Saturday, May 05, 2007

Helloooooo, Yoooo Hooooooo, Anybody Home?

As mentioned in the previous posting, I was out of town for a few days. When I returned, I had an email from John Waddell, the Project Engineer for the Hideous Los Osos Sewer Project, noting that he’d posted a Press Release/letter on the comment section of an earlier posting. The letter was from the BOS to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. I’ve copied it and am posting it below on the “real” blog. There’s also a brief posting from Noel King. I thank them both for sending this information along.

My previously posted (5/5/07) “Oh My Ears And Whiskers” blog entry (below) that contained “Mother Calhoun’s Modest Proposal” was written before I read the BOS recommendations. Holding enforcement actions in abeyance until the 218 vote is also my preferred path. But if the RWQCB simply MUST pretend to be doing
something in order to justify their previous appalling actions, then I would suggest my Modest Proposal might keep their idle hands busy while not doing the very damage they claim they’re trying to avoid.

Well, the May 10th meeting will give clear indication whether the RWQCB is willing to heed some of TV’s Dr. Phil’s
Sage Practical Advice For Folks Who Keep Running Wagons Off Into The Ditch.


The County did a Press Release today on the subject of the upcoming Regional Board Hearing, see below.John WaddellLos Osos Wastewater Project EngineerCounty of San Luis Obispo


The weekly status update for the Los Osos Wastewater Project to the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors on May 8, 2007 will include an item to request approval for a letter to the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board requesting that future enforcement proceedings in the Los Osos Prohibition Zone, be held in abeyance.****TEXT OF PROPOSED LETTER****

May 3, 2007
Mr. Jeffrey Young, ChairCentral Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
895 Aerovista Place #101
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
RE: Agenda Item #6, for May 10, 2007Other Future Enforcement Proceedings in the Los Osos Prohibition Zone
Dear Mr. Young:
Your staff’s report for the above referenced item offers several alternatives for future enforcement actions against residents of the Los Osos Prohibition Zone.The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors strongly recommends that the Regional Water Board adopt the “No Action” alternative for the time being for the reasons noted below.

We agree with the assertion noted in the staff report that some believe “further individual enforcement is counterproductive to the County’s process.” As you know, the Regional Water Board’s previous enforcement actions against 45 randomly-selected individuals has produced a vocal and angry response from some in the community and has resulted in at least one ad hoc group organizing to oppose those actions on legal grounds.

While the County does not dispute the Regional Water Board’s authority to pursue these individual enforcement actions, we believe that further such actions would hinder the County’s extensive efforts to develop wastewater treatment alternatives in the following ways:

1) The enforcement actions distract the community at a time when full attention should be given to careful consideration of a large volume of technical, financial, and environmental information that we are preparing ahead of the Proposition 218 vote this fall. County staff and elected officials have stated publicly on numerous occasions that the community’s energy should be spent on pursuing a successful project, which would render moot the possible penalties outlined in previous actions.

2) Previous Regional Water Board actions have been alleged by some to constitute “electioneering” in an effort to favorably influence the Prop 218 vote outcome. Please note that the County does not see evidence of legally-defined electioneering in previous Cease and Desist Orders, the associated Settlement Agreements, or the recently-issued Notices of Violation. We are concerned, however, about the perception of Regional Water Board electioneering becoming an ever-increasing distraction and impairing the Prop 218 vote, if active enforcement actions or hearings are underway this fall.

3) Further individual enforcement actions increase the likelihood of litigation against the County and the Regional Water Board. We speculate that further individual actions would encourage many recipients to seek legal relief, again distracting attention from the County’s process. As noted above, we understand that the Regional Water Board has legal enforcement responsibilities under existing law, however, any new litigation would risk further delay of a project already long overdue. The cost increases and environmental damage resulting from further delay would be seriously detrimental.

In summary, we recommend that the Regional Water Board hold further enforcement actions in abeyance while the County process under AB 2701 is underway. We believe the Regional Water Board has shown clear intention to pursue enforcement if the property owners in Los Osos reject the County efforts by defeating the Proposition 218 assessments. Enforcement actions undertaken now would be premature and counterproductive, since the County process is reaching a critical stage.

Some have also suggested that the Regional Water Board must proceed now with enforcement against the balance of the Prohibition Zone in order to retain the right to do so later. If this is accurate, the County and the community should receive a clear summary of the relevant legal issues that necessitate further enforcement action at this time.

Let us emphasize that the County greatly appreciates the support that the Regional Water Board and your staff have given in our efforts to pursue both State and Federal grant funding for a community wastewater project. Your staff provided a letter of support to the Proposition 50 (Integrated Regional Water Management) grant efforts with the State Water Board and we appreciate their comments on the need for grants when the cost of complying with regulatory mandates exceeds affordability criteria established by regulatory agencies. Your staff also exceeded expectations in our meetings with Congresswoman Lois Capps and Congressman Peter Visclosky (Indiana), when they toured Los Osos on April 12th and took first-hand water quality samples from freshwater seeps that exist on the edge of the bay. We will continue to work cooperatively with your agency to seek extension of the State Revolving Fund payback schedule beyond 20 years and to secure other funding essential to a successful project in Los Osos.

We believe that deferring enforcement actions will allow your Board, your staff, the County and the community to concentrate on the myriad issues needing resolution in the near future. The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors has the highest level of respect for your Board and your responsibilities. We hope you recognize that our support of Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, and the efforts he led for approval of AB 2701, indicate the County’s commitment to help resolve the wastewater dilemma in Los Osos.

We believe that the County efforts, initiated voluntarily under the authority of AB 2701, provide the best opportunity for resolving the wastewater problem. After numerous meetings in the community, the creation of a project Technical Advisory Committee, and weekly updates by staff to our Board, we are increasingly hopeful that the community and property owners recognize that this final opportunity for a local agency solution will prevail and that State enforcement and/or implementation actions can be prevented.

We would be glad to provide a presentation to the Regional Water Board in the near future on current County efforts. Please don’t hesitate to contact Project Director Paavo Ogren (781-5252) or County Supervisor Bruce Gibson to arrange that presentation or if you need further information.

Sincerely,Jerry Lenthall Chairman, Board of SupervisorsBruce Gibson Supervisor, District Two
2:27 PM, May 04, 2007

Below is Noel King’s Posting:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

After John Waddell, our Los Osos Wastewater Project Engineer, posted the above proposed letter that, if approved at the May 8 Board of Supervisors meeting, would be sent to the Regional Board, several comments have been posted expressing appreciation to Board Chairman Lenthall and District 2 Supervisor Gibson, specifically. I wanted to clarify for the readers that each of the five members of the Board of Supervisors supported the preparation of this letter. Supervisors Lenthall and Gibson were the two who were designated as signers for the Board. Supervisor Gibson did have a strong hand in getting the Board to consider taking this action. We expect the approval of this letter to be granted by all five Board members at the Los Osos standing 2:00 agenda item on May 8.

Noel King
Public Works Director
County of San Luis Obispo
5:00 PM, May 04, 2007


Anonymous said...

The letter to the RWQCB from the BOS is strictly a PR move.

The BOS now realizes the 218 is in deep jeopardy. They realize they are linked by the State to the RWQCB's actions and wish to put some distance between themselves and the Water Board, these two kissing cousins working together against Los Osos.

It's a PR win-win for both agencies and Tri-W project, and a lose-lose for the citizens of Los Osos.

If the RWQCB refuses to stand down, the BOS can turn to the community and say "see, we tried. We're not them." They have nothing to lose.

In the end, after almost a year of CDO persecutions, after a year of refusing the pleadings of Los Ososans for intervention, it is obvious that ALL the BOS cares about is their twisted 218.

Their letter still makes it clesr that the BOS does not think the RWQCB is "illegally" electioneering. All the BOS is really doing here is some electioneering of their own.

God help us all.

Anonymous said...

Please help us, please help us, please help us!

You are helping us?

You must have ultetior motives.

No, don't help us!

Only in Los Osos.

Anonymous said...

Blogger above, you're insane. You make no sense at all!

I agree with the blogger who states this is a PR move.

Shark Inlet said...


I'm troubled about something. You've told us that you weren't trying to be critical of TW last November. What were you trying to say?

The longer history behind my question:


Just over a week ago I asked whether you were going to issue some sort of clarification about your earlier comments critical of TW not being willing to pay their bills.

You replied "Please show me the quote where I said TPW was unwilling to pay what they owe LAFCO. If I recall correctly, I noted that they were correct in appealing the case to get the amount changed a bit because LAFCO jerked everyone around with the delays on this issues. and I wondered if the CSD would add on their own bill since the hearings cost them a pretty penny. But, please find me the quote where I said they refused to pay -- they didn't refuse, they balked and appealed, which was their right."

I ultimately did reply with three quotes from Ann:

"When last we heard from our own Los Osos Taxpayers Watch, they were before the LAFCO board asking that the costs they incurred with their dissolution efforts should be waived on account THEY WUZ BROKE! -- Poor, tapped out, no dinero, zip coin of the relm, impoverished, down & out, Boo-hoo – and requested that the costs associated with their dissolution efforts instead be stuck to the county taxpayers."

"After LAFCO refused to dissolve the CSD, Taxpayers Watch asked that the costs for the whole dissolution process be waived (i.e. stick it to the county taxpayers) on account of They Wuz Broke!"

"All the while, of course, decrying fiscal irresponsibility on the part of the CSD, while they themselves still owe LAFCO some $27,000 in county costs for bringing their failed dissolution case against the CSD."

And then in response she wrote: "The problem with Inlet's quotes, is he often believes that commenting on something, even humorously or sarcastically, means I agree or disagree with whatever's taking place. He's also really bad at comprehension. I've called him on that before. Reads totally wrong things into what I've I written, then gallops off on a hobby horse of his own meaning."


Now that we're on the same page ...

Granted you were being humorous or sarcastic ... but what was the point you were trying to make when you typed those thoughts which, at face value, seem to be saying that TW is wrong to try to stick the county with the costs of their failed efforts to dissolve the CSD? Furthermore, perhaps you should show us where you wrote that TW was correct to ask for the amount to be lowered.

I'll ask again ... is it really a reading comprehension problem here on my part (and on the part of many others as well) or is the problem that your writing didn't convey the meaning you intended or is the problem that your writing did convey the intended meaning but now you find yourself not wanting to stand behind your earlier words because you would then need to apologize for being misleading and assuming that TW was indeed, trying to stick the rest of us with their bills?

Essentially I would think that you would want to go out of your way to correct a misunderstanding that may have been caused by your words. The choice to do so or not is yours.

Anonymous said...

"The BOS now realizes the 218 is in deep jeopardy. They realize they are linked by the State to the RWQCB's actions and wish to put some distance between themselves and the Water Board, these two kissing cousins working together against Los Osos."


I wondered how long it would take for an obstructionist (2 so far) to naysay the BOS for stepping up and taking directly with the RWQCB.

There will always be a few of the obstructionists hiding behind the MTS or Al's project is best or some regional mega sewer or whatever smokescreen they wish to support. No project will ever satisfy these bottom feeders! If a project ever became popular, you can bet there will be some one to threaten a lawsuit and demand more proof and more and more nitpicking.

I'm pleased to see the County taking a positive step forward. Certainly we could say it's about time, but this is how a democratic republic works. It's the system or process. More public input has been expended on all sides of this battle than was necessary in my point of view, but this is the system we live with. We've all had our voices heard, now we should be unified behind the County, it is quite clear they have listened to us!

Now let the County engineers do their jobs and let us get back to figuring out how to resolve our bankruptcy. We still have a CSD to hold responsible to make the decisions to get back to solventcy or to close the doors and walk away from local government.

Mike Green said...

A PR move? of course it is! and a darn good one too!
Let the 218 naysayers bring out their plan for what will happen if the 218 fails.
Lets guess, the Water Board will just disappear,The LOCSD will magically become solvent enough to pay for whatever WWTF, or else the Water Board will just let us all go to onsite systems without onerous licensing and inspection fees.
Tooth fairy stuff to be sure.
I'll take any help we can get to support the county process, even (cringe) Taxpayers watch.

Anonymous said...

The naysayers need to give it up already. This is our best shot, period. Support the county as we should have done in 1998!

Anonymous said...

I don't think much of Anaymous 10:07's spell-checking skills, but I sure agree with his/her message.

When I see negative comments like some posted above, I get reminded that there is still a group of people here who will obstruct any sewer effort.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:57 is a classic example of the Los Ososan who simply does not want to pay for ANY sewer period. He'll cut off his nose to spite his face, and the faces of all his neighbors, simply because he doesn't want to pay for a sewer. Nice people.

Anonymous said...

This letter was an excellent move on the part of the BOS. I am sure that there were a wide range of motives behind this letter. The bottom line was that questions at every forum held to discuss the project at some point digressed into RWQCB issues on which the BOS had not taken an official stand. They have now taken a diplomatic, but firm stand.
For them to take an adversarial stand would have been counterproductive considering that they need a positive working relationship with this agency for the benefit of not only LO, but for the benefit of the entire county.
The RWQCB has been a pack of incompetent fools in Los Osos, but they have shown competence in other areas of the county. I feel that their biggest mistake was covering up for their predecessors. Let the courts decide and make any needed adjustments to the Water Boards powers, as we move on with the county and build a project.

Anonymous said...

anon 9:57 AM, May 05, 2007 said:
"It's a PR win-win for both agencies and Tri-W project…"
"God help us all."

anon, what is your problem? How on earth do you get Tri-W into this reading of the letter? Jeez, if you get a rash on your buttocks, you probably think Tri-W is the cause!

Electioneering, schmelktioneering, who the hell cares? It's clear that if Ripley's plan was handed to you on a silver platter for free, you'd find something wrong with that.

"God help us all," for sure - against the likes of you. So get out of the way, let us vote in peace, and the 218 will pass to get us, at long last, a sewer.

Anonymous said...

"Jeez, if you get a rash on your buttocks, you probably think Tri-W is the cause!"

The funniest thing I've read here in quite some time. Kudos!!

Mike Green said...

TriW butt!!!!!!!

The visual imagination is hilarious!!!!!!

Bwa ha ha ha !

Anonymous said...

Can't you just picture _____________________ (fill in the blank with Lisa, Julie, Al, Kieth, Ron, Ann and Chuckie) scratching their butts about now!

Mike Green said...

How about Roger Briggs! Pandora,Bud Laurent,

Anonymous said...

This is a move forward, I think. At this point, many of those who voted for the recall are in support of the county. I hope that those who opposed the recall are as well. Therefore, the butt rash is only a slight annoyance and will go away as things further progress. Shine CCLO, TPW, who needs Technu anyhow?!

Anonymous said...

This is pathetic Saturday night entertainment. Let's go to the Red Barn!

Anonymous said...

Perception is a funny thing. I'm of the opinion that most of those who supported the recall can't stand the county having the project, and vice versa. Oh well. Who knows. But I agree wholeheartedly: screw the fringe lunatics and sewer acronym groups on all sides, and let the county do it's thang.

Anonymous said...

Let the county...let the county...well the county does big ugly conventional sewers (and gives lots of big $'s to their friends) only this time it will be the most expensive one in the country. You people are morans with no taste whatsoever.

The county will have SELECTED Los Osos homeowners pay for the developers to develop. (Remember that the homes built from 1983-1988 were built by developers who didn't pay anything towards a sewer.) The county watches out for the developers NOT the taxpayers.

Don't try to say that we don't want a sewer, we want a better sewer, we want an affordable sewer. Don't try to say that Tri-W is the cheapest either.

I'm sure that everyone who wrote on the blog today (except Green) was a contributing writer for today's Tribune Opinion piece. Nothing but about lunatics!!

Anonymous said...

For God's sake, the county only took the sewer and spearheaded the Blakeslee bill to make sure it would be Tri-W! Why else would they take the Ripley plan that was well underway out of our community's hands? (Afterall, the Tri-W or the same plant out of town is the dumbest idea anyone ever came up with.) Didn't you Tri-W supporters see what happened in Carlsbad? Is that what you want for Los Osos? Are you out of your mind?

How dumb can YOU people be to want a sewer bill that will cost maybe $400, maybe $500 (when all is said and done) when we could have one for $11,000 per home that could be installed by the RWQCB's timeline??

90% of the people on this blog are "Dreamers" and most probably are out of the PZ, so you don't care how much it will cost the homeowners who have to pay.

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, but I missed the something that said the Ripley thing was something more than wishful doodling on the back of a cocktail napkin. It never was and never could have been a viable alternative!

Best learn to live with a modern treatment plant on the Tri-W site, and maybe a park, enjoy or move. The choice is you to you!

Anonymous said...

To ALL Obstructionists! And especially Mike Green (not an obstructionist). There is nothing below that is not the truth and has not been proven so.

Taxpayers Watch would like to clear up some information
By Taxpayers Watch members

The real nucleus of Taxpayers Watch began in early 2005 when a group of citizens —including many of those listed below — began attending the Los Osos Community Services District to speak out in favor of the then-current board and its efforts to build a sewer for Los Osos.

At that time, years-long litigation, hostility and misinformation spread by sewer obstructionists led by the nowexisting services district board had reached such a pitch that the majority of the community had been driven away from the meetings — reducing their public comment time to a free-for-all of accusations and ill feeling.

When sewer obstructionists filed petitions to recall Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley and Richard LeGros, Save the Dream was born and was supported by this nucleus.

When the new board stopped construction of the sewer immediately upon taking office in fall 2005, all the warnings and predictions of Save the Dream came true — fines, litigation and wasted funds were escalating by the thousands of dollars daily.

The citizens group later called Taxpayers Watch formed at that time, with many of the members of Save the Dream participating.

It was feared that if we waited until the next election, the damage would have been done by then.

This prediction, unfortunately, proved to be all too true.

Standing in the cold weather and rain for hours, members collected 3,400 signatures in early 2006 to support dissolution of the Los Osos Community Services District — 2,400 gathered in less than two weeks.

The first day, citizens lined up in the rain to sign the petition, which was submitted to the county clerk-recorder’s office in February of 2006.

Taxpayers Watch is backed by those 3,400.

The three recalled board members — who are also Los Osos residents —acted as consultants.

The combination of Taxpayers Watch’s continued reporting of services district activities and the dissolution movement contributed greatly to passage of Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee’s AB 2701 — which we supported by agreeing to the delay on a decision on dissolution by the Local Agency Formation Commission.

When it became apparent that the commission’s bill for its services relating to the dissolution petition would not be reduced, Taxpayers Watch recently reached an agreement, and the lawsuit against us was dropped. Was it worth it? You bet!

The county and Assemblyman Blakeslee needed the backing of those 3,400 signatories in order to get AB 2701 passed.

The dissolution movement was pivotal, and now sewer responsibility is back where it belongs — in the hands of the county.

Last year, Taxpayers Watch’s legal efforts defeated Measure B for the second time.

Now we are moving for an official ruling (to be scheduled in June) that the initiative approved in September 2005 is illegal regardless of the services district’s appeal — in order that the measure cannot be used to interfere with the sewer process.

Taxpayers Watch’s mandate has refined as it has developed and matured.

Taxpayers Watch is an unincorporated association organized to promote efficient, quality local government services.

We serve our community through research and advocacy on significant tax and spending issues affecting our qualify of life in Los Osos. Our current focus is:

1) supporting county entities in their own mandate to install a quality, cost-effective sewer in Los Osos at the earliest possible time;

2) supporting an ongoing water conservation plan for Los Osos; and

3) continual monitoring and reporting of the Los Osos Community Services District activities, including its bankruptcy proceedings and attendant developments.

We are committed to that mandate and believe further confrontation and challenging of government entities delays a solution to what is now an urgent issue.

Taxpayers Watch encourages citizens to work with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the county toward immediate resolution of the issues that have lead us into this Level III severity water crisis (the county’s highest level of water shortage).

An update of events and developments is issued to those on Taxpayers Watch’s e-mail list.

Should interested citizens wish to be added to this mailing list, they may send their names, addresses and phone numbers to, or to P.O. Box 6884, Los Osos, CA 93412. We seek the support of those who desire — as we do — to get a property tax vote passed so a sewer can come to Los Osos at the earliest possible time.

This guest viewpoint was signed by Joyce Albright, Jon Arcuni, Peter Arnold, Jim Barbour, Gretchen Clark, Richard Clark, Bob Crizer, Stephani Denker, Stuart Denker, Bonnie Deringer, Wayne Deringer, Shirley Devine, Clair Downs, Sharon Frederick, Audrey Hensley, Jim Hensley, Nancy Leslie, Richard Leslie, Erin Malin, Kelvin Malin, Mike Morgan, Ann Mudd, Dick Sargent and Lynette Tornatzky.

I would like to ask some questions:

Where has Taxpayers Watch been wrong in trying to protect the property owners of Los Osos?

Is any property owner in Los Osos
now better off since the sewer was stopped or obstructed previously?

The property owners of Los Osos will get a bill for the bankruptcy should it ever be approved. If not, do you think that if the LOCSD is dissolved because it cannot function, the dissolution will come without an imposed assessment?

This is above and beyond sewer costs.
To: "for Gods sake".

I have two pieces of property in the PZ. I would be very glad to pay $11,000 per piece of property to have a sewer installed by the RWQCB timetable. As a matter of fact, if you have a viable plan submit it to the county. If it goes, and is legal, I will be very glad to KISS YOUR ASS in MACY'S WINDOW! The BOS of SLO and the RWQCB will be in line to do the same.

Put up or shut up!

Nobody is happy with cleaning up this sewer mess. And NOBODY is happy about the potential cost!

The problem, unless it is solved, will NOT go away. It is now in the hands of the county. Any solution for me is just fine. I just do not want my nuts in a jar held by the government, nor my property.

Anonymous said...

If the above message is screwed up it is because of a MAC. Apparently the blogs do not like one of the 2% of the computers in use in the world.

Anonymous said...

To 8:47,

A park at Tri-W? Good luck. Try to pull that off with the 218. Now you want just some to pay for a park and to maintain it?

Good luck.

You want me to move?...I bet you do!

The peer review is nothing to ignore (no matter what you say or think you know.) YOU DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT SHIT...OBVIOUSLY!

Anonymous said...

As long as the Tri-W is on the table, the 218 vote is in deep "do-do!"

If the county wanted a 218 to pass, they'd do it right, now it will backfire.

Anonymous said...

When Tri-W is selected, will you just move or will we have to put up with your boohooing and your next round of obstructionist lawsuits?

Ron said...

It will be very interesting to see if any of the people that e-mailed Briggs after the recall election -- demanding that his office begin enforcement actions on the LOCSD and individual homeowners in LO -- show up at that May 8th meeting, and demand that the Supervisors NOT send that letter, because that letter goes directly against their "strategy." (Or do they now consider that strategy successful since the county has the project? Of course, that wouldn't explain their desire to have individual homeowners fined. So, it sounds like they're still going to have to show up and speak against sending the letter... you know, for their strategy's sake.)

Yea, that does pose a very interesting question, doesn't it?: Will people like Pandora Nash-Karner, Jerry Gregory, and Leon Van Buerden speak at the public comment period against sending the letter? We'll see.

In the letter:

"Please note that the County does not see evidence of legally-defined electioneering in previous Cease and Desist Orders, ..."

Right, "legally-defined electioneering." That line reminds me of the movie "Stripes," when Bill Murray is signing up for the Army, and the recruitment officer asks him if he's ever been convicted of a felony, and he says, "No, never convicted."

Anon wrote:

"I'm sorry, but I missed the something that said the Ripley thing was something more than wishful doodling on the back of a cocktail napkin. It never was and never could have been a viable alternative!"

Apparently you did miss the report from the prestigious NWRI that glowed about Ripley's plan, as Ogren has mentioned many times.

An Anon:

"If the above message is screwed up it is because of a MAC. Apparently the blogs do not like one of the 2% of the computers in use in the world. "

I've used nothing but my ol' Mac here and at SewerWatch. It's worked fine for 2-plus years.


"A park at Tri-W? Good luck."

Oh boy, I get to say it again: No park, no Tri-W. (Everyone in LO, you need to be crystal clear on that. You owe it to yourself to know why Coastal Commissioner Dave Potter called the LOCSD "bait and switchy" in 2004, and the dramatic fallout of that statement... and that fallout is: No multi-million dollar park in the Tri-W sewer plant, no Tri-W sewer plant. Awesome stuff. So damn interesting.)

Great report, Ann. Much better than the Trib's. Thanks.

Mike Green said...

Dear TW.
Thank you for the reply, of course I've already read it in the papers, I'm not going to rehash why I did not support your dissolution efforts. It is now water under the bridge.
I applaud your efforts now to support the county, perhaps you would like to enjoin the county with a letter of support for the efforts of the SLOBOS to get the water board to hold in abeyance further actions?
One of the biggest hurdles anything faces in Los Osos is the political one, a campaign of positive support for the county process, I feel, will help the county process along more than threats.
I know I am supported in this opinion by Bruce Gibson and the County Board of Supervisors, and the Offices of Sam Blakeslee.

Anonymous said...

"...Project Engineer for the Hideous Los Osos Sewer Project,..."

I agree with Mike Green and all the other members of our community who are working very hard to keep our eyes open and ears to the ground to contribute however we can to support the community in feeling heard.

When I mean heard I don't mean like the statement above that labels a project "hideous" when there have been and will be 100's of hours logged on top of the 1000's of hours logged to try to bring resolution and a solution to Los Osos. There are neighbors and friends who are talking and asking questions and want answers and are tired of the negativity and feel lied to and cheated out of the past X #'s of years because of all the uncovered "loop-holes" that were litigated.

To glibbly label the current potential projects as such is incredibly insensitive to our future accomplishments and doesn't add to an air of cooperation or focus on a solution.

Common people looking for common ground and a chance to provide the support structures for resolution is far from hideous. Cooperation and collaberation are the only way we are going to get through this. We are stronger united with the county, we have more say when there is obvious good work being done and when these adjectives are glibbly tossed in to reiterate a sense of mistrust, there is obviously little respect or awareness of those in the community who have asked for help.

We have some very serious water management issues on our hands and an operating WWTF is just ONE component of the work to be done. I have recognized this for a long time and even discussed it during my campaign but because everyone has been so focused on technology, we have some extra ground to cover to regain our resource footing.

My thanks to the BOS and especially Bruce Gibson - he sees the big picture and his committment to a resolution for Los Osos is genuine and sincere. There is nothing "hideous" about his role and the process that is unfolding and the community's role in that process.

My hope is that this community has gained a lot of wisdom from its history so that the decisions we make over the next several months and even years support the regaining of our footing in the county community and the stabilization of our resources.
Maria M. Kelly

Mike Green said...

P.S. I finally came in from the dark side and I now use a MAC I'm loving it.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for the above posting. I found it very refreshing. I'm not sure of it, but I have the impression that you were/are associated with the dissolve the CSD (TPW) organization. You may not be, but if you are would you please tell them that they are only making matters worse by continueing the conflict. We need to come together. Many of us who voted for the recall support the county process. We don't support any local groups trying to undermine the process, whoever those groups may be. Just because we voted for the recall doesn't mean we support the "no sewer" people. Thanks again and keep up the great work

Anonymous said...

"…the prestigious NWRI that glowed about Ripley's plan…"

Guess you were not in the audience when that report was presented. The audience did not witness any "glow." That has been added later. There were gasps of disappointment over needing to buy or lease land for sprayfields, and the fact that remediating the saltwater intrusion was uncoupled from Ripley's plan certainly puts a whole other cost load onto his project. Ripley's plan can work, but only with modifications that cost lots more money.

4crapkiller said...

To anon 5:31 PM

How is Taxpayers Watch making matters worse or has ever made things worse? So far they have been ineffective.

Are you ready to admit that you were lied to and duped in the matter of the recall? Are you ready to admit complicity for the insolvency of the LOCSD? Are you ready to tell your neighbors that you voted for the recall and was part of the causality of our insolvency? You should be very upset, and as soon as your individual costs are apparent, you will scream "rape", "victim", and "confidence game".

Fess up! I am glad you support the county process, but the damages for this recall have yet to become clear. Keep your eyes on the bankruptcy proceedings.

Maria Kelly is sweet, and wishes the community to come together. However she bought into the community at full real estate values. Depending on her financing, she is probably is upside down. When the cost of the bankruptcy comes in and the cost of the sewer on top of it, she may not be able to stay. Attitude readjustment may occur.

This whole situation is bad news, and we are left with only the choice to support the county and the choices they arrive at.

Beggers cannot be choosy. Vote for the sewer assessment, or beat the drums, twist the dials, and pray for cargo.

How much money is in your pocket?

Anonymous said...

Why don't you contact the Taxpayers Watch directly? .

Contact Taxpayers Watch at:

I'm sure you mean well, however you need to understand that TW has only filed 2 lawsuits; clarification of legality of Measure B and a challenge to 5 individuals who gave away public funds to their personal lawyers!

Consider how the recent statements from members of the CSD BoD undermine and continue to fight the County and the State. They do not appear to understand that they, the LOCSD, are no longer in charge of the sewer project. They do not appear to be working toward resolution of the bankruptcy they, not TW, not the public, but the CSD BoD filed! They continue to spend District funds on lawyers to fight a lost battle against the State WB.

And lastly, let's not forget that the CSD themselves recently approached LAFCo about dissolving the CSD. The CSD is on the verge of insolvency.

If any group needs to understand that they are only making matters worse by continueing the conflict, one only needs to look at the LOCSD.

Anonymous said...

The LOCSD needs to take any available resources and sue the lawyers. Unfortunately there are no available resources, and the board will not sue their lawyer cronies who helped put them in office and assisted with the lies.

So it is perfect! A perfect rape with no consequences!

Anonymous said...

To Anon above at 5:31PM,

There are no "no-sewer" people. I haven't heard that from anyone! Everyone knows there has to be and will be a wastewater system. So what and who are you talking about? Or are you just trying to dismiss anyone who wants something better for a system? Or affordable?

And I don't believe people who voted for the recall want the county process if it's Tri-W (and all indications are going that way, even if it's the same plant out of town) no, the people who voted for the recall wanted the sewer moved. And many people just want a superior project and a fair 218 vote. So far, the county isn't going in that direction, sorry.

Paavo said in the beginning of the process that people outside the PZ would pay too, now of course, he changed his mind. Paavo used the excuse that he only had $2 million so he couldn't do a proper 218 -- which would be a project with one price. Afterall, in 2001 we voted for a definite amount of money. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DONE!

This time it's a blank check. Once people vote yes the gates are open for a whopper of a bill WITH NO TURNING BACK! Some people say it might be $100,000. per home after all is said and done. Bruce Gibson admitted that there would be other assessments along with fees and charges, along with the "hook-up" costs, and all the other deferred costs. And if the big pipes break, hey, the county isn't liable, we just in the PZ have to pay -- how much was that repair in Carlsbad again??

If there would be odor fines, we just in the PZ would pay. Yes, we in the PZ will get stuck with everything. Sludge hauling, SRF loan to be paid back. When homes outside the PZ want to hook-up, hey, we in the PZ already paid for their sewer. We pay for the developers too. For the life of me, I can't understand how you people can be stupid.

You are all sheep being led right into the slauter house and you're happy about it!?

P.S. I'm not being negative, I being real.

Anonymous said...

"You are all sheep being led right into the slauter house and you're happy about it!?"

Apparently YOU don't own property in Los Osos. Just from reading your post, it also would be easy to believe you have a serious drinking problem as you certainly are incoherent, confused and negative, and far from any sense of reality.

Mike Green said...

Baaah, Bow And Chant, Pray Pray, Baa, Baa,Baa:) :)

Anonymous said...


Shark Inlet said...

Just a few things ...

First ... the newer OS X macs are quite awesome. I use XP, a mac and even linux with some regularity but feel most "at home" with the mac.

Second ... thanks to Maria for stating so clearly something that should be so obvious to many of us but is so often overlooked.

Third ... Ron, I find it odd that you've never ever ever commented on the fact that the County, to get CCC approval of the TriW design, would need to re-submit an application and that the County application would not include a park and that the SOC the County would submit would simply say something like "we looked at all the other possible sites and none are as good or as cheap". Face it ... your arguments against TriW are all founded in the LOCSD's choice in 2001 to call it a community value and have no relevance to whatever the County would decide.

Again, considering you've been so darn good at ferreting out various facts and government documents it is absolutely amazing that you've repeatedly missed this point.

No matter, the CCC will do what the CCC will do and the County will do what the County will do. If you think that either organization is bound by a historical document by a third party (which is about to disappear) and your interpretation of that document ... it would seem that you're far too full of yourself or that you're far too willing to sell yourself ... can't tell which.

Anonymous said...

To 7:55,

You don't know what's going to happen if the county insists on the big pipe project. The county is not liable for anything. It's a diaster waiting to happen. You must be drunk if you think that the county is going to abide by the law to have an affordable project. They've already said it wouldn't be affordable and they know it's the LAW THAT IT HAS TO BE.

Go ahead and say I'm drunk, say anything to get away from the subject and the truth (that's ALL you can do!)

Lambs to the slaughter house! That's what the county has in store for homeowners in the PZ!

Anonymous said...

Anon 10:27
You've been ranting your same old shit here for a while now. So please, since you are a property owner in the PZ, (you are, right?)tell us all what will happen if you get your wish and the 218 is defeated and the project goes back to your bankrupt CSD. And be specific. No dumb shit rants or catch phrases like "lambs to the slaughter house."

Anonymous said...

Something tells me the anon above will be about as forthcoming with an answer like Ann is when Shark asks her questions. Silence, just silence.

I do not want to hear one word more from people who say the County is giving us a rotten deal - and then they have no alternative solution to offer.

Churadogs said...

Maria Sez:"When I mean heard I don't mean like the statement above that labels a project "hideous" when there have been and will be 100's of hours logged on top of the 1000's of hours logged to try to bring resolution and a solution to Los Osos."

If you're relatively new to the community, you're probbly unaware that I've been using that term in my column for YEARS. I used it both semi-satirically and, unfortunately . . . accurately and, near as I can see it would also qualify as an historically accurate term for this whole appalling, nightbarish, hideous, horrible, hilarious, dumbfounding . . . . . fill in words of your own choice here . . . mess

Looking back over 25 years, I don't know of a better word that would better describe the whole operation except . . . Hideous.

Anonymous said...

Bev. De Witt-Moylan here:

Having lived in Los Osos twenty-five years "hideous" sounds about right as a descriptor for my experience of the saga of the sewer. Promises made and undelivered. Hopes renewed then dashed. The first time I remember hearing the word "compromise" was in the Blakeslee Compromise that crashed and burned. The term, "hideous," seems more apt than offensive.

I remember distinctly saying to someone about twenty years ago that I would be willing to pay $50 to flush my toilet. That was when the County had the project - the FIRST time.

The effort that has gone into something over time, no matter how well-intentioned, contrasted with people's experience of that same thing over time... . Well, we could call the efforts heroic and the experience hideous and both could be true.

But of course, the real point of the original entry lay not in the semantics, so much as in the idea that we have an opportunity to work together and to appreciate that each person's perspective has value, and that it is less than productive to vilify a person because of a disagreement with their ideas, and that listening and thinking before speaking are valuable practices.

Yesterday Bill and I had the opportunity and honor of attending a party at the Community Center where community members of all stripes joined together to honor Ben and Isabel Di Fatta's fifty years of commitment to each other. Two people who have managed to make their life together work day in and day out for fifty years and, in renewing their vows are willing to go fifty more, stood there smiling at this eclectic array of friends and family they had gathered together.

In the same place where we often speak from different sides on the same issue there we were, dancing on the same dance floor, sitting at the same tables, sharing the same lovely meal, enjoying the day and honoring the chance to be each other's company. It was the kind of experience that renews the love for this place, evokes once again appreciation for our neighbors, and reminds us of why we moved here.

Shark Inlet said...


Perhaps Maria's point is that it is unfair and unwise to pre-label something as hideous without knowing any of the generalities, let alone the details.

You are right that the history is hideous and that many have viewed the various proposed projects as hideous. Even so, if, after the costs are determined, we complain yet again about the hideous cost, it could be fairly said that like Pogo said "we have met the enemy and he is us."

I've suggested before that Voltaire was rather wise to suggest we not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because we can obtain "sustainability" with lower energy bills ... at what cost? Is it worth embarking on another five extra years of sewer design just to get lower costs? With continued pollution of our aquifer and rising costs, I would say that the answer is "hell no!".

No matter ... to pre-judge whatever the County is going to do as hideous is simply ... speculation ... and we all know how much you hate speculation.

Anonymous said...

To: 11:43/12:09

There's no silence. That's your spin.

I'm saying that the county should do a fair and legal 218. I'm saying that if they don't take Tri-W off the table the vote may very well fail.

I'm saying the county should pick a project first with a price to vote on. It's a blank check now. What's the rush (even Tri-W would do nothing for any pollution for 30-40 years) so, the county SHOULD do the work first and pick the project.

What is the rush anyway? Could it be the county wants to ram this through before AB885? Would AB885 allow use to put in our own upgraded septic tanks and not have to hook up to a sewer that may cost $100,000 each?

No, the county has the project and if they don't want to blow it, they should take their time and do it right. It's too expensive and too important not to.

The county has to follow the law and select an AFFORDABLE PROJECT. They are not. AND THEY ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW EITHER! They've already told us that it won't be affordable.

Shark Inlet said...

What's the rush?

Jeeze ... it seems that some folks simply don't understand that the reason TriW was so darned expensive was inflation and that the reason that every project is more expensive than the previous one (you know, the one we reject because it is too expensive) is inflation.

Here's a hint ... if we do force the County into re-doing everything from scratch we're imposing an extra $20-25M on our costs. Furthermore, if we do force the County into re-doing everything from sratch (just to "make sure" that "the playing field is level") we're raising the cost by an extra 40% to 70%.

Do you really want to pay that much more just to be sure that things are "fair"? Myself, I would rather not cut off my own nose just to spite my face.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:51 why don't you check out the BOS meeting from April 24 when Paavo answers all these questions, and a whole lot more. The problem with people like you is you don't want any explanations, you just want to whine and complain and spin your wild conspiracy theories because you simply do not want to pay for a sewer. Period.

Anonymous said...

to the (ding-dong) anons above:

Follow the money.

Lambs led into the slaughter house -- that's what's happening.

Where's Sam Blakeslee to ask the RWQCB to stand down? If the county can do it, so can Sam! He's supposed to support and protect the citizens in his district. WHERE IN THE WORLD IS SAM??

Hey, let's get a class action suit going to sue the county for what they've done to create our sewer "problem" and sue for, let's see, maybe $200 million, and then the county can pay for the sewer. Afterall, we paid for all other projects throughout the county all these years (AND GOT NOTHING IN RETURN!)

P.S. Also, you really never address any specific questions raised, you just call names and curse. Why don't you answer what the county is doing when by law they have to have an affordable project?

Anonymous said...

I agree with 5:10PM - Where is Sam Blakeslee?

As far as the county goes, they aren't doing Los Osos' homeowners any favors. They're doing Pandora, Jerry Gregory, Richard LeGros, Montgomery Watson Harza and Shirley Bianchi a favor to deliver the big expensive project that's not needed for a village of this size.

Why is the county, Pandora, the state, the RWQCB so insistant on the Tri-W? It's because many stand to profit greatly on a project of this size.

If it was really about the water quality they would have considered better alternatives. It's not like they don't exist!

It's nothing but a big fix. I know many, many people that will vote no on the 218 because they feel it is a blank check. The people in Los Osos have been fooled and tricked in the past, but I think they've learned their lesson and are smarter now.

Anonymous said...

"Follow the money"

Follow it where? Why don't you tell us, SPECIFICALLY, where the "money" leads?

Tell us, SPECIFICALLY, how Pandora (who hasn't had a thing to do with the sewer in a year and a half), and Shirley Bianchi stand to profit?

Come on, this is an anonymous blog. You can blow the lid right off this thing, and expose all the evil-doers, thereby saving the community.


Anonymous said...

Better yet, just pack up your camper and move to some other community where you can help them stop a big pipe, mega-sewer.

Anonymous said...

Make that a hideous big pipe, mega-sewer.

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 6PM:

Follow the money to MWH. It will take a little more time but the truth will come out. Let's see what the county does and is doing with the fine screening they haven't cared to share yet (and never gave the community the 30 days after the rough screening for any vetting in the community before the fine screening was out.)

Follow the relationships with those on the RWQCB and those who stand to profit. The truth will come out in good time my dear. It always does!

I would never be able to tell you why Pandora would want Tri-W with a park. It's beyond stupid. Why did Shirley want it? Why does Noel King want it?
LeGros? Gordon? and many of you on this blog? BUT YOU DO WANT IT which is amazing to anyone with any common sense.

The developers will profit. That's who. Friends of friends. We're going to pay for them to develop!!

We'll even pay for them to import water so they can develop! (Gotta support Jeff & Julie, the new King and Queen of Los Osos.)

Wasn't it Pandora who was going to profit before with her and her husband wanting over $700,000 on the Tri-W/Park project?

Yep, the developers and MWH will profit off the people who have to move.

The State Board loves MWH (just like Bush loves Halliburton.)

What a country...

Anonymous said...

"Follow the relationships with those on the RWQCB and those who stand to profit."

Please clarify. i have NO IDEA what you mean. Be specific. This just comes across as a hollow core-standard issue conspiracy theory. If you know, spill it.

Anonymous said...

I don't particularily want a park, but it's fun to see how stupid you sound when you try to argue against it. Seems like you need a shot or two of courage before you start popping off about the process you have shown you know nothing about.

Anonymous said...

"Why is the county, Pandora, the state, the RWQCB so insistant on the Tri-W? It's because many stand to profit greatly on a project of this size."

They don't seem insistant to me. Let's make it easy for you - show me how the County is insistent on Tri-W. if you manage that, then show me why the RWQCB is insistent. To what documentation do you refer?

Anonymous said...

Must be pouring another couple of fingers of back of the room courage.

Anonymous said...

I don't have to reveal info to you, it will be to the proper people that the info should go to. Besides, I don't need to document anything to anon's on a blog. The documention is there.

And it's the State Water board that is insistant in the documents I have. Regarding the county, Noel and Shirley have always stated it will be the big system. Bruce will do what they want, I'm sure.

Hey, why don't you answer about the county not following the law that the wastewater system has to be affordable? And sustainable. Can YOU address that? I think not...

Anonymous said...

What a crock! Just another delusional crackpot crying conspirasy!

This is norm for the Los Osos cry-babies who don't want any sewer, any where, any time, at any cost.

Thankfully the County and the State have seen through and disregard that form of obstructionism. Unfortunately we still have the Ann Calhoun and Ron Crawford cheerleadering those extremists in some form of protest against all responsible authority.

Think back over all the Chicken Little theories we've all heard over the past 2 years. If there had been one iota of truth to those allegations, there would have been legal prosecution. Until then, we're stuck with hand wringing and cackling about the sky is falling!

Anonymous said...

Cloak and Dagger Anon 8:40:
Any Junior High student can look at the crimminal Bush Administration's connection with Haliburton and see the corruption. Following that money is as easy as pie. What you need to supply is evidence of equal value concerning the money trail to MWH. Your countless postings at this blog suggest you have just that kind of evidence, so please provide. If you don't or can't, your ramblings at the very least seem disingenuous and irresponsible, at the most, well, embarrassing. Maybe Santa Margerita Ron can help you out with this.

Anonymous said...

Any Junior High student could at least spell.

Anonymous said...

Oh you've mortally wounded me with that pithy come-back. OUCH. Forgive my fast typing. And I'll gladly compare educational accomplishments with you any time. Fire away. In the meantime, care to respond to the issue at hand?

Anonymous said...

This is the most corrupt county in the state and has been for a very long time. If you want to turn your head and ignore it and/or be a part of it, that's your business.

As far as legal prosecution: it will happen.

I can't see you addressing the law on affordability. You see, the county and RWQCB do step around the law (they've got plenty of attorneys to help them with that --they're able to pay with our tax dollars!)

Anonymous said...

Here's a good law of affordability. If you can't afford to live somewhere, move to a place you can afford. It happens everyday, all over this county, to millions of people. Many people can't afford to live in California, so they move to a more affordable state. Many people who can afford to live in California can't afford to live in Beverly Hills, so they move to, say, San Luis Obispo. Many people cannot afford to buy a house or live in San Luis Obispo, so they move to Atascadero, or Paso, or Los Osos. Some people cannot afford to live there, so they move to Corcoran, or Kettleman City, or leave California altogether. See how it works? Los Osos is no different than any other community in this country. Let me repeat that, because some people just don't understand this: There is nothing special about Los Osos. Los Osos is no different than any other community in this county. If you can't afford to live here, move to a place you can afford.

Anonymous said...

"I can't see you addressing the law on affordability."

The issue of sewer affordability has already been litigated. Perhaps you missed the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that stated the Constitution doesn't guarantee an affordable sewer.

If it's a matter of public health, we have to pay for it, no matter what it costs.

Anonymous said...


The COST of Riply's Plan has already gone OVER what is affordable, so don't be thinking you can trash the 218, and jump back on board with the CSD/turnkey and think that is going to somehow equate to "affordable." We won't be getting any federal help that way, either.

Anonymous said...

Anon 7:50

Your views on affordability are a bit frightening. I can work most of my life in a public service job for this community, yet when the sewer is connected, I am to just leave the state? Hope I find employment for my last few years prior to retirement? Because I am no longer welcome in Los Osos?

It is now a town only for the affluent. No place for police officers, teachers, and firefighters to live in Los Osos. Public employees can commute from Bakersfield to serve the rich new community.

Shark Inlet said...

To our anonymous friend of 4:50pm ... your point is well taken. Pretty much the only reason I've supported TriW is that it is far cheaper than the options.

Unfortunately, due to the efforts of Al and Julie (and others as well, many would even include names like Stan and Pandora), the cheapest option we have left is very very expensive.

There is no way around it, however ... voting "no" on a 218 vote just because the amount is too high is a way of guaranteeing that the amount will go up yet again, that the RWQCB will fine us and that property values will plummet. By and large, property owners see this wisdom and support the 218 vote. Even if very very expensive, the alternative is even more so.

Anonymous said...

I, personally, can afford to live any place I want. I, personally, don't think the county is being straight with Los Osos, or that this community needs a big pipe sewer that most can't afford. I think it's a sham and a shame. Many have sold their souls around here to want to force half the town out so the rich can move in. I know some of you think most here should move to Bakersfield or California Valley, and that is morally wrong!

Shark Inlet said...

To our anonymous friend of 11:15pm ...

If push comes to shove here, would you prefer a STEP system and an out-of-town system which will cost us more or a gravity/TriW system which will cost us less? To make it easier to answer the question, let's just consider one set of cost possibilities ... what if STEP/out-of-town would cost us $350/month but TriW would only cost us $300/month?

There really isn't a right or a wrong answer here, but I am trying to figure out whether affordability or the system characteristics are more important to you.

If the costs would be about the same or a guaranteed $25 more per month for out of town, I would be happy to pay the extra.

If the amount isn't guaranteed, I would tend to side with the already designed system because of the extra design costs and inflation. Past history argues this point quite forcefully.

While I am not worried about your ability to pay, I am worried about many folks I do know ... people who trusted Chuck and Steve to get them lower bills. I will continue to support the option that is most likely to keep our bills the lowest because I too want to keep Los Osos from Carmelization. Interestingly enough, the folks who seem to be doing the most to accelerate that process are those complaining most loudly about TriW. O

On your point about whether the County is playing fair, one could reasonably argue that we all have more faith in the County than at least one of our recent LOCSD boards.

Anonymous said...

Shark Inlet,

From what I have heard, the County's post 218 community survey will ask questions much like you just did. Not just "what project configuration do you prefer?," but also "How much more per month are you willing to pay for that version?"

It will be interesting to see that survey and the results. Hope we get that far.

Shark Inlet said...

Glad to hear that the County is going to do what the LOCSD should have done shortly after the recall. Had they even bothered to take a poll, we would have had a better understanding of whether the community really wanted TriW stopped and another, more expensive, project pursued instead.