Pages

Sunday, April 23, 2006

I Said Whaaaaat? Or How the RWQCB’s Phony Straw Man Meets Mr. Science Guy

In their “Responses to Technical Evidence and Comments submitted in Regards to Cease and Desist Orders, Los Osos,” April 19th document I was amazed to find on page 6, second paragraph, that the staff had written:

“Another commenter, Interested Party Ann Calhoun, said that Dr. John Alexander has an effective on-site nitrogen removal system that has been proven to the “RB staff’s satisfaction.” Staff met with Dr. Alexander a few years ago and he indicated that his system would not be applicable to residential use. Staff understands that the system is not commercially available. Approximately 15 years ago, Dr. Alexander pilot tested his galvanic agglutinator at the Morro Bay/Cayucos Wastewater Treatment Plant. The system did not function properly Dr. Alexander claimed that that particular failure was due to the limited size of the project (pilot test was conducted with a 55 gal drum.) Contrary to Ms. Calhoun’s claim, the system has not been proven to “staff’s satisfaction.”

Contrary to Ms. Calhoun’s claim? Really?

Here’s what I actually wrote in my Feb 21 “Interested Party” letter: “Furthermore, if your interest in the interim nitrate reduction of the basin (until a new sewer plant is built and running), I would urge your Board to require that your Staff certify acceptable enhanced on-site systems for interim use. For example, Dr. Alexander of Cayucos, has stated that he has a $4,000 until that he claims will remove 98% of nitrates from septic discharges. He further claims that he has proven his tested results to the RWQCB staff’s satisfaction. IF THAT IS TRUE, then Dr. Alexander’s system would be a scientifically better alternative for removing nitrates than your pumping scheme , but it would not be financially better UNLESS you waive your $900 a year “discharge” and testing fees. In short, IF Dr. Alexander’s system actually works, the community would have a much better alternative, but ONLY if your Board made it financially viable

So the choice again comes down to a simple question: Do you want the community to simply waste money and resources or do you want them to dramatically reduce the nitrate load of the basin while the new sewer plant is being built?” (Italics, bold and capitalization in the original.)

You see the difference between the two? Good, I thought you would. Yet the RWQCB’s mischaracterization of my comment is in their official “reply.” It is also a false Straw Man.

Interestingly, in their reply, I noted that they did not address the point of my comment: The target nitrate reduction for the pumping scheme is about 20 – 22%. Since writing my Interested Party Letter, the Prana system has been installed at the Firehouse and we’ll see what the testing meters will say in a few months.

However, the RWQCB’s Technical Response noted that while there were dozens of various onsite systems, “only 14 of the 37 technologies for which performance data were available are rated to treat domestic wastewater to less than 10 mg/L total nitrogen – the minimum performance necessary to eventually restore Los Osos’s groundwater to drinking water standards.”

Ah, but you see the problem there? The pumping scheme is supposed to be a temporary “fix” to reduce the nitrogen load by about 20-22% -- NOT a permanent solution of the “less than 10 mg/L” which is the target for any sewer system.

Do any of these 14 technologies reduce nitrates by about 20% and do it onsite without removing millions of gallons of water out of the basin and are any of them economically feasible as an interim solution, as cheap or cheaper than pumping? I asked the designer of the Prana system and he said he was sure he could meet that 20% target goal (we’ll see when the numbers come in) and at $4,000 per unitl, it’s certainly within the cost parameters .But what about any of the other 14 systems studied and rated? Who knows. The Technical Response document doesn’t say.

My original comment pointed to that very question. But, to date, I have received no answer. Just this Official misquoted and mischaracterized Phony Straw Man set up in order to support a preordained decision.

Hey, We’re the RWQCB! Science, and technology and common sense need not apply.

15 comments:

Ron said...

"Contrary to Ms. Calhoun’s claim, the system has not been proven to “staff’s satisfaction.” "

Judging from that misquote, I think we've figured out the Shark Inlet identity mystery -- sounds like a compilation of the RWQCB staff.

Jeeze-louise, who's policing the police?

"Contrary to SewerWatch's claim, the RWQCB believed the Solution Group's plan was technically viable and brilliant. That's why we wasted two years as we sat back and watched them chase it... and did nothing."

Anonymous said...

Ann, what part of, “the system has not been proven to “staff’s satisfaction” don’t you understand?

You rail on about the water board not providing certified lists of alternatives to pumping in this blog while in earlier blogs you rail on about the water board CAN NOT dictate what system we utilize.
Talk about straw man!

When you get your CDO, by all means, put forth this Dr. Alexander gismo. You’ll have several months to respond and dialog with them. You’ll know where you stand long before your fifteen minutes!

If my memory serves me, he is the one that asserted that all that was needed was twenty dollars a year worth of chemicals and we could turn sewer waste into clear drinkable water. Prior to that statement, he said we had no pollution problem!

He seemed like a nice old man but where is the proof of these claims? Maybe you should just stick to humor, as science and logic seem to escape you!

Anonymous said...

Ron cannot even get his out of contact quote correct, mixing two diferent writers.

Jeeze-louise, who's looking after the conspiracy?

Anonymous said...

Jeeze-louise, who's looking after the conspiracy?

Anonymous said...

So it is okay when Ann is misquoted in writing in official documents?? Sure, just as it okay to hover around this blog like vultures ready to pounce with insults, rationalisations, & hatred.
Anything so we can have our Beloved TriW back.
The only reason you and Ron get this constant signal jam is because they fear your voice.
& cussing. they don't like cussing. Behavior based marketing bullshit. Obsessed forth rate propagandists. Sickening to watch them backing this out of control water board's attack on our community. We are NOT a $165 million dollar superfund site. What we are is in the crosshairs of disfuctional, moribound, political agendas that have very very little to do with clean water or the well being of the citizens of California. You cheerleaders constantly & personally attacking Ann & Ron & our LOCSD board can go FUCK yourselves as far as I'm concerned. You've have abused the privledge of this comments section well beyond my patience. Instead of your insults, taunts, and lies, you should at least respect Ann and Ron for allowing your trash on their sites. but open discussion and debate has never really been the objective here, has it?? Be honest, you all are glad that one of our fellow citizens is being officially misrepresented in these hearing documents, because that is the kind of game you guys have been playing with our town for years. By any means necessary. Seven years of bad policy based in cronyism and speculators' agendas.
God Bless Ann & Ron and the volunteers canvassing our town today on foot,trying to drum up a presence at the kangaroo court proceedings being inflicted on us next week by these brownshirts. God bless this brave LOCSD board and their commitment to this community, especially their efforts in trying to defend us against this regulatory machine's abuse of power.

Anonymous said...

And what exactly do you label yourself Mr. DogPatch? "can go FUCK yourselves as far as I'm concerned" sure looks like "Obsessed 'fourth' rate propagandists' statements to me.

It is okay for Ann and Ron to twist, take out of context, and lay sarcasm on those that voice disagreement with the accomplishments of this new board. You say you want a discussion and debate.

Okay, your statement “Seven years of bad policy based in cronyism and speculators' agendas.” Now how is this to be discussed?

The phrase “Seven years of bad policy” is your opinion with no evidence offered to support this. What does, “cronyism and speculators' agendas, mean? And who are the cronies and speculators and what is their agenda?

It is very difficult to have meaningful exchanges with statements like those, no?

Are you not guilty of the same “crime” that you accuse the “disbelievers”?

I will be happy to discuss and debate substantive questions when you offer them!

Mike Green said...

http://loviews.blogspot.com

Go read Steve Paige then make a decision about onsite systems.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous said:"He seemed like a nice old man but where is the proof of these claims? Maybe you should just stick to humor, as science and logic seem to escape you!

11:51 AM, April 23, 2006 "

You missed my point. If you don't know how to accurately sumarize an issue or point or question and then respond to it accurately, you have no business writing official stuff. What the staff did here is to set up a phony straw man the nock it down without addressing the issue I was bringing up for commenbt. Sorta like what happens often in this comment section. But a comment section of a blog is a far different creature than an Official Report.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

When Ron wrote "Contrary to SewerWatch's claim, the RWQCB believed the Solution Group's plan was technically viable and brilliant. That's why we wasted two years as we sat back and watched them chase it... and did nothing." was it an exact quote? I would suggest you ask Ron to provide clarification. After all, if this is not an exact quote, Ron has committed the very same crime that I did a month or two ago when you jumped down my throat. If I remember, he piled on as well.

My claim is still that the usage of quotation marks like Ron did (and like you yourself did in that link I provided you) is just fine ...

But, I know how much you value consistency and correctness in all matters quotation and news so I figure that you might want to get all pissy with Ron now, too.

Anonymous said...

The water board clearly states that there is no proof that Dr Alexander’s system works. Your real argument is for them to test it and verify it because it offers hope for lessening nitrates.

The Piranha system also offers hope as does the big ditch at the water company site, etc.

There are no doubt many other home grown systems that might help, but the water board is clear that there needs to be documented evidence that the scientific community accepts AND THAT IS NOT IN THE PURVIEW OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.

When my time for a CDO comes, I will simply pump as I view this as the most cost effective for me in the two years or so before a real system is operational. (Remember all the campaign promises from September?)

How many citizens will be happy financing 4 to 5 grand for an interim solution? So please tell me and your readers that we will have a functioning system before we have to abandon our homes?

Ron said...

Anon said:
"The phrase “Seven years of bad policy” is your opinion with no evidence offered to support this."

Oh, allow me.

Another Anon (I think) said:
"It is okay for Ann and Ron to twist, take out of context, and lay sarcasm...

and then Shark said:

When Ron wrote, "Contrary to SewerWatch's claim, the RWQCB believed the Solution Group's plan was technically viable and brilliant. That's why we wasted two years as we sat back and watched them chase it... and did nothing." was it an exact quote?

Just layin' sarcasm, Shark. Kind of funny, though, don't ya think? Wouldn't it be refreshing if that was an actual quote?

Laying sarcasm? You say that like it's a bad thing.

"... the Solution Group's plan was technically viable and brilliant." Hilarious.

Another Anon (I think) said:
"So please tell me and your readers that we will have a functioning system before we have to abandon our homes? "

There's no doubt in my mind that if the State would just get the hell out of the way, and bitter, former Solution Groupers would just go away, Los Osos would have a functioning, reality-based system in about three years. It's not rocket science -- build a collection system (most of the logistics for that are already complete, right?), hook it up to a big pipe that goes about two miles downwind to a bare-bones, reality-based, viable treatment facility. It's that simple, but the bitter, former Solution Groupers (save Tom Ruehr) just won't go away and allow it to happen. Why? I have no idea.

Anonymous said...

Boy,

I thought Ron didn't know anything about wastewater, but apparently he knows enough to rendor a technical opinion.

'bare-bones, reality-based, viable treatment facility'

Man, it's that easy! What a revelation. No out of town opposition? Instant land-use changes and approvals by the County & Coastal.? No inflation? Funding out of thin air?

Here's where Shark's analysis is relevant. The collection system costs $68 million, so adding another two miles will add, not subtract cost. In 6 years inflation adds another $20 million or so. Design is not free - add another $5 million or so.

My opinion is the crux of the problem is not what most people think, and I'm amazed about it.

This whole thing has evolved to more than a disagreement about a sewer.

It's really a disagreement about whether to fight the state of California.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

Don't get me wrong. Your style of sarcasm and the use of quotation marks to show something that might have been said or written is just fine. The problem is that you should be careful not to do that sort of thing in this comment section. When I tried that before, Ann got all in a huff and told me that I was wrong to use quotes that way.

Of course, if she plays favorites and you are on her good side, she might ignore your offense, much like she ignores the wacky things current LOCSD board does but picks at nits of previous boards...

Anonymous said...

I think you guys better read this in the TT:

"In a dramatic reversal of a months-old position, regional water quality regulators are backing down from their plan to force Los Osos residents to pump their septic tanks six times a year until a communitywide sewer is built."

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/mld/sanluisobispo/14422087.htm

Apparently septic pumping aint gonna happen in Los Osos.

Finally, a win for the good guys and some common sense from a state agency (Air Pollution Control District).

Churadogs said...

Public works said,"This whole thing has evolved to more than a disagreement about a sewer.

It's really a disagreement about whether to fight the state of California."

As far as I can see, what this has been about is a process that went off track from day one. This train wreck was entirely unnecessary, but because crucial information was repeatedly kept from the voters, because the voters were cut out of the loop at many points or flat out lied to for reasons that still aren't clear, even today, the die was cast. Add on the repeated failure on the part of "regulators," i.e Coastal Commission, County planning, etc., the problems simply compounded and the "safety net" to prevent some of the problems failed. I have said repeatedly, none of this is rocket science. If the public had been in the loop (no hidden reports and/or agendas, no hide-the-salami with costs, no scorched earth policies, etc.), if they had been presented with honest options and honest prices, they could have made informed choices, voted on same and we wouldn't be in this mess today.
Inlet Said,"Ron,

Don't get me wrong. Your style of sarcasm and the use of quotation marks to show something that might have been said or written is just fine. The problem is that you should be careful not to do that sort of thing in this comment section. When I tried that before, Ann got all in a huff and told me that I was wrong to use quotes that way.

Of course, if she plays favorites and you are on her good side, she might ignore your offense, much like she ignores the wacky things current LOCSD board does but picks at nits of previous boards... "

Sorry, I wasn't following your squabble with Ron. I agree with you that this comment section isn't really set up for "cute." And, alas, lends itself to constant misunderstanding. And I didn't get all in a huff as you claim. The rule of thumb regarding quotation marks on direct quotes is to be found in every style book in the universe. Nothing to get huffy about. The problem comes when they're used in other ways and it's not clear from the context whether what's in quotes is a direct transcription or you're using the quotation marks to designate some cuteness, as in wink, nudge, curley-fingers making quote marks in the air, wink, nudge and so forth.