Pages

Sunday, June 10, 2007

Sewer or Die

In the CDO and CAO documents sent to The Los Osos 45, it babbles on about having to come up with alternative systems to meet the zero discharge requirements if a county wastewater plan wasn’t “making good progress,” (as defined by the RWQCB) by 2011. If you had no “alternative systems,” you could be fined up to $5,000 a day, and could also be “exposed to accumulation of daily penalties while such discharges continue.” In short, you’d lose your home in short order.

So, PZLDF invited Harvey Packard of the RWQCB to come tell the public just what alternative systems could be used, you know, the ones babbled about in the CDOs and CAOs, the ones the RWQCB is supposed to “help” citizens with, and could Mr. Packard bring a list of approved systems, and could anyone get started on looking into installing one now so they’d be safe just in case the Prop 218 vote failed or the county failed for any reason?

The answer from Mr. Packard came in an email and is as follows. Despite what the language of the CDO’s say, in the real world where the RWQCB treats language and language-in-documents as fungible as wisps of fog, in practical reality, it’s clear that no alternative system will be allowed by the RWQCB. So, it’s simply Sewer or Die. Not that the RWQCB is telling anyone what kind of system to use, mind you.



“Gail, regarding my coming to a community meeting in Los Osos, I've spoken with Paavo Ogren about having me at one of their regular meetings in Los Osos to talk about Water Board issues. Paavo said he would get back to me with a proposed date.

We do not see enhanced or alternative individual onsite systems to be a solution to wastewater problems in Los Osos. As staff, we do not plan on recommending approval of such systems to the Water Board. You mention three reasons why people are asking about these systems:
1) back-up cost comparison for a community system.

I don't have any information about costs. People need to research that information.

2) they want to be fully prepared to comply if the County fails.

Alternative individual systems will not provide compliance with the discharge prohibition. The Basin Plan prohibits waste discharges altogether, without making allowances for meeting a particular treatment standard. The Basin Plan does provide for exceptions to the prohibition, which we would recommend the Board granting for a suitable community system, but we will not recommend exceptions for individual alternative systems.

3) others want to treat and recycle water on their lots.

This might be an acceptable alternative if the owner can show that all waste is removed from the effluent or taken up before it reaches groundwater. However, since most lots in the prohibition zone aren't big enough to use all of the wastewater generated by a residence, especially in the winter, the owner of such a system would still need to hook up to the community wastewater system. Proper use of a grey-water system for irrigation, combined with a community-wide collection system for blackwater, would be more appropriate.

Harvey”

On a happier note, the last sentence of his email should be immediately explored. In a recent Tribune article, it was noted that various Water Officials (The Water Gods) throughout the state are (finally) getting really, really concerned. With climate change, they’re already seeing water shortages now, and are sounding the alarm that something has to be done now to waylay disaster only a few years away. (It’s no good “importing” State Water when there IS no water to import. All cities and counties that rely on State Water will end up with is a very nice – empty – water PIPE, but . . . no water.)

So, can we all start working with the RWQCB on a practical way to set up permitted greywater systems for our homes, thereby reducing water use for our yards? To date, the County’s wastewater plans are clearly focused on “sustainable,” which, in a basin that’s already in serious overdraft, is a smart move. Besides simply installing low-flow items for use IN the home, perhaps everyone in Los Osos needs to seriously look at installing greywater systems for OUTSIDE the home, thereby reducing their total water use.

So, maybe Harvey could come to the community to talk about exactly what greywater systems he would consider approving and permitting? Unless that’s another piece of typical RWQCB Hobson’s Choice smoke and mirrors, you know, the old wallet-tied-to-the-string trick: Homeowner asks about greywater sytems only to be told, Oh, we can’t tell you what kind of system you can use, you’ll have to go spend tons of money investigating systems, bring us a complete plan THEN we’ll tell you, sorry, pay no attention to what we said in the email, we never did have any intention of permitting any greywater systems in the PZ, fooled ya, bwa-hahahahahah.

Meanwhile, don’t forget: Town Hall Meeting, Tuesday, June 19, 2007, Los Osos Middle School, 6 pm. for the SLO County Project Team’s presentation of” technical options” for the wastewater treatment system and for “developing approaches to long term sustainable water management.”

93 comments:

Anonymous said...

What a refreshing article. Not a word extolling the virtues of a CSD who wouldn't/couldn't/didn't!

But now Gail the leading $40,000 legal expert in all things sewer, and now leading the pizzelflop has picked up the torch to challege, nay, to pick apart anything/everything from the RWQCB. Of course 40grand McPherson has no personal axe to grind, of course not! She is merely the all knowing voice of right vs. wrong. A virtual paragon of purity and honesty if one overlooks the Riverside debacle and the illegal destruction of records from the former experiment at local Lost Osos governance and her flip-flop leadhership in guiding the community to now support the County's sewer planning efforts, with just a "few" strings attached per her personal agenda.

It should be fair to expose Harvey's smoke and mirror tricks to obtain a positive 218 in order to assure at least half the property owners will support a sewer while the activists wanting to delay or at very least nitpic in order to further obstruct, will dazzle by misdirection and slight of hand. Grey-water reclamation? Zounds and wowie! Perhaps a compost toilet or two? But actually nothing more that obstreperous bickering over the need for a community sewer or any sewer. Just more misdirection waiting to be picked apart for some obscure personal reason or just to be as contentious as this farce of community enlightenment. Why not a straight out endorcement of the hard work the County is preparing? Why do you dance on your soap box indignately crying that the RWQCB is not playing fair while all the while stirring your caldron just to see your name in print? Or to stir the blood of the vocal extremists? Why not just come out and tell your readers that you support the County? That the "Process" is being followed and to halt the side-show of insulting every member of every group who is trying to help this community build a sewer!

Anonymous said...

The TriW project allowed for the possibility of using our decommissioned septics for certain greywater catch - RWQCB had approved.
All gone now - it was actually pretty innovative and pushed the envelope a little further and opened the door for exploring further options.

Anonymous said...

Another reason to thank Mrs.Tacker?

Anonymous said...

Is it true that it is against some sort of county regulation to dump your clothes washing machine water on the ground? Anyone know?

Anonymous said...

Ann:

You write: "The Water Gods throughout the state are (finally) getting really, really concerned. With climate change, they’re already seeing water shortages now, and are sounding the alarm that something has to be done now to waylay disaster only a few years away. (It’s no good “importing” State Water when there IS no water to import. All cities and counties that rely on State Water will end up with is a very nice – empty – water PIPE, but . . . no water.)

I write: Have you been following what's going on with the $190 million dollar pipeline to import water, and what's going on in Nipomo and Oceano that is paving the way for imported water? The county is going to import water whether it's there or not, afterall, how could the developers build without it and how could the realtors who own so many vacant lots build?

I'm wondering what you know about this.

Anonymous said...

Desalination Plants;

Oceano, Diablo, Los Osos and Cayucos

Anonymous said...

I know the discussion of desalination plant in Oceano, but Los Osos??

Anonymous said...

Yes, it is an illegal discharge. It is a health issue - blood, illnesses ie polio, and fecal matter that may leave the washing machine and is not treated properly.
Although polio isn't as big a problem now that the vaccine is back to using an inactive strain but for years and years, live polio was being disposed in our dumps in disposable diapers. We'll hear more of this in the years to come. Anyone who had their children vaccinated and then washed diapers and illegally drained their washing machine water in the yard was creating a potentially serious health hazard.

Mike Green said...

One of the biggest problems we are constantly reminded of in the sewer wars is the need to stop saltwater intrusion.
Here are three links to articles that may have bearing on not only that but the holistic water problem we all face now and in the future, especially if drought is a coming. Enjoy:
http://www.miracosta.edu/home/kmeldahl/articles/crops.pdf
http://turf.lib.msu.edu/2000s/2000/000111.pdf
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/seawater.html

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:'The TriW project allowed for the possibility of using our decommissioned septics for certain greywater catch - RWQCB had approved.
All gone now - it was actually pretty innovative and pushed the envelope a little further and opened the door for exploring further options.

9:34 AM, June 10, 2007"

Why would that be "all gone now." Clearly, Harvey's letter leaves the door open to doing something about properly treated grey-water after hooking up to the sewer. I recall a plan to use old septic tanks as "cache basins" for rainwater, which could be used then for gardens, & etc. Angain, why would that be kaput? Seems like a great way to go.

As for properly treating greywater, I can only hope the RWQCB staff would be proactive in coming up with a list of systems they know work and they will approve. Would save everyone a lot of wasted legwork and could help streamline efforts to do just that -- maybe do group buys so get a cheaper rate & etc. It's all doable, but it will require a Regional Water Quality Control Board that actually is proactive about . . . . WATER. Seeing what happend during the first ACL/CDO Mad Pumping Scheme hearings, I no longer have ANY confidence that that's what we've got here.

As for importing water, all I can say is this: You can build all the pipes you want, but pipes are no guarantee you'll have water. Ever.

Anonymous said...

"...can only hope the RWQCB staff would be proactive in coming up with a list of systems they know work and they will approve. Would save everyone a lot of wasted legwork and could help streamline efforts to do just that -- maybe do group buys so get a cheaper rate & etc. It's all doable, but it will require a Regional Water Quality Control Board that actually is proactive about . . . . WATER." Seeing what happend during the first ACL/CDO Mad Pumping Scheme hearings, I no longer have ANY confidence that that's what we've got here."

It almost appeared you were agreeing with RWQCB, but then, "... what happen(e)d during the first ACL/CDO Mad Pumping Scheme hearings, I no longer have ANY confidence that that's what we've got here."

Since you didn't mention the CSD mismanagement today, is it possible that "...I no longer have ANY confidence that that's what we've got here."...?

Glen said...

Forget Harvey! He's as much of an AIRHEAD as Paris Hilton...Where the hell is ROGER BRIGGS?

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:47
When are you going to get it through your thick skull that the RWQCB is not trying to help anyone, and that environmental protection and conserving natural resources are low priorities. Figuring out how to reclaim the lost funds without exposing their sorid past are the top concerns of the RWQCB and the state board.

Anonymous said...

You should start taking your evening meds a bit earlier.

We are all laughing at you, not with you!

Anonymous said...

Hope you can keep laughing when the RWQCB tries to fine us for shitting on an inappropriate schedule, or blowing our nose incorrectly....If we do not accept a SRF loan.

We are going to get a waste water treatment facility in spite of Matt, Harvey, Roger, and Sorrel. May they rot in Hell for the lies they have told and the truths they have covered.

Anonymous said...

Consider doubling your meds tonight. Maybe cut down on the qualudes and meth.

We really are all laughing at you, not with you!

Anonymous said...

Taking drugs only alters your perception of reality. Is that your problem? Keep laughing. It will mute the eventual pain.....unless you live outside the PZ.

Anonymous said...

Let's just say that my "perception" has a fully permitted and designed waste water treatment system which was approved bt the RWQCB. What's your latest hallucination? What will be your next holistic nocturnal emission?

We continue laughing at you, not with you!

Anonymous said...

Dear Ann,
"Why would that be "all gone now." Clearly, Harvey's letter leaves the door open to doing something about properly treated grey-water after hooking up to the sewer. I recall a plan to use old septic tanks as "cache basins" for rainwater, which could be used then for gardens, & etc. Again, why would that be kaput? Seems like a great way to go."
Response: It was tied into the gravity collection project. I'm still hearing step or sue and well, some folks are going to need their tanks to pump to the front of the house and/or various issues. All future septic tanks that get replaced- due to a 100% replacement recommendation- means no tanks for rain water catch.
With a gravity collection, yes it still might be possible but the rumblings of the now clearly defined political arm of this community: "Litigate Ad Infinitum Regime" or the LIAR party will ensure that we are litigated out of existence.
Connect the dots as to how some in this community may be thinking rather than only examining your row of dots.

Anonymous said...

The Regional Water is slapping that fine for over $6 million for Bayridge, Firehouse, and Vista de Oro because if the county moves the big pipe and treatment plant out of town, it's the State Water Board's only way to recoup the SRF loan money (in bankruptcy it's pennies on the dollar) so if the county doesn't do Tri-W the State may not ever see that SRF (gamble) money again.

Isn't all this very clear?

I agree with a blogger above who knows the RWQCB isn't about what the agency should be about.

Look at Pismo, "oh, it's the birds creating pollution" or in Morro Bay with higher nitrates and dumping "stuff" right into the ocean (making surfers sick,) that was okay with the RWQCB for so long, why? Why concentrate only on Los Osos?

Again, in the Tribune story today it's stated the State water-quality regulators 'HOPE' a sewer will hault nitrate pollution. We are going to be taxed out of our homes for "hope." (The Trib does admit that Tri-W is in the "heart" of town though.)

The Tribune is nothing more than a PR paper (rag) for the county, the recalled 3, Pandora, and Tri-W die-hard supporters.

A "NO" vote on the 218 is the only way we can have an affordable sewer. Look at the prices in the Trib story (and fine screening,) and that's only the beginning of our cost (for PZ only I might add!)

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:42-
Your dots are not even remotely connected:
"A "NO" vote on the 218 is the only way we can have an affordable sewer."
Let me guess - You have a plan!
Thanks Gail but no thanks. You are the only one with the audacity to suggest this line of reasoning. I have read enough of your emails to know that only you could come up with this type of statement.
Either that or you told one of your minions to get busy and retell your mantra.
Plus, as it has become very clear, this isn't just about waste water, it's about water period.
Vote yes and free us from this cesspool of deceptions and coagulated mantras.
Take me now sewer savior and set me free! I say YES!

Anonymous said...

Dear 6:46,

You stated that: "All future septic tanks that get replaced- due to a 100% replacement recommendation- means no tanks for rain water catch."

It isn't true about septic tank replacements, in Florida the Orenco system didn't have to replace tanks. They have to be checked to see if they're air tight. Dana Ripley over-estismated that all tanks had to be replaced to be on the safe side.

The county isn't trying in the least to offer the community an affordable system or they would have included Orenco in the final screening report rather than meeting and getting numbers from them after the report.

Anonymous said...

connect all of Ann's dot's and they come out as one big question mark that goes nowhere

Anonymous said...

TO: 6:52 PM, June 10, 2007

Do you even live in the PZ?

I'd really like to know!

I'd also like to know if you do live in the PZ, exactly how much can YOU afford to pay each month? You are so eager to sign the blank check, I'm just wondering.

Anonymous said...

" Mrs.Tacker said Tri-Wproved to be more expensive than former board members let on. “If it comes out on top,” Tacker said, “let me tell you litigation will be all over it again because I believe Tri-W got to where it got under false pretenses.”

What a moronic statement by an "elected" afficial! But the threat is there. Waaaa Waaaa, if I don't get my way, I'll sue! Just how many lawsuits is she associated with so far? Is she pregnate or just being her normal fat bitch self?

Anonymous said...

Nothing has changed since '98, Paavo is still working for Pandora.

Paavo was her GM, she was the CSD, now she's the county and he's the county...ain't it sweet?

All of this is just one big off broadway show.

Anonymous said...

Dear 6:57,
Yes I live in the PZ and at this time I can "afford" about $100 a month.
But if my choices are a red tag on my door with a condemn notice and/or massive fines OR a "For Sale" sign I'm choosing the sure bet of selling. Some of my neighbors can't wait to bail out once they know the plant is going to be built. They have been held hostage long enough.

Anonymous said...

Goodbye

Anonymous said...

"Mrs.Tacker said Tri-W proved to be more expensive than former board members let on. “If it comes out on top,” Tacker said, “let me tell you litigation will be all over it again because I believe Tri-W got to where it got under false pretenses.”

And what, pray tell, does Mrs. Tacker plan to use for money to finance litigation?

The CSD is bankrupt.

The tax revenue is tied up, the remaining SRF funds are tied up, and right now the CSD is being financed by the Water Department.

Seems to me she is making pronouncements on issues that she, on her own, has no authority to make.

There goes that huge ego again.

Anonymous said...

Maybe Jeff Edwards money to back his current playmate?

Anonymous said...

Since AB 2701 specifically removed the CSD from jurisdiction, or responsibility, for building and operating a sewer system, exactly what standing does Ms. Tacker think that she has on the matter that would cause her to threaten to sue if her personal choice does not become the County Board of Supervisor's ultimate determined project option?

If she is speaking on behalf of the CSD Board, she has no business doing so as that Board has no legal standing in this matter. If she is speaking as a private citizen, she has no busines using our CSD Board as a forum to do so.

Shark Inlet said...

To our misguided anonymous friend of 6:42pm Sunday June 10 ...

The RWQCB fine of $6M has nothing to do with the SWRCB request for their loan money back.

Both organizations are sometimes called the "water board" but they are different groups. Even if the fine was paid, we would still owe the loan money back. Even if the loan were repaid, the fine would still be in effect.

Certainly the water boards should be concerned with water quality, but the charge given each of these different boards, along with their rules and regulations sort of force them into one role or another ... and not necessarily a role that is "ideal".

However to suggest that the RWQCB isn't concerned with water quality is simply silly. They are deeply concerned and they are trying to figure out how to get Los Osos a solution. Think about a parent trying to get a child to learn how to take responsibility for cleaning up their own room.

So far, across the many different attempts, nothing has seemed to work ... letting a willing buddy help out didn't work because we didn't like the way they were trying to organize the clothes and the toys. Twice. Then after we kicked the buddy out and said that we would do it ourselves and even had spent the majority of a whole day coming up with elaborate plans about how to get the room clean and had even started the process ... we decided that we wanted to re do our organization scheme entirely so we dumped everything on the floor to start over again.

Should this parent say "okay, take as long as you need, honey" or should this parent, recognizing that there is broken glass on the carpet and a small problem with roaches eating the leftover food scraps ... actually do something?

The SWRCB is like Mom and the RWQCB is like Dad. Mom steps in and offers to help. Essentially the SWRCB says that if we do have a well thought out organizational scheme, she'll help us with our plan to shorten the amount of time it'll take (time is money, you know). Dad, on the other hand, is fed up and is dropping the hammer. The "no allowance until your room is clean" approach is like the RWQCB fine. Mom is also pissed because she spent quite a bit of time trying to help us start our last scheme ... you know, the one we liked until we decided that we didn't like it and threw everything on the ground. She's not really interested in helping out anymore until we apologize for wasting her time earlier and until we come up with another plan.

Self-government is a bitch.

In this case, the decision to form a CSD may have been the wrong choice. Even if it was the right choice, those on the original board (eventually) came up with a plan that would meet the various requirements ... but then we had some folks fussing over various aspects of the plan ... "it's too close to town" (even thought that location had always been part of the CSD's plans ... back in 1998, 2000, 2001 and 2002) or "it has a park and I don't like parks and parks are expensive so I'll try to get the park removed" (not realizing that the delay associated with this attempt essentially cost more money than would have been saved by removing the park or even "it's too expensive ... it's more than $38.75 per month" (forgetting that any change in the plans would result in a more expensive sewer).

So, what should we do now?

Should we trust our anonymous misguided contributer who is arguing that we should vote no on a 218 vote just so that we can have an affordable sewer?

Before trusting this individual, I would encourage you to consider that he's advocating voting "no" before he or anyone else has even seen the details of this 218 vote. Sounds a bit premature to me unless this individual knows something that the rest of us don't. And if this is the case, why isn't he telling us?

I would also suggest that because costs are only climbing, spending a year or two with the County in control only to punt the project back to a board who seems to be anything but financially sound is pretty much stupid. If you want a cheaper project you should go with whatever project is the one the County proposes. If Orenco is really that much cheaper and if they really want the business they should convince the County (and RWQCB and CCC) that they are the best for the job. It's a free market and if they really have a good product that will save us $100M, they'll find a buyer in the County. To believe otherwise is to believe that the County is being run by Enron and Halliburton refugees who want a quick buck before the retire. But if you think that such folks would be satisfied on a County employee salary you're just plain confused. Nope, it would only be bribes that would explain such a screw job as you propose. But if Orenco wanted to provide details of their project, Ron and Ann and Julie and Lisa could put the puzzle pieces together over a weekend and Los Osos would be saved ... if Orenco (or whomever proposes to save Los Osos) would just do the work to show their system really would meet RWQCB requirements and would really be cheaper.

Shark Inlet said...

About that quote of Julie ...

Where did she say or write this?


Then ... if true ... does she think that TriW is so bad that it is worth paying a whole lot more for another site?

Boy, it would have been nice if way back when CCLO was first getting involved they had said something like "our goal is to sue or by whatever means necessary get the plant moved even if it ends up costing lots more."

Honesty is the best policy, you know.

Anonymous said...

Look in the Tribune over the weekend!

Anonymous said...

One cannot possibly take Julie Tacker seriously, since we've all seen her "DAISY MAE" outfits! Until she has a drastic image change, no one will take her seriously. Get over it Julie, YOU'RE NOT the PLAYMATE OF THE MONTH!!!

Anonymous said...

Hello SharkInlet, it's your "misguided anonymous friend of 6:42pm Sunday June 10 ..."

I liked your story about mom and dad and if you had a mom and dad like the state and regional water boards, I feel very sorry for you. If you don't think the two work hand and hand, I feel sorry for you. If you don't think the county works hand and hand with them, I feel sorry for you. If you don't think Pandora, Gordon and Richard LeGros work hand and hand with the county, I feel sorry for you. You need to become educated.

A memo from the state water board surfaced some time ago indicating because the SRF loan was project and site specific and if the project were to be moved they were very concerned about recouping the loan money. The Regional board fine just happens to be the same amount loaned on the SRF. Yeah...
The SRF loan money is in bankruptcy and collecting that would be pennies on the dollar where the fine is the full amount.

Regarding your comment about the water board caring about pollution and water...yeah right. That's why they allowed Morro Bay to pollute and they "hope" a plant will help. How about the spinach that killed people, did they care to correct that water problem before people died? No, they were too focused on Los Osos.

I will not be blackmailed by the water board to put in a very dangerous (health wise) over-priced, non-sustainable sewer for only SOME to pay. BTW, was only the PZ to pay for Pandora's park too?

Don't try to educate me on the water boards or how the county is preparing the 218. I know too much and it's rotten to the core.

I have my right to vote and I'll take my chances. Unfortunately the county's 218 vote is open-ended and we have NO WAY of knowing the true costs of project THEY (BOS) SELECT! The 218 will not show any added and deferred costs. Counties do big projects and use the pipe companies like the MWH's.

The ONLY way to have an affordable project is to vote no and get away from the state and SRF. Of course you really want Tri-W, so you'll never see the light. Besides you are on this blog to influence the vote as is 4crapkiller, and if the county isn't paying you two for all your hard work, again, I feel sorry for you.

Anonymous said...

Sorry Anon Above,

Gee........

You make many accusations to promote your conspiracy theories as to how the State / County / Regulators and various Los Osos private citizens (who support Tri-W)work "hand in hand" to "blackmail" you, yet not one bit of evidence or fact to support your view. Your speculation are just guesses based upon sketchy information and colored by your emotions.

Additionally, your decision to vote NO on the 218 vote will not result in a cheaper sewer...there is no way you can "get away" from State water quality laws and the agency that enforces them (RWQCB).

As Sharkinlet and others have correctly pointed out, the events that are driving up the cost of the project is the community's unwillingness to build a WWTP that will bring Los Osos into compliance with the law as quickly as we can. Project costs (for any project) are esculating at the rate of $40,000 per day. Voting No will only result in more loss of time (read rising costs), and possible enforcement actions by the regulators.

Shark Inlet said...

Misguided,

Presumably you have the opportunity to demonstrate your claims. Don't feel sorry for me ... try to educate us. Your rambling screed makes little to no sense.

Maybe if you take one of the many topics and make your thoughts clear. A great place to start would be your statement that you know too much about the county's 218 preparation and how it is rotten to the core. If there really is something rotten going on, tell us and provide evidence.

About trying to educate you about the water boards ... I apologize. I thought from your earlier comment that you were unclear about the separate roles of the two boards and that you were perhaps unaware that they are not legally allowed to work together in the way you suggested. I now see that you know more than I do.

So ... cough up those facts and help us out here ... otherwise we'll find it far too easy to view you as some random guy spouting nonsense.

On your last point ... you suggest that I am here to influence the 218 vote ... well, not exactly. I've been here for considerably longer than that. Presumably if I can influence people to make wise informed choices, I have done a service to our community.

Maybe you would be willing to take the same approach. That being said, calm down and present a more careful argument for your positions and it's likely to do more good.

Anonymous said...

Conspiracy Boy is a hoot, isn't he? I don't know if he's the same as Orenco Boy, but I'd suggest the same thing to both of them. Provide proof of your wild accusations; drink some soothing tea; and stay away from episodes of The Twilight Zone, One Step Beyond, The Outer Limits, and any Oliver Stone movie.

*pg-13 said...

< sigh > So much to say. Even more to respond to. And my break is sooo short .......

Anon > the events that are driving up the cost of the project is the community's unwillingness to build a WWTP that will bring Los Osos into compliance with the law as quickly as we can.

No doubt Los Osos' reticence to commit to ...... uh, well, almost anything is a factor. But just one of many factors.

This is a pretty good example: "... the community's unwillingness to build a WWTP that will bring Los Osos into compliance with the law as quickly as we can.

Please tell. What exactly is that? There have been so many variations and so many irregularities in process and definition that I'm no longer sure what exactly that is. Let's see. The RWQCB says we will be fined out of existence unless we meet their criteria .... but their criteria is not clearly defined. And the criteria keeps changing. We are told there are options when, in fact, there are no acceptable options. Even Tri-W, the only fully designed and, uh, licensed WWTF is suspect. All of which is in question. Besides, Tri-W is just the first stage of some as yet indeterminate final acceptable solution? Get real! No, I think it has less do with the 'community's unwillingness to build a WWTP that will bring Los Osos into compliance with the law' than it has to with unclear objectives. What exactly IS compliance with the law? That seems such a simple question. Why is it so difficult to get an answer? Is it compliance with pollution laws or a mega WWTF that is the objective? If a WWTF doesn't fully meet the compliance regs why is that presented as an acceptable solution? If ya don't know where you need to be its kinda hard to plot a course thru a challenging course to get there.

And, least I sound like a broken record, is the real problem pollution or clean water? Probably some of both. But solve one and you get the other. Solve the other and ..... you still got a serious problem. Duh!

Anonymous said...

Dr. Tchobanoglous said recently that 100% of the septics needed replacement - and Ripley 95%. These are your sewer/step gurus - why are you suddenly saying we don't need to replace the tanks?

Mike Green said...

PG projected:
"And, least I sound like a broken record, is the real problem pollution or clean water? "

Which begs the question; What happened to that famous water sample that Capps and Viscloski stomped though the mud to get?

Anonymous said...

Mrs Tacker said in the Tribune about Tri-W, "“If it comes out on top,” Tacker said, "“let me tell you litigation will be all over it again…"

So tell me, how successful was your litigation against Tri-W last time? How did all that "pro bono" litigation work out for the community of Los Osos? All that accomplished was DELAY. Had enough of that, thanks. If it comes out on top, let it alone. We want something built, not more delay, not fines, not higher costs when it FINALLY does get built - which is all that you would accomplish with that lawsuit.

Anonymous said...

Playmate of the Year? Dude, you are looking at too many sleazy mags.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"Tacker said, “let me tell you litigation will be all over it again because I believe Tri-W got to where it got under false pretenses.”"

Inlet sez:"If there really is something rotten going on, tell us and provide evidence"

PG13 sez:"but their criteria is not clearly defined. And the criteria keeps changing. We are told there are options when, in fact, there are no acceptable options. Even Tri-W, the only fully designed and, uh, licensed WWTF is suspect. All of which is in question. "

Hmmm, false pretense . . . suspect . . . changing options . . . does the word SOC ring a bell here? It's a point Ron Crawford's been making for some time, a red flag for anyone wondering about connecting dots. There's a dot. And it remains in play until and unless the present TAC and/or the county finally addresses that "old" SOC that put and still keeps Tri-W in play.

Shark Inlet said...

Yes, Ann ...

Thats the one thing that Ron has been pretty good at ... asking for evidence of various claims. For whatever reason he only asks for one group to provide evidence for claims they made years ago ... he and others who advocate against TriW do seem to live in a bit of a fact-vacuum (a "factuum" perhaps) on the question of the benefits of something other than TriW.

For many years now we've heard about how bad TriW is but no one has been able to point out how an alternative would be any better. Well, some have said that STEP is better or that out of town will save us money, but when asked for evidence to justify those claims, no substantial evidence has been provided so those claims should be rejected as baseless.

I am glad that the County is going through the thorough screening process and is getting input from the community. I am saddened that there are some out there who will (without evidence) claim that STEP is our savior, that ponding is perfect, that out of town is cheaper, that Orenco is God and that if the County reaches any conclusion other than the one they've reached themselves based on faith and no evidence ... that the County is biased.

What is the wise path? To study the bejeezus out of the situation ... to know what we know ... know what we don't and to get as much data as possible on the things we can't know for sure ... and then make wise decisions.

I was opposed to the recall, to Measure B and to the whole "move the sewer" thing because it seemed to me to be a guaranteed way of raising our bills and that out-of-town (to me) isn't as important as as the bill. Mike (for example) disagreed with me because he was more willing to pay more to put the thing out of town.

However, now that the sh*t has hit the fan it seems that the County's process is a good one. Many who viewed TriW and the previous board and their choices with suspicion will be far more willing to trust the County. Of course there is a price ... the time to study the issue is causing a bit of delay but not too much because the County has to spend time and effort devising a 218 vote anyways. Of course there will also be folks who will doubt any conclusion but their favorite one ... but still, the thorough study at this stage is a good idea.


Directly to Ann's last point, the LOCSD SOC has no relevance to the County. If the County decides that TriW, as a site/technology combination, has the best bang for the buck, they'll write their own SOC which will justify the choice ... if it's even needed. The CCC might not request such a statement if the County's report justifies their site selection to the satisfaction of the CCC.

Anonymous said...

Hi Shark Inlet,

Regarding the SOC, the issue is moot.

As part of the CEQA process, a governing board (read LOCSD) has a legal right to establish community issues and requirements for a project....hence the SOC. There is nothing illegal or shady about the SOC; nor is the fact that one was adopted mean that the Tri-W project was selected under "false pretenses". Any lawsuit against the County challenging the Tri-W project over the adoption of the SOC will fail.

These facts about the SOC are not accepted by either Ron, Ann or Julie. I say let them sue on this issue......they will lose. That way they will have an answer, though not the one they want to hear.

Anonymous said...

I agree with each of the points made in Shark's 7:58 post above. The TAC, not the County, will establish pros and cons for each of the fine screning alternatives and the Tri-W project.

We will have that information to evaluate. If the 218 vote passes, the County staff will follow up will all required CEQA work before a survey is done and a recommendation is made to the Board of Supervisors. This is as good of a process as we can expect to have, and I am fine with it.

Ron said...

Anon wrote:

"BTW, was only the PZ to pay for Pandora's park too?"

You bet! And Judge Hilton has already ruled that that kind of arraignment is unfair. Another excellent reason why Tri-W will never work. I wrote about all that here.

Ann wrote:

"And it remains in play until and unless the present TAC and/or the county finally addresses that "old" SOC that put and still keeps Tri-W in play."

I love that "Statement of Overriding Considerations." It's so good, and by "good" I mean "fabricated" so the 2001 LOCSD could override the entire environmental review process -- a process that pointed to out of town sites -- in order to keep their project at Tri-W.

So.... how 'bout that Tri-W Coastal development Permit, huh? It took a made-up community value, a fake SOC, illegal park funding, and "bait and switchy" to get. Sounds like Tri-W's starting off on a nice, sound foundation to me. Yea... that should work. Too bad it's getting "carried through" the fine screening process. If it wasn't, county taxpayers would be getting their money's worth. Without Tri-W being scrutinized, then the Fine Screening Report is nothing more than a rehash of the Ripley report. Thanks for that TAC. That's what county taxpayers are shelling out $2 million for?

I wrote about the SOC here... killer story.

That's why, these days, I love saying this: Tri-W will never work. And if you want to see me proven right again, then get it restarted, and you'll find out the hard way.

S.I.:

"The CCC might not request such a statement if the County's report justifies their site selection to the satisfaction of the CCC."

Good luck with that. You, Shark, may not be able to comprehend my tight arguments, but, trust me, the brilliant staff at the Coastal Commission does not suffer from your infliction.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

I'm getting really tired of your over the top rhetoric based on sloppy thinking. Unless you are just a flack for the CCLO crew you should feel uncomfortable (at least) with your statements like "Another excellent reason why Tri-W will never work."

Certainly the PZ alone paying for a park which all were welcome to use was an interesting muddle for the LOCSD, but to extrapolate from the Cloisters decision to the LOCSD is a stretch ... perhaps if TriW moves forward with a park component a lawsuit could be raised to see if Hilton's logic in one context can be applied in an entirely different situation.

The statement "Twi-W will never work" implies that a gravity system with an MBR plant at the TriW location won't be acceptable to the CCC or the RWQCB or will be ruled illegal or will physically fail in some sense. None of those things are evident. Face it, Ron, the best you've been able to do is to raise doubts about the original site selection and justification. Even if your arguments were solid (and I have to point out that they've never been tested in a court), they don't apply to the County at all. To suggest they would apply to the County is intellectually dishonest or you're a sloppy writer or you're really dumber than a door post. The problem here is that you've put me in the position where I need to think ill of you and I don't want to. You can always back off your over-reaching statement if you want so that we don't have to think of you as a flak or as dumb. Heck ... you've made typos before ... own up to this one too...


On the issue of whether County's screening reports are just rehashes of what Ripley told us ... I'm afraid not, Ron. Just look at the numbers. It is clear that the Ripley crew were attempting to sell us something by comparing apples to oranges. Ripley was making things sound like it was a no-brainer choice for Giacomazzi and STEP but the County numbers show that it's a toss-up in some sense. However, if one includes design costs and inflation, the County will see TriW as having a comparative advantage over the other sites which will take longer to bring to construction.


As to your tight arguments ... I find it interesting that it is only dictators and religious zealots and narcissists who cannot admit that they are wrong. If you would like to explain how the County would be bound in any way by the documents the LOCSD filed with the CCC I would love to read it. Unless you do explain this, we'll have to view you as nothing more than someone who wants to be viewed as an expert but who is unwilling to provide us any evidence of trustworthiness.


Oh ... one more typo, Ron. I don't think you meant to write that I have an infliction.

*PG-13 said...

I agree with Shark's conclusions but gotta nit-pick a bit with his how he got there.

Shark said > For many years now we've heard about how bad TriW is but no one has been able to point out how an alternative would be any better. Well, some have said that STEP is better or that out of town will save us money, but when asked for evidence to justify those claims, no substantial evidence has been provided so those claims should be rejected as baseless.

Yes, without fair substantiation claims tend to be just that: unsubstantiated claims. Or dreams. But such substantiation in this instance has to consist of a broad range of possible and often fuzzy data. Evidence is a hard word to use to describe projections. It is challenging to produce real numbers and fully developed spreadsheets for proposals. Some guesstimating and fudging is required in the early stages of project conceptualization and rationalization. Just because the substantiating data behind one claim may be more fully developed than another claim, proposal or option doesn't necessarily make the others baseless. It just means that proposal has been more fully analyzed than the others. Be careful of squirrelly logic. Until more than one option has received an equal amount of analysis no conclusion can be made about the value of that option against the others. Nor are the others necessarily baseless. They are just not as well appraised. And this is how we got into this mess. It's been a one horse race. That may make for easy betting but it doesn't prove anything about that horse.

Like you, I'm glad the County is going through a thorough screening process. Finally! The real cause for why this sewer is gonna end up soooooo expensive is because we're doing this analysis now - toward the back end of the process - rather than at the very beginning. You're absolutely correct - passing time (read: wasting time) has been a key factor in the ever increasing costs of whatever solution we're gonna end up with. Sadly, with this passing time there has been a lot of feuding, name calling, side-taking and lines drawn. Nobody trusts anybody any more. At some point that's what its gotta come down to. But its not trust in a specific group, or entity or even a plan. We're far past that being an option. It is trust in a process. That's what we've really been missing all along. And the only thing we have left.

Of course, you already said all of that better than I can:

> However, now that the sh*t has hit the fan it seems that the County's process is a good one. Many who viewed TriW and the previous board and their choices with suspicion will be far more willing to trust the County. Of course there is a price ... the time to study the issue is causing a bit of delay but not too much because the County has to spend time and effort devising a 218 vote anyways. Of course there will also be folks who will doubt any conclusion but their favorite one ... but still, the thorough study at this stage is a good idea.

As much as the rules of the game and the players playing it are constantly changing I also doubt whether the rules can't be changed yet again. To think anything in this silly game is inviolate and can't be re-written, morphed or simply ignored seems to ignore pretty much everything that has gone before. I understand why Ron believes the way he does about the SOC and all the extenuating issues which may fall out of it. But I just don't see the SOC being quite as Biblical as he wants to make it. If we can't get agreement on the Word of God what makes the SOC so much more Holy?

Anonymous said...

Ron,

Of course Tri-W will work....it has been thoroughly peer reviewed and found to be perfectly viable. Your issue over the SOC does not make the project technically flawed; as your criticism is entirely over the site selection criteria.

Additionally, you forget the CSD originally PROPOSED a park on the excess property on Tri-W; with said amenities to be installed once funding became available. (FYI...in 2003 the CSD had a $500,000 grant to pay for the park amenities at no cost to the rate payer....unfortunately the grant was lost due to CASE and CCLO lawsuits).

But once Julie and the CCLO made such a stink to the CCC over the initial lack of park amenities, the CCC made the amenities a requirement of the CDP. The CCC action resulted that the cost of the amenities would be paid by the rate payers. In short, Julie and the CCLO bitched and moaned over the lack of park amenities, then later bitched and moaned over rate-payer costs once the park amenities became a requirement of the CDP. Can't have it both ways Ron.

Ron, I have to agree with Shark Inlet that your journalism is sloppy. Your continued disregard of critical facts that do not support your story degrades your story to spin.

Shark Inlet said...

PG ...

You are right. I probably should have not used the word "evidence" when I meant something like "fact-based cost projection". The key point here is that nothing realistic has been offered to us a foundation for the hope the faithful have in Orenco or STEP or "out of town" as a way of lowering our likely sewer bills.

One key slight-of-hand that seems to be evident in the Orenco advertisement and the Ripley sales-pitch is that they're telling us that they'll put in systems which can handle about half of the estimated flow that TriW was estimated to handle and about half as much as the RWQCB says that we need to be able to handle to get a SRF loan.

Look for gallons per person per day and if you don't see a number in the 100-125 range, you're reading fiction that isn't relevant to our very real-life problems.

Anonymous said...

PG-13

You Wrote : "Finally! The real cause for why this sewer is gonna end up soooooo expensive is because we're doing this analysis now - toward the back end of the process - rather than at the very beginning"

In 1999-2001 (prior to the selection of Tri-W) the CSD conducted the same type of analysis that the County is now performing. Your implication that analysis was not performed is not correct.

Either you forgot this fact or you do not realize it was done.

If you have just forgotten, that's OK. We are only human.

But if you are unaware of the prior analysis you may verify this by reviewing CSD records.

Many of the good folks who fought Tri-W were no where to be seen when the 1999-2001 analysis was performed. Just because they were not present does not mean that the analysis did not occur or is flawed. Nor does it mean that the process has to be done all over again just so that they can participate when they should have back in 1999-2001.

Many of the dissenters’ issues reflect that they are not aware of, or understand, the 1999-2001 analysis upon which prior CSD boards based their decisions.

Now that the County is REPEATING the analysis, and that the dissenters are taking part in the analysis, many are beginning to understand and agree with the technical / environmental and political basis upon which Tri-W is based.

I for one welcome the County process as it is demystifying the decisions of prior CSD boards AND showing that those decisions were correct. I can see it in the eyes of many dissenters as the "light bulb" turns on in their minds illuminating the fact that many of the issues they raise have already been resolved in Tri-W.

Anonymous said...

As a casual observer, I have to say that I am often taken back by the National Enquirer type postings by Ann Calhoun and Ron Crawford. They appear to be writting for shock value more so than a clear presentation of facts. "Sewer or Die" "Hideous Sewer Sardoodledom" are straight from super market news racks at the checkout counters.

An outsider reading the latest exchange could conclude that only Sharkinlet was trying to clear up the hype with facts. Ron seemed to want to build a case against the Tri-W site using emotional text vs. logic.

Thank goodness I don't have to pay for your sewer, but then neither does Ron.

Anonymous said...

As far as Ron's concerned the "fake" SOC is the holy grail. His threats if the County proceeds with Tri-W are empty and nobody cares what he thinks.

As I've said before, if the County and the property owners approve Tri-W, the CCC will fall in line. I'd bet money on it.

Anonymous said...

Ron wrote:

"I wrote about the SOC here... killer story."

This guy is still bragging about something he wrote in the New Times
(New Times! NOT the Washington Post!) years ago.

Then, acting like his words were written on stone tablets, he started up some damned blog, extrapolating on his crack-pot ideas!

AND- the kicker- he lives in Santa Margarita!

Ron is not a member of the Los Osos community, is not an expert on anything related to the WWP.

WHY does Ann continue to act like he is some sort of guru?

Or, has Ann been drinking the Los Osos water?

Ron said...

Shark wrote:

"Oh ... one more typo, Ron. I don't think you meant to write that I have an infliction."

Good catch.

I hate it when I do that.

Hey, look, my claim is that "I'm never wrong," I never said that I don't make typos. But this typo has kind of a funny story behind it. On top of my computer, I have an old, paperback dictionary that I have used for so long that it now has sentimental value, and when I'm too lazy to go to dictionary.com, which is often, I go to my old dictionary.

The problem is, because it's so old (from the 80s!), it's split in half at the "i" word section, and pages have fallen out in that area. The last word in the "i" section right now is "infidelity" (of all words), and then the next portion of the broken dictionary picks up at "intention," so I went to look up the word "infliction," because I wasn't feeling very comfortable with my usage, but it was on one of the missing pages, and I just said, "Awww, screw it."

Had I read the definition of "infliction," of course, I would have used the word "affliction," and to tell you the truth, I'm not too sure that's even an accurate use of that word in that context -- the context that Shark Inlet has a reading comprehension problem.

Oh well, another example of "assumption is the mother of all f-ups," I guess.

Anon wrote:

"Ron seemed to want to build a case against the Tri-W site using emotional text vs. logic."

And that emotion is smart-ass. What can I say, I'm a huge fan of smart-ass -- David Letterman, John Stewart, Ellen Degineros (sp?), Mark Twain, Molly Ivins, Jim Rome, Bugs Bunny, etc.

And, I'm also right, and I know I'm right. So, yes, I'm going to go to the smart-ass card frequently, because if I don't -- if I start writing like this, "The sludge removal, times the flow rate, divided by the bahhhhh...," if I start writing like that, you would not be a "casual observer" right now, and Los Osos would be finding out the hard way that Tri-W will never work.

"Thank goodness I don't have to pay for your sewer..."

If you live in California, you've paid for this sewer... oh, have you paid.

Another Anon wrote:

"This guy is still bragging about something he wrote in the New Times (New Times! NOT the Washington Post!) years ago."

New Times wishes I wrote that for them. That "killer" story is exclusively on my donation-supported (thank you!) blog. I never submitted it to New Times.

"Ron is not a member of the Los Osos community, is not an expert on anything related to the WWP."

Shark, please let Anon know how many times I've written that I do not live in Los Osos, and that I am not a wastewater engineer. All I do, for the most part, is pick things out of documents that wastewater engineers have written.

Another Anon:

"As far as Ron's concerned the "fake" SOC is the holy grail."

I don't which one is more Holy Grail-ish... the invalid SOC, "bait and switchy," the made-up "strongly held community value," the illegal park funding (according to Judge Hilton), Nash-Karner's marketing efforts over the last nine years, or the 600-acre (un-permitted) ranch that county officials have all of a sudden lumped into (in to? I mess that one up a lot, too) the Tri-W project. They're all so good.

Of all those, I'd have to go with Nash-Karner's marketing as the Holy Grail of the Train Wreck. Everything else stems from that.

Another Anon:

"FYI...in 2003 the CSD had a $500,000 grant to pay for the park amenities at no cost to the rate payer"

To pay for some of the park amenities. Those amenities were estimated by the CSD at over $2 million (plus, what a waste of $500,000 of California taxpayer money. I'm glad it didn't go through. If Los Osos doesn't want a park in their sewer plant, and they don't, then why should we have to pay for it?) Also, 2003 was a year when the CSD had ripped all the amenities that led to the Tri-W siting in the first place OUT of the project, and all that remained was a field and a dog park. You are familiar with why Dave Potter called the LOCSD "bait and switchy," right?

I recommend getting clear on that. It's very interesting.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

Three things ...

First, it seems that only you and Ann think that I have a reading comprehension problem. Hmmmm...

Second, I'll back you up when you say that you don't live in Los Osos, that you're not a wastewater engineer and that you selectively quote from documents written by such folks. The sad thing here is that because you don't have the engineering or financial or legal background to know how to evaluate such documents, your quoting will be based more on personal opinion (or bias) than on merit.

As an example, note that you again cite the Cloisters decision as if it is relevant without explaining how it is relevant. You suggest it is illegal for one group to pay for a park that others use, but it happens every single day in this County, State and Nation. No one has argued for armed guards and barbed wire around County parks to keep out those visiting from other locations. That being said, if you're going to tell us ... as a fact ... that Hilton's decision applies to TriW in Los Osos ... you've got to explain why. If you don't do that and people call you on it and you don't provide an explanation, you'll be viewed as someone trying to distract instead of someone with a good "take" on the matters we're discussing.

Third, if you're goal was to save the State money (as you suggest in your last paragraph with substance), you would have supported TriW because surely paying an extra $2M for a park would be far less expensive than paying for Ripley, the screening reports, the inflation and possible a new design.

For you, Ron, it has never been about making financially wise decisions. For you it's all been about your disagreement with Pandora. Thanks, Ron, for putting your (and IHMO irrelevant) personal agenda above the good of those of us who live in Los Osos.

Anonymous said...

Shark Inlet,

Wasn't it Peter Douglas from the Coastal Commission that said everyone should pay for a sewer, and not just the PZ homes?

Anonymous said...

EXCELLENT!

Ron has proven he is simply a smart ass and not even a very funny ass and certainly not a knowledgeable one!!! Just an ass who want pour out his personal opinions on a complex engineering project. He is now an expert, not even a knowledgeable specialist in wastewater planning or design. He knows even less about project or community management.

For once I believe him, he is just an arrogant ass with no expertise in anything and is providing nothing toward solving a major wastewater issue facing the County. Way to go, no one finds you even so much as amusing, just another ass thinking you could influence any wastewater planning decision for the Los Osos Waste Water Treatment Project!

Anonymous said...

to 12:50,

You said, "An outsider reading the latest exchange could conclude that only Sharkinlet was trying to clear up the hype with facts...." Ron seemed to want to build a case against the Tri-W site using emotional text vs. logic."

What you fail to note is that Sharkinlet has been nothing but a cheerleader for Tri-W AND that the peer review said it was best to move the plant out of town! Is Sharkinlet smarter than the experts in Calfornia?

Stop picking on Ann and Ron, the Tri-W is and always was been a very bad idea (and it's a shame that the county still wants it) Nothing has changed it's still Paavo & Pandora.

You also said, "Thank goodness I don't have to pay..."

That's right, I'm sure that when all is said and done and a ribbon on the project we'll probably have a $500 a month bill. So, lucky you.

And lucky you that you don't own in the PZ because the RWQCB killed the real estate market dead here! It's dead! I wonder if it will ever recover, it certainly won't during construction, so we are looking at many years.

Anonymous said...

Sharkinlet,

You're so wrong here:
"You suggest it is illegal for one group to pay for a park that others use, but it happens every single day in this County, State and Nation."

In California we have Proposition 218 which says everyone who benefits pays. You simply can't have a portion of the homeowners pay for a park for all to enjoy.

Get over yourself. Please.

P.S. The county is doing this with our sewer and we'll see if it holds up in the end (in court).

Anonymous said...

Idiot! Sharkinlet has NOT been cheerleading! He has asked many questions and does not seem to have a specific site or design in-grained in his brain. At least he has a brain and actually thinks which is something neither Ann or Ron do very often!

Some of us DO NOT agree with Shark on certain aspects, but he is by and away, the most knowledgeable person on this blog! He doesn't come across as some smart ass with the same out of date, meaningless and often misleading, commentary, he does ask some very good questions which have most thinking folks considering some alternate answers and quite often, agree with Sharks reasoning and factual information!

And Shark lives in Los Osos!

Anonymous said...

Oh Gawd, the Conspiricy Guy is loose again. His meds must not have kicked in yet.

Shark Inlet said...

To our anonymous friend of 6:38pm ...

I am less a TriW cheerleader than I am an advocate of the cheapest and quickest reasonable solution. Presumably if you think that something other than TriW is cheaper or quicker you could present your reasoning. If your logic is sound, I'll convert!

To our anonymous friend of 6:53pm ...

You seem to forget that folks who are residents of the County don't have to pay for SLO City parks and that folks who live in LA and San Jose don't have to pay to enjoy SLO County parks. Prop 218 doesn't ban "out of towners" from visiting these facilities. Perhaps you mean to argue that all residents of the LOCSD should pay for any LOCSD park. On that issue I would quickly agree ... all residents should pay ... but your argument about prop 218 would be more convincing if ... you point out where in Prop 218 it says that the LOCSD must spread costs associate with a park across the entire district.

However, to use the park funding issue as a way of delaying the project is a good way of making everyone pay more ... which is unwise unless your goal is stalling TriW.

Anonymous said...

To 4:02 on 6/11:

You said,
"Dr. Tchobanoglous said recently that 100% of the septics needed replacement - and Ripley 95%. These are your sewer/step gurus - why are you suddenly saying we don't need to replace the tanks?"

Can you please document where and when or to who Dr. Tchobanoglous said this to?

All the septics need to be tested first i.e. Septic Survey. Ripley said 95% to be safe for budget reasons. In Orenco's project in FL they didn't replace any tanks.

Can you provide and share you info on what Dr. T said?

Anonymous said...

Ron says:

"Shark, please..., (I) know how many times I've written that I do not live in Los Osos, and that I am not a wastewater engineer.

All I do, for the most part, is pick things out of documents that wastewater engineers have written."

"So, yes, I'm going to go to the smart-ass card frequently, because if I don't -- if I start writing like this, "The sludge removal, times the flow rate, divided by the bahhhhh...," if I start writing like that, you would not be a "casual observer" right now, and Los Osos would be finding out the hard way that Tri-W will never work."

"And, I'm also right, and I know I'm right." I AM, I AM, I AM and if you don't agree with me, I'll break all my toys to just show you! MOMMY, come quick, they're picking on me again. BooHooHoo

All Ron Crawford is is an Egotistical, Arrogant, Ignorant, Uneducated, Opinionated, Ass spoken out of his own mouth (keyboard)

Anonymous said...

Everyone knows Tri W was NOT & still IS NOT the Counties first choice for the sewer. It's beyond insane to use THAT location for a SEWER. Don't try to dress up the sewer by having "PANDORALAND BY THE BAY" disguised as a "park" there. The voters have spoken, they did NOT want to tax themselves for a silly park. I agree with one of the anon's. Why should only 5000 people pay for a park for EVERYONE'S benefit? It's not the DEMOCRATIC thing to do.

Glen said...

When can we EXPECT McPherson to give her PRESENTATION on ORENCO? Isn't that the reason Pres. Chuck sent her to Florida. So, I guess her newest title is "SCOUT FOR THE LOCSD"

Anonymous said...

I do not believe you! Do you have a fact or two to back up your opinion?

Of course not! Just another one of your crack-pot conspiracy claims!

NOT everyone thinks Tri-W is the wrong location and the County is not playing their cards just yet.

A park wold probably be a nice touch to the Tri-W Waste Water Treatment Facility. We might even ask the County to name it Pandora's Bay Side Community Park! We might be able to hold our own Art-in-the-Park fair insead of going to Morro Bay!

Maybe it's just Republican thing, but Morro Bay encourages our folks to visit and make use of their park facilities.

Anonymous said...

Way too many carts before the horses. My guess is Tri-W won't be selected, if for any other reason, litigation and "community harmony." My question is what will the obstructionists, who hide behind their Tri-W hysteria, do once it is eliminated. What will their next tactic be to obstruct the building of a sewer?

auntfanny said...

I'm STILL WAITING for Gails "report" on ORENCO, or IS THAT more of her "SMOKE & MIRRORS"?

Anonymous said...

Good Question. Does the County bend to attempt some form of activist appeasement, then they will fail the needs of the entire community. As to what the next tactic would be, we only need to hear Tackers thread of further litigation. It seems that no matter what degin or where, Los Osos is so far down the drain, that it may require Federal intervention. It is so crazy that a community can be so divide over a sewer of all the real problems in the world!

Anonymous said...

to 9:28,

You say, "It is so crazy that a community can be so divide over a sewer of all the real problems in the world!"

Yes, there are big problems, the war, health care, etc. but we will be faced with about $500 a month for just a sewer bill, thousands of people will have to leave, and not just the riff-raff that dreamers wanted out.

When you factor the rate increases in the water bills, and the proposed increases in other utilities, we're all priced out of Los Osos. You will have to be wealthy like Pandora to stay. It will be a ghost town and people won't be able to sell because of the dead L.O. real estate market. We're screwed big time.

It's a shame when there were other affordable solutions, but the fix is in, and that becomes clearer every day.

Anonymous said...

A taste of the Tribunes' Blog:



Condensing: The County is in charge-thank the gods.
The 218 must pass.!!!!!!! The report clearly indicates to me TRI W with a little tweaking is the best site.!!!!!!!

Anonymous said...

anon 9:40 says, "$500 a month for just a sewer bill…"

I say who sez?

Absurd! Nut case talk - again. Get a grip.

Shark Inlet said...

To our anonymous friend of 9:40pm ...

Silly me ... I had always thought that it was those raising our bills who were the ones who wanted the "riff-raff" out. A solid case can be made that it is CCLO and CASE and the rest who have caused the estimated sewer bills to rise in the past.

Honestly ... I don't think that anyone wants to force anyone out of town. We all like it here and part of the reason we like it is the mix of people we have.

I do think that it might be easy for someone unaware of economics and finances to assume that voting for a recall would lower our bills or that supporting a lawsuit might lower our bills, but they would be mistaken.

Nope, we're all going to be paying a whole lot and there's plenty of blame to go around.

Anonymous said...

After speaking with County staff more than once, I know that they will rely heavily on the results of the community survey in determining their final project recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. If we pass the Prop 218 vote and commit to fund what they call a "viable" project, they have no reason to do otherwise.

They are not obsessed with pre-determined project locations or types, as many of the bloggers claim.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:40, AKA Conspiracy Boy AKA Orenco Boy: You need to calm down and stop trying to scare people with your way over-the-top hysterics and threats. Believe me, the majority of Los Osos homeowners (those with a 218 vote)are much too smart to give your rantings a second thought. I would think at this point your best option, for your health both mental and physical, would be to move out of Los Osos. There's plenty of other places to reasonably rent in the county.

Churadogs said...

Anonymous sez:"There is nothing illegal or shady about the SOC; nor is the fact that one was adopted mean that the Tri-W project was selected under "false pretenses". Any lawsuit against the County challenging the Tri-W project over the adoption of the SOC will fail.

These facts about the SOC are not accepted by either Ron, Ann or Julie. I say let them sue on this issue......they will lose. That way they will have an answer, though not the one they want to hear."

You don't have to win a lawsuit to cause delays. That's been my point. If there are any questions about that SOC and that Permit, the county needs to deal with it NOW, thereby not leaving an opening for a (delaying) lawsuit later.

Inlet Sez:"However, now that the sh*t has hit the fan it seems that the County's process is a good one. Many who viewed TriW and the previous board and their choices with suspicion will be far more willing to trust the County. Of course there is a price ... the time to study the issue is causing a bit of delay but not too much because the County has to spend time and effort devising a 218 vote anyways. Of course there will also be folks who will doubt any conclusion but their favorite one ... but still, the thorough study at this stage is a good idea.

Couldn't agree more. That's why it's critical that The Process remain thorough and clean.

Anonymous said...

Re: the Cost of the sewer

It looks like this thing will cost around $250 per month if we get some grants. Most of this will be an assessment collected on my property tax bill, which I will deduct from my taxable income and save about $50. The net of $200 will be about $150 per month more than my brother pays for his sewer service in SLO.

I do not see "thousands" of people leaving Los Osos for an extraordinary expense of $150 per month, that we have had many years to prepare for, as the 9:40 poster claims. We all have new expenses of $150 per month, or more, that come up an we always find ways to modify our budgets to deal with them. I drive less with gas @ $3.50 per gallon. For the most extreme situations, I heard that some of the grant money will be targeted to those qualifying people.

This is not great, but it's not un-doable, and will only get more expensive if it doesn't happen now.

Shark Inlet said...

But Ann ...

Please remember that over this issue, the Los Osos sewer issue, there will be someone who will sue to stall and delay things no matter how well the County would do things.

Some would even argue that the previous project, TriW was done correctly ... the fact that no, zero, not a single lawsuit to stop TriW was successful essentially proves the point.

Heck, ever Ron's famous "bait-n-switchy" all boils down to the LOCSD trying to follow the public leading by scaling back park components that were seen as unnecessary by many who had been complaining about the costs and then CCLO essentially put the LOCSD the position with the CCC where they needed to put the park components back into the project or to change the location entirely.

It was a gamble on the part of CCLO. They were hoping that the LOCSD would simply go with an entirely new site (which was unlikely) or that they would at least get some delay (which was very likely). The cost of this gamble? Well, an additional 6 months of inflation (about $5M or so) plus we also get the park stuff as additional costs.

I've said it before and I'll say it again ... even if the project wasn't perfect (even if one doesn't want a park, for example), the cost associated with the revising the project will far outweigh most any benefit associated with the revision.

Anonymous said...

To 7:51AM,

You say, "after speaking with County staff more than once, I know that they will rely heavily on the results of the community survey in determining their final project recommendation to the Board of Supervisors."

WHEN BRUCE GIBSON HIMSELF (NOT STAFF) WAS ASKED IF THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS WANTED A PROJECT (ON THE SURVEY) WOULD THE BOS GO WITH THAT SURVEY RESULT AND HE SAID NO.

BESIDES THAT THE TRI-W HAS BEEN VOTED OUT BY THE COMMUNITY AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THAT REASON ALONE. WE DON'T WANT A SEWER IN THE HEART OF LOS OSOS. DUMB IDEA.

Please stop all your bull. We know that the county has always wanted Tri-W and we know Paavo still works with Pandora and we know Bruce still works with Shirley. We know what they all want. We saw the county pick TAC members that supported Tri-W. How dumb do you think we all are? This is just an off broadway show to trick people into voting yes so the county can do anything they want to us and have us pay for the whole thing.

Now, that's the bottom line.

Anonymous said...

To Anon at 8:37,

You state: It looks like this thing will cost around $250 per month if we get some grants."

If? If we get grants? Already we are not according to recent news articles in the Bay News and Tribune.

Grants? Got news for you. As long as we owe the SRF money, we get NO grants!

Also, you are not including extra costs i.e. sludge hauling, electricity, digs, any accidents, imported water, fines for odors, cost over runs and many other factors. We will have added fees and charges up the kazoo. You are being very dishonest to trick the voters into a yes vote.

The ONLY way to have an affordable sewer is to vote no on the 218. The county has given us only the very expensive and very, very expensive options. If we vote no, we can use a company like Orenco, repeat, like Orenco to put in a system for half the cost (at least.) The county has given us no other choice.

Anonymous said...

Orenco Boy, if anyone is dishonest, misleading, and downright hysterical it's you. The county will be giving you more than enough choices. It's your "my way or the highway, I'm the only one who's right and if I don't get my way I'll throw a fit" mentality which makes you look rather, well, dumb. Why don't you just move and be done with it. You'll live longer and happier I think.

Anonymous said...

Orenco Boy:

If you do move, don't come to North County. We don't want you.

Anonymous said...

Go, Orenco Boy, go!

A "NO" vote on the 218 is a "YES" vote for the best project for Los Osos.

And that's a fact.

Love it or leave here.

Anonymous said...

Since there will be a sewer, and you no-sewer dopes obviously can't afford one (or you wouldn't be working so hard to obstruct one), I guess we all know who'll be leaving. And good riddence.

Anonymous said...

Conspiracy Boy is right. They already got their kickbacks. That's why all the fear tactics and hate from Dreamers. It's way past time to pay up with the big sewer.

The County + RWQCB + Blakeslee = Axis of Evil

Send them a clear message. Vote "NEVER!" on Big-Money Rip-Off 218.

Anonymous said...

The Federal Government + the State + Blakeslee + the County + sane Los Osos community members = kick obstructionist ass....

Vote yes on the 218

Anonymous said...

HaHaHa Laughing at Obstructionist.

Not even Orenco wants a piece of Los Osos. Guess Al Barrow's consulting fees must have been too steep even for such a wonderful company like Orenco! Where is McFleeson's report on her CSD paid vacation to visit Orenco? Why is Orenco afraid to talk to the County? Is Orneco in some hot water somewhere else for failing to live up to the hype?

YES of 218!

Anonymous said...

Confirmed:

The County + RWQCB + Blakeslee = Axis of Evil

They want your home -- and you and your family out on the street.

Let the rich eat the rich.

Vote "NEVER!" on Axis of Evil 218.

Your "NO" vote is a big "YES" for a diverse Los Osos.