Pages

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Blog Posting Comments, Redux

The following was posted in the comment section, where it may well be overlooked. I’m moving it to the main blog, in hopes that more folks will read it. As with all “comments” posted in the comment section, caveat emptor. But some of the issues have been constantly discussed in this blog and the county and new TAC will also be covering them as well. Personally, I sure would like to know why WMH didn’t certify the project, and why theTRW-W costs didn’t include the additional costs to meet new Recharge Requirements? And other curious omissions. Since so much of the Recall and Tri W issues came down to “costs,” when things go missing, it’s troubling that maybe people are playing with apples and oranges, which usually means the taxpayer is probably about to get bamboozled then fleeced. In any event, Happy reading:


Source of Rain said...
SharkInlet,I sought responses from Dana Ripley to your comments/questions regarding Tri-W costs vs. out of town, gravity costs v. STEP/STEG. Here in Part 1 are your comments/questions. You'll find Ripley's responses in Part 2 following this.First your comments:

1. [Anon] wrote (in part) about TriW that "it's not sustainable OR affordable and won't clean water for decades if ever."Presumably you've got a cheaper and better way of reducing the nitrate loadings on our aquifer.Maybe it is my fault for not reading here very often, but I don't know of any such methods. Certainly the Ripley team didn't come up with any that are guaranteed to work any better and certainly once inflation and changes in design requirements (for example, increasing the size of the plant to correspond with actual wastewater production) is factored in, the Ripley cost greatly exceeeds TriW.

2. Several people at that time were able to show that many aspects of the Ripley report were quite stacked. For example, if a Ripley plan would take some three years more than TriW before construction could start, the inflation on the construction costs essentially would drive up the cost by about 25%. More delay, more money.Additional issues would appear to be that the Ripley system won't meet the real needs of our town (if I remember, they allowed for 50 gallons per person per day, about 1/3 the current usage). Furthermore, even if the Ag-exchange (in-lieu recharge) idea were to work, it would be hard to get enough Ag use where the farmers were drawing from our aquifer. There's also the denitrification issue. If we can't get all our water used by farmers directly above our aquifer, we'll need to denitrify the remaining water and recharge the aquifer directly at a site like Broderson.Don't get me wrong ... I like the Ripley idea and think he's done a great job thinking outside the traditional sewer box. The problem is that many aspects of the solution he came up with just won't work so well for Los Osos with our unique requirements.If you want to believe that raising these issues is electioneering, fine. It would be great if you would be willing to address the issues so that I can re-think my position if you show me to be wrong.

3. You write (in part): "Again, however, you persist, as do others of your mindset, in believing, incorrectly, that Tri-W has any relevance to this conversation. Knowing Tri-W fails almost every other vital criteria, you have chosen to make your last stand on economics -- the 'Time and Money' argument."To argue that TriW is irrelevant before the County has made that determination is a bit hasty, don't you think?I would also say that I am not making my last stand on economics ... it was my first stand. There are many other aspects of my point of view which I haven't emphasized ... by-n-large I just don't care a ton about the other issues as much."The 'Town and Money' argument fizzles when compared to the huge life-cycle savings of Ripley/Orenco. The dollar difference is simply too profound to ignore, as are the social impacts on the community between a $200 million sewer (as published in the Trv) and just about anything else you can name."The lifecycle costing approach is a sound one to determine which is the best long run project. The financing costs swamp every other cost we're talking about save the cost of putting in the pipe. In particular, a change in the interest rate from 2.5% to 6.5% (if we can't get a SRF for example) will matter more than difference in O&M between the TriW plant and any other possible option.Last Summer (again, shortly after the Ripley plan came out) I did some quick calculations about the energy savings they claimed to achieve. These savings were not enough to justify spending more than about an additional $0-15M (before financing ... depending on the inflation in energy costs compared to the CPI and the interest rate we get). Don't trust these numbers, however, because they are based on my memory and I don't have a copy handy. The point, however, should be well taken.The key here is that the energy savings that are key to Ripley's plan aren't that big of a deal if it costs us much more up front to get those savings down the road. It would be sort of like borrowing money to put in a solar electricity system in Los Osos. For some the principal and interest associated with the borrowing would more than swamp any energy savings for the next 15-20 years.Following are Dana Ripley's responses...
4:32 PM, March 21, 2007

Source of Rain said...
SharkInlet,Here are Dana Ripley's responses to your comments/questions. Hopefully they will give you some new religion. I offer them in the spirit of cooperation and the free exchange of information.Dana Ripley:

1. Our analysis (see Report Update, Executive Summary on CSD website) indicates the reverse, that the Update Plan, both in capital costs and ongoing costs is cheaper. What is not revealed in the analysis, however, is the absence of reverse osmosis/advanced oxidation (RO/AO) in the Tri-W/Broderson design. I wrote in November 2003 that the Broderson dispersal plan was in fact recharge of the shallow aquifer which by all accounts is a municipal groundwater source and that the State groundwater recharge reuse regulations would apply. This point was confirmed by the NWRI report in December 2006. The prior design team, in my opinion, had every intention of including the RO/AO process at Tri-W as a subsequent project (as required by state recharge reuse guidelines), however it was never included in the project report as a necessary or contingent treatment step, and it was never included in any analysis of alternatives. This was an obvious and improper deferral of a required component of the system, that if was appropriately considered in the beginning – would have made the Broderson dispersal plan so prohibitively expensive (and energy intensive) that the effluent plan would have been forced east to the agricultural areas in 2000 or 2001. District Engineer Rob Miller indicated to the NWRI panel in November 2006 that a $3 million pipeline (from Tri-W to the east ag areas) was yet another contingent project that was not included in the project report and was not in the project budget. If the RO/AO plan and/or the $3 million pipeline are/is included now in a side-by-side comparison, the cost differences would be even (substantially) greater than what we presented in the Executive Summary. As a final note on this topic, it is my personal speculation that this deferral of necessary system components (that were not included in the March 7, 2001 final wastewater facilities report by MWH) was in fact the reason why MWH project engineer Steve Hyland, or any other MWH registered engineer, refused to certify the final report in March 2001 as required by state law (Business and Professions Code § 6735). FYI, attached [in email to Source of Rain] is a copy of the title page of the final facilities report that lacks an engineer’s certification stamp or seal.

2. We believe that if our team is authorized quickly, that the compliance deadlines can be met, and would in fact probably beat the completion date of the Tri-W/gravity collection restart project. We believe that the County’s consultant team now realizes (based on the NWRI finding) that the RO/AO treatment process cannot be deferred and is the reason why County staff is now stating that the project cost is “$200 million or more.” This figure is 2 ½ times the Update project cost – so any delay now to get this right is probably time well spent. The 50 gallons per capita per day (gpcd) compares to 70 gpcd used in the MWH report, and is the statewide goal by the Department of Water Resources for interior residential water demand (which is equivalent to wastewater generation). Regarding “if ag exchange idea were to work” take a look at attachments regarding the North Sonoma County Agricultural Water Reuse Project. This is much larger than the LO ag reuse project but demonstrates how other California communities are dealing with similar issues. We see denitrification as a non-issue, and the NWRI agreed with us. We advocate smart nutrient management as opposed to strict end-of-pipe effluent limits that are necessary for direct groundwater recharge. In fact, I would personally consider the 7 mg/l total nitrogen limit for Broderson dispersal to be too lenient, it should be less than 1 mg/l for direct recharge of a potable aquifer. And that low N effluent quality is achievable reliably only with the RO/AO process that should be included anyway. With respect to the “unique requirements of Los Osos” it is our belief that the Update plan is perfectly suited to the unique requirements of LO, and that the Tri-W/gravity collection plan is not well suited at all to these unique requirements. Our comments here are not electioneering, but simply facts based on our professional judgment.

3. Time and money issues are of paramount interest to our team. First, we believe that the AB 2701 process timeline is far too long, and the $2 million budget is about 4 times what it should be to accomplish the TAC evaluation of alternatives. Given the fixed CDO deadline of January 1, 2011 – time is precious and it appears that no real project advancement will happen in 2007, unfortunately. It is now near the end of March, and what has happened so far besides colorful mailers? With respect to loan costs, we need a side-by-side comparison of the SRF reauthorization and the private finance option. Even though the SRF interest rate is lower, the conditions and points (eg. $6 million prior disbursement), coupled with >$100 million savings in capital costs, may make the interest rate a minor factor in the overall cost to the ratepayer. We think the energy savings are a significant consideration also. We have met with PG&E on this, and there will be an incentive check from the utility for using the more efficient system. We will working with the PG&E-SLO office to quantify what the incentive amount will be – but rest assured that the utility is under significant pressure from both the public and the CPUC to get wastewater utilities to reduce power demands. The global climate change issues are real, and PG&E is getting very, very aggressive on energy efficiency in the water/wastewater treatment sector of the state economy. PG&E estimates that wastewater treatment alone consumes over 1% of the state’s power demand. Our Tech Memo #8 estimates that the Update plan will consume about one third the power of the Tri-W/gravity collection plan, and this relative amount will of course decrease with the addition of RO/AO after the MBR plant. The energy intensity of wastewater treatment at Tri-W could easily double with the addition of RO/AO.Thank you, SharkInlet, for asking good questions and allowing me to seek answers from the source. Never be afraid to ask unless you're afraid to know.Source of Rain
4:43 PM, March 21, 2007

31 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

What Ann?

No comment about the RWQCB this morning yet?

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I e-mailed PZLDF folks (at 3 e-mail addresses you've made available via your blog) asking them about this legal brief you've referenced several times.

I've asked whether they could provide me an electronic copy or, if not, a hard copy of the document. I've also said that I would be willing to put the document online for them (and for you ... I figured you want people to read it) so that we could be convinced that PZLDF isn't as much about fighting TriW or fighting the sewer as just fighting for due process.

It's been a few days and I haven't received a reply just yet. Perhaps you could mention this to one of them next time you see one.

Oops ... I accidentally asked you to do something to help me and those of us in our community who are too lazy hunt down Bill Moylan in person. I apologize for not already knowing him and having been to every PLZDF meeting in all my free time between working, kid activities, taking my sick neighbor to her physical therapy and attending a peace rally. I apologize for being problem number whatever you listed plus one. The problem here is problem whatever number you listed plus two, that Los Osos is so Balkanized that no one in PZLDF is willing to reply to an e-mail from a "recognized enemy" (I signed the e-mail sharkinlet). Maybe you could avoid being problem number whatever you listed plus three by getting someone to return my e-mail so that I could form my own opinion about whether PZLDF is more than just Gail's way of continuing to fight the RWQCB.

Yes, I'm feeling snarky today. Deal with it.

4crapkiller said...

A posting from an Anon:

"Thank you Ripley for your answer to the questions. I hope you give all of your information to the county, because it will be the county engineers that decide the issue.

Why did you not include the information submitted above with your proposal as a matter of record to the LOCSD, instead of going for a low ball on the system that you submitted previously?

Now you can believe anything what you want, but are you prepared to produce a completion bond to satisfy the time requirements? Are you also able to purchase insurance to indemnify the property owners or county if your system does not perform properly? Talk to the county! "

Shark Inlet said...

Finally ...

Thanks, Ann, for being willing to put my questions for "Source of Rain" and Ripley's comments right up front.

Let's get into Ripley's (largely non-responsive) responses, shall we?


My first point was in response to Source of Rain's claim about TriW ... that it isn't "sustainable or affordable and won't clean the water for decades if ever." (Certainly a bit of hyperbole.) Unfortunately Source of Rain didn't have the ability to justify these claims himself but instead needed to e-mail Dana Ripley to come up with an answer. It would be far better had Source of Rain studied the issue before making such a dramatic statement. I asked Source of Rain whether he knew of a cheaper and better (I should have added faster as well, but that would have been viewed as just a "funny" instead of as a serious question ... it would be good to stop or continued pollution as soon as possible) way of reducing nitrate loadings on our aquifer and noted that the Ripley team proposal wasn't clearly better or cheaper.

Ripley's reply ignored my contention that they didn't include inflation appropriately in their comparison of the two plans. I am glad he brought up the RO question because RO may be a requirement down the road and the TriW plan was built to allow for this potential future requirement. Richard has told us as much here already. Ripley's comment on Hyland's reasons for not certifying is speculation and Ann, you don't believe it that.

Please note, however, that the pipeline Ripley refers to is essentially a way of incorporating AG exchange into the TriW plan back in the early 2000s even though Lisa and Ripey keep acting as if it was their idea. TriW would have given us the flexibility to do Ag-exchange if farmers wanted to sign up and pay their share of the costs of running pipe.

In any case, Ripley didn't really address the issue of whether his plan did a better job other than by criticizing the nitrate levels in the TriW recharge water, saying that it was too high. Ripley should have addressed the question of whether there is enough Ag land directly above our aquifer where they take water from our aquifer ... in other words, he should have addressed whether in-lieu recharge is technically feasible with the amount of water we would need to process. Simply put, what is the gallons per person per day assumed by Ripley and designed for in the TriW plant ... if these numbers aren't close, we should be asking HUGE questions of Dana ... like "why would the RWQCB sign off on a plant which doesn't have the capacity to meet current water usage?". Another good question he never addressed at all is "even if you and NWRI believe that denitrification is a non-issue, why should we believe that the RWQCB will see it that way?" These are key issues because if the RWQCB doesn't like the plan adopted, we'll never see a low interest loan. Without the low-interest feature, our payments on P&I would be 40% higher. Would it be wise to go with a system the RWQCB will accept? Unless Ripley is willing to take out a bond that guarantees us a working system for cheaper than the current TriW estimate, I'm not buying. He's accused MWH and/or the previous board of not including certain costs ... he has done the same thing himself (by designing a good theoretical system where, if we accept his design, we'll have to add those "unforseen" costs in the future ... costs like denitrification, something the RWQCB has told us and the Ripley team is necessary).

Out of time now, so other issues will be addressed later.

Essentially it comes down to this. Ripley answered some questions but seemed to avoid what I believe are the key issues ... like inflation and interest rates.

Mike Green said...

Well, I got my friendly eviction notice from Mr Packard today, not unexpected, I just wonder how many folks in Los Osos will be opening their's and wondering, what is this all about?
Truley a sad state of affairs when the State makes you into a criminal because of the failure of government, I especialy like the part about tennants and owners being ultimately responsible for their discharges, I wonder how many people in California have been prosecuted for pouring illegal sustances down their toilets? None I'll bet, even if what they discharged couldn't be treated by sewer they were hooked up to.
I also wonder about the part that says "several parties have expressed that this process is too slow"
Well gollie! I sure am sorry about that sir, let me speed it up as much as I can, I'll start digging the trench tommorow just show me where!
And Ann, evidently it is perfectly OK for the Water Board to engage in electioneering.
As far as the part about "Working with the county"
HUH?
Where?

Anonymous said...

Yup, got my notice in the mail today. Never got one before and I own two properties in the PZ. Due to the failure of the government I'm a criminal all of the sudden! This is the most bizarre thing that has ever happened to me. I've been supportive of any project that was coming down the pike for the last 15 years!

Mike Green said...

"I've been supportive of any project that was coming down the pike for the last 15 years!"

And therein lies the ultimate irony, If we had only voted down the first "cheaper, better, faster" sewer, we wouldn't be in this pickle now.

And now, after all this history, we have to trust the judgement of a vote again.

I sure wish the Water Board had done this back then.
But that would have been electioneering.

Snowy Plover said...

4400. A good number. Call blakesley. Call Ahnald. Call everybody. Consult with your family lawyers. Reach out to your neighbor. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
This is a spooky letter, mostly saber rattling. But then, the electioneering starts: "including the approval of a benefits assessment.."
You vill vote this way or you vill be punished.
Maybe with next letter the Appointed Board will send us our PZ arm bands to be worn when we dare venture outside our sewer ghetto, so that the other good citizens of this county will know what criminals we are...
Maybe Shark Inlet might wear such an arm band with pride and could help the rest of us by cheering the Appointed Board on, and scolding us when we don't obey with a smile.
PZDLF made some $$ at their BBQ last Sat. $5000?
Wouldn't think that should deserve a mention in our great local paper, The Fib? Would it?
"TRI W Makes For Freedom".
Vote the way the Good Prosecution Team Lead wishes you to.
Don't want to force his hand, now do we??

Mike Green said...

Snowy precipitated:
"Don't want to force his hand, now do we??"

More like walking the plank on the end of a sword.

Snowy Plover said...

More like the actions of a power mad authoritarian, politically appointed board playing CYA, while impletmenting wasteful, harmful, policies that are contrary to the public good and contrary to the will of the electorate over the course of three elections, including a recall.
Not Pirates, MG, Pirates are cool.
These are functionaries. By no means cool. More like banally evil.

Mike Green said...

Oh, and here is the real snorter,
Public health is threatened!!!
Yet, by their own expert testimony, the interim requirement will have no remedial effect on that same threat!

Makes me laugh till I'm crying.

OK boss! Isa pumpin Isa pumpin!

source of rain said...

SharkInlet,

I was disappointed by your response to Ripley's response, which I fetched for you:

You said: "My first point was in response to Source of Rain's claim about TriW ... that it isn't "sustainable or affordable and won't clean the water for decades if ever." (Certainly a bit of hyperbole.) Unfortunately Source of Rain didn't have the ability to justify these claims himself but instead needed to e-mail Dana Ripley to come up with an answer. It would be far better had Source of Rain studied the issue before making such a dramatic statement."

I hate to bust your bubble, but I never made the initial comments you attribute to me. You must be thinking of someone else. I made no such "dramatic statement" as you claim. Track it back, you'll see I'm right. Simple point: If you're going to make snap judgments, don't.

Yes, I did email Ripley, but not with the motive you wrongly attempt to pin on me. I thought you asked some pretty decent questions, ones I knew I didn't know the answer to, wasn't going to play games with you, wanted to know myself, and went straight to the horse's mouth to get real-time responses. That's all I did. How many people do you know who would do that? Apparently, you are so not used to fair play and respect, you don't hesitate not to give any.

Anyway, I emailed Ripley with the idea that information chases myth. I am not a wastewater expert so I brought one into the room and put you two together. I will forward him your latest comments and leave it to him whether to respond or not, with the understanding that there is no judgment rendered for responding or not responding since I am not the moderator of a quiz show that he's a contestant on, and he doesn't owe me an answer.

Based partially on your own summation, it appears Ripley/Orenco offers a highly competitive product to the community that I believe (not you), under the circumstances, is the best and only solution on the horizon right now -- for both property owners and developers -- until something better this way comes.

If you wish to bring up "unforseen costs in the future" for STEP/STEG, feel free certainly bring up the "unforseen costs" of gravity, of a disaster on our doorstep. See Arroyo Grande and Pismo for spills and fines to come. See the Next Big Earthquake for New Orleans in Cuesta. See Diablo Canyon for a terrorist attack that compromises our infrastructure. Why don't you just dock the Exxon Valdez in Shark Inlet and get on with it? The dangers of gravity have been well documented by a list of experts longer than your driveway.

It's simply not worth ripping up the entire town when we don't have to and it's not needed -- just to find out years later that the costs of STEP vs. gravity were more or less the same. With STEP/STEG we basically preserve "life as we know it," not replace it with one that no longer includes many of us. Ripley/Orenco is geared to pay off far into the future with huge energy savings that only grow more valuable with each passing decade. Gravity promises us nothing but the next spill.

If your case, applying the wrong cure to an "illness" that has yet to be diagnosed would be lethal to the majority of the community. Bias turned obsession will do it to you every time.

Source of Rain

Anonymous said...

Sharkinlet,

You must be Pandora.

Mike Green said...

Dear source of rain,
Thank you for the effort in getting Dana's replies
I found them riveting reading.
I just hope that the County advisory and 218 vote adequately addresses all the pertinent data

I feel the real problem confronting us now is not the technical aspects of how we achieve our goal, but, more importantly, the political mechanism that will assure a realistic completion of that goal.

In other words, Its got to sell.
The folks in Los Osos are going to be asked to buy the most expensive wastewater system in California, no matter what system is used.

Its going to be a hard source of rain to be sure.

Anonymous said...

To: Source of Rain,

Gravity promises us nothing but the next spill, but also promises Gail and her son-in-law a job.

Anonymous said...

Well, Snowy, if the Trib won't print what monies PZLDF raked in, maybe Gail's good friend Ann would care to do so. I suspect that it is a good deal less than $5,000, hence we will never know.

Oh wait - that sort of information on a non-profit should be public information! But then, Gail's pals Chuck and Steve never did their election paperwork, so I guess I wouldn't hold my breath here.

Anonymous said...

CCRWQCB meeting today, 3/23, Aerovista Dr. Public comment "after 11:00 AM".

Anonymous said...

I ran across this suggestion in the Trib blog, is there any merit in Ripley building the system he says will work and proving it once and for all and then if it works, we buy it back? There would be no need for government intervention or loans, just private enterprise at work.

"OK....if STEP/STEG is the end all, be all, then with your connections to Ripley, it should be simple to end all the Los Osos sewer issues...

All the Ripley needs to do is build the entire system right now at his own cost, including replacing all septic tanks as required, operate and perform all maintenance and guarantee it will meet the requirements set forth by the State Water Board.... operate the system to the satisfaction of the community and RWQCB for 10 years... and then sell and self finance the system back to the community at cost for 30 years and a rate of 2% per year...

HOWEVER.... IF the system does not meet the Water Boards criteria and/or turns out to be a maintenance problem, then Ripley would within 2 years, and without litigation, install a conventional gravity system at ZERO cost to the community...!!!!!

If the system is so perfect, then Ripley should have no problem obtaining the grant funding to begin immediately....

You either believe or you don't..."

source of rain said...

Mike,

You cut to the heart of the matter with your comment below:

You said: "The real problem confronting us now is not the technical aspects of how we achieve our goal, but, more importantly, the political mechanism that will assure a realistic completion of that goal. In other words, it's got to sell. The folks in Los Osos are going to be asked to buy the most expensive wastewater system in California, no matter what system is used."

You're so right. It never was about technology, just like it was never about pollution. At this point, it's all about marketing, the selling of an idea..."The Selling of a Sewer."

In the broadest sense, the County has already won. We no longer have a choice as to whether to build a sewer or not, or even what type, only how many millions we can hold it down to and how many thousands have to leave. AB2701 took care of that, narrowing community input to the head of a pin.

The Big Picture tells us that the County has $100 to spend on public relations for every $1 spent by the opposition (i.e. slick brochures). In American politics today, money buys votes, and he who has the most money buys the most votes and usually wins, unfortunately. It is practically impossible to envision any organized opposition to the County, let alone one with enough financial backing to make a dent in countering the County's hype machine. It's rarely the quality of the content that draws the attention of citizens, rather how expensive the package looks that determines how some less discerning folks evaluate the County's commitment, i.e. "the more the County spends, the better the project must be."

In addition, Paavo and Gibson use their televised BOS bully pulpits to sweep aside criticism, plug the County, and move the County's plan through what the politicians call "the process" with a minimum of debate.

Factor in that a vast majority of the town does not get cable and does not have a full complement of informational tools to figure out what's at stake and how to vote -- and won't vote on the 218 at all...leaving any opposition with very little ability to rally public support among this critical segment of the communbity to vote "no" vote on the 218.

Factor in the Great Divide fueled by extremists on both sides (lobbying tirelessly above), and you have the recipe for success for the forces in power and failure for any opposition.

Conclusion: The political mechanism that will assure a realistic completion of the goal of affordability does not exist at this time. There is no organized opposition to the County. The "blank check" 218 will pass.

Source of Rain

Anonymous said...

What a sack of bullshit this is. You underestimate the intelligence of the homeowners in Los Osos Rainman, while painting yourself as some kind of Einstein. Truth be told, your paranoid ramblings are just a smokescreen to the fact you just don't want to pay for a sewer in Los Osos. Period.

Anonymous said...

"I suspect that it is a good deal less than $5,000, hence we will never know."

Uh...roughly 50 people @ $10 per. You do the math.

Mike Green said...

source of rain precipitated:
"Conclusion: The political mechanism that will assure a realistic completion of the goal of affordability does not exist at this time. There is no organized opposition to the County. The "blank check" 218 will pass."

I went to the first meeting of the PZLDF and listened to Sam's assistant, a very nice, lady and I am embarrassed that for the life of me I can't recall her name.
She fielded the question of affordability by stating that "affordability is a tricky question" to me, that made it pretty clear that the issue of affordability was off the table.
My feeling is that the county and state are creating a disaster on purpose
It will be much easier for county and state and federal elected officials to respond to the situation after the effects of 200-300/mo. bills are received and people actually start moving away. Much in the same way Katrina went down or any other natural disaster response. The effect of "this bill is killing me!" is much greater than "I cant afford that!"
It is a sad truth that our form of government is way better at responding than planning.

Source of Rain said...

Mike,

Everyone talks about affordability to get elected, but very few talk about it afterwards -- win or lose.

You also said: "It is a sad truth that our form of government is way better at responding than planning."

Let me take in one step further: It's a sad truth that our form of government has become better at fighting us than helping us.

Anon 1:31 PM, March 23, 2007 said:
"Your paranoid ramblings are just a smokescreen to the fact you just don't want to pay for a sewer in Los Osos. Period."

Not "Period." I don't want to pay for a gravity sewer we don't need and can't afford. I will pay my sewer bill, but I want it to be something I can afford, something other than a $200 million aircraft carrier. You don't have that problem. Lucky you.

I'm not trying to play Einstein in this soap. I'm just trying to provoke an intelligent response like, ah, yours? Do you ever really THINK about anything anymore?

Source of Rain

Anonymous said...

Source of Rain:

Maybe you can help with the following proposal or something similar for the Ripley STEP/STEG sewer:

"OK....if STEP/STEG is the end all, be all, then with your connections to Ripley, it should be simple to end all the Los Osos sewer issues...

All the Ripley needs to do is build the entire system right now at his own cost, including replacing all septic tanks as required, operate and perform all maintenance and guarantee it will meet the requirements set forth by the State Water Board.... operate the system to the satisfaction of the community and RWQCB for 10 years... and then sell and self finance the system back to the community at cost for 30 years and a rate of 2% per year...

HOWEVER.... IF the system does not meet the Water Boards criteria and/or turns out to be a maintenance problem, then Ripley would within 2 years, and without litigation, install a conventional gravity system at ZERO cost to the community...!!!!!

If the system is so perfect, then Ripley should have no problem obtaining the grant funding to begin immediately...."

Anonymous said...

Mike and the rest of us are just brain dumb from listening to those who want the impossible: "Affordable".

Houses are selling in the PZ! The smart money feels that it will cost every property owner $40,000, without interest for the sewer. If they can buy a house at a $100,000 discount they will be ahead in three years. Quick piece of cash!

Thank you "fabulous five".

Anonymous said...

There are many sewer systems that could be affordable, but we know the county won't look at them because it wouldn't rid the town of riff raff.

The county from the beginning promised big pipes/big project and that's exactly what they'll do if a 218 passes. Remember, no cap on project and O&M, and everything else that will go way above $40,000.

Only fools will vote yes on a blank check.

Anonymous said...

How do septic tank pump/macerators handle rubbers, grease, mouse matresses, and tampons? Rubber bands?

Anonymous said...

Only fools will vote yes on a blank check.

So, isn't that exactly what the Ripley system would require?

Please feel free to put some honest cost figures on the table is you believe STEP/STEG would actually be less costly. I suspect you have NO cost figures and have only be running around shooting your mouth off with absolutely nothing to back up your mis-information!

Anonymous said...

You are stuck on stupid, anon above, I won't do your homework. All you do is accept what Richard says, this architect doodling in dollars to make himself look less culpable, which is accepting Scooter Libbey's version of not remembering outing Valerie Plame. It's more Karl Rove/Pandora spin, but we're a little smarter now, I hope.

Anonymous said...

Then you have nothing to back up your spin, just you "want it to be so and I don't have to justify anything." Sounds like the Al Barrow defensive offence strategy.

But then you want to nit-pic any one elses idea because they aren't yours. You've lost all credibility, you simply are a wind bag of lies and spin.

Anonymous said...

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
John F. Kennedy
35th president of US 1961-1963 (1917 - 1963)