Pages

Wednesday, April 26, 2006

Proposed Interested Party Public Comment at the April 28, 2006 CDO hearings
at the RWQCB Offices, SLO, CA.

Here’s what I would like to say to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, during my supposed 2 minutes of public comment. This won’t happen because in the time allotted for this cattle-call “Show Trial of the Los Osos 45”, the targeted 45 will only have 15 minutes each to present their case, call witnesses, cross examine witnesses, & etc. I know, it’s funny. Reminds me of the hilarious sketch on the old Monty Python Flying Circus Show – The Summarize Proust’s Rememberance of Things Past In 30 Seconds Gong Show spoof. The sly joke, of course, was that Proust’s monumental work is seven volumes long and couldn’t be summarized in 30 hours let alone 30 seconds. But then that’s what this show trial is all about – entertainment and instruction for the Denizens of Dogpatch, followed by the public hanging. Justice is served. Let the show begin.


Perception becomes reality when perception is acted on as if it were “fact.”

At the December ACL hearings, one of your key staff members was charged with giving an historic “overview” of Los Osos/RWQCB history. He presented old, out of date nitrate/water testing data as if it were current and correct. At that same meeting, Rob Miller, the CSD’s engineering advisor, later presented corrected, up-to-date information from the most recent Cleath and Associates water report. That report had been given to your staff months before and was available for the presentation.

At the CDO informational meeting in January, one of your key staff members stated that “he was unaware that Los Osos was in (water) overdraft.” That a key staff member charged with proposing the present CDO pumping scheme was “unaware” of the extremely serious salt-water intrusion due to the overdraft facing Los Osos was startling.

Several days before this hearing, the Staff suddenly changed direction after they heard from the Air Pollution Control District that the APCD is “concerned that bimonthly pumping . . . “may cause significant adverse impacts.” Staff further stated that “if necessary,” they’ll “study potential impacts of pumping requirements.” The fact that these “potential impacts” weren’t studied and resolved before these CDOs were issued, indicated to me that the “facts” in this case were never relevant. Instead, what your staff intended was to use this CDO hearing as a political tool to accomplish a political goal – a complete violation of the process.

I have heard from this Board and many others outside Los Osos the mantra that “Everyone knows . . . You people in Los Osos are anti-sewer.” Like the examples given above, this “fact” is either out of date or simply wrong. But it is a perfect example of how a wrong fact can become a perception that then becomes reality. After all, Everyone Knows that everyone in Los Osos is anti-sewer, aren’t they?

Unless they are directly hands-on, all Boards must rely on “facts” given to them by others. Wrong facts, out of date data, biased information, just plain “bad science,” disregarding facts in order to force a political goal, all result in wrong perceptions and wrong perceptions result in wrong decisions.

And wrong decisions can have devastating consequences, not only to a community like Los Osos, but to the very Board that is charged with choosing the best course of action.

10 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I know you are a stickler on the proper usage of quotation marks, so when you write "I have heard from this Board and many others outside Los Osos the mantra that 'Everyone knows ... You people in Los Osos are anti-sewer'" I have to ask you which board member said this.

You see, if a board member said this you have a valid point. However I suspect that if a board member had said something like this you may have misheard. I can easily imagine Young (or any of the others) saying something like "historically you people in Los Osos are anti-sewer and your recent actions seem to fall into the same pattern."

So, what is the exact quote? Unless we know the exact quote and its context we cannot fairly assess the boardmembers intended meaning with such a statement.


By the way, I do think it fair to say that many in Los Osos are anti-sewer and I also think it fair to say that the actions the board took in October could be reasonably be viewed as anti-sewer by a reasonably well informed member of the public or even the RWQCB. After all, the LOCSD has not presented any compelling evidence as of yet that they do have a plan (according to RWQCB and SWRCB definitions) that would show they are not anti-sewer.

Anonymous said...

Ann wrote,
“He presented old, out of date nitrate/water testing data as if it were current and correct. At that same meeting, Rob Miller, the CSD’s engineering advisor, later presented corrected, up-to-date information from the most recent Cleath and Associates water report. That report had been given to your staff months before and was available for the presentation.”

Proscecution staff Technical Responses of April 19,2006 writes:
“Groundwater Nitrate Concentrations Have Not Decreased Since 1983
Some CDO recipients submitted comparisons of groundwater nitrate data from 1983 to data from April 2005 in an attempt to demonstrate that nitrate levels have decreased since 1983
Upon closer inspection, the apparent decrease in values is attributed to the way the data is reported, not actual decreases. The nitrate data from 1983 is reported as nitrate. The nitrate data from 2005 is reported as nitrogen. The difference in values is a result of the difference in molecular weight of nitrate and nitrogen (nitrate is 4.45 times heavier than nitrogen). Correction of the 1983 values demonstrates that nitrate concentrations in groundwater have clearly increased since 1983. Correction of the limited data set provided by the CDO recipients demonstrates that average nitrate concentrations were 30% higher in April 2005 than in 1983. Also, the number of wells that exceed the drinking water standard of 10 mg/L nitrate as nitrogen increased from 9 out of 26 wells in 1983 to 13 out of 26 wells in 2005. This is consistent with the long-term groundwater data set, which demonstrates discernible upward trends in nitrate concentrations in nearly all wells since 1983.”

This was included in the material that was referenced in your very recent post about your interested party letter!

Anonymous said...

I would like to see you take 20 seconds from your very generous 2 minute allotment to correct your being misquoted in the prosecution team's report. Knock that Straw man down. Re-submit your letter as evidence. They are likely being as careful with other parts of their report as well. Nitrate vs. nitrogen. 1983 vs 2006. 2nd St. leach field submerged by high tides, cited from a "private conversation" with a contractor. How about an address?
Shell game and spin. If your letter can be so transparently misused, so can other data as well.
"the only science being practiced here is political science."
You efforts are as ever appreciated by a great many folks here in town. Don't let the propaganda machine get you down. Their beloved CDOs and their TRi W sludge factory dreams continue to unravel, despite all the money, misrepresentation, and anti democratic efforts.

Anonymous said...

What is this reference to 2 minutes? The recipent has 15 minutes for their presentation. Who is is spinning who?

Mike Green said...

Sharkey, I never once heard that the new CSD is anti sewer.
Anti TriW? yes, anti sewer? no.
If the perception of certain Water Gods is different, then maybe it's because of a preconception based on history.
That would leave the new CSD out of it, wouldn't it?

Anonymous said...

Julie, Lisa, Al, et.al were first "flush the sewer" then tranforming to "move the sewer" for much better public traction.

Is not the grand plan to litigate until we are all old or dead?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Their actions of stopping the permitted WWTF and now trying ONCE AGAIN for the denied step/steg would certainly hold up your argument. As would the bills for litigation.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous wrote: "The nitrate data from 2005 is reported as nitrogen."

Then why was the Cleath & Associates 2005 Report entitled "Nitrate Monitoring Program". With you input it should have been "Nitrogen Monitoring.

Where we live, the nitrate levels has dropped dramatically since the house was built and the septic system installed. Can you explain that?

Anonymous said...

Ann, this is completely out of context, but I wish you would read the lateset remark from some one called Denny Crain or something like that. He makes a bold face lie to the effect that Taxpayers Watch (formerly the Solutions group)will increase the property values of the residents if the send them money. It's toward the end of " the latest on the Los Osos.......etc. Isn't it sort of illegal to solicit funds under false pretences?

Churadogs said...

Inlet said:"I know you are a stickler on the proper usage of quotation marks, so when you write "I have heard from this Board and many others outside Los Osos the mantra that 'Everyone knows ... You people in Los Osos are anti-sewer'" I have to ask you which board member said this."

Thanks, I should have added, "like" The quotes were not attributed to a named source so fall within the fingers in the air quote unquote usage, but to make it absolutely clear I'm refering to quote unquote fingers in the air fragments of the constantly heard mantra, to be stickling, I should have said "like"

Dogpatch said, "If your letter can be so transparently misused, so can other data as well."

That's what should be of concern to everyone. I saw exactly how they did it to my comments, so either they're incompetent and can't do a proper precis, or it was done deliberately, which calls all their responses into question.

anonymous said,"Ann wrote,
“He presented old, out of date nitrate/water testing data as if it were current and correct. At that same meeting, Rob Miller, the CSD’s engineering advisor, later presented corrected, up-to-date information from the most recent Cleath and Associates water report. That report had been given to your staff months before and was available for the presentation.”

Proscecution staff Technical Responses of April 19,2006 writes:"

What I was refering to was what was presented at the ACL hearing, not the April 19th response. What was put up on the screne were old, out of date nitrate charts. Rob Miller later put up the latest studies, and one of the Board members then asked him if the RWQCB staff had those CDs. Rob's response was, yes they do. It remains a puzzle to me why the RWQCB staff was using the old charts. Incompetence? or Deliberate?

Anonymous said:"Anonymous said...
What is this reference to 2 minutes? The recipent has 15 minutes for their presentation. Who is is spinning who? "

No spin. According to the latest proceedures, Interested parties will have 2 minutes of comment somewhere during the proceedings, Designated parties will have 15 minutes, the CSD is given an hour or something.

When I got home last night there was a hand-deliverd envelope at my front door from the RWQB noticing that they had changed their recommendations (see posting below this)and notes that "This revision does not change the scope of the hearing, unless the Chair issues a revised hearing notice orhearing procedures." etc. So who knows what will happen Friday. The chairman can do anything he wants.

Another anonymous said: "Ann, this is completely out of context, but I wish you would read the lateset remark from some one called Denny Crain or something like that. He makes a bold face lie to the effect that Taxpayers Watch (formerly the Solutions group)will increase the property values of the residents if the send them money. It's toward the end of " the latest on the Los Osos.......etc. Isn't it sort of illegal to solicit funds under false pretences? "

Denny Crane, as in the TV show, Boston Legal? I haven't seen whatever you're talking about so I have no clue. Far as I know you can solicit funds under any cockamamie claim, i.e. Send Me Money and I'll Pray that God cures your Lumbago! & etc.