Pages

Monday, June 05, 2006

Uh . . . .

If you think the Tribune’s regular stories are often skewed beyond weirdness, you’ll love the Editorial that appeared Sunday, June 4, 2006.

“Los Osos needs a stand-down. All Sides need to compromise now before more money and time are gone.”

The editorial continues:

-- that “the regional water board should hold it’s $6.6 million in fines in abeyance while giving a realistic timeline for sewer completion.”

--that “concessions would be made on all sides. For instance, Taxpayers Watch would relinquish its all-or-nothing stance on the Tri W midtown sewer site; it’s a nonstarter.”

--“And the district board should exhibit real leadership by showing flexibility. How? Not nitpicking every item in a compromise.”

--“The state water board – if its goal is truly to clean up the community’s pollution as quickly as possible – should reinstate the $135 million low-interest loan.”

--“Contractor claims should be fairly resolved. And the lawsuits filed against the district should be dropped.”

Uh, o.k. Stand-down sounds like a good idea, but is the Tribune serious here? For example, were they aware, when they wrote the above, that the CSD had already voted 5 – 0 to re-apply for the State Loan?

--Or that the CSD, from day one, is and has been involved in the required contract resolution discussions with the contractors? In addition, before contract problems can be resolved, if there have been violations of law involved, I don’t think those can or should be ignored. Is the Tribune unaware that such allegations concerning one major party in this drama were sent to the Tribune (among other media sites. See this blogsite’s posting of May 16, 2006) and to date not a peep about any of these allegations has appeared in the Tribune. Instead we get the Tribune consulting lawyers about the CSD’s law firm charging 20-cents a copy for Xeroxing. Why not run the formal letter of complaint sent to the Construction Management Association of America past the Tribune’s legal consultants and see what their take is regarding allegations of any legal violations, violations that may be stalling contract resolutions.

--And if the Tri-W midtown sewer site is a nonstarter, why would asking Taxpayers Watch to drop their “all or nothing stance” be a “concession? Conceding to a nonstarter isn’t a concession, it’s simple common sense.

--And how can the CSD board show “real leadership” and “flexibility” by “not nitpicking every item in a compromise.” Compromise? What compromise? Is the Tribune unaware that the project update report hasn’t come in yet? And until it does, there’s nothing to “compromise” about . . . yet.

I’m delighted that Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee may be working on any legislation that could “bring the state, district and community together in finding a solution.”

As for the Tribune’s bottom line editorial advice: “Get a site and get on with it.” Uh, gosh, thanks for the advice, guys. But that’s what the CSD has been doing from day one, in spite of all those groups mentioned in the editorial diligently trying to block the way and/or break their kneecaps and “dissolve” them to death.

I thought those kinds of things would have been obvious, even to the editorial board of the Tribune, but I guess they didn’t notice.

24 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

It appears that you wrote your blog entry before reading what I posted yesterday ...

For your benefit and because it seems to be the topic of your entry today, I will cut-n-paste here with a minor edit for readability...

However, to save yourself some time, I'll give you the summary first.

Summary: To say that that since day one the CSD has been attempting to "get a site and get on with it" is simply a false statement. Since day one this CSD has been attempting to do everything in their power to stop a project that had already been sited, permitted and where construction had already started. Most of issues they are dealing with these days are fallout from that choice. They've spent very little time on getting an alternative site and are years away from any construction and even if they were close, they have no ability to finance their desired project.



Sunday's Editorial

The problem with Sunday's editorial in the Trib is that editorial claimed that returning to TriW is a non-starter all the while saying that speed is of the essence.

If you want speed, you should go with TriW. If you refuse TriW you are refusing the fastest possible solution.

Some would suggest that "out of town" will be quick, but I would hazard a guess that if Al and Julie can hold things up for years, a few motivated folks east of town could probably find a good legal argument that the WWTF ought to be within the LOCSD boundaries ... especially if a site inside the district has already been approved and permitted. I would guesstimate that 5 years would be a minimum time before any project could even start.

Nope, sooner equals cheaper so sooner must equal TriW.

I did like the part about the RWQCB holding off on fines and the like and the SWRCB giving us back the SRF ... but it did seem that the Trib overlooked the fact that these problems are only because our current board chose to stop the only project that could get the sewer in place before the start of the next decade.

I'm all for trying to compromise and get along but there is no way TW and CCLO are going to be able to compromise because there is no way for both to achieve their goals at the same time. One side says "let's go for what is quickest and cheapest" and the other side is saying "let's move the sewer no matter how much it costs."

However, not all hope is lost ... as I've pointed out here before, compromise can occur, but it will only be possible when the current board decides to be flexible. If the current board were to compromise with property owners and sign a pledge to build at TriW if an "out of town" plant can't be proven possible before 2010 and can't be proven chaper, I am sure that property owners would be willing to back off a bit. Certainly such compromise would indicate that the board is at least willing to set a limit on our costs. Presumably then property owners are far more likely to pass a 218 vote to borrow money to pursue such an out of town plant. However, if the current board is unwilling to bend, they'll not get a 218 vote. Property owners will simply hope for dissolution or a new majority in November.


The way things are going, however, even if the SWRCB stops trying to get their money back, the contractors walk away from their losses and the RWQCB stop trying CDOs and even if they repeal the ACL findings that equal $10k/day in fines ... even if all that good stuff happens, unless we get a SRF, we have no hope of getting a project off the ground. Simply put, no sane person would buy bonds from this district at any interest rate below 10-15% and an interest rate that high puts any project out of reach.


Nope, this is a nightmare of a situation Trib had it wrong ... the current board is the problem, not just a group who needs to stop nitpicking.

PublicWorks said...

Ann sez:

"past the Tribune’s legal consultants and see what their take is regarding allegations of any legal violations, violations that may be stalling contract resolutions."

the question is, is it violations or allegations of violations that are stalling resolutions?


"..why would asking Taxpayers Watch to drop their “all or nothing stance” be a “concession?"

It was the Trib's opinion it was a non-starter, not TW's, according to the story. So it would be a 'concession' by TW if TW indeed insists on Tri-W or nothing (like the CSD insisting on anything but Tri-W). It would not be a 'concession' by the Trib.

Thank god newspapers and columnists don't make public policy. The Trib didn't explain why Tri-W was a 'non-starter' for legislation. Obviously, Tri-W would be a concession by CSD board members.

The biggist laugh of the article is the following:

".. legislation that could “bring the state, district and community together in finding a solution."

Are they serious, the community come together in finding a solution? When you have some people dead set against a sewer, or any solution that might cost over xx dollars regardless of feasibility, there will be opposition. The question will be whether more legal action pops up in the next chapter of this saga.

As history has shown - count on it.

Anonymous said...

Churadog,

Your todays blog totally surprised me. Yesterday's Tribune editorial seemed to me and many others to be completely supporting your cause.

The editorial implores all the litigators and regulators to cease and desist while the CSD should merely stop nit picking?

You are truly a master in the art of double speak!

Ron said...

Here's the link to the editorial.

Clueless, Ann? The first line says:

"It's disheartening that Los Osos taxpayers paid close to $1 million in legal and management fees over a recent four-month period and have moved no closer to solving the community's sewer impasse."

Other than the new board hiring a reputable wastewater engineering firm to move closer to solving the community's sewer impasse. Other than that, right Trib? (Quick memo to the Trib: Los Osos is that little coastal town just south of Morro Bay. To get there, take Los Osos Valley Road until you see a gigantic ditch in the ground.)

"... in this proposal, concessions would be made on all sides. For instance, Taxpayers Watch would relinquish its all-or-nothing stance on the Tri-W midtown sewer site;"

Ummmm... what "concessions" are left after the mid-town sewer site is moved? The only concession left would be not asking the state Attorney General's Office to investigate who is responsible for the following phrase getting in an early version of the Vision Statement, and then in the Project Report... to utterly disastrous consequences:

“It is essential that any proposed wastewater project within the community of Los Osos reflect these strongly held community values.”

One of those "strongly held community values:"

"Creating a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community..."

That one freaking, nonsensical line has cost taxpayers everywhere -- not just Los Osos -- multi-millions of dollars and has led to a staggering waste of people hours.

So who is responsible for that one lie... errrrrrrr... I mean, line?

How did it get in to an early version of the Vision Statement (that line is no longer in the Los Osos Vision Statement), and then in the Project Report, when the "visioning" documents that were produced in 1994, and were the basis of the Vision Statement, do not support that claim at all? That is the number-one-question that needs to be answered, and it is very, very serious.

That one line has caused all of this.

Thanks for the article, Ann. Interesting stuff.

Anonymous said...

Ron,

Do you realize the current year? You make reference to something from 1994, 12 years ago! The reference to nit picking in the trib editorial certainly could be applied to you. What happened back then to make you so focused on "strongly held community values"? With all due respect, whatever it was, the sewer saga has traveled light years since then.

Churadogs said...

Anon sez:"Ron,

Do you realize the current year? You make reference to something from 1994, 12 years ago! The reference to nit picking in the trib editorial certainly could be applied to you. What happened back then to make you so focused on "strongly held community values"? With all due respect, whatever it was, the sewer saga has traveled light years since then. "

When you start laying track, if you point your first rail in the wrong direction then start linking each rail to the next and you have someone with a gun to your head saying, "Don't stop laying track or I'll shoot you," and you realize that you're heading north instead of south and youll soon roll right over a cliff you've discovered in your path, but you can't stop because of that gun, then the DATE you put that first rail down isn't important, but the DIRECITON (and the gun) sure are.

Churadogs said...

Anon, again, sez:"Churadog,

Your todays blog totally surprised me. Yesterday's Tribune editorial seemed to me and many others to be completely supporting your cause.

The editorial implores all the litigators and regulators to cease and desist while the CSD should merely stop nit picking?

You are truly a master in the art of double speak!"

You missed the point. I was commenting on the Rip Van Winkle-ish nature of the editorial -- a dollar short, clueless, as usual, and days late. What's next for the Trib, a thundering editorial on how General Grant should move ahead on Gettysburg?

*PG-13 said...

Once again The Triv lives down to expectations. But then, this is what The Triv does - trvialize the news. And this editorial is no exception. However, meaning no respect to an exceptionally poorly edited newspaper this article is an editorial. It is not a news article. As such it doesn't have to be factual per se. Its purpose is more spin and commentary than informative. One could hope that it could be both. But The Triv is often factually challenged and seldom lets facts get in the way of editorial comment. From 10,000 feet this ed piece reads pretty good. Los Osos could use a Stand-Down. And some willingness by all parties to step back and give the situation a little room to sensibly and logically evolve. Only the most hardcore zealot could argue with that. Sadly, Los Osos' kitchen is filled with zealots. A time-out and some compromise couldn't hurt. Of course, compromise is great in the abstract but difficult in practice. That's what makes it compromise, no?

From 100 feet this piece is fraught with sloppy editing and loose facts. It must be very difficult to write an editorial when facts are so loosely regarded and little known. But I give 'em some small credit for seeing a mess as a mess, calling it a mess, and suggesting some - albeit misguided - proposals for cleaning it up.

In similar response, and given the import of the Los Osos sewer not just to Los Osos but increasingly to the rest of the county, I humbly suggest The Triv assign one reporter to dedicate themself to learning the facts of this affair. Clearly that hasn't been done and it's hard to understand why it hasn't been done. Shucks, even an intern could do it. With just a little knowledge of the facts this editorial could have easily been written so much better. The basic premise of the column is worthy. Too bad The Triv's lack of objective information caused it to fall so short.

Ron said...

An anon said:

"Ron, Do you realize the current year? You make reference to something from 1994, 12 years ago!"

Well, that's the problem! I wish Bruce Buel had better evidence for that "strongly held community value," but there he was, on Dave Congalton's show just before last September's election, pointing to that 12-year-old document as the source of that "strongly held community value," and thus, the only reason to site the facility at Tri-W.

That's my point -- it is a 12-year-old document. But, there was Bruce, in 2005, pointing to it.

When I interviewed a public opinion specialist recently, she told me that public opinion surveys become "outdated" after just six months. When Buel was pointing to the 1995 Vision Statement as the source of that "strongly held community value," it was 10 years old.

Do I know what the current year is? Hell yes, I do. You might want to ask that question to Mr. Buel. He's the one referring to the mid-nineties documents. Not me. I just report that he does.

"What happened back then to make you so focused on "strongly held community values"?"

Why am I so focused on that one, 12-year-old "strongly held community value"?

Because -- no "strongly held community value for a wastewater treatment facility that is a visual and recreational asset to the community," no Tri-W. It's that simple.

Claiming that your community is the only community in the history of communities to "strongly" want their sewer plant in the middle of their town so it can also double as a park, is an extraordinary claim, so where's the extraordinary evidence?

There is none.

They made it up because they needed something to hold on to Tri-Dub, and that "strongly held community value" was it... the only thing. I wrote about that here.

I've been proving that for almost two years now, and I'm confident that someday (hopefully soon), someone in Los Osos, is going to have a light bulb flicker dimly above their head, and they will finally say to themselves, "Ohhhhh... that's what he's been talking about. No park -- no Tri-Dub. So why was there a park in our sewer plan?"

That ridiculous project was a $160 million park project disguised as a sewer project. I wrote about that here.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, a cheap, chain-linked, odiferous swamp outside of town is clearly a better solution for high-minded Los Osos folks. Who cares what the out-of-towners think about it anyway - they aren't part of US! (- Oh, but then neither are YOU, Ron...)

Shark Inlet said...

PG,

I agree with you 95% ... I would love to see some compromise from both sides. I've even outlined a path to that compromise that I believe that both sides could grudgingly accept ... (essentially the October negotiated agrement). The problem here is that the CSD is in the drivers seat here and they would need to take the first step toward an agreement with property owners. The CSD has instead chosen to make decisions that the property owners view as unwise, so essentially they've burned their bridges ... the CSD has no, zero, nada, nil, zilcho, /dev/null way of funding any project or even a design should they like what Ripley has proposed.

The CSD, if they were to take the action of studying ... for a time ... possible out of town "solutions" ... but if they were to limit their exploration period to 1 year ... they might get some support from property owners. Anything less than compromise from the CSD board will have horrible results, likely the dissolution of the district or receivership.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

I've attempted to answer questions when I've posed them to you.

Would you do me the favor and answer my questions of you?

*PG-13 said...

Shark Inlet > ...The CSD has instead chosen to make decisions that the property owners view as unwise, ....

Putting such questionable antigonistic rhetoric aside ....

Shark Inlet > ... I would love to see some compromise from both sides. I've even outlined a path to that compromise that I believe that both sides could grudgingly accept ... (essentially the October negotiated agrement).

Ahhh, yes. The October (non)-negoiated agreement. Forgive me, there have been so many almost, but not quite, some negotiated and some not, agreements I'm not 100% sure which one that is. Nor what the details of it were. But what the hey, it's a start. In the spirit of detente have everybody list some possible compromisable options. Each side must propose something - preferably something new, preferably something helpful. But all sides participate. This includes NOT JUST the current CSD (as the rest of your proposal focuses on), but ALSO TW/old-CSD'er's/Dissolvers/Tri-W'ers, AND the RWQCB, AND any other state boards and agencies, AND CASE, AND the SRF, AND SLO County, AND a passel of litigants, AND ..., AND ..., well you get the drift. With an emphasis on flexible agreement rather than hard-line intransigency.

For example, "limit their exploration period to 1 year". I get the spirit of that compromise and I think it sound. Time is money. But is one year sufficient time? Like you, I think it should be but I'm a simpleton about stuff like this. What is a fair amount of time for this kind of analysis? Considering that the CSD must by new compromise evaluate more than one or two realistic and practical options - not just TRI-W and Out-of-Town. AND the RWQCB must weigh in with valid science and new technology. All while the SRF, county and other agencies give or give not to detente. Definitely put a target up but give some wiggle room too if it looks like a little wiggle will produce good results.

Another example I'm attracted to: If every house was dumping pretty clean effluent into a smaller, high-tech or green STEP-STEG sewer which in turn dripped its out-source into a new grove of re-planted trees (I shan't say park ;-) on the Tri-W site I wonder whether more people might find an in-town sewer more acceptable. I don't know for sure whether this resolves the issues with Tri-W. But if Tri-W as currently proposed is feasible then this must be even more feasible.

The key is to make everybody - all parties - accept it is in their best interest to flex and compromise to get the sewer built.

Mike Green said...

I don't know wheter to laugh or cry!
On one hand ol Sharkey finaly sees that the Triv is bogus!
On the other hand, what is offered in those illustrious birdcage liners , well, makes (and I am biting my tounge here)sense.
somewhat.

Shark Inlet said...

PG,

Do you really think that saying the property owners feel the CSD decisions unwise is antagonistic rhetoric? If so, sorry. I thought it was a statement of fact.

In any case...

I do believe that lots of parties need to compromise if we're going to be able to get anywhere within the framework of a CSD system. I just outlined the start above but the additional details I've spelled out before numerous times. The key here is that once the CSD makes an agreement to explore alternatives for a fixed timeperiod but no more, the property owners will be far more likely to say "okay, that sounds pretty reasonable." Some from TW won't be happy, but if the CSD needs a 218 vote to raise money, it doesn't very well matter what TW thinks if the majority of the property owners vote to give the CSD funds to site, design and permit a plant. An end-run around TW, as it were. However, it would still only occur if the property owners feel they could trust the CSD.

That is why I liked the October agreement so much ... everyone gave up a little of what they felt was dear to them in exchange for getting their key goals. The CSD got the opportunity to explore "out of town" for 2 years and the property owners got the ability to limit inflation to at most two years. Both sides got something from the compromise.

Whether one year is enough or not is not a big deal ... I just picked one year so that TriW could be started back up to be finished by 2010 when CDOs get really ugly.

I think that property owners will feel uncomfortable with exploration that will delay TriW until after 2010 if TriW ends up being best.

Essentially if the CSD had stuck with their committment (that they made in the form of a unanimous resolution) and spent the time and money on hiring an engineering firm like Ripley or MWH or whomever last Fall it would have been good.

Again, I don't care if it's TriW or multiple small WWTFs scattered about town or an out of town. I don't care if it's ponding or MBR or gravity or STEP. I want the thing that is cheapest and will be done the soonest. To me it seems as if most of the homeowners feel the same way and we get pretty nervous when the board goes all the way back to square zero because they didn't like what the previous board concluded. Many of these things (like STEP) have already been studied before and rejected. I have yet to hear a compelling reason for why we should re-study STEP and ponding.

Even if there were mistakes made earlier (for example, some would say that choosing TriW as a site was a mistake), it might still be far better to learn to live with the mistake than to change things. If your car gets in a wreck, it is often less expensive to fix the damaged car than buy a new one ... even if it squeaks funny now when you open the driver side door and even if there is a sizable dent in the left rear fender.

Dogpatch Refugee said...

PG 13: "Another example I'm attracted to: If every house was dumping pretty clean effluent into a smaller, high-tech or green STEP-STEG sewer which in turn dripped its out-source into a new grove of re-planted trees (I shan't say park ;-) on the Tri-W site I wonder whether more people might find an in-town sewer more acceptable. I don't know for sure whether this resolves the issues with Tri-W. But if Tri-W as currently proposed is feasible then this must be even more feasible."
Hmmmm. The location of the Boondoggle, for me, was more of a slap in the face after ya got kicked in the crotch. The project design itself was FAR more alarming than just the location. 14 square miles of Deep trenches in sand. Dewatering, Baker tanks etc...How many properties were damaged during those magic 20 days of construction? Between the lines, this project was meant to shake this little burg's pathetic infastructure and tiny little out of code homes into as many pieces as could be collaterally resulted. Nice investor opportunity, but not, IMHO very community minded.

A grove of replanted native trees trumps any kind of building, never mind a sludge factory, on TRI W anytime. Less deep trenches and giant earthmovers in my neighborhood, for as little time as humanly possible, is also good. STEP STEG, maybe cheaper, maybe not, but NO DOUBT much less impact on the neighborhoods.

But I am afraid that as long as Tri W is an option for any WWTF, the Boondoggle MWH project offers too quick an answer for many political objectives. Forward rational thinking hasn't had much sway, politically, the last few years. Billions of dollars gone. Thousands of lives and limbs. But at least our water board is attempting to punish Los Osos for disobeying a 20 year old edict. US & California politics, what grand, mad game. Oil & Water...

*PG-13 said...

Apparently TW didn't get the stand-down memo. More likely standing down, compromise, and/or working for any solution other than Dissolve & Tri-W just doesn't work for them.

From today's entry on the TaxpayersWatch, uh, make that the dissolvelocscd (and we're happy about it!) website > The LAFCO hearing to Dissolve the CSD is now one month away. We are confident LAFCO will act in our behalf as they consider the appalling record of the current CSD board, their failure to deliver a solution to our wastewater crisis as promised in their campaign of misinformation, their plundering of other CSD accounts to pay lawyers and demonstrated mismanagement of public monies, their inability to deliver essential services, and the impending financial ruin of the CSD. It’s time to end this nightmare of bad government, dissolve the CSD and build our currently permitted and designed sewer system.”

(sigh) Seems like only yesterday we were considering the appalling record of the current CSD board and their failure to deliver a solution to our wastewater crisis as promised in their campaign of misinformation

Dang, those ponies just keep going up 'n down while we keep spinning round 'n round.

More about that > This is another win in a long list of victories for Taxpayers Watch and the people of Los Osos, and another failure for the current CSD board.

I'm confused. Aren't the current CSD board the elected representatives of the people of Los Osos? And the litigation and victories of Taxpayers Watch costly ploys to the people of Los Osos? I don't know. I want to honor TW's commitment to .... something. I really do want to appreciate their gung ho spirit in the service of .... damn, I'm just not sure anymore.

I'm guessing Ann is busy right now, or will be later this evening, composing a blog addressing today's ruling by Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman rejecting the Measure B challenge. He's a judge and what he says is important I guess. But my attention keeps getting drawn back to the fact we're not making any progress what-so-ever toward building a sewer. Where is it clear that dissolving the CSD is gonna get our sewer built? That just seems a lot like tossing our fate into the ocean and hoping for a rising tide and on-shore breeze. Dang, you're either on the bus or off the bus. You're part of the solution or you are the problem. Get a grip. Do the right thing. Work FOR a sewer.

my head hurts. again.

Mike Green said...

PG! Calm Down!
It's normal to be confused and frustrated in Los Osos.
I don't realy see how anyone can't be completely awestruck by the sheer audacity of the TW folks.
I mean, even B rate movies don't get this cheesy.
As far as the Triv goes, whats the most troubling, is that even in that publick survey (see Ron's blog) that WE paid for, most people got the majority of their information from the Triv!
A free and unbiased press! (?)

Birdcage carpet!

PublicWorks said...

PG,

You're logic is a little incomprehensible. Measure B has been ruled illegal for how many times now?, and you chastize TW for paying their own attornies to have it heard?

Agree, the CSD reflects the voting wishes of the people, but only in regards to the powers it has - which doesn't include constitutional re-writes.

The CSD is a service provider, not even a municipal government. The people are represented by the Fed/State/County more than a CSD ever could.

In Los Osos, the whole structure and powers of a CSD have been wild ly inflated by Directors on the board. Are you suggesting the people (of a CSD)should be allowed to vote in whatever cockimamy law they want? Why even have a court system?

The fact is, the board members held Measure B up as the best thing since sliced bread.

TW didn't write Measure B. The whole recall throng thrust it upon the 'people' with tales of it's merits (remember: no fines, moves mountains, does things never before imagined to contracts, leaps tall buildings in a single bound..).

Who are those that brought Measure B before the community, and was it presented accurately by them? Do you have no indignation at those people? That's the question to ask.

All these clowns that claim to represent the people (from both sides) are just trying to fuel the troops for more media nonsense.

Sewertoons said...

Measure B, even with all of its wild and mighty (and undeliverable) promises, won by only 20 votes. Now after three tries to prop that thing up - and at WHAT COST - WHO KNOWS, it is finally, finally dead. We, the citizens of Los Osos paid for that debacle.

What did we get for the effort? Delays toward a WWTF and a smaller CSD bank account.

Was it worth it? I'd like all supporters of that thing to answer that question.

Churadogs said...

PG-13 sez:"I'm guessing Ann is busy right now, or will be later this evening, composing a blog addressing today's ruling by Superior Court Judge Martin J. Tangeman rejecting the Measure B challenge. He's a judge and what he says is important I guess. But my attention keeps getting drawn back to the fact we're not making any progress what-so-ever toward building a sewer. Where is it clear that dissolving the CSD is gonna get our sewer built?"

Actually, I was waiting to attend tonight's CSD meeting (will any of you attend, you know, actually participate in your community, or just sit in front of this blogsite waiting to post?) The agenda shows a proposal to ask the County for help with the sewer plant/plans (don't know what Devil will be in those details,) also Ripley will present the first of the update reports (a bit was discussed at last night's Wastewater Committee) and this morning's Trib story on the Judge's ruling on Measure B mentions that the Board might consider writing an ordinance in its place. That will have to be agendized for public comment etc. if they decide to do that. (Re the Measure B ruling, the CSD attorney's may explain to us why judges in some cases rule things out when they don't meet deadlines while other judges rule that so long as one party appeals "in an appropriate amount of time," then that's ok. This has always been an interesting puzzle. I mean, if you're familiar with, for example, the X number of days you have to appeal and EIR, if you're so much as one minute late, too bad. so much for "in an appropriate amount of time." Well, sauce for geese & ganders, perhaps?) And Tom Salmon's back in town breathing fire and brimstone and if you know Tom, you'll know how he can get into High Dudgeon Theatre Mode, so things may get interesting during public comment time. So, instead of speculating, I'm going go the meeting and see what transpires.

I'm especially interested in what Ripley's up to. Comments made at the Wastewater Committee keep making it clearer and clearer what a WATER disaster Tri-W was and what a WATER disaster may be already moving into the Los Osos valley east of town. A farmer there reports his well production is down by half? Uh. . . So, maybe it's time everyone woke up out of the myopic focus on prohibition zone "sewers" and started looking at the really critical issue: Basin-wide WATER management.

Will any of you be there? No?

PublicWorks said...

"A farmer there reports his well production is down by half?"

Or maybe the farmer has been doing some inefficient practices.

Be leary of farmers (and most anyone else) when it comes to politics.

Churadogs said...

Publicworks said:" Be leary of farmers (and most anyone else) when it comes to politics."

Actually, "politics" has little to do with it. The growers in and around Salinas found out what salt water intrusion meant to their livelhood and "politics" had nothing to do with it. However, a steady, dependable source of treated irrigation water made fiscal sense to their ability to stay in business. In the case of Salinas growers, bottom line realities trumped anything known as "politics." Lotta smart growers and businessmen east of town.

Sewertoons said...

We'll have to see what the response will be when the final property is negotiated - will there be a lawsuit regarding that poop plant/pond if the site is on the land ouside of town? There was an awful lot of opposition to it mentioned last January at the Waterboard hearings. Guess we'll just have to wait some more to find out...