Pages

Tuesday, June 19, 2007

A Reminder

It appears from this press release, that the Project Team will be in the room (maybe at display tables, like last time?) for informal Q&A, starting at 6 pm, then the formal presentation begins at 7. Hope you’ll all be there.

Los Osos Wastewater Project Town Hall Meeting June 19, 2007

A Town Hall Meeting will be held on Tuesday, June 19, 2007 from 6:00pm to 9:00pm in the Los Osos Middle School Auditorium at 1555 El Morro Avenue, Los Osos.

The County of San Luis Obispo's Project Team will present technical options for solving the septic pollution from Los Osos and developing approaches to long term sustainable water management. The Project Team will be available for questions and discussion from 6:00pm to 7:00pm, with a formal presentation on the "Draft Fine Screening Analysis" beginning at 7:00pm.

This information can also be viewed on the Project website at
www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP.htm

50 comments:

Anonymous said...

Showtime!

Everybody get ready for the first big snowjob of summer... lengthy yarns about how Tri-W "slipped" through the Not-Fine Screening and how STEP/STEG numbers swelled up like a balloon to make gravity look tasty. Hmmmmm, yummy big, juicy, leaking gravity pipes snaking 20 feet under every street in town. Hmmmm. Special!

Thank you in advance Paavo, Noel, Gibson, Sam "The Sham" Blakeslee, and lazy, corrupt BOS for ripping us off of our sewer project and substituting instead the most ridiculously costly project since the Pyramids!

If you guys could sing as well as you lie, tonight's farce might ne half interesting. I predict a short run for this off-Broadway flop.

Vote "Never!" on 218.

Anonymous said...

"I predict a short run for this off-Broadway flop."

But we all are hoping for a long run for your Broadway extravaganza. Right up to the ending, when Los Osos rallies around the county, a sewer is built, your rent goes up to $65.00 per month in that rat-infested shanty you rent, and you have to decide if it is worth stopping your crack habit in order to live here. "Damn that sewer!!! Damn the county!!!! Damn Los Osos!!!!!

"Four stars. An exhilerating, twisted, dark journey through a sewerless town, seen through the eyes of a poor, crack-addled sewer obstrucionist. A must see.
----Frank Rich
New York Times

Anonymous said...

4crapkiller said...

"Your rent goes up to $65.00 per month in that rat-infested shanty you rent, and you have to decide if it is worth stopping your crack habit in order to live here."

THIS PAID MESSAGE BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAAVO, PANDORA, THE COUNTY GANG, DOUG MORIN AND TAXPAYERS WATCH

Anonymous said...

"Right up to the ending, when Los Osos rallies around the county"...

I don't think there will be ANY rallying around the county. I can't think of ONE GOOD THING the county has EVER done for Los Osos...right up to tonight's farce.

They deserve a big fat "NO" on 218 -- and that's exactly what they are going to get!

Why in the world would anybody with half a brain (like 4crapkiller) vote to tax themselves out of their own home???

Anonymous said...

Aw, now you went and hurt my feelings by giving crappy credit for my writing Conspiracy Boy.

Looking forward to seeing you at tonight's meeting, where I'm sure you're gonna give them an earful. You are going, right? I mean, you have a lot to say, the county is doing a great job giving opportunities like this to express your opinion, so I'll see you there, right? Maybe we'll have tea after.

Shark Inlet said...

To our 11:26am friend ...

Perhaps you could show us "how STEP/STEG numbers swelled up like a balloon". If so, this needs to be explored fully. So ... show us the numbers that demonstrate the error.

Anonymous said...

I own 3 rental houses, care to guess how much the rent is going to go up? $65? Try $200! Just wish Al Barrow were one of mine, he'd already be seeing 1% per month increases!

Anonymous said...

Ann and Others,

Based on the kind of input posted above I am, unfortunately, starting to think that the post from a couple of days ago that urged the Board of Supervisors to take no further public input may be the most prudent course of action for all of us who want to see a project built. It's sad to say, but if we are going to have civil, stimulating discussion derailed by this crap, I will just trust the County.

If the 218 vote fails to pass, it will be a major problem for all of us property owners in the prohibition zone. Not the renters, who won't be receiving CDO's or having their property values continue in a downward spiral, but us property owners. The County effort is a reasonable one. We will have no excuses for the RWQCB if the property owners don't support a project.

A sad commentary.

Anonymous said...

"Maybe we'll have tea after."

No thank you, I don't do tea with Taxpayers Morons.

Anonymous said...

So ... show us the numbers that demonstrate the error."

You know they're inflated for STEP. Don't tell me you don't. The numbers will be brought forward. You'll see.

Anonymous said...

"If the 218 vote fails to pass, it will be a major problem for all of us property owners in the prohibition zone.

Then you've got a "major problem," don't you?

Anonymous said...

Sounds like you are absolutely positive that the 218 Vote will not pass.

But, what will you do if by some miracle the 218 does pass?

Anonymous said...

To Crapkiller,

I've been out of town and just catching up on the blogs. You said a couple things that I don't understand at all and would love an explanation.

Crapkiller says:
"Tri-W was funded by a low interest loan to be paid back by user fees..."

User fees for what? If there's not a sewer in place and no pipes or a working wastewater system -- what's to use?? Besides that, how can you have $50,000. or $60,000. or higher in user fees?

Then Crapkiller says:
"There is an exception in the 218 law that makes this possible..."

You are right about that Crapkiller. There is an exemption for sewer. But I believe the exception for a sewer is just that, not a sewer that doesn't exist yet!

BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR POINTING OUT THE FACT THAT ONCE THIS COUNTY'S 218 WERE TO BE PASSED THAT ANY ADDED COSTS AND CHARGES NEED NO 218 VOTE, JUST ADD THEM TO OUR BILL.
THE COUNTY'S 218 IS A BLANK CHECK, AN OPEN-ENDED MONEY PIT.

Then Crapkillers says:
"These potential fines and Cdos made the loan secure, but not secured by property."

Fines secured the loan? CDO's secured the loan? Well, that's a good one...haven't heard that before. Are you telling me that the State Water Board is supposed to do business this way? I THINK NOT!

Lastly Crapkillers says:
"Other communities can get a low interest loan for a sewer system or upgrades based upon user fees."

I don't know who you are talking to about this, but I've spoken to the State Water Board about this and they definitely need more than user fees. Where do YOU get your info, Crapkiller?

Anonymous said...

To 1:24,

You said:
"I am, unfortunately, starting to think that the post from a couple of days ago that urged the Board of Supervisors to take no further public input..."

Now you want to take away free speech too? BTW, wouldn't that be a Brown Act Violation?

But, so nice of you to suggest such a thing!

Shark Inlet said...

To our anonymous friend of 5:39pm who wrote that the STEP numbers were unfairly inflated ...

Um ... we don't know that the County has been unfair with STEP.

You made the claim. I asked for evidence. Your reply was something like "you know I'm right."

In all honesty, I don't know you are right. You have the opportunity to convince me here and many others a well. If you just demonstrate the veracity of your claim you'll have a few converts. If you hide behind weasel words and don't bother, you'll have done more than not convince us that you are right ... you'll have convinced us that you're likely wrong.

It is sad when people over reach with their claims and can't justify them ... they tend to do more harm than good to their own position.

Anonymous said...

Wrong again, Sharky, a bad habit you have yet to lick...and you're not getting any younger...

"If you just demonstrate the veracity of your claim you'll have a few converts. If you hide behind weasel words and don't bother, you'll have done more than not convince us that you are right ... you'll have convinced us that you're likely wrong."

I'm not interested in "converts" or "convincing us." Or what anybody thinks. Only in the truth.

I got the info from two STEP providers who are still in the mix, so figure it out yourself, if you overcome your terminal laziness. One told me he sold the same pipe for $80 to $100 less each than the county's price, adding, "If they'll pay that much, I'll dig the ditch and put the pipe in myself."

That fact that you looked at the numbers yourself and saw nothing abnormal is astounding. It's clear evidence of your gross bias, which renders you useless in any serious discussion. You have no source for any of your information, other than what the county -- no experts -- and no expertise of your own to really understand what you're looking at.

You accept anything the county puts out there as "fact" -- without the ability or desire to question it. I picked up the phone, and I got a response that was quite different from the county's "facts." You couldn't pick up your dick.

Anyone who has spoken with those in the STEP biz know the numbers are terribly distorted. They are a sick joke on the community.

You can't see it because you don't want to, and that's not a reason, that's an excuse.

Anonymous said...

If you are so convinced that STEP numbers are skewed, why haven't you presented a factual rebuttal? You have just gone off in 12 directions crying the County is inflating the numbers, but you have NOT presented any numbers of any kind! Just the rantings of Chicken Little the Conspiracy Boy.

You are proving Shark correct in his statements. You have proven nothing so far. Do you really have any numerical data?

Anonymous said...

Yeah Right! If he did, they would be at least as inflated as those he says the County has. If he does have any numbers, they would be more than our soon to be former CSD ever had.

newguy said...

Speaking about numbers, documentation, etc.

Can YOU provide documentation on nitrates? How can Morro Bay have more than us when they have a sewer?!

Also, can you document where you get your numbers about millions of gallons of pollution pouring into the bay? (Or is this Gordon Hensley's fantasy?)

Can you document that any home is actually polluting? (Or do you insist on using the word "collectively") -- How can you prove it's human and not animal or agricultural?

Anonymous said...

4crapkiller asks, Do you really have any numerical data?

Where is YOUR numerical data? You and Sharkey don't have a stitch. You are asking for numbers you and Sharkey can't provide. That's the point, which you keep illustrating.

If you and Sharkey have numbers independent of the county's, post them here and now -- or shut up with your cheerleading and Paavolian response.

Anonymous said...

You're the one making all the claims Bucko, so put up or shut up!


You're just a fraud anyway, just a pot stirrer trying to cause a delay, any delay. You really don't know anything about this community, so have your stroke and go crab at the devil!

Anonymous said...

4crapkiller said..."You're the one making all the claims Bucko, so put up or shut up! You're just a fraud anyway, just a pot stirrer trying to cause a delay, any delay. You really don't know anything about this community, so have your stroke and go crab at the devil!" 9:35 PM, June 19, 2007.

Just as advertised... no numbers, no documentation, but eager to confront others who know the truth of their ignorance.

Take a look at the death wish for a stroke.

These are the kind of people we have to live with and among -- the dregs of the community, the scum of society.

This is the legacy of Taxpayers Watch -- death and destruction.

Anonymous said...

Can Sharkinlet answer?

newguy said...

Speaking about numbers, documentation, etc.

Can YOU provide documentation on nitrates? How can Morro Bay have more than us when they have a sewer?!

Also, can you document where you get your numbers about millions of gallons of pollution pouring into the bay? (Or is this Gordon Hensley's fantasy?)

Can you document that any home is actually polluting? (Or do you insist on using the word "collectively") -- How can you prove it's human and not animal or agricultural?

Can anyone answer?

Shark Inlet said...

Hold on a second here ...

Someone walks up and says "hey the County is biased". I ask "how do you know, could you explain?". The response was "you know I'm right". I reply with something like "maybe if you want others to believe you you should actually offer up evidence to back up your claim." (Yes, I know they are not exact quotes, but they match the general flow of the conversation until the most recent message.)

At this point the reply is "I'm only interested in the truth and I am not trying to convince anyone" and "how about you provide the numbers yourself?" (two different replies).

If you would be so kind as to tell us the names of the two providers you got those numbers from we could verify what you say.

I am also not simply accepting the County's numbers as fact ... I am just saying that they seem less predisposed than either form of CSD board to attempt to bias the outcome.

Perhaps the difference between the County's numbers (which ones in the fine screening report are you referring to ... what page numbers ... this discussion can be so much more informative if we know what you are speaking of) can be found in one of the footnotes which explains that all project numbers include design costs and inflation until mid 2011.

I typically find the subtle details are where the misunderstandings and differences are found. For example, looking at the Ripley report one can find that they produced a conceptual design for a system which promised to treat 50 gallons of effluent per person per day. The problem is that they then compared this system to TriW which could handle more than twice that flow rate. Of course the halfsized system will be cheaper ... the question really should have been this .... will 50 gallons per person be enough or will various regulatory agencies require a greater flow before they'll sign off?


Along those lines, I would expect that those who are arguing that there is a problem with the fine screening report ... that it is biased ... could point out the specific problems in that report. Without specific detailed complaints being offered to the TAC and to the County, they won't have the ability to know that their engineers were biased.

That being said ... just point out the errors in the draft report and the authors can be queried by the County and TAC and asked to justify any numbers that aren't properly supported.

Anonymous said...

Perfect. You are exactly why the County took the project out of the hands of the incompetent CSD and gave it to the County. Inspite of idiot's like you, the sewer will be built! Lucky for the County that they don't have to listen to your crap and we don't have to worry about your non-vote. You are doing very well in closing the door to public input. Lots of noise and no substance!

Get'r done and have that stroke soon!

Shark Inlet said...

About the documentation on nitrates ...

See the most recent CSD-funded study by Cleath and Associates or the Ripley report. Both contain information on nitrates in the aquifer. Both show that the nitrate levels have been on the rise in the upper aquifer directly under the PZ but not elsewhere.

By the way, I've never presented any numbers on bay pollution from septics. I have pointed out that during the wet season, the bay and the groundwater near the bay aren't very well divided and that the waters mix. This is well recognized and the basis for many of the regulations that govern septic systems pretty much everywhere besides Los Osos.

I also can't document that any particular home is the source of the nitrates and other pollution of our groundwater. Presumably one would spike a septic system with Rhodium and then if the Rhodium is later seen in the groundwater, you know that this particular septic system was the source. The LOCSD could have taken this tack to verify that all areas of the PZ were really "guilty".

If you want me to use the word "collectively" I will. We know that the aquifer is polluted and we know that homes in Los Osos are the source. Why the PZ one might ask? That is a good questions, but essentially the density of homes per acre, the distance to groundwater and the underground geology that defines the aquifer suggest that the PZ homes are the likely culprits and homes outside the PZ ... if they are polluting ... are so much less of a problem that they're off the hook. (If truth be told, I don't much care for the PZ either because it makes it more difficult for Los Osos to solve the problem, but it makes sense.)

The fact that the aquifer contains various medicines and pollutants not found in AG areas and the fact that the nitrates are higher under the PZ and lower East of town should convince anyone that the source of our pollution is human and not animal or AG.

That's all for now for I need to go to bed.

Anonymous said...

To: 9:49PM

Thank you for FINALLY admitting that the county "TOOK" our project away, when you said:

"the County took the project out of the hands of the incompetent CSD and gave it to the County."

Sam Blakeslee stole the project for the county.

Anonymous said...

Yet another great reason to vote "NO" on 218:

TAXPAYERS WATCH MOTTO:
"Get'r done and have that stroke soon!"

Anonymous said...

Stole" the project??? Where the heck was ANY project going to go with a broke CSD with a CCC credit rating??? Try "Save Los Osos from the Water Board" -- if only we pass the 218…

Anonymous said...

To: Shark Inlet

You said, "See the most recent CSD-funded study by Cleath and Associates or the Ripley report. Both contain information on nitrates in the aquifer. Both show that the nitrate levels have been on the rise in the upper aquifer directly under the PZ but not elsewhere."

DIDN'T CLEATH ONLY TEST INSIDE THE PZ? WHY?

ALSO, HOW CAN YOU DISMISS MORRO BAY'S HIGHER NITRATES?

p.s. I watched a show on the History Channel rather recently and it showed that the pollution flowed downward and sideways from homes on the hills. I think there should be "independent" studies done. Cleath works too well with the county, and I'd personally like to see another study.

Anonymous said...

To: Shark Inlet

You said, "See the most recent CSD-funded study by Cleath and Associates or the Ripley report. Both contain information on nitrates in the aquifer. Both show that the nitrate levels have been on the rise in the upper aquifer directly under the PZ but not elsewhere."

DIDN'T CLEATH ONLY TEST INSIDE THE PZ? WHY?

ALSO, HOW CAN YOU DISMISS MORRO BAY'S HIGHER NITRATES?

p.s. I watched a show on the History Channel rather recently and it showed that the pollution flowed downward and sideways from homes on the hills. I think there should be "independent" studies done. Cleath works too well with the county, and I'd personally like to see another study.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"DIDN'T CLEATH ONLY TEST INSIDE THE PZ? WHY?

ALSO, HOW CAN YOU DISMISS MORRO BAY'S HIGHER NITRATES?"

As far as I know, Cleath & Assoc have the contract to monitor water within the PZ, so they wouldn't be testing elsewhere under that contract, but you raise an interesting point. Has any testing of wells outsize the PZ been done? i.e. under the ag lands east of Los Osos? Has increasing ag use resulted in higher nitrogen loads?

As for Morro Bay's high nitrates. That's also a very interesting case. Morro Bay's been sewered for, what, 40-50 years, yet nitrates are spiking in some of the wells. So far as I know, the RWQCB has done no groundwater testing in the valley or up Highway One. Is it possible that increased ag use over the years (avacado ranches, grape production & etc.) has been putting a nitrate load (fertilizer) onto ground that used to be cattle grazing land, and thus the added fertilizer is seeping into the groundwater? The question, of course, is Who IS monitoring the waters of the state of California? The RWQCB? Apparently not. I guess they were too busy spending gazillions of dollars pounding 45 happless Los Osos citizens into a pulp to notice that pollution levels surrounding Morro Bay were sky high.

Inlet sez:"Along those lines, I would expect that those who are arguing that there is a problem with the fine screening report ... that it is biased ... could point out the specific problems in that report. Without specific detailed complaints being offered to the TAC and to the County, they won't have the ability to know that their engineers were biased."

At the last TAC meeting, it became clear that there's a problem developing with the process since Tri-W was NOT included in the pro/con analysis. Instead it just sort of floated out there in the wind, unexamined, neatly wrapped in Saran Wrap, a sort of inviolate "given," not open to scrutiny. TAC members expressed frustration in not having those Tri-W numbers for comparison on various components. I gather that the County will now get them those numbers so they can add Tri-W into the mix. I'm glad to hear it since if there's a problem with wrong numbers, both for Tri-W and for STEP, etc. now's the chance to correct those numbers. (One small example came up at last night's Town Hall Meeting: Tri W's costs did not include onsite hook up costs, whereas the Ripley Study did. Corollo's now adjusted Tri-W's costs to reflect the hook up costs, so now the numbers are on a level, so to speak. That's the sort of thing that has to happen with the TAC's pro and con. It's hard to compare apples to apples when you have a pumpkin sitting there demanding to be compared but with no way to compare it.

Anonymous sez:" I got the info from two STEP providers who are still in the mix, so figure it out yourself, if you overcome your terminal laziness. One told me he sold the same pipe for $80 to $100 less each than the county's price, adding, "If they'll pay that much, I'll dig the ditch and put the pipe in myself."

I wonder if this is what Paavo was alluding to at last night's town hall meeting when he said if they got the treatment and disposal & etc.system agreed on and figured out, they could open up the collection system up for serious committment and bids (real money, real time) from various private industries, i.e. not speculative costs, but serious "bids." said "bids" from both the gravity industry and the STEP industry -- a sort of head-to-head competition that would possibly result in lower (i.e. "real") cost estimates.

In either case, I hope the STEP folks, who you say are still in the mix," are putting in writing, their objects to any figures that the TAC has wrong or that Corollo's showing wrong in their draft report. Dr. T will be "vetting" the various reports (per Paavo) so I'd hope the STEP folks you mention will send a cc of their figures to him as well. If there's WRONG figures, now's the time to correct them, not just sit and whine and call people "terminally lazy." This is especially silly since, so far as any of us know (being an "anonymous," there's no real way to know) Inlet isn't on the TAC, isn't hired to work on this project, isn't in a position to do anything. You're snarking at the wrong person.

Go get your STEP experts to put this in writing, with back up documentation, not on a blog comment site, but in letters to the TAC, to Corollo, to Dr. T. to every single entity involved with this project -- Planning, BOS, SWB, the attorney general -- whatever, so you've got it on verified record that the DRAFT report is incorrect and you intend to see that it gets corrected before moving forward.

Shark Inlet said...

To our repetitive friend of 11:07pm ....

I believe that most recently the LOCSD did ask Cleath to only test inside the PZ but I am not 100% sure. Near the edge of the PZ the nitrate levels were lower and near he highest densities the numbers were higher. Why don't you get the report from the LOCSD office and check. The historical record of all nitrate readings shows the pattern of rising nitrate levels corresponds exactly with the justification for the PZ.

Morro Bay? Doesn't seem relevant to me because that's a different aquifer with a different geology.

As far as getting an independent analysis ... if you don't trust Cleath and Associates ... a group who has been hired by every side in the debate so far and who seems to be trusted as unbiased by every group ... you are quite welcome to hire your own geologist to do the work. Myself, I'll trust Tim.

Anonymous said...

I'm sure you will SharkInlet. I'm sure you'll trust Tim (Cleath) just like you trust the county, MWH, the RWQCB, Pandora (you have to) and all the others who don't give a damn about the people who can't afford to stay and/or any of the serious health issues with Tri-W.

You, like 4crapkiller, blog every day to promote Tri-W.

You said: "Morro Bay? Doesn't seem relevant to me because that's a different aquifer with a different geology."

I disagree with that. In fact, I find you quite boring.

Talk about repetitive, you and 4crapkiller are.

Can you address the health issues? Can you tell us that Step/Steg has health issues?

Shark Inlet said...

To our somewhat rude friend of 11:56am ...

If you have reason not to trust Cleath and Associates when he is trusted by everyone else ... fine ... hire your own geologist and get your own study done. Wouldn't bother me a bit.

As to whether I care about those in the PZ who are on the margin financially speaking ... I would say that I care a heck of a lot more about these folks than do those who have argued for years about the location and STEP and the rest ... essentially raising the bill for us all ... including those on the margin you care about.

You also suggest "serious health issues with Tri-W" yet I am unaware of any. Please let us know about these issues.

About Morro Bay ... if you can explain how the geology of their aquifer is similar to ours, I'll listen. Until then ... I don't particularly care if you find me boring. I guess that boring is bad, but boring and right is far better than interesting yet wrong.

As to the health issues you refer to ... again, it is unclear what you are referring to. Perhaps if you would be so kind as to explain the various health issues are, I could address your concerns.


Lastly ... I would suggest getting a blogger screen name so that we can know your comments from those of other anonymous posters. There are certainly many who are posting anonymously, but you seem to be "regular" enough to find your own name beneficial. You can still be anonymous in the sense that I am ... (only three or four people know my real name) but it will make discussions you have here far more easy to follow. Just pick a name (perhaps "STEPSTEG" or some such) and register ... it's easy!

Anonymous said...

Sharkinlet says:

"Perhaps if you would be so kind as to explain the various health issues are, I could address your concerns."

YOU could address my concerns? I don't think so. The CDC can. Why don't you care enough to explore the hazards of air bourne pathogens?

People who work around these gravity, ugly cement sewers in this county get sick, but they become immune -- children and older folks can and will get sick. There are other chemicals used with Tri-W that aren't good. Tri-W would be a breading ground for diaster both for human health and the enviornments' health.

Anonymous said...

More so than doing nothing? Please expound, I'm very curious!?!?!

Anonymous said...

I think that the risks of air bourne pathogens and all the chemicals are far more dangerous than nitrates.

The accepted nitrate levels are much higher in Europe and Canada. Besides, after talking to some wastewater experts that work all around the world have stated that the EPA lowered nitrates just so they can do large public works projects. It's all about money.

I'll take nitrates over pathogens and chemicals.

Anonymous said...

Do you believe that since we are only measuring nitrates that this means there is no concern for pathogens and chemicals? Are you aware of what else is being found in our groundwater? Are you aware of the human DNA in the fecal count in the bay? You can't tell me that they don't treat the nitrates in Europe and Canada. Do you think that maybe the US has been more stringent because we take the water issue very seriously? Are you aware of that parts of Europe were initially lagging in environmental regulations and are ramping up? Is it possible that we are ahead of the curve on this?
You don't like comparing our community with other California communities in regards to the siting of a plant but you are comfortable comparing US regulations with Europe and Canada? Please elaborate.

Anonymous said...

How about you just move to Europe and Canada?

Anonymous said...

Oh, then can you tell me how the spinach crisis happened? The RWQCB was really on top of that, weren't they?

How about the pollution from the Morro Bay plant, the RWQCB was really on top of that too!

If the RWQCB was on the up and up, they'd test the bay up by the boats and energy plant in Morro Bay
and they'd test outside the PZ.

Anonymous said...

to 8:38,

You said,
"You can't tell me that they don't treat the nitrates in Europe and Canada...."

You're twisting what I posted. I said the accepted nitrate levels are higher, that's all.

Don't know who you are, but I've spoken with a couple of the top experts on this, and I think you're full of it.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, a they traced the spinach to an animal. The boats you are referring to were removed and they test the creeks running into the bay. Maybe you should look into that.
I'm sure your experts tell you exactly what you want them to.
Cite me the publications that verify your assertions. Word of mouth isn't good enough for Los Osos.

Shark Inlet said...

To our friend of 4:58pm ...

You seem to be saying that gravity sewers are inherently more dangerous than STEP sewers and that TriW, being an MBR plant will be more dangerous than some other sort of plant that you presumably prefer.

Let's take these one at a time because the collection system issue and the treatment system issue are different.

You've put the claim out there that gravity is more dangerous than STEP/STEG. In a quick internet search I didn't find this claim made anywhere so I presume that either it's not a common claim or that I did a poor job looking. Perhaps you could give us a reference for your concern here.

Presumably you can also provide a reference for the failure rates for the sorts of systems which were designed to keep various odors and chemical fumes inside the TriW plant. It would be interesting to contrast these with similar dangers associated with other WWTF locations and technologies.

I would hope the County is addressing these issues in their analysis of the various options.

Again, if you have information which would help the County and the rest of us evaluate the various options, please let us know so that we can all make an informed choice.


Until someone presents me with information to make me rethink these issues, I will continue to believe that the advantages that STEP has over gravity is that the solids are dissolved before the treatment plant and the it is likely cheaper to put the pipes in.

The disadvantage of STEP is that nearly all our septic tanks will need to be replaced before such a system will pass muster for a low rate loan and without a low rate loan we're essentially going to pay lots more.

The advantage of the gravity system associated with TriW is that it is already designed and construction can start sooner than if a STEP system needs to be designed and permitted. In past analyses it seems that any cost advantage STEP has over the TriW gravity desgin is more than wiped out by a 2 year time delay.


On the issue of the plant location, I tend to like "out of town" for two main reasons ... sewage treatment plants should tend to be out of town and it seems that many many many others feel this way. On the other hand, the costs associated with moving the plant out of town are very high, so I think that on the balance, the TriW location has a huge advantage.

Why MBR? If TriW is the location, MBR is the only option. MBR is quite often used in areas like TriW where other options aren't available. If MBR systems like TriW are so bad, I would presume that in places such as Beverly Hills where they have such systems that there are all sorts of health issues such as you are telling us.

All in all, I've been convinced in the past that the TriW plan as a whole isn't perfect but that it's the best cheapest option we have currently. Yes, had other choices been made in 2001, the ultimate design would likely have been cheaper than the TriW system we ended up with ... but we can't change the past and the situation we find ourselves in is this ... the County gets to make the choices now. If they are convinced that there is a health advantage of one system over another, they'll take that into account. Even the public will get some input through the survey and if you can make clear some real advantages of STEP or disadvantages of MBR, you'll be doing the County and the public a service.


That being said ... could you provide the details behind your claims?

Anonymous said...

To 8:38,

Here's an article for you. Notice the part about the sea otters. Is that from our nitrates too?

City now last state holdout on sewage treatment law

By Mike Lee
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

June 18, 2007

SAN DIEGO – The city of San Diego is the state's last holdout from a federal law requiring secondary treatment for sewage discharged into the ocean.

It gained that status after two Central Coast agencies recently committed to complying with the mandate. About 40 sewage treatment plants statewide pump their effluent into the Pacific Ocean.

Mayor Jerry Sanders is expected to make an announcement tomorrow about future operations at the city's Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, which still processes sewage at the advanced primary level.

San Diego's options include spending up to $1.5 billion to retrofit the facility, requesting another exemption from the Clean Water Act or adopting a hybrid plan that seeks a waiver while pledging to retrofit the plant at a later time.

To afford an upgrade, city officials almost certainly would have to raise sewer rates again for residents and businesses in San Diego and 15 other agencies that use the facility.

Despite the costs, environmentalists have increased their demands for a Point Loma retrofit after Morro Bay and the Cayucos Sanitary District agreed in recent weeks to boost their sewage treatment level from advanced primary to tertiary by March 2014.

Orange County and Goleta, the two other wastewater districts in California that still don't have secondary treatment, are following schedules to improve their operations by 2012 and 2014, respectively.

Secondary and tertiary treatments remove more solids and other pollutants from wastewater than the primary or advanced primary processes.

“I would hope that the government officials in the San Diego region take a look at how the landscape has changed in recent years, with one after another of these coastal treatment plants . . . upgrading treatment,” said David Beckman, senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica.

San Diego Coastkeeper, a nonprofit environmental group, has offered a compromise to San Diego.

“We are willing to support a waiver with the condition that . . . in 2013, the city will start moving toward secondary” treatment, said Coastkeeper Executive Director Bruce Reznik. “Absent that, we will challenge the waiver, and we think we have a really strong lawsuit.”

Coastkeeper proposed the compromise in light of the city's recent commitment to six more years of making upgrades to its sprawling sewage-collection system. The cost of such work is estimated at nearly $1 billion.

San Diego's sewage-treatment plant is far larger than the one jointly owned by Morro Bay and Cayucos. The Central Coast facility treats about 1.2 million gallons of sewage daily; the Point Loma plant handles about 175 million gallons per day.

Questions have swirled for years about the effects of the Morro Bay-Cayucos effluent on sea otters, a federally protected species that has been plagued by health problems linked to urban water pollution.

Bruce Keogh, wastewater manager for Morro Bay, said the upgrade decision wasn't based on documented ecological damage. Keogh said politicians wanted to sidestep a lawsuit from the Natural Resources Defense Council and avoid being branded as environmental laggards.

“The science is thrown out because of the stigma that the waiver brings,” Keogh said.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency must approve waivers from the Clean Water Act. Alexis Strauss, head of water programs at the agency's office in San Francisco, said the EPA is not officially taking sides yet in the San Diego case.

The Point Loma plant's small footprint makes a major expansion difficult – and thus expensive. One estimate by San Diego shows a $1.5 billion price tag for upgrades using the existing property versus $1 billion for upgrades that would use adjacent property. The National Park Service and the Navy have rebuffed the city's queries about using the federal lands next door.

Anonymous said...

To: 9:17

You state:

" Yeah, a they traced the spinach to an animal...."

THAT'S NOT WHAT PAAVO SAID AT THE TOWN HALL MEETING -- IT WAS THE WATER!

Anonymous said...

To 9:17,

You said: "The boats you are referring to were removed and they test the creeks running into the bay. Maybe you should look into that...."

I never said boats, I said test up there were the boats and energy plant is and you talk about creeks!

The experts don't tell me what I want to hear either (like you said) I listen to experts, they have information and I listen, I listen very carefully (like you should.)

Anonymous said...

Sharkinlet:

Have you gone to the CDC site and looked at sewers? Try that.

You'll find the info on pathogens.

Anonymous said...

Paavo did not say it was the water. Watch it again. If you had been paying attention to the situation all along, you wouldn't be relying on what Paavo said anyway. You have missed a loop on this one.
It was an animal. I know people who were paying VERY close attention to that situation and you have misheard the statement. Look into it for yourself. It was cow and wild pig feces.
Pay attention. The property owners are and you will not take us down with your paranoia and delusions.

Anonymous said...

I will watch again, but I heard Paavo say it was the water when they were talking about ag exchange, that because of what happened with the water with the spinach farmer's were afraid...something like that.

There is no paranoia or delusion on my part. I see the clear picture. I see the big fix as do experts that live out of the area who reviewed the fine screening. Experts, not you. You are not an expert. I can see through the big scam.