Pages

Saturday, April 15, 2006

Ron Crawford over at http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/ is asking another one of his annoying Koan-like questions as to just what the Regional Water Quality Control Board wad doing for two years while the first CSD futzed around on a “solution” that they had already ruled – prior to the CSD election – they wouldn’t support. Considering the RWQCB has access to a time machine – they’ve sent out official rulings of the CDO hearings BEFORE it’s even taken place – how cool is that? – so it seems to me they could hop into their Way Back Time Machine and set things right. Meanwhile, I was away for a few days during which time CSD President Lisa Schicker wrote a “Viewpoint” for the Tribune. In case anybody missed it, here it is. I find it particularly interesting that a local Superior Court judge, hearing I believe the measure B case (?? there are so many miscellaneous lawsuits, it’s hard to keep track of them all) stated in the courtroom “that the LOCSD board was ‘anti-sewer.’” Now, first of all, that’s an extraordinary statement of . . . bias? . . . to raise at the start of a hearing. But it’s also indicative of so much of the misinformation that’s out there in the community. And the unwillingness of even Superior Court judges to dig a little deeper than phony sound bites or misleading headlines. That this sort of misapprehension would appear from the bench should concern everyone in Los Osos. At any rate, here’s the “Viewpoint” piece.



Los Osos Board is NOT “Anti - Wastewater Project”
Viewpoint submitted to TT April 6, 2006 by Lisa Schicker, LOCSD President
Misconceptions about the Los Osos Board and their activities are rampant in SLO County and some clarifications are in order.
Last week, a SLO Superior Court Judge told his courtroom that the current LOCSD Board was "anti-sewer"; this was quite surprising. Contrary to this notion, our Board is actively working on a revised wastewater project, an environmentally preferred project that addresses affordability, sustainability and our groundwater recharge and saltwater intrusion problems.
We have NEVER been “anti”-clean water or “anti-wastewater project”, as many, including our esteemed judge, have been led to believe.
For health, safety, environmental and economical reasons, we stated repeatedly that any community treatment facility must be located away from the town-center, away from the library, church, schools, and National Estuary. We don’t believe it was sustainable or economical to truck sludge to Santa Barbara County at 80% water content; part of the old plan. The $50,000+ pricetag per household (or $205/month) wasn’t acceptable either, more expensive than anywhere in America.
The recall election seated three new “Move-the-Sewer” Directors in October– joining two already-seated “Move-the-Sewer” Directors. Many don’t know that the old board and manager ignored public pleas and drained the wastewater fund just before the election. This drawdown left the new board less than $100k to work with, not including unsold bonds or state revolving fund loan monies. The old board started construction less than 20 days before the election, putting their community at great financial risk.
Despite obvious legal and financial pressures, our Board is making progress on five promises: 1) increase public participation, 2) implement water conservation measures, 3) start a septic tank management program, 4) conduct affordability study and 5) deliver a holistic wastewater project to Los Osos ASAP.
Two different engineering companies were chosen for three of these tasks: a septic tank management plan and updated wastewater project report will be ready by summer’s end, both incorporate water conservation.
LOCSD Board passed Resolutions requesting assistance from Assemblyman Blakeslee and SLO County – asking them to encourage the water board to stop enforcement and work together instead on acceptable community solutions.
A LOCSD negotiating team meets regularly with Water Board staff, to establish dialogue, resolve issues and provide project updates.
Over thirty-five public meetings (taped and televised) were held since October 1. In addition to wastewater, LOCSD manages water, drainage, solid waste, lighting and emergency services - all on a shoestring annual budget of less than $3 million. Like all CSD’s, SLO County retains most of Los Osos’ property taxes.
Three monthly business meetings are held and 10 advisory/adhoc committees meet, increasing public participation.
On numerous occasions in 2003-2005, before and after we were elected, after writing and speaking against the flawed project at public meetings, various officials replied:
“If you don’t like the downtown project, then just change your Board”.

These words were spoken by several Regional and State Water Board members, County Supervisors and Coastal Commissioners.

That is what we did – we got elected and changed our Board. The question remains - will these same government agencies that encouraged us to “change our Board” recognize our commitment and work with us to change the project, as they promised?
Our Board is willing, able and determined to solve Los Osos problems – we request cooperation from other agencies to get the job done and we don’t want to spend any more of the people’s precious resources on defending against enforcement – this waste only takes us further from our common goals. We publicly invite SLO County, the Water Boards and our Assemblyman to join with us for all of Los Osos.

Lisa Schicker, President, LOCSD Board
Los Osos …………………………………………………………………………………….

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ann, says :

‘“that the LOCSD board was ‘anti-sewer.’” Now, first of all, that’s an extraordinary statement of . . . bias?’

I did not see you there when the judge spoke so you are relying on what Lisa says in her viewpoint.

What the judge said was more like:

…to overly simplify the situation in Los Osos, the public perception of the two sides is that one was for a sewer and one was against a sewer.

Please tell me that the past several years’ history contradicts this regarding the current board members. Were they not actively involved in “flush the sewer” which morphed to “move the sewer”?

Would a reasonable person NOT conclude that they did not want a sewer?

Please!

Anonymous said...

Holy mackeral ann!!! You twist things around to fit your agenda more than any used car salesman I've ever met.
See Saturday's Tribune for many responses to Lisa's viewpoint. Oh. I forgot. The Tribune can't be trusted. Well anyway, thank goodness for the growing number of sensible people who no longer are willing to be hoodwinked by this crap. The word "disingenuous" is way, way too nice for these people.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous said:"
Please tell me that the past several years’ history contradicts this regarding the current board members. Were they not actively involved in “flush the sewer” which morphed to “move the sewer”?"

I have run into a few people who believe we don't need a sewer. The vast majority of people I've spoken to either way throughout the years say, We don't want THIS particular sewer plant and/or we don't want ANY sewer plant in the the middle of town OR This sewer plant in the middle of town is too expensive, we can't afford it.& etc. Newspaper fotos of folks carrying signs saying, "Dump the sewer" or "Flush the sewer" or "No Sewer." might lead the viewer to conclude that the community is anti-sewer or no sewer rather than being anti-specific sewer plan.

Anonymous, AGAIN? or is it another Anonymous? said: "See Saturday's Tribune for many responses to Lisa's viewpoint." I did and found them most fasincating. Since letters to the editor are extremely limited as to space, there's a whole lot of details gone missing. That's what makes viewpoints and letters (and columns) and even blogs and blog comments so frustrating. The Devil is always in the details and when they go missing the narrative goes wrong.