TriW but would take five more years to get online ... would take more than 50 years before the new, "better" plant could make up for the extra damage done during the next five years.

If you value the environment and drinking water quality in particuar, you would prefer TriW to some undefined plan.

As to your suggestion that a better job could be done ... you are right. However I would claim (again) that your group's WWTF won't do any better than TriW for stemming saltwater intrusion. If you think otherwise, I would love to see a detailed explanation of how.

Saltwater intrustion needs to be solved via means other than just a WWTF. The WWTF and a Broderson disposal would help, but won't do the job.

Churadogs said...

I have long maintained that what we were always looking at here is a WATER issue, not a WASTEwater issue. If somebody (the county? the original CSD board? the RWQCB??)had started with that premise, what would have occurred. For example, I asked Rob Miller, during one of the Cleath & Assoc presentation, IF the community had done typical Septic Maintence District stuff, mandatory water conservation, low-flow toilets, de-watering portions of town, etc. would the nitrate levels have dropped to the 10 required by the state (down from the average of 10.4) and he answered, "most likely." That told me that had we done just that years ago, before the CSD, when CAWS was asking, begging, demanding #83=12 be implemented, it's likely that would have bought TIME to do the water reasearch (the USGS studies weren't even completed then, let along the more complete water studies) needed to take a wider WATERSHED and WATERUSE look, and thereby move first to stem seawater intrusion, possible ag/exchange, new well east of town, etc. THEN when that was stableized, move on to a WASTEwater treatment plant. It's all water under the bridge now, but the wrong focus can create awful problems down the road.

Shark Inlet said...

Yes, there are issues other than the sewer, WWTF, nitrates and pollution. You are 100% right. It would be nice to get science to confirm which homes (exactly) should be part of the PZ and whether the Broderson site is really the best for recharge or whether running "irrigation water" lines to every home would be better.

However, the prohibition on discharges in the PZ and other actions of the RWQCB sort of force the other issues to be far less important.

The RWQCB has had some issues with Los Osos for many years. They've asked us to do one thing for many years, get a sewer and WWTF. We've refused for years.

It sounds like your latest reason for refusing to build at TriW is that there are other things you would like the LOCSD to address at the same time.

This is sort of like speeding refusing to slow down (even if there is a CHP in the rear view mirror) just because you need to also ansewr the cellphone and adjust the radio station. Do the important things first, the lesser important second and third.

If you refuse to do the wisest thing and tackle the most important question first, the CHP will be more likely to give you a ticket. If you refuse to build a sewer and WWTF after some 30 years of being asked/begged/pleaded and required to do so, you are asking for trouble.

Anonymous said...

Ann, fortunately we don’t make decisions based on what journalists maintain. There is a water issue and there is a wastewater issue, you do a disservice to imply that one needs to be done before the other.

You should quote Miller in total context. At the ACL, under oath, he testified that he did not dispute that Los Osos needed a wastewater plant. That means a plant, not a Maintanence District. He has twice stated that conservation does not change the total nitrate loading into the basin. A Maintanence District will not reduce nitrate loading, even if it helps (as Miller suggested) in lowering the averages slightly.

Regarding de-watering, do the calculations on the amount of water in the upper aquifer, you can’t pump enough to practically affect pollution. It's only purpose is to use polluted water. Re-use of high nitrate (or polluted) water is useful to minimize seawater intrusion. It is a water project and should be paid by the entire district.

Water conservation is a water issue, and should be pursued aggressively regardless of any wastewater project. It requires a modest monetary investment and must be done.

Water re-use of the upper aquifer is a water issue, and should be pursued aggressively regardless of any wastewater project. It requires a major monetary investment and must be done.

Ann, once again you are creating an impression that there is no reason to expedite a wastewater project – that is a dangerous impression to create.

Anonymous said...

I should clarify something I said.

A maintanence district with clear standards for treatment level, disinfection, and disposal requirements would reduce pollution.

Also, a maintanence district is simply not needed to accomplish that. All that is required is individual system approval from the RWQCB along with clear standards for treatment level, disinfection, and disposal requirements for on-site systems within the prohibition zone.