Pages

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

Smackdown!

Uh, oh, Ron Crawford, over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com has fired up his S.Wa.T.T.Force 1 and taken on the county's Los Osos Sewer TAC team. It's a rumble in the sewer and amongst the myriad rules and regs and Commissions and laws and reports. Wheee! Let's hope some of his cogent points make it into the county's TAC report.

Next Public Hanging & Auto de Fe at the RWQCB Mad Hatter CDO Hearings for The Los Osos 45 Left Still Standing

May 10 the RWQCB will reconvene at Aerovista place (check their website for time and date) to finish torturing and burning the remaining Los Osos 45. Interestingly, the Chairman has also quashed the subpoena submited by a few of the 45 on March 13th who wished to depose RWQCB CEO Roger Briggs, now that he has returned from sailing the high seas.

Bwahahahahah. The Board can't possibly let THAT happen, so has requested "A protective order [from such subpoenas] is necessary to preclude any additional attempts to issue or request subpoenas for the deposition of witnesses on the staff of the Central Coast Water Board. "

In other words, if you're an individual CDO recipient and you wish to use your right to question witnesses, including Mr. Briggs now he's back in town, too bad. Outta luck. You'll simply have to make do with whatever the Board has decreed is the record to date and settle for whatever the Board wishes to to allow to go into that record. Nothing more. Nothing less. More tea! More tea! Move down! Move down.

Also on the agenda at that May 10th meeting, a decision by the board as to how to proceed with the CDOs for the remaing 45 as well as the rest of the community.

If my math is correct, using the figures supplied in this ruling, the RWQCB has spent about a year and a half and tons of taxpayer money to "prosecute" about 45 people. Of that 45, 30 settled, many under durress, but seven later withdrew that settlement agreement and have requested a "trial," which means that 23 settled, 22 did not. And there are a few remaining people who still have yet to be prosecuted. The return rate, then, for this massive process, is about 50%. And there's still some 4,500++ homeowners left to go.

And the appeal process STILL hasn't been heard by the State Water Board. And not a single drop of water has benefited by this extraordinarily expensive operation.

So, does someone want to explain to me what the cost/benefits are to the taxpayers of our dear state for this apallingly bungled, misguided operation?

I would advise everyone to attend this important meeting simply to watch the pro-forma, previously decided Rubber Stamps at work. Makes a nice piece of theatre.

48 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hey Los Osos:
Calhoun and Crawford both think playing games with your money and your homes is whheeee fun fun fun. Ask yourself how much Santa Margerita Crawford will be paying for a sewer. Ask how much his house is at risk. Ask what dire consequences might await him through further delay he always "threatens." Ask why Calhoun and Crawford are taking on the TAC before any recommendations or ideas have even germinated.
And ask yourslef how much you enjoy watching these agitators play roulette with your future.

Anonymous said...

Ann's sole objective is to sink the TAC before they ever get their feet off the ground.

She criticizes the RWQCB for "electioneering" yet she herself is guilty of trying to torpedo the 218 before property owners even know what the County is proposing.

What a hypocrite.

Do us all a favor, Ann, and just SHUT UP so the TAC can do it's work.

Anonymous said...

To anon at 9:34,

Why don't YOU leave ANN'S blog? You are the hypocrite. Ann is not trying to torpedo the 218. She has a brain and is trying to sort out the truth and what's right and wrong. If you don't like it, LEAVE. But you won't, will you? The county has showed zero good faith to date in my opinion.

You post over and over and have ruined Ann's blog. You are like a gang member with his can of spray paint. That's all you are.

FYI, TAC is made up of TRI-W supporters, and that's it. We know YOU want TRI-W and YOU want the CSD board in jail (or hung.)

You are ALREADY screwed on your property. You've lost because of YOUR recalled board. Don't take it out on Ann OR Ron...

Anonymous said...

To: Anon 10:20

First, I am not Anon 9:34. Second, I disagree with everything that you just posted. Clear?

Anonymous said...

"You are ALREADY screwed on your property."

A renter, gloating, that we property owners are looking at ever-escalating costs to us due to delay. Think about that folks.

Shark Inlet said...

Um... Ann.

"Cogent"? You call Ron's points cogent?

First off, we should probably assume is "team" has one member until he tells us the other members and their membership is verified.

Second, I find it sad that Ron continues to trot out Ripley's site selection stuff even though he's been informed several times about the biased nature in Ripley's document. It would be nice to see him address those charges of bias before continuing to treat the document as authoritative. (As a meta-comment, Ron has complained in the past that others like the RWQCB haven't addressed charges that their evidence is dated or simply flawed, I would have hoped that Ron would have done the right thing himself and first dealt with the problems in Ripley's work.)

One of Ron's closing comments is that TriW is not permitable because of some conditions of approval in the past Coastal Development Permit. He is continuing to argue this and has never explained why the County couldn't just re-write the CDP application for their version of the TriW project and expect to get approval.

Just because the LOCSD included a park because in 2000 they thougt a park would be "cool" doesn't mean that in 2008 the County could go back to the CCC with their plan with a different justification for whatever site they select.

What puzzles me about Ron is how he has such good focus on some of the details of this convoluted problem but has so little ability to see the obvious. Maybe it's the same sort of problem that some experts in various sciences have ... they tend to become entrenched in their point of view and become unable to see any problem through any lens besides the one they've grown accustomed to using.

Let's put this simply.

Ron says that a park is necessary for TriW. That was true in the past. This doesn't mean that a park will be required in the future if a new version of TriW is proposed and justified.

Anonymous said...

to the anon above,

I am not a renter. I'm obviously not who you may think I am. And OUR property values are gone. We couldn't give our houses away, well, maybe if we sold for $200,000 less than what we could have sold at a couple years ago.

Maybe if the county put in the sewer when they could have, things would be much different.

I would blame the county and recalled CSD more than Ann & Ron.

Get real.

Anonymous said...

First order of busines for the SWAtT team. Read the rough screening report - BTW it is not a TAC report, it is a report to be reviewed by the TAC.

The TAC hasn't made a report. SHEEESHH, he doesn't even seem to understand what the TAC is doing.

The report provides a better evaluation of sites than are in both the 2001 MWH and especially the Ripley report that glossed over many site details.

Anonymous said...

Shark:

"Ron says that a park is necessary for TriW. That was true in the past. This doesn't mean that a park will be required in the future if a new version of TriW is proposed and justified."

I've made exactly the same comment to Ron. He doesn't seem to care. The County could propose an energy efficient, completely free-of-charge, "green" as "green" can be plant on Tri-W and Ron would still oppose it.


Pandora and Co. came up with the plan, so in Ron's mind, that automatically disqualifies any version of it.

He doesn't seem to get the fact that the County will get whatever project it wants, and will convince the necessary agencies of the merits of said project (Tri-W or otherwise). And I have no doubt that Ron and Ann will be there to oppose it, no matter what. Ron has no conscience when it comes to wasting other people's money.

Mike Green said...

Sharkey frenzied:
"Ron says that a park is necessary for TriW. That was true in the past. This doesn't mean that a park will be required in the future if a new version of TriW is proposed and justified."
You mean like a reengineered plan?
My understanding is that the CCC required the park to be put back in the plan for TriW after the CSD tried to bait and switchy it out.
If the county has the ability to do what the CSD couldn't then fine, things will be as they are.
But if the county can't accomplish that beuracratic wrangle then how much delay will happen?
And if that is the case then TriW shouldn't get the pass in the rough screening report.
Also, since you are so good with figures and such it shouldn't be too hard to calculate the amount of time delay that would render TriW more costly than the alternatives.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

The Tri-W project has already been assigned a place in the final screeening; thereby it is not being discussed in the rough screeening.

The Tri-W project was automatially placed into the fine screening because:
1. To meet CEQA requirements to compare all alternatives.
2. It is already designed, permitted and a known commodity that will resolve the issues facing Los Osos.

The purpose of the rough screening is to screen out technologies, sites and project configurations that will not meet muster with the given problems facing Los Osos.
Costs associated with the various alternatives are not part of the rough screening. That exercise will occur later.

Anonymous said...

Mike,

PS: Do not forget that the costs associated with delay are to be assigned equally to ALL projects, not just Tri-W exclusively. Your basis assumption that delay results in increased costs is correct.

Mike Green said...

Ah yes, Thank you anon!
My musings were simply esoteric in nature, in that I was exploring scenarios that rendered your number two point questionable in light of Shark's posting.
I am a huge TAC supporter (so far)

Shark Inlet said...

Mike,

To me it appears that the County would simply need to have a thorough explanation of why the view TriW as better than all possible alternative sites. If the County starts a new Coastal Development Permit process, their application will not be evaluated as associated with the LOCSD's application in any way even if large portions of the engineering work is exactly the same.

If AB2701 is determined to mandate the WWTF lie within the LOCSD boundary it would seem that most of the alternatives are off the table already due to state law. If not, a simple statement like "Giacomazzi is farm land, near a creek and would cost more than TriW which isn't ESHA no more" should do it. Wham, bang, close the book Mildred!

No matter how often Ron tells us that Steve Monowitz is pissed off by the LOCSD (and assuming for the moment he is, in fact, angry, something I rather doubt), he's not pissed off about the location itself or the engineering but instead one aspect of the justification for the site.

And just because you asked nicely ... if TriW were to cost $150M and the "alternative" were to cost $100M ... then delaying the alternative by 5 years (assuming 8% inflation per year) would make the two plans comparable in total cost (before financing) if you don't include other things like fines.

Your point is well taken ... one strategy which could be adopted by foes of TriW is to cause so much delay that other options are cheaper by comparison. The problem with that strategy is that it just ends up raising our bills. If one didn't care about one's friends an neighbors it might be reasonable. However I could never advocate that strategy in good conscience, knowing full well that many people will suffer because of my whim to move the plant out of town "no matter what the costs might be".

Again it all comes down to "how much extra would you be willing to pay to get the plant out of town?" While Ann tells us that the question is a nonsense question, I think it would help put things in perspective. If TriW were to cost, say, $250 per month, would you be willing to pay $300 to get an alternative site? If not, I would suggest you start liking TriW.

This is all fun and games and good entertainment ... but once we start being forced out of our homes because we can no longer afford it because Julie and Lisa and Al and the rest were so damned selfish that they would rather their neighbors go bankrupt than have a WWTF in the middle of town (like many many communities have)

Anyone with the technical skill to be a contributer to the LOTTF should also have the ability to know that delay costs money and that the delay we've suffered so far and will continue to suffer because of CCLO, LOTTF and CASE is what is raising the costs of TriW as well as the costs of any other alternative site.

What are we to conclude about these folks who've raised our costs ... it would seem that either they're selfish bastards, very unwise or simply incapable of performing the sort of calculations that any sophomore engineering major should be able to do in his sleep. Not very flattering, but when you look back over the last year and a half it would seem that those opposed to the recall have been rather prescient but those supporting the recall have been wrong at every turn. If I were named John, Steve or Chuck, I would feel rather ashamed ...

Anonymous said...

To: Shark Inlet, re: 3:18

I have heard the County staff say that the section of AB 2701 that you refer to about limiting the siting of a facility to inside the district boundary does not apply as you suggest that it does.

By other government code authorizations, the County can build a waste water treatment facility anywhere in the unincorporated area, subject to required permit constraints, etc.

If your interpretation of the restriction that you reference was valid, then you are correct--none of the siting options to Tri-W would have passed the rough screening, as that would certainly have been a fatal flaw.

On the issue of the theoretical tactic of opponents to stall a Tri-W project (if that is what the Board of Supervisors finally chooses), there will likely be hell to pay from more agencies than the RWQCB. I have heard some rumors of extreme property sanctions (restrictions) if the Prop 218 vote fails and the deadlines set by the RWQCB are not met. Our community can not go there.

Anonymous said...

Shark, have you ever considered that there are people, particularly the RWQCB, who do not want us to have a less costly solution? In their minds the town of Los Osos must be punished for their insubodination. Everyone else (county & state included) is so busy covering their own asses, that they have little time or consideration for the people the decisions will impact.

Time should be opening new doors for us. Technology is constantly evolving, and costs go down with increased production. We should be looking at the future of WWT rather than the past. What is making headway in European countries who are always ahead of us ecologically? Lets make the 20 year delay count by insisting on the best, a hybrid or electric rather than over paying for an old Suburban.

Anonymous said...

Anon 3:59,

That is what people said in 1988, and 1992, and 1997, and 1998, and April 11, 2007.

Anonymous said...

And every time, the RWQCB pushed us back into the Sububan, and like stupid sheep, we climbed right in only to realize our mistake after the doors were slammed shut.

Anonymous said...

Ron Crawford's interest in Los Osos is morbid, at best. He doesn't live here and the fact that he wrote some two-bit article in New Times YEARS ago (New Times, for God's sake! He acts like it was the Washington Friggin' Post, already!) hardly qualifies him to continue his unhealthy interest in our community.

Ron, get a hobby! Get a job! Get serious therapy! Try a frontal lobotomy!

Ron is still trying to relive his brief 5 minutes of temporary infamy he had with his crummy little article. So what?
I am surprised that Ann would continue to be an enabler to Ron. (Really, Ann, he will *never* get better if you keep enabling him.)


And now this crazy ba$tard thinks he has some sort of "Swat Team"?

Gimme a break.

Ann: Giving column space to Ron Crawford is akin to handing the CSD meeting over to Al.

You should know better!

Mike Green said...

Give the CSD meetings over to Al?
GREAT IDEA!!!
Charge admission, might help with the bankruptcy!

Mike Green said...

Personally, I want a front row seat when Joey gets a chance. I'll bet Ann sells the room out.
Oh! and don t forget the reveal show with none other than ....
Shark Inlet!!!!
Baa Baa Baa Baa. nobody here but us sheep!

Anonymous said...

The really great thing about this blog is that none, absolutely NONE of you are on the TAC or the County's Public Works Department!

The only one who makes sense is the Shark Inlet!

Anonymous said...

I'd like to hear why Mike Greene is a huge supporter of TAC (so far) -- what are you so impressed with Mike?

At the last CSD meeting when Julie Tacker offered a tape recorder for Maria so the community could hear what's going on in closed sub-committees, Maria said, "NO!!!" -- I wonder how Maria is able to make that kind of decision for the entire TAC committee, all by herself!

I'd really like to hear why you're such a huge supporter...

Anonymous said...

It was a very inappropriate question from Tacker.

Apparently Mrs.Tacker still believes the CSD has some say in the sewer project being planned for Los Osos. Didn't she get the memo?

Maria is much more intelligent that the bloated Mrs.Tacker could ever be!

Anonymous said...

It is the County's decision to not tape the TAC subcommittee meetings, not Maria Kelly's, or the TAC's. The TAC has a specific, defined, scope of work and they don't get to make it up as they go, and neither does the CSD (for the County).

Why can't people in this town just hang in there for a few more months and see what the County's process yields? It's not like we have any other options. We don't need to be eating our young.

Anonymous said...

Eating our young? Right....

Maybe some of us know and have sign all the clear signals from the county that they're only putting on a show.

Anonymous said...

Los Osos sounds like a bunch of you're all loonie characters running around wearing aluminium foil pyramid hats baying at the moon and crying that no one will cooperate with you. Well Duh, if this blog is a mirror of the real population, you are in deep poo of your own poo pooing.

Makes me feel much better living here in northern California with affordable sewers and clean drinking water.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez: "We couldn't give our houses away, well, maybe if we sold for $200,000 less than what we could have sold at a couple years ago."

Do you wish us to believe that if you put a big sign in your front yard that says, "Free House To First Taker," that nobody would stop by and say, "Great! I'll move in tomorrow, where's the deed?"

Market prices have dropped all over the state, so a drop in Los Osos houses is simply par for the course.

But, heck, if you're willing to give your house away, I hope you'll let me know your name and address and phone # and I'll post it here so that any of the blog readers can stop by and pick up a free house. I'm sure some of them would be thrilled to death at such an offer.

anonymous sez:"2. It is already designed, permitted and a known commodity that will resolve the issues facing Los Osos."

If memory serves, the Tri W won't resolve the issue of salt water intrusion and recharge as one of the Cleath water reports notes, about only 10% of the recharge water may make it down to the lower aquifer, with most of it being lost since by the time it makes it down, the salt water would already have intruded to the site so the clean fresh water will simply flow into the salt and be wasted. So, Tri W doesn't solve all problems. I don't think any system to date does that.

Inlet sez:"Again it all comes down to "how much extra would you be willing to pay to get the plant out of town?" While Ann tells us that the question is a nonsense question, I think it would help put things in perspective. If TriW were to cost, say, $250 per month, would you be willing to pay $300 to get an alternative site? If not, I would suggest you start liking TriW."

Inlet, you're making stuff up again. What I have asked for for years is a Chinese Menu approach with a 218 vote attached, with fair, TRUTHFUL prices, (no hiding the salami, no bait and switch,) then the community can vote on what they want to buy and are willing to pay. The previous board had an opportunity to do just that, the CC asked that they do just that, the CC, had they been doing their job vis a vis the CEQA/ESHA problem, had a DUTY to DEMAND just that. It SHOULD have happened and COULD HAVE happened and if it had happened, you wouldn't be seeing this train wreck that occureed because that didn't happen. It was one of the key points that was missing from The Process that led directly to the cliff. Now, with this do-over, it may have a chance to happen. Then, you are correct, people will decide: Do I want Plant A or Plant B for X or Y number of dollars a month, take a vote, then we can all go home and argue about something else, exactly what I've been saying for years., but I guess you weren't paying attention.

An Anonymouse sez:"Los Osos sounds like a bunch of you're all loonie characters running around wearing aluminium foil pyramid hats baying at the moon and crying that no one will cooperate with you. Well Duh, if this blog is a mirror of the real population, you are in deep poo of your own poo pooing.

Makes me feel much better living here in northern California with affordable sewers and clean drinking water.

6:37 AM, April 12, 2007"

Interesting. Live in Northern Calif, have no clue apparently of the history of this project, the formation of the PZ, the many real ongoing problems with all of this, but assume that Los Ososians are a bunch of loonies with aluminum hats. Typical comment, I must say. Join the crowd.

Anonymous said...

Ann,

YOU WROTE: "If memory serves, the Tri W won't resolve the issue of salt water intrusion and recharge as one of the Cleath water reports notes, about only 10% of the recharge water may make it down to the lower aquifer, with most of it being lost since by the time it makes it down, the salt water would already have intruded to the site so the clean fresh water will simply flow into the salt and be wasted. So, Tri W doesn't solve all problems. I don't think any system to date does that."

RESPONSE: WRONG ON ALL COUNTS!

The Tri-W project had a direct affect on reversing salt water intrusion of the lower aquifer.

For years Los Osos has had to rely upon lower aquifer water as its only source of drinking water; a practice that has resulted in the over drafting of this water source. This overdraft results in the salt water intrusion that we are experiencing.

With an operational Tri-W project, the State would have allowed Los Osos to start consuming upper aquifer water again via blending it with lower aquifer water to achieve water within State guidelines for consumption. Over time, as the upper aquifer cleansed itself, Los Osos would steadily wean itself off of using the lower aquifer water (eventually using very little of the lower aquifer as a water source.) The result of this trend would have been that the lower aquifer would not be overdrawn, allowing the aquifer to recharge naturally and thereby reverse salt water intrusion.

The above process to reverse salt water intrusion does not rely upon injecting treated wastewater into the lower aquifer, so it is not relevant that only 10% of the recharge reached the lower aquifer. What matters is the cleanup and increasing consumption of the upper aquifer as a water source coupled with the gradual reduction in consumption of the water of the lower aquifer. Additionally, State law does not allow the introduction of treated effluent (no matter what it's purity) into the pristine waters of the lower aquifer.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Ron said...

All that smack, and not one mention of CZLUO Section 23.08.288d.

Interesting.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

We didn't bother replying because the habitat is no longer ESHA and the CCC discussion of that topic makes it clear that habitat is to be preserved. The fact that the current LOCSD has taken no efforts to restore the site to anything like the original condition would seem to suggest that the LOCSD has admitted that returning the site to ESHA condition is not possible.

It is also worth noting that the CCC even admitted the County thought TriW was better than Andre just because Andre was Ag land. Isn't Giacomazzi Ag land? I guess the CCC will again ignore Ron's points because they are ... um ... not founded in a solid understanding of the various rules and regs that govern our state, coast and County.


Ann ... it seems that you're not reading very carefully or that you're getting quite forgetful. I was just trying to point out that in the past when I've asked "how much more would you be willing to pay to move the WWTF out of town" your response was often to ignore the question telling us that the question is meaningless because we don't know how much exactly TriW would cost. So ... either you didn't ready my comment the way I had hoped it would be read or you have completely forgotten many of our discussions over the last year and a half.

So ... how about your Chinese Menu request? (First, I would like to again suggest you look up the phrase "hide the salami" because you seem to be using it in a way that suggests you are unaware of all the implications.) I like the idea ... but it is pretty much impossible. First off, we cannot know every aspect of every cost of every project before the projects are designed. As the design progresses and as the permitting process proceeds the cost estimates will change because of things that were unknown before we started. Essentially the only way we'll ever get an accurate Chinese menu of options would be to design every possible plant for every possible site in parallel and move forward with the permitting process with all the plants and only make a decision at the last minute after all designs and all sites are amended until they are approved. The cost of doing such an undertaking would be easily three to eight times what designing and permitting one site/plant combination.

So what should we do? Pick the collection system, WWTF technology and site that make the most sense based on a cost-benefit analysis that incorporates an understanding of how likely various unknowns are to impact costs.

Oddly enough, this is what the County is proposing to do, the Solutions Group and the Lisa board all claimed to have done. Clearly the selection of TriW has caused some issues and the costs of the fight to move TriW were not incorporated into the TriW estimate. Similarly, the Ripley suggestion is also imperfect.

In any case, I like the Chinese Menu idea but it won't ever happen unless you're willing to get the property owners onboard with your plan to spend $60-$100M just to study all possible sites before making a decision.

As I've mentioned here before, it is unwise to let perfection be the enemy of a good solution. We should do what seems wise but not obsess over getting everything "perfect" because to nit-pick the energy usage of TriW versus a "sustainable" plant is to spend far more money (from a lifecycle costing approach) than we'll gain.

To quote a wise man ... "git-r-done."

Ron said...

Shark Rove:

"We didn't bother replying because the habitat is no longer ESHA ..."

And the official document that says that is where???

Mike Green said...

Ron, unfortunately that document appears to be heading to the same trash heap along with:
The Brown act
The 218 laws
Government standard requirements.
The 6th Amendment.
Heck, It'll have good company to moulder away with.

I support the TAC because I think it's the quickest way to solve the problem...

get r done.

Anonymous said...

Used sewer salesman, Richard "Little Toe" Legros, the stoned architect who cooked the books and is on the lam for Taxpissers Watch's failed dissolution debts, is now a wastewater expert, too! What Richard is and always has been is WRONG-DEAD-WRONG -- for which we are paying the price -- and he continues his lifelong losing streak here:

"With an operational Tri-W project, the State would have allowed Los Osos to start consuming upper aquifer water again via blending it with lower aquifer water to achieve water within State guidelines for consumption."

So, Richard wants to blend contaminated water from Tri-W with pure lower aquifer water to achieve WHAT? A slow, painful death from lingering viruses and immune pathogens and carcinigens from personal care products Tri-W leaves in the wastewater? You make it, you drink Los Osos Kool-Aid, Richard. I'll watch.

Used sewer salesman, SharkInlet, who plays the same three notes on his Tri-W banjo over and over again just to earn a few sheckles, is a shameless hussy for the $200,000 Tri-W megasewer:

He closes: "As I've mentioned here before, it is unwise to let perfection be the enemy of a good solution. We should do what seems wise but not obsess over getting everything "perfect" because to nit-pick the energy usage of TriW versus a "sustainable" plant is to spend far more money (from a lifecycle costing approach) than we'll gain. To quote a wise man ... "git-r-done."

"Imperfection as a defense for Tri-W? "Nit-picking energy usage"? Who does he think he's fooling? It will cost us "far more money" in spills and fines and lifecycle costs for Tri-W than ANY PROJECT ON OR NOT ON THE TABLE. This guy is the worst windbag in town for Tri-W and the only one who doesn't know it is him. He's graduated from shoe salesman, to vacuum cleaners, cars, and now the biggest energy and money guzzler of them all, the scam of the century, the Tri-W Megasewer! What a jerk will do for a few bucks.

To quote a wise man ... "Don't follow leaders, watch the parking meters." Sharklet's time has expired.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

Your most recent comment shows you've not been to Los Osos since about August 2005. Just driving by TriW would convince anyone that whatever scrub brush and associated critters are no longer there. If you need an official document before you'll believe that you're pretty much an idiot.

Maybe the point you're trying to make is that no official Biologist has declared the site to be non-ESHA. Fine. Since the LOCSD hasn't paid a biologist to make that certification, it hasn't happened. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the County could verify the non-ESHAness of TriW for less than $5000 in less than a paragraph in their CDP application.

Shark Inlet said...

To our most recent anonymous friend ... I am happy to have you criticize the content of what I've written. I just wish you had actually commented on the content.

Are you telling us that you've got a solution that will save us money? Are you telling us you think that it is wise to spend more money on designing an energy efficient plant that we'll save in energy costs over the life of the plant? Are you doubting my calculations?

Just what the hell are you saying other than you're just generally pissed-off about what I've written while unable or unwilling to give a reasoned explanation for your displeasure?

Again, please let us know some details behind your opinions ... or else we'll see them as ... um ... unfounded in reality.

Anonymous said...

Good Eveing Churadogs from a very pleasant northern California,

I have been involved with the Los Osos Clean Water action, or rather non-productive action, for some years. I have occasionaly visited the community and you really should quit calling it a town.

The point being, the collapse of a local government has the attention of many outside your community. The main actors do indeed appear to be loonies with puffed out chests, each declaring themselves to be experts in the world of water treatment. You can rest assured they are being viewed quite differently outside the small community of Los Osos.

But please do continue the theater of the absurd. You bring joy and laughter to the rest of California. We have clean drinking water and sewers at affordable rates. But then again, we learned to work with our government agencies and do not have to create emotional wars over our basic needs.

So Ann, please keep up this blog, it really is fun reading with the morning coffee.

Anonymous said...

To the above blogger from Northern California with a sewer and clean water:

Maybe if you were a little bit more informed you would know that it was the state government who ruined our local government. The State Water Board gave out an unsecured loan -- the very first time they've done that -- and what has happened to Los Osos since has been a direct result of the state knowing that the recalled board didn't allow Los Osos their right to vote on being assessed to build the sewer. AND that the county & Regional Board let any pollution problem go on for over 20 years.

How would YOU feel if you had to pay up to $400 a month -- start a sewer from scratch and just a few thousand homes pay, while the wealthy who benefit don't pay a penny. You would probably complain too -- then someone from a different area would call you looney.

And maybe if you were a little bit more informed you would see that the State Water Board is using big public works projects to force people out of their homes up and down the state.

And you would know that other regional water boards think this cental coast water board are fools.

Anonymous said...

Poor Richard (LeGros) - born with a silver spoon in his mouth...

He moved up on the hill so he wouldn't have to pay ...

He will make quite a bit of money when half the town is forced out. He'll design all the new homes that will replace all the modest homes ...

Richard won't have to drink any of that water from the sewer plant ... he'll be able to bath in bottled water...

Anonymous said...

You may want to do some research on just who filed for bankruptcy. Just a clue, it wasn't the State.

Your experiment at local government fell flat on her face!

BTW, my monthly Water AND Sewer bill is under $100.

Anonymous said...

Hi Various Anons above,

Regarding blending of upper and lower aquifer water:
1. Blending is already being done in Los Osos by Cal Cities Water.
2. State and Federal laws and guidelines specify how blending is to occur in order to protect the public health. Blending is a common practice throughout California and the US.
3. Blending of upper and lower aquifer water is the only way for Los Osos to even come near the amount of water it will need for full buildout (19,600 people) without having to resort to importation of water.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Anonymous said...

How many of our CSD Board Members went on the tour?

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon,

Just Chuck....and he was invited only as a courtesy....and told to keep his mouth shut.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"In any case, I like the Chinese Menu idea but it won't ever happen unless you're willing to get the property owners onboard with your plan to spend $60-$100M just to study all possible sites before making a decision."

But this is what the county is now doing, indeed, HAS already done with the rough screening report. There will likely be a couple of systems and sites that will survive past this point, and one of those will be selected. Our "advisory" vote isn't really the Chinese menu, but about as close as we'll be allowed to get now.

Inlet also sez:"I'll bet you dollars to donuts that the County could verify the non-ESHAness of TriW for less than $5000 in less than a paragraph in their CDP application."

Uh, don't be too sure. The Elfin Forrest has been struggling with Veldt Grass invasion for years, wanted to get permits for spraying to get ahead of the grass, was repeatedly denied permits because . . . they found snails IN the veldt grass. Seems the little critters are opportunists and far from being endangered by the invasive grass wiping out their native habitat, happily moved into new digs. So, I wouldn't bet on the mess at TriW being officially de-classified any time soon.

Anonymous from No CA sez:"The point being, the collapse of a local government has the attention of many outside your community. The main actors do indeed appear to be loonies with puffed out chests, each declaring themselves to be experts in the world of water treatment. You can rest assured they are being viewed quite differently outside the small community of Los Osos."

My point exactly, you are only seeing a handful of "noisy" people, NOT the "real" community. Which means, you're getting a real distortion of what has hapened here and what continues to happen here. So long as that simplified, cartooney false image amuses you over your morning coffee, you won't ever bother to look further or deeper or try to answer some of the critical and amazingly complex (historical, legal, engineering, regulatory,proceedural, etc.) questions the community (and many on this blog) have asked and keep asking.

anonymous sez:"You may want to do some research on just who filed for bankruptcy. Just a clue, it wasn't the State."

Actually, the question I'm really interested in seeing answered, under oath, in a court of law, is this: Just who was responsible for the Breach of Contract with the SWB's SRF Loan? The local judge told the contractors their quarrel was with the STATE, not the CSD. So, what gives? That case is now in abeyance, due to the bankruptcy, but it's a critical one since it involves the SWB, the SRF, and some pretty major players and promises to be an interesting one. Who pulled the plug and when?
For Mr/Ms Northern California's Amused Coffee Drinking Anonymouse, I'd suggest that you might be really amused by trying to get a truthful answer to that question. A hint, you may want to subpoena some emails and phone call records, for a start.

Anon sez:"Hi Anon,

Just Chuck....and he was invited only as a courtesy....and told to keep his mouth shut.

6:01 PM, April 13, 2007"

Who told Chuck to "keep his mouth shut?"

Anonymous said...

I'll bet it wasn't Mrs.Tacky

Anonymous said...

Churadogs,

My concern as a responsible property owner is that those "noisy" people that you speak of, who give distorted impressions of what the 10,000 or so individuals who jointly or separately own property in Los Osos really think and want, parade themselves down to the Board of Supervisors every Tuesday and act as if they represent us.

Steve said...

Hmmm...

Ann now tells us that the County Engineering staff and the TAC will be doing an unbiased analysis of all sites and possibilities and that will satisfy her.

Well, back in 2000 when the LOCSD did the same thing ... when Ann didn't like the outcome she argued that it wasn't unbiased. Just a year ago when Ripley released his site selection analysis, I (and others) criticized it as biased.

The only way we'll avoid the sort of complaints Ann and others have had ... that a better option was ignored earlier in the process ... is to pursue all options simultaneously.


I guess we're pretty much hosed here because even if the County does a good job and the TAC agrees, there will be some who will oppose their suggestions no matter what.

Anonymous said...

Steve, you have the correct thought. There is no perfect solution that some expert in this town won't nit-pic. They just want to delay any project because they don't believe we need a sewer!