Pages

Friday, January 05, 2007

Letter to the Editor from PZLDF

The following ran in the 1/5/07 Tribune as a Viewpoint.


Two weeks before Christmas the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) began issuing Cease and Desist Orders (CDO’s) to randomly-selected LO residents. The individual enforcement came after nearly a year of RWQCB foibles and delays, including the exit of key prosecutor and witness, Roger Briggs. Enforcement proposed long before the Blakeslee Bill and the County assuming the sewer project makes these belated actions both obsolete and counter productive. The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) mission is to assist and support individuals targeted for enforcement. PZLDF developed a "Settlement Work Plan" based on RWQCB guidelines for progressive enforcement. Cooperative compliance was demonstrated and the negotiations with RWQCB were hopeful. While the RWQCB Settlement failed to protect individuals and their properties, PZLDF continues to support enforcement being focused only on individuals who refuse to comply with interim measures or to cease discharges when a sewer system is available.

Several polls have shown the vast majority of LO residents want a community sewer system and will vote for a new project assessment under the County and Blakeslee plan. The conditions in the enforcement orders (RWQCB settlement “order” and CDO) are identical. Residents have also testified and demonstrated that they will voluntarily comply with the RWQCB’s interim measures (have pumped and inspection of septic tanks and will hook up to a sewer). Further, the cost/benefit (based on the RWQCB funding derived from fines) makes this a poor investment since the RWQCB stated the likelihood of fines resulting from these prosecutions is remote (unless the AB 2701 process fails). Thus, the costs of the actions and resulting hearings and court costs wasteful to taxpayers as well. (The estimated cost for just 4 days of hearings in April alone, and related work for 45 residents was $100,000 to 200,000. -And the RWQCB has 4,700 more prosecutions to go.)

There at least three reasons for the RWQCB to adopt progressive enforcement measures besides the exceptionally high cost of punitive "enforcement orders" in both time and taxpayers monies.

First, enforcement for the RWQCB’s decision to tie the enforcement actions directly to the Proposition 218 assessment vote provides the perfect opportunity for anyone not happy with the Blakeslee process to sabotage it. What better justification for protesting an assessment than to claim it was coerced?

Second, the Water Board’s hard-nosed actions destroy the trust and cooperation between residents and controlling agencies that the Blakeslee Bill seeks to restore. The actions will cause all participants, including the County and LOCSD, to suspect that the RWQCB intends to control the process and its outcome. The actions are divisive and rekindle the equity issues the Bill sought to overcome. The enforcement provides risk to some while sharing decision making with the community outside the Prohibition Zone. People in the Prohibition Zone will fund the highest per capita sewer project in national history for a system that benefits the Morro Bay National Estuary, and the clean water supply for entire community. And if the Blakeslee plan fails, their homes are the payment for any enforcement fines (up to $5000/day).

Third, the RWQCB is throwing away the political capital it needs to protect all citizens. Anyone attending the December hearings couldn't help but sympathize with the residents who could not afford the cost for legal assistance (upward of $20,000) as they stood up to the Water Board members, staff, and several attorneys, alone. The lopsided spectacle left no doubt that the considerable powers and resources vested in the RWQCB are not meant to subjugate individual citizens with functioning septic tanks. Very likely, individual taxpayers will eventually prevail in this David and Goliath struggle in the press and Legislature, harming the credibility and status of the State Water Boards, possibly permanently.

Unless it has better reasons to use the powers granted it by the State and People of California, the RWQCB should avoid abusing such power in an effort to demonstrate "we have teeth" against a few defenseless individuals. A settlement for a community-wide work plan containing all the protections the RWQCB wanted , and more was offered by citizens and supported by PZLDF. Assemblyman Blakeslee provided a means to end the Los Osos sewer war through a peace process known as the Blakeslee Bill. Instead of the RWQCB setting land mines that will defeat its objective, look at folding in progressive enforcement work plans, that will improve water quality -and deliver a project unabated.

Alan Martyn, Gail McPherson, Keith Wimer
Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund
P.O. Box 6507 Los Osos Ca. 93412

26 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Silly question .... if a 218 vote is required to make progress and if making progress is necessary to avoid RWQCB punishment is there any way to avoid the sort of "coercion" issue Gail raises in her first point?

No.

The problem here is that any action by the RWQCB will be viewed as coercive because any action that attempts to push us towards solving our own problem will be resented by some.

Is the sherrif's office coercing us to register our cars when they write tickets for out of date license plates? Is that illegal?

Face it, the RWQCB has been given the power and authority to take actions ... actions which we might find uncomfortable. Essentially the McPherson argument is that the RWQCB should have no authority ... or an argument against 218, but I doubt she is arguing that.

Anonymous said...

If the McPherson argument is that the RWQCB should have no authority, it would seem she has only a personal grudge brought about by her past conviction of falsifying Federal Documents and the restitution payment of $40,000.

Sewertoons said...

I'd like to see all this energy devoted to parsing out every possible bad outcome of a CDO/CAO into parsing out every possible bad outcome if the 218 vote fails.

Mike Green said...

Toons, Every bad outcome of the CDO/CAOs is ,as far as I can tell, the only bad thing that might happen if a 218 fails.
My greatest fear is that the county will fail to get a 218 vote passed either through political bumbling or a cost so high it bankrupts too many people.
As for me, I'm going to vote yes no matter what the cost and send a copy of my vote with a saracastic thank you note to the water board.

And I'm going to laugh my patootie off everytime I hear some county supe. bemoaning the lack of affordable housing.

In the end, the renters are going to suffer the most.

Churadogs said...

inlet sez:"Silly question .... if a 218 vote is required to make progress and if making progress is necessary to avoid RWQCB punishment is there any way to avoid the sort of "coercion" issue Gail raises in her first point?"

I have a silly question too. Who, in their right mind, would set up an Agreement or CDO and word it in such a way that would even given anyone the opportunity to file a lawsuit arguingh coreccion. For example, why tag the CDOs or Settlement agreements with that 218 vote at all. Why not simply phrase it as to when the County officially takes the project and sets their TSO with the Board, or some such wording. That leave the mention of a vote out of it, thereby decoupling the CDOs with the 218 vote, thereby not even allowing a "hook" for a possible lawsuit vis a vis electioneering & etc. The effect is the same but you're removing wording that might come back to bite the RWQCB on the butt.

The Grand Inquisitor still has the opportunity to craft a better settlement agreement and those who signed the first one can re-sign onto the second one. The Board still has an opportunity to modify and re-write the CDOs to change the language somewhat.

Am I the only person out there looking for a win-win that stops wasting time and effort on this apalling Auto-de-fe and gets the communities' efforts focused on getting the project they want underway?

Anonymous sez:"If the McPherson argument is that the RWQCB should have no authority, it would seem she has only a personal grudge brought about by her past conviction of falsifying Federal Documents and the restitution payment of $40,000."

Again, need to remind folks, anonymous posters are like taggers scrawling dirty words on a wall. Zero credibility so caveat, caveat!

Sewertoons sez:"I'd like to see all this energy devoted to parsing out every possible bad outcome of a CDO/CAO into parsing out every possible bad outcome if the 218 vote fails."

Or keeping people's energy focused on making sure the county Process remains clean and the outcome is what the community can live with.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mike,
I do not totally agree with the idea that the renters will suffer the most. Housing is unaffordable whether you buy or rent. Renting is the most affordable housing because you do not have the responsibility of property taxes or other property liabilites. In the end, if my family cannot afford to stay, it will because our home went through foreclosure and we lost all our equity by defaulting on the loan. So if both groups have to walk away due to expense/cost - who really loses more? Both groups would lose homes but the financial damage is far greater to the home owner who scrapes by and then has to endure the humiliation of losing everything. The assumption that a home owner has it made is false. In the California market, the risk of foreclosure is very high because we are able to qualify for loans we would never get away with in any other state.
For many, many families in my age group - 20'2-50's and small to big kids- skin of our teeth accurately describes the situation. Our jobs are here but in an economic market that does not pay enough to balance out the high cost of living. It sounds as though to me, we all lose. It bothers me greatly when people glibbly toss around the remark,"if you can't afford it just leave....", and I politely have to remind them again, that really isn't an option. My property has already dropped in value and we have to dig in and hold our breath. Do you recall the article that graced the front page of the Trib awhile back about the loss of employees because they couldn't afford to live here with the pay being what it was but business weren't in a position to offer more. Cost of housing period, it didn't matter whether it was rent or buy.

I could get angry about the inequity of the fact that property owners that moved here 10 or 20 years ago pay taxes that reflect the market at that time. We pay about $6000.00 a year for a 1400 square foot house - that's just property taxes. Now, talk about income tax - several thousand more. On an approximately $60,000.00 a year income for a family of 5, subtract the taxes, mortgage, $600 in medical insurance that we are required to pay and other expenses and figure out what we have to lose- everything.
There will always be investors who will be willing to buy my home and rent it back to me but how would we ever be able to risk purchasing another house in California if we lost this one? We can't afford, literally, to think one side has more to lose than another, we all lose. Even those that wouldn't lose their homes lose out because they would lose neighbors that they care about, watch children leave that they were enjoying watching grow up, schools would empty out, teachers would be laid off, another school may close, houses might get boarded up, more business would have to leave and so on and so forth and not just because the renters left - we all did.

If we can really look at ourselves in a more collective fashion, have a little compassion for everyone involved and keep our focus on resolution and outcome, no one has to lose much of anything. The CDO process sounds horrible. I beleive that once we are moving towards a sewer and there is not a threat of it being stopped again the CDO's will go away. There was a potential of CDO's before and it will always be there until we are hooked up. I would rather hook up than have a CDO or an abatement notice - although I know what we would do if we had to. We will buy a tank that is used for dairy farms, like in Tillamook Oregon, that store slurry/dairy waste. We'll put it in our front yard and paint a mural on it. It will be about 10-15 feet tall and I hope my neighbors, that are left, won't mind. We'll have to pump it monthly and it will cost about $200+/- a month. I would rather hook up to a waste water treatment facility that addresses recharge and salt water intrusion and can take care of other non-point source pollution and protects our water with a plan that will last 100 years. I am really not concerned with where it is or what kind it is because I am not a professional engineer and I have no background in design so I would never presume to have the knowledge to make such a decision. I have read several EIR's, including parts of the current one on the table for Los Osos, and you know, they are guides and nothing more. They evaluate all case scenarios. I hope the addendum to the current one includes the mitigations required for air quality and earthquake stability of 5000 slurry tanks in Los Osos. The hauling of the waste alone would require a high amount of deisel emmissions and contribute substantially to global warming. In fact, that may not be allowed, hmmmm, even abatement wouldn't meet yet another set of environmental criteria.

Do you see how we can continue for circles ad naseum? It's not a train, it's a merry-go-round and a bunch of citizens in our community are taking way too long a turn on the ride! I don't like to ride merry-go-rounds much anymore, I get nauseous. Today we are going to go the chess board in Morro Bay where they have their own unique issues, one of which is levels of nitrates that have NOTHING to do with sewage treatment, it has to do with source. I bet some of our riders could go over there and build another merry-go-round.

Anonymous said...

Oops, I forgot to sign my name again!
So, the above was written by me.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Anonymous said...

Ann sez 7:12 AM, January 06, 2007: "Again, need to remind folks, anonymous posters are like taggers scrawling dirty words on a wall. Zero credibility so caveat, caveat!"

To all you truth-seeking geeks and gawkers, yippers and yappers, these words of mine are no more dirty to your hopeful eyes than a field of tulips to lovers of color.

Don't be afraid of knowing.

IT iS ONLY OUR ANONYMITY ON THE BLOGS IN THIS DANGEROUSLY DIVIDED COMMUNITY THAT ALLOWS US TO SPEAK AND READ FREELY -- WORDS WRITTEN WITHOUT THE CURSE OF RESTRICTION, WORDS INFORMED WITH OPINION AS VALUED AS FACTS IN THIS STIFLING, CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT WHERE FREE SPEECH IS SURPRESSED AND TRUTH CENSORED.

IT'S EVEN WORSE THAN THAT. TO SURRENDER ONE'S ANONYMITY HERE IS TO GIVE A NAME WHICH YIELDS A PHONE NUMBER...TO BE HUNTED DOWN BY THE INTIMIDATORS, THE McPHERSON MOB, WHO RULE THIS ROOST LIKE CAPONE RAN CHICAGO.

ANONYMITY IS NOT ONLY OUR BRIEF WINDOW TO GIVE AND RECEIVE GUT-TRUTH, BUT OUR SOLE PROTECTION AGAINST FAILING PREY TO THOSE WHO "VOLUNTEER" TO LIE TO US OVER AND OVER, AGAIN AND AGAIN. TO THOSE TO WHOM THE TRUTH IS OBSCENE, BLIND YOURSELF AT YOUR OWN RISK.

CAVEAT, CAVEAT: SIGNING YOUR NAME IS ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE OF HAVING ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER (ANN). THE DIRTIEST WORDS OF ALL ARE THE WORDS OF THOSE WHO BETRAY THE COMMUNITY TO FURTHER THEIR PERSONAL AGENDA (GAIL).

Proud to Bear the Name of Anonymous

Mike Green said...

Maria, Your point is well made and taken. I agree, everyone is going to pay big time. One thing that seems to be overlooked as far as rental prices is that if the rents in Los Osos jump two to three hundered a month it will have an impact on renters thoughout the county. just like the situation in SLO drives up housing everywhere too.
Its a competitive market, and a tight one at that.

Anonymous said...

I always appreciate the mention of CDOs on this blog and the resulting opportunities to keep citizens informed of the process we 45 households have been engaged in for just shy of a year.

No one hopes more than THE FORTY_FIVE for a resolution with the result that "CDOs will go away." This phrase is a frequent visitor to this blog, but seen in the light of the recent CDO hearings seems naively optimistic to those who have had personal experience with the RWQCB.

At the December hearings Chairman Young explained the nature of the due process the Water Board is required to extend to citizen defendants...1)notice 2)opportunity to be heard

In the first place, most of the PZ has not been given notice that they are in violation of the Basin Plan. Anyone who wants to be proactive in this situation might want to get on that.

Secondly, not to send a negative arrow flying through the cloud of positive energy held in the idea that the CDOs might just "go away," I need to remind people that on December 14 Chairman Young also said this - that once they are finished with us, "Everyone's going to be treated in a couple, or one, big chunk."

That sounds a lot more like efficiency and a lot less like due process to me.

I also want to mention Matia's whimsical idea of putting a pretty holding tank in her front yard. We have already checked into that, and the RWQCB will not accept holding tanks - even if they are painted and look nice. I haven't reached this part of the hearing yet, but I am told that at the hearings the prosecution team was unable to suggest even one method the RWQCB would approve of to assist us to comply with zero discharge. At an earlier point in the hearing one of the prosecution team stated that there are many ways of complying, and that people would not be forced to move out. I don't have a direct quote, but it was stated on 12/14.

We are all trying hard to keep our sense of humor, too, in the face of an absurd Catch-22. I appreciate Maria's help, along with the comments of others, in keeping CDOs on the front burner.

My next suggestion for people to become better informed about what they will face is for neighborhoods or groups of friends to chip in to purchase the DVDs of the DEC 14 & 15 hearings and watch them - individually or as a group. They are long, so consider it a mini-series. When you're done, pass them on or form a lending group. People without time to spend watching on TV whenever they might be broadcast this way have the option of when to watch, what to watch, and how much to watch.

Bill and I have purchased our own set from AGP video, since we were out of town for those hearings. They provide invaluable background. And for anyone who did not see the December hearings or the April and May hearings, the DVDs are an excellent introduction to the experience you may face. Bill paid around $50 for the set of 5 DVDs. AGP video is in Morro Bay. Their phone number is 772-2715.

Knowledge is power, even if on the administrative level the conclusion is foregone. It is worthwhile to see how a regulatory agency behaves toward the citizens it serves. It will provide a much-needed knowledge base helping to replace the guessing and speculating that the community has had to engage in.

Thank you,

Bev. De Witt-Moylan

Shark Inlet said...

The point, Ann, is that there is no, zero, nada, zilcho way that the RWQCB could avoid the charge of coercion on a 218 vote ... but state law would now appear to require a 218 vote if we're to borrow money via a SRF loan ... and without a SRF loan the project gets even more unaffordable.

In other words there is now no way for the RWQCB to avoid Gail's charge. The only way for them to avoid Gail's claim of coercion is to do nothing ... to not follow the law they were charged with following.

Ann ... do you want the water cops to have no ability to enforce the law? It would seem that if they have no authority, then communities would be free to dump sewage in creeks with no penalty.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey, what an absurd statement.
I don't think you can compare the possibility of an illegal pollution of a waterway with the situation in Los Osos.
There are shades of grey you know, some kind of porportionality should be expected from people with brains.
Taking your argument one step further would result in the death penalty for speeding.
Making the same arguments as the Water Board dose not make it sensible or logical or right.
Do you want the water cops to have dictatorial powers that trump all of your rights as an American cartilaginous species? I think not!

Shark Inlet said...

I think you misunderstand, Mike.

What Ann and Gail seem to be arguing for is the abolishment of the Clean Water Act. They seem to want the RWQCB to have no power or authority.

Neither have explained how the water board can have authority over water quality without the possibility of some sort of perceived "coercion".

If either would explain, I would be happy.

Anonymous said...

Maria,

"Today we are going to go the chess board in Morro Bay where they have their own unique issues, one of which is levels of nitrates that have NOTHING to do with sewage treatment, it has to do with source."

How do you know that our nitrate levels have EVERYTHING to do with sewerage and nothing to do with source pollution as in Morro Bay?

No opinions. No overtures. Only facts, please.

FCA
(Friendly Credible Anonymous)

Anonymous said...

Beverly,

I came across an email from Shirley Bianchi shortly after the recall, where she stated, "WHEN the project comes back to the county.."

If Shirley knew that then, the county has been working on this for a long time. Why did the county want the project so bad? I'll answer that: Tri-W.

I still have a big problem with the county permitting septic tanks all these years and to this day, yet taking NO responsibility.

The county is letting the homeowners take the blame and heavy duty punishment for not building a wastewater project. The homeowners have to take the full blow of all the "abuse of power" from the RWQCB -- and it is abuse of power (with no oversight at all).

Please tell me why the county won't step in with this CDO mess? By not stepping in, it sure appears that the county may be looking the other way and letting the CDO fines and terror go on so the people will be so afraid that they'll say "yes" on a 218 vote -- even if it's Tri-W, and it will be, most know that.

Why would the county not step in and help, when all this has resulted from their actions -- and inaction -- all these years? No septic survey, no septic mgmt. plan, continued permitting, no notice to homeowners that we were illegally discharging, and not putting in a sewer when the federal government would have paid for it?

The other problem I have with the county is that the are conducting the 218 in the wrong order. If they're trying to get the assessment vote for a project first, that most likely will be our only 218 vote and we won't get another 218. We could have $1,000 monthly bills and won't be able to do anything about it. Paavo claims he's doing the 218 this way because of time and money. He's already spent half of the $2 million (and one sole-source hiring at that).

The county employees may be working hard and long hours, but they are getting paid well for it too. And we will pay for all this in the end. In addition to us paying the bill, the county will get their 12% to 17% of the project!

I can't give the county credit for coming in to save the day for Los Osos or act like they're heroes. They created this mess to begin with, and they sure know what the results will be, and that they will benefit greatly.

The county also knows that the 218 busts the PZ zone, yet they and the RWQCB continue to focus on the PZ. The "district" pays to clean the water and the bay. There is no PZ according to attorneys I have spoken with. The Coastal Commission agrees the whole district must pay. So did the Senators in the Local Government Committee because they KNOW it's the law. But the County and RWQCB want to go around the law. Maybe, like it or not, there is a RWQCB, but I say that there is NO PZ!!

Whether it's LA county or SLO county, county bureaucracies only do big projects. So this phony act is not only an expensive act, it's sickening to watch unfold.

Pam

Mike Green said...

Pam! welcome to the club!

Mike Green said...

Sharkey bubbled:
" I think you misunderstand, Mike.

What Ann and Gail seem to be arguing for is the abolishment of the Clean Water Act. They seem to want the RWQCB to have no power or authority.

I dissagree, I think its about reality.

There is a very real possibility of Los Osos not meeting the 2011 drop dead decree. What then, o wizard o wise one?

Anonymous said...

Mike,

Yes, I guess I've joined the club. I sometimes post on the Trib blog.

I wanted to add something. The wastewater experts I've talked to have said it takes five to ten years minimum to build a project.

This 1/1/2011 date is impossible to meet, especially when the 218 vote won't happen for awhile. That gives us only three years to build (and starting from scratch at that!). Right....

But it will take less than a year for people to lose their homes (@ $15,000 per day fines), so the county will certainly be able to take our homes from us and sell our property faster than it will take to build a treatment plant.

Amazing...

Pam

Anonymous said...

Dear Anon 4:11,
I think we are dealing with non-point source - Human factor included which was verified in Cleath's presentation of Task 3 in the Water Management Plan. Nitrates are indicators and easy and cheap to test for. What Task 3 brought to light was that there was a human contributor to nitrates in that female hormone product and caffine and human medication residue was present in our water supply. Nitrates have lots of sources. What my belief is that we need to eliminate the human factor - stewardship so to speak. We are not the only contributors but we are one group that can do something about it.
Morro Bay does not seem to be totally clear on what happened in their drinking water supply. I do know that when we were living in Oregon, there were some incidences of schools and the site where I worked, that had to have drinking water brought in because the well tests showed that the nitrate levels were too high. Over the next several days, things were reevaluated, treatment was modified and we were back on the water.

It always goes back to the source - treat the source and then the issue will become manageable. The data shows that our nitrate levels are leveling off - may be due to lack of new septic tanks but what it also shows is that the #'s are still too high. If we can't manage our water we are committed to state water and that is a path I would rather avoid. Unfortunately, I'm not so sure we have that luxury anymore. There is never one answer to pollution, there is and always has been the human factor. We can manage our contributions, and I will frequently take the stand that we have a responsibility to manage our contributions to pollution - no matter the source. Method is speculative and mangament is imperative.
Sincerely,
Maria M. Kelly

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"I would rather hook up than have a CDO or an abatement notice - although I know what we would do if we had to. We will buy a tank that is used for dairy farms, like in Tillamook Oregon, that store slurry/dairy waste. We'll put it in our front yard and paint a mural on it. It will be about 10-15 feet tall and I hope my neighbors, that are left, won't mind. We'll have to pump it monthly and it will cost about $200+/- a month. "

At the CDO hearing, RWQCB Staff member Matt Thomson was asked about holding tanks and said they would not be allowed. Period. And "discharges" any ANY kind are now being declared illegal -- uncoupled to anything to do with pollution or waters of the state of California & etc in the morphing CDOs, so a question reamins: What alternatives. Seems to me any alternatives are being removed by the Staff/Board. It's Hobson's Choice again.

Anonymous sez:"ANONYMITY IS NOT ONLY OUR BRIEF WINDOW TO GIVE AND RECEIVE GUT-TRUTH, BUT OUR SOLE PROTECTION AGAINST FAILING PREY TO THOSE WHO "VOLUNTEER" TO LIE TO US OVER AND OVER, AGAIN AND AGAIN. TO THOSE TO WHOM THE TRUTH IS OBSCENE, BLIND YOURSELF AT YOUR OWN RISK.

CAVEAT, CAVEAT: SIGNING YOUR NAME IS ABSOLUTELY NO GUARANTEE OF HAVING ANY CREDIBILITY WHATSOEVER (ANN). THE DIRTIEST WORDS OF ALL ARE THE WORDS OF THOSE WHO BETRAY THE COMMUNITY TO FURTHER THEIR PERSONAL AGENDA (GAIL)."

Oh, pllluueeeeze, get over yourself. There are people who log on to comment anonymously who stick to ideas and opinions and then there are those with grudges and axes to grind and personal obsessions and hidden agendas who log on to lie and distort and attack and slander community members and each other. What I said and will say again, CAVEAT. For every sttement made on this blog, CONSIDER THE SOURCE AND CONSIDER ALWAYS THE MOTIVATION of the poster. Personal vendetta? Deliberate distortion? Personal Obsession? All kinds of possibilities behind some of the stranger postings here. Amazingly, someone posting as Maria Kelly apparently doesn't fear some Chicago Mob coming to her door with pikestaffs and flaming brands. Jeesh, get a grip people.

Inlet sez:"Ann ... do you want the water cops to have no ability to enforce the law? It would seem that if they have no authority, then communities would be free to dump sewage in creeks with no penalty.

2:24 PM, January 06, 2007"

Once again you misread what I wrote and leap to a toally false conclusion. Sigh. I asked if it wouldn't be smarter to remove language from the CDOs or any proposed settlement agreemtns (CAOs) that would reference 218, and instead link it to the County's TSO or some such. Like Caesar's Wife, not only to BE above suspicion, but to APPEAR to be above suspicion and thereby keep the surface of your case smooth, no room for chinks.

Pam sez:"The county also knows that the 218 busts the PZ zone, yet they and the RWQCB continue to focus on the PZ. The "district" pays to clean the water and the bay. There is no PZ according to attorneys I have spoken with. The Coastal Commission agrees the whole district must pay. So did the Senators in the Local Government Committee because they KNOW it's the law. But the County and RWQCB want to go around the law. Maybe, like it or not, there is a RWQCB, but I say that there is NO PZ!!"

What will be interesting to watch is how and when AB885 comes on line, what that will do to the region.

maria sez:"Nitrates are indicators and easy and cheap to test for. What Task 3 brought to light was that there was a human contributor to nitrates in that female hormone product and caffine and human medication residue was present in our water supply. Nitrates have lots of sources. What my belief is that we need to eliminate the human factor - stewardship so to speak. We are not the only contributors but we are one group that can do something about it."

Maria's right. Nitrates are cheap and easy markers, which is where the RWQCB first made their mistake. The artifical PZ was politically drawn, not scientifically supportable -- the REAL concern wasalways the "human factor" in the BASIN -- that should have been the basis for any all all management districts, the RWQCB could easitly done isotope studies showing plume movements, etc. and taken it as a whole. By focusing on nitrates in general well water, they opened the door to constant challenge -- Tim Cleath made it clear that was NOT a good way to go --. By looking at the totallity of the basin and the basin loading years ago instead of just focusing on nitrates as the excuse, a larger focus could have been started on Water and Basin Loads. A larger focus could also have come up with different approaches some or all of which could be used. Various groups over the years have advocated for just such an approach and all have been ignored in this single-minded focus on nitrates . . . Why? Because it was cheap, obvious and easy? What's happened here because of that focus I would never describe as easy or cheap. Alas.

Anonymous said...

Ann sez, "Amazingly, someone posting as Maria Kelly apparently doesn't fear some Chicago Mob coming to her door with pikestaffs and flaming brands."

No, just the McPherson Mob. They don't use pikestaffs and flaming brands. They use slander and lies -- and caveats. Maria knows.

Mike Green said...

You mean STICKS AND STONES? The horror! the inhumanity!

Anonymous said...

In response to Mike Green's 1-6 post at 12:48 PM. The rents will only go as high as the "traffic will bear". If the renters aren't making enough money for a $200-$300 a month increase in their rent, then the landlords, such as "slumlord" John Arcuni will have to earn less on their "investments".

Churadogs said...

anonymous sez:"then the landlords, such as "slumlord" John Arcuni will have to earn less on their "investments"."

another Anonymous sez:"No, just the McPherson Mob. They don't use pikestaffs and flaming brands. They use slander and lies -- and caveats. Maria knows."

Hmmm, Slander and Lies, eh? How's about an anonymous posting calling someone a "slumlord." Or refering to the "McPherson Mob" Slander. Lies. Hmmmmm

Anonymous said...

Ann:

You want to ignore Gail's record. To get her son-in-law more money she'll work over documents. Okay. She treated the black workers in Riverside like slaves and created a horrible work environment. Okay.

But now could you tell us what Gail has done for anyone that hasn't backfired and hurt the community? Just tell us one thing she's done right.

Anonymous said...

Anon above, everything you say is correct. EVERYTHING McPherson touches turns to CRAP & all her mistakes will have no effect on her, she's outside the zone.