Pages

Friday, July 06, 2007

PZLDF Meeting July 9

In case you missed Pio Lombardo’s presentation at the last PZLDF meeting, here’s a chance to hear about it again on Dave’s show. Also, for those interested in getting more information on the 218 vote, Rob Miller will be on hand to discuss those topics on the 23rd. The Washington Mutual Bank is on Los Osos Valley Rd. across from Rite Aid/Vons .

Citizens for Clean Water --PZLDF

WILL MEET prior to the TAC meeting----

MONDAY: JULY 9TH & 16TH
6:00 PM
at
Wa MU Bank

Learn the response by the RWQCB to:

Water Board Presentation and update by the County on July 6th
Request to Water Board Members to rescind 45 enforcement actions
and
HALT INDIVIDUAL ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS NOW!!!!!

Upcoming Speakers:
Monday JULY 23
ROB MILLER WILL SPEAK ON THE 218 ASSESSMENT

Hometown Radio:
Dave Congleton Show-------Thursday July 12th --------4:00 PM
Pio Lombardo will talk on decentralized systems

67 comments:

Bev. De Witt-Moylan said...

Bill passed along to me a very good summer read called THE CITY OF FALLING ANGELS by John Berendt, who wrote MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL. The “city of falling angels” is Venice. The book quotes an explanation of the convolutions of government process in that City - herewith:

“You must keep in mind,” he said, “that Venice is a very Byzantine city. That explains a lot of things. For example: If you are a property owner, you are responsible for making certain repairs to your property. But before you make those repairs, you must get a permit, and permits are very difficult to come by. You find yourself having to bribe city officials to give you a permit so you can make repairs that those very officials would fine you for not making, or for making without a permit.”

Like an onsite system...?

Churadogs said...

Bev sez:"Like an onsite system...?

12:53 PM, July 06, 2007"

Ah, uh, well, you see, the law sez "onsite system" but we won't issue any permits for any onsite systems, NOT that we're telling you what to build, No No, HOWEVER, we'll only issue permits for THIS system, NOT that we're tellling you what kind of system we'll allow, but it will only get a permit if it's GREEN and PURPLE, NOT that we're picking out the colors, mind you, No, no, perish the thought, and we'll only issue the permit on Thursdays unless it's raining in which case it'll be Wednesday during a full moon, NOT that we're telling you when to build, but only in the PZ unless you happend to be outside the PZ IF it's Saturday during months with R in them, you see? All statements subject to change. Check our website for updates. Failure to comply will result in $5,000 a day fines. Thank you.

*PG-13 said...

So we end up with a large green with purple accents centralized mega-sewer permitted on a rainy day when the coastal commission was out to lunch and the CSD was celebrating a full moon PZ-only cargo cult thing at Tri-W. Construction scheduled to be complete in 2028. Thank god for the extended shellfish season or it would never get built.

Isn't this what we wanted all along? Isn't it amazing how things work out? To think, we could live anywhere in the world and we choose to live in Los Osos. < sigh >

Sewertoons said...

Maybe there is a reason for no permits for onsite systems? Let's ask.

Meanwhile, I'd like to know what users and operators of onsite systems think, rather than just hear the saleman for such systems tell us how great they are.

This might be interesting reading:
http://www.lombardoassociates.com/little_neck_ipswitch_massachusetts.php

4crapkiller said...

To sewertoons:

$41,000 per household for 167 homes for holding tanks? No reuse or recycling of water? Water usage cut to one half of former usage?

This would be a gigantic disaster for Los Osos and would do NOTHING to solve our water problem. I cannot understand why they did not build some sort of ponding system, unless they have a sand with no carbon, high watertable problem.

*PG-13 said...

I think sewertoons' link got truncated in the cut & paste. Try this one.

It's a site worthy of some study. Thanks Toons.

*PG-13 said...

Oops. sorry about that. I now see that the link was correctly cut&pasted. I just needed to make my window bigger. Duh!

Today's Saturday. I have an excuse.

Ron said...

Ann, I've said this before, and I'm going to say it again, you are so damn funny.

Ann wrote:

"Check our website for updates."

Want to see something else that strikes me as funny?

Besides the sewer project, the county public works department is also working on the bridge that leads to Avila Beach. It's a major project, but nowhere near the scope of the LO sewer. Yet, here's the web site address, with its very own spiffy web site designed by Barnett Cox & Associates, for the bridge project:

www.SanLuisBayDriveBridge.com

Now, check out the oh-so-easy-to-remember web address for the sewer project:

www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP.htm

I guess they weren't willing to shell out the ten dollars a year it takes to register something like:

LosOsosSewerProject.com

For all you "We're the red-headed step-child of the county" folks, feel free to use that little tid-bit to back up your argument.

4crapkiller said...

Concerning Little Neck and Ipswich, Mass:

Go to: 4 Middle Rd, Ipswich, MA 01938 at www.Zillow.com.

You will get complete arial views of the ballfield and houses built here. Also home values. You can zoom in or out.

You will note that the homes are mostly on small lots, and that Little Neck is completely surrounded by salt water. Probably a glacial moraine.

Looks like they did not have a lot of options other than the holding tanks, long pipelines, get rid of the very small ballfield, build some sort of MBR plant on pilings somewhere over the water, or buy out existing $500,000 homes to get land for a treatment plant.

It also seems like the homes were permitted and then the regulations changed. The area is built out.

Thank goodness, Los Osos has options. These people will end up spending a lot more money for a permanent solution in the future, if it can be realized.

lost in translation said...

In regards to Ron's 10:46am post, do you want a good laugh Ron? Review the public comment on tape of a TAC meeting. Then read the corresponding minutes to the public comments from the same meeting.....it's a mother fucking joke. From reading the minutes, one would think that the people who were highly critical in their comments, entirely support the process. The TAC is a big fucking joke and I will be voting NO on 218.

Have a nice day!!:)

Sewertoons said...

ron,
you might also note while you are busy nit-picking over silliness, that the website you mentioned on the San Luis Bay Drive Bridge was LAST UPDATED: Monday, May 8, 2007, 4:45pm. Maybe the County puts our WWTF project on its own website so it can update it DAILY, if not more frequently, and not have to contact some other company with updates for them to post. If they had used Barnett Cox and Associates, you would then be screaming about the cost of using such an expensive ad agency. Get a life ron, you are really reaching on this one.


lost in translation,
I think they write the notes that way so as not to make the speakers appear like whiney idiots.

You also might want to consider the "control" you think you will have if the 218 goes down before you vote no. You SURE about having any???? Or maybe you don't own a home in the PZ and don't care about what the Water Board will do. But if you are in the PZ, don't count on Shaunna Sullivan "saving" you - ain't gonna happen.

*PG-13 said...

Ron > I guess they weren't willing to shell out the ten dollars a year it takes to register something like: LosOsosSewerProject.com

And that URL is available too. Are we lucky or what? Quick, quick, somebody grab it. $8.95/yr on Godaddy. Although didn't we sew a thread on this awhile back? I recall we came up with some much better URL's than this.

sewertoons > ...If they had used Barnett Cox and Associates, you would then be screaming about the cost of using such an expensive ad agency.

One of my first thoughts too. Although the county might produce something like this if/when 218 passes and they are in the sewer business. Be a bit premature for them to do something like this now don'tcha think? Kinda like tossing a match in a dynamite factory.

I wonder what Barnett Cox and Associates might have come up with if they had been hired by one of the CSD's to sell some vision. (See their El Toro Re-Use Planning Authority video here.) Imagine what they might have done for or against Tri-W? That would have been money better spent.

BCA website > Welcome to BCA: A small communications collaborative that specializes in big ideas. Ideas that go for the gut while simultaneously appealing to the intellect.

Thank god they don't claim to practice behavioral marketing.

4crapkiller said...

To "lost in translation":

I have wondered about this.

Perhaps the county is being kind in not making many of the outspoken commentators look ignorant in the written record.

However, I feel your question has merit, and deserves an answer.

One would expect that before a commentator spoke in a public meeting, they would be fully familiar with the Blakeslee law and the required process. I would also hope they would state such, AND identify themselves as owning property in the PZ.

I have seen and heard few examples of this. Very, very few.

In any case, the county should NOT distort the record for any purpose.

I take exception to your language:
your use of profanity shows your inability to use relevent adjectives and THIS shows the depth of your ignorance and lack of education. Those on this blog who support this profane tone are in the same boat.

Your point is well taken, however, and did not require the self denigrating use of profanity.

Sewertoons said...

*pg-13 says:
One of my first thoughts too. Although the county might produce something like this if/when 218 passes and they are in the sewer business. Be a bit premature for them to do something like this now don'tcha think?

Why would they do that then either? Or ever? No point at that point.

lost in translation said...

Sewertoons said;
"I think they write the notes that way so as not to make the speakers appear like whiney idiots."

Wow. So, what you're saying is that it's ok for a committee, that is sponsored by and beholden to our local Government, to totally change the content and intent of public comment given at a public meeting?" Sieg Hile you Nazi bitch. The Country I live in, is called America. In America, freedom of speech is something the Government is suppose to protect and preserve NOT edit, alter, totally bastardize and change the content or meaning of. The TAC should be ashamed of itself. Not even your buddy "crapkiller" agrees with this blatant and flagrant violation of our freedom of speech.
I'm afraid you are going to find yourself very alone on this one mein fraulein.

Sewertoons also said;

"You also might want to consider the "control" you think you will have if the 218 goes down before you vote no. You SURE about having any???? Or maybe you don't own a home in the PZ and don't care about what the Water Board will do. But if you are in the PZ, don't count on Shaunna Sullivan "saving" you - ain't gonna happen."

Crapkiller said; "One would expect that before a commentator spoke in a public meeting, they would be fully familiar with the Blakeslee law and the required process. I would also hope they would state such, AND identify themselves as owning property in the PZ."

I do own property in the PZ and I am very familiar with the AB2701 process and the unconstitutional open ended 218 process the County has developed. I and anybody that knows and respects the Constitution of the United States of America will be voting NO on 218. We will not let our Government trample on our constitutional rights. If it passes, which I seriously doubt it will, it will be imediately hit with a constitutional challenge. In most every State in the Union, open-ended 218 ballots like the one the County has devised are against the law. There is a reason why they are against the law. They are unconstitutional. You can't place an assessment on somebody unless you can tell them specifically how much it is and specifically what it is for.

As for the CDO's, those are an even worse and flagrant violation of the Constitution. I pray for the day we can get Young and his crew in a real court of law(not the joke of a kangaroo court that's been held on Areo Vista). In a real court of law, the RWQCB wil be embarrassed, humiliated, and completely discredited. I can't wait. Unlike you sewernazi, i mean sewertoons, I've read the Constitution of the United States of America.

Mike Green said...

Lost, I'm ignorant as usual, can you tell me what part of the constitution garantees, as a right, the right to discharge water anywhere in the State of California?
Seems to me I read somewhere (the clean water act) that discharging water (or anything for that matter) is a "privilege'.
So OK, I'll agree that the Water Boards actions SO FAR have been despicable, whats to stop them from fixing what has gone before and start applying the law fairly (legally)? They still have the authority to do so. The fact that there are CDOs and that they have passed muster before (although not in this paradigm). would seem to me a pretty hard barrier to break down.
Read "very expensive"lawsuit.
I've read the Sullivan brief, you can click on my name for a direct link.
IMHO it's a great argument against the completly unfair treatment the "doomed 45" got, but it has nothing in it about the right of the State of California to regulate discharges.
That being said I have another take on the 218 vote,
It's to asses ourselves enough money to come into compliance with state law. Plain and simple.
Now, if you have some concrete plan with pictures and arrows on eight by ten glossy photographs with garantees and contracts signed, and the blessing of the water board, you would be in a position to request a 218 vote to pay for it. (by your reckoning) Of course you'd need more than a couple million just to get started, oops, the CSD is bankrupt!
As far as nitpicking the TAC for political gaffes and buttheaded boo boos, Get over it! can you give me one single example of complete successes we have had so far?
Thanks, and have a wonderful evening.

4crapkiller said...

To "lost in translation":

1. I did not read "sewertoons" say what you quoted. I looked above. Did this come from elsewhere?

2. You make some very valid points WITHOUT using profanity. However, the county has not developed the open ended 218 process. The Blakeslee law developed the process. However, it is not open ended, see below.

3. I have no serious concerns with the constitutionality of the Blakeslee Law, but have concerns of the language and the interpretation thereof in the courts, mostly concerning the siting of a treatment plant. The legal test will only come after a site is selected.

4. The law was enacted by a full vote of the legislature, it was vetted for constitutionality, and found to pass tests as far as the constitution of the State of California is concerned. Hard to get THIS overturned on a STATE level by the courts. Hard to get a Federal court to enter a state jurisdictional issue. A law has been passed.

5. You have no standing in Federal courts. Hard to show any standing. Federal law is not involved.

6. Unfunded mandates are unconstitutional according to Federal Law. For years this has been worked around by giving something of value making the mandate partially funded. The county has contributed 2 mil already.

7. The 218 ballot is not open ended. There is a financial cap on the ballot. It cannot exceed a figure.

8. There is no violation of constitutional law, state or federal, for CDOs. This method of inforcement has been used for years and passed constitutional test. It is however, UNIQUE, that it is being used against individual residents in an area. Corporations are considered individuals under the law. The law and principles should apply equally, unless there is LEGISLATIVE relief.

If you wish to vote NO on a 218 assessment, it is your RIGHT!

If you wish to mount constitutional suit against the process, it is your RIGHT!

If you wish to sue to overturn a ruling of a regulating board, it is your RIGHT!

Better have lots of money to spend. Regardless, the outcome is very uncertain. I would suggest that you find a "pro bono" firm of attornies before you spend your money. Otherwise get ten friends that think like you to give $50,000 each to Shauna Sullivan, or 100 friends to give $5,000 each.

I would also suggest that you vote for the 218 assessment, and take your case to court afterwards. If you get hit with CDOs and discharge permits, you will not have money to spend on the law cases, nor will your neighbors.

As a property owner, it is only reasonable to consider all possibilities to protect your property and your investment.

I am not a lawyer. My interpretation of the law is strictly mine. It is worth exactly what you paid for it and it was free. Get professional legal opinion from a disinterested party.

*PG-13 said...

MUCH more interesting stuff afoot methinks. So let's not dwell on this nit too much. But you asked so I'll give a response:

*pg-13 >> Although the county might produce something like this if/when 218 passes and they are in the sewer business. Be a bit premature for them to do something like this now don'tcha think?

sewertoons > Why would they do that then either? Or ever? No point at that point.

Think of it as county goodwill. A little reaching out to touch. Truth is they should be doing it already. Not electioneering, that would be inappropriate. But why isn't the content of those nice glossy mailers we receive in the mail about 6 weeks stale also published on the web? Effective communication uses multiple channels to spread the info. There's nothing on the SanLuisBayDriveBridge site that is controversial or inflammatory. It is simple content: this is what's happening, Avila's still open, these are your tax dollars at work. Given the level of interest (and concern) our sewer is to the rest of the county, if the county ends up building our sewer they should provide info and status to those who are interested. And, as Ron pointed out, the bowels of the county government website are not the place to publish such content. It's neither the place nor the style to present this information. Look, nobody's gonna want to pay a marketing firm to paint and spin the LO sewer. But if they did; if there was a branded image and some well presented content about the project and its progress don'tcha think that would draw some of the negativity away from the project? Shucks, SLO might even get some cred out of it. I know, hard to imagine. But its possible. Haven't we learned already that credit is in the spin and not the facts? Dang, I sound like a marketeer. But that's the way things work. BCA (and their ilk) are pro's at this kind of stuff. The county will be looking for any way to sugar-coat and spin our sewer to their benefit. If I was them that's what I would do. And I'm sure they're a lot smarter than I am.

Mike Green said...

PG! well put!
What the county needs is a good slogan!


"Here's your sewer and thanks for all the fish!"

lost in translation said...

to 4crap.....

I directly quoted sewertoons(1:56pm), look again........

I have two very simple questions for 4crap and mike green........

Who permitted my septic tank and why am I being punished for using it?
QED.

I'll vote NO on the 218 and take my chances with the RWQCB. Believe me, the RWQCB WANTS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS FIGHT. IT'S A HUGE LOSER FOR THEM. COULD YOU IMAGINE THIS STORY GOING NATIONAL. LIKE SAY ON 60 MINUTES!!!!!!
THE RQWCB AND/OR COUNTY WOULD GET TOTALLY REAMED FOR PERMITTING THE TANKS IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!!!!!

Are you guys freaking kidding me?

For crap says;
"the county has not developed the open ended 218 process. The Blakeslee law developed the process. However, it is not open ended, see below."

Two questions....
Can you tell me exactly how much I am being assessed?
Can you tell me exactly what I am being assessed for?

No and No.
Big problem.

You don't see a problem with this?
Did you graduate from High School?

Doesn't take a Philadelphia laywer to see the problem here......

Have a nice day!!:)

Ron said...

Saturday night... bored... not drunk (by the way, kids, never drink and blog. A public service message from your friends at SewerWatch)... so...

L.I.T:

"I'm afraid you are going to find yourself very alone on this one mein fraulein."

and;

*pg:

"Thank god they don't claim to practice behavioral marketing."

That is quality smack. This blog puts the "funny pages" to shame.

L.I.T. wrote:

"If it (218 vote) passes, which I seriously doubt it will..."

And SLO County Auditor-Controller, Gere Sibbach, wrote:

"... your Board (the board of supervisors) must carefully consider the possibility that the Los Osos voters might choose to vote against the Prop 218 assessments required under the proposed legislation. Their vote will be difficult because the cost will be high, and because for some of them a delayed project is nearly as desirable as no project at all. Accordingly, I will not recommend that your Board accept the risk of another $2 million of General Fund monies under these circumstances."

Bright man, that Sibbach.

4CK wrote:

"You (L.I.T) make some very valid points WITHOUT using profanity."

With and without.

'toons wrote:

"... you (me) might also note while you are busy nit-picking over silliness, that the website you mentioned on the San Luis Bay Drive Bridge was LAST UPDATED: Monday, May 8, 2007, 4:45pm. Maybe the County puts our WWTF project on its own website so it can update it DAILY, if not more frequently, and not have to contact some other company with updates for them to post. If they had used Barnett Cox and Associates, you would then be screaming about the cost of using such an expensive ad agency"

Not my point at all. My point is, all the county had to do was spend $8.95 to register LosOsosSewerProject.com, and then spend one minute pointing that domain name to the site they already have.

For nine dollars a year, and five minutes (including the time it takes to register the domain name), instead of everyone saying:

"Yes, there is a web site for the sewer project. It's at doubleyew doubleyew doubleyew dot slocounty dot see ay dot gee oh vee forward slash pea doubleyew forward slash el oh doubleyew doubleyew pea dot aych tea em."

... they could just simply say:

"Yes, there is a web site for the sewer project. It's at Los Osos Sewer Project dot com."

I happen to know a thing or two about web site development, so I'm just trying to help. (By the way, why does Barnett Cox and Associates get all the choice government contracts? You know what I'm going to do IF the 218 passes (and judging by Sibbach's analysis, I'm not holding my breath)? I'm going to underbid BC&A for the LO Sewer web site... that should piss 'em off.)

And, 'toons, I wasn't so much "nit-picking" as much as just making a humorous observation, and that observation is that a relatively minor bridge project gets:

"San Luis Bay Drive Bridge dot com"

and a massive sewer project gets:

"doubleyew doubleyew doubleyew dot slocounty dot see ay dot gee oh vee forward slash pea doubleyew forward slash el oh doubleyew doubleyew pea dot aych tea em"

Churadogs said...

Sewertoons sez:"Maybe there is a reason for no permits for onsite systems? Let's ask."

Now, there's an interesting question. If the original pollution that triggered Resolution 83-13 was nitrates,then what you're looking at is nitrate loading, then what you SHOULD have been looking into is modifying the nitrate loading for the enitre basin, not simply drawing a line around some homes on a map and declaring them Evildoers. If nitrate loading was then the problem, it could have been solved by partial collection along the bay (part of Ripley's plan) and perhaps various onsite systems in-tank that would reduce nitrates thereby resulting in an overall reduction in nitrates, thereby lessening the load on the upper aquifer & etc. (The Zero Discharge doesn't make any sense since the same people who are requiring ZERO DISCHARGE are the same people who issued DISCHARGE permits to Tri W to DISCHARGE nitrate laden water into the PZ. Go figure.) Any onsite systems would have to be run by some organized entity (Septic maintenence District) to ensure they're all working and serviced properly. Once that was in place, you would have a sytem that would reduce nitrate loads for the basin to a level that would hopefully meet state muster. But this was never allowed to my knowledge, i.e. open up the basin plan for review and revision. Why not? Next question: do various onsite sytems meet any of the increasingly stringent Title 22 goals? If so, they would certainly benefit the overall ground water. Another question, would any basin-wide onsite systems help reduce salt-water intrusion if part of their system was purple pipe water to be uses on site, hence reduced demand for drinking water to water one's petunias. Is all of the above doable for a cost that would come close to building some enormous project for the PZ and would a basin-wide type plan result in improving the overall water quality better than or as good as some PZ-only collection system? And so forth.

As for asking the RWQCB, so far, in their official documents, they've noted that "it's common knowledge" and thus and so. Common knowledge? You mean like it's common knowledge that witches won't float in water? Uh, have they or anyone else seriously looked at a different whole basin plan change? If that's never been allowed on the table, why not?

4crapkiller said...

To "lost in translation":

Thanks to the reference to the quote. I missed it, but now have seen it.

Yes, the county permitted your septic tank, but the legislature enacted the water law never even considering how it would effect you. The county then continued to permit septic tanks because they had the "intention of building a sewer". They should be found liable for this action but who knows? The courts will decide, surely this action will be litigated, despite the wording of the Blakeslee law.

Punished for using your septic tank? Nope. Possibly punished for discharging poluted water into the aquifer because your septic tank does not work properly, despite being permitted. Very seldom does government get to pay for it's mistakes, especially when it was opposed by individuals and groups for trying to rectify the mistake.

Of course the CCRWQCB is in a bad light. They are charged with inforcing a law that occurred "after the fact" in many cases. Look to those people at Little Neck in Ipswich, Mass. Probably the same story to the tune of $41 grand per household.

1. You are being assessed for a sewer.
2. It will be between such and such a price.

There will be plenty of "Philadelphia lawyers" on state and county PAYROLL to litigate your objections. You and those who wish to join you will have to find and pay for your own lawyer and court costs. The LOCSD is broke, and it is uncertain that they can help individuals. How much money does Sullivan now have to undertake her campaign? I have not heard.

You might as well file your individual objections now. Even if the 218 fails, the state will have a sewer system in and a lien against your property long before you case gets to court, after you get to pay for a discharge permit beause a CDO was placed on your property.

We have the right to build a sewer the easy way (county) or the hard way (state). We takes our choice after considering the consequences. It seems to me that a discharge permit @ $30 a day, $900 a month is far worse than a sewer @ $10 a day or less (hopefully).

We are all stuck. 2011 is coming very quickly for us old folks.

4crapkiller said...

To Ann:

Can you lead me to any information as to a "in septic tank system" that removes nitrates? I see lots of information that talks about reduction of "total nitrogen" but nothing specific to NITRATES. "Total nitrogen" is reduced when septage is converted to NITRITE, and then the NITRITE is converted to NITRATE. I have been looking for this documentation for years, perhaps I have overlooked it. Help!

*PG-13 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
*PG-13 said...

(oops)

mike green > What the county needs is a good slogan!
> "Here's your sewer and thanks for all the fish!"


Love it! Of course, I'm partial to almost any reference to The Guide. Like previous allusions to Alice's adventures in wonderland there are simply too many similarities and correlation's between the Los Osos sewer and The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy for it to be coincidental. And there are no accidents - only moments of improbability. Please consider just a few:

> Forty-two!" yelled Loonquawl. "Is that all you've got to show for seven and a half million years' work?"
> "I checked it very thoroughly," said the computer, "and that quite definitely is the answer. I think the problem, to be quite honest with you, is that you've never actually known what the question is."

> There is a theory which states that if ever anyone discovers exactly what the Universe is for and why it is here, it will instantly disappear and be replaced by something more bizarrely inexplicable.
> There is another theory which states that this has already happened.


See what I mean? Doesn't this smell like our sewer?


An additional note for H2G2 fans:
Arthur Dent - as the last human to have left the Earth before its destruction and therefore the portion of the computer matrix most likely to hold the question - attempts to discover the Question by extracting it from his unconscious mind, through pulling Scrabble letters at random out of a sack. The result is the sentence "WHAT DO YOU GET IF YOU MULTIPLY SIX BY NINE?"
It was later pointed out by readers that 6 × 9 = 42 if the calculations are performed in base 13, not base 10. Douglas Adams later averred that he was not aware of this at the time, and repeatedly dismissed this as an irrelevant concoction, saying that "nobody writes jokes in base 13 [...] I may be a pretty sad person, but I don't make jokes in base 13.")



(source)

Mike said...

Is Los Osos the dumping ground for all the sewer lawyers in the West?

"10 years as sewer division manager for the city of Riverside?"

http://www.calepa.ca.gov/enforcement/documents/ProgReport.pdf

Ms. Gail McPherson, former Wastewater Systems Manager at the City
of Riverside, and Mr. Vincent Bibbee, both certified wastewater
treatment plant operators, provided false and misleading experience
on applications Mr. Bibbee submitted for certification. McPherson pled
no contest to a misdemeanor charge of aiding the commission of a
misdemeanor and agreed to make restitution of $40,000 to the State
Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) for investigative costs. Her
Grade V Operator Certificate was placed on probation for two years.
Bibbee pled no contest to misdemeanor grand theft and aiding the
commission of a misdemeanor. He was also liable with McPherson for
$40,000 restitution to the SWRCB. His Grade II Operator Certificate
was revoked, and a Grade I Certificate was issued. The criminal
charges against both were dropped, in accordance with the plea
agreement, because restitution was fulfilled within six months of the
plea.

Sewertoons said...

ron says:
"My point is, all the county had to do was spend $8.95 to register LosOsosSewerProject.com, and then spend one minute pointing that domain name to the site they already have.

ron, there is a quick link to the sewer project off to the right on the County home page. Now how hard is that? Suppose somebody typed in thelososossewer.com, or LosOsosSewer.com - now would buying that one name help? Your continual nitpick on the County is just a big,fat bore and makes your other comments seem very superfluous. You really need to pick your battles, and not be dismissive and critical of every, freakin' little thing.


"To *pg-13
sewertoons > Why would they do that then either? Or ever? No point at that point. (Regarding a separate, informational website on the LOWWP.)

"Think of it as county goodwill. A little reaching out to touch." And: "Given the level of interest (and concern) our sewer is to the rest of the county, if the county ends up building our sewer they should provide info and status to those who are interested. And, as Ron pointed out, the bowels of the county government website are not the place to publish such content. It's neither the place nor the style to present this information"

The County webpage is exactly where the project should be. And one keystoke off the homepage gets you there. It is a construction project for a utility, NOT a new resort hotel opening.

There is plenty of County goodwill - Paavo and his team attend/hold meeting on behalf of the project continuously. That does a whole lot more for me than some glossy brochure that the malcontents would rip up one side and and down another for wasteful spending.


Ann says:

"…what you're looking at is nitrate loading, then what you SHOULD have been looking into is modifying the nitrate loading for the enitre basin, not simply drawing a line around some homes on a map and declaring them Evildoers." And " If nitrate loading was then the problem, it could have been solved by partial collection along the bay (part of Ripley's plan) and perhaps various onsite systems in-tank that would reduce nitrates thereby resulting in an overall reduction in nitrates, thereby lessening the load on the upper aquifer & etc."

And just how much of a dinky percentage of nitrate loading do you think that set-up would fix? Or are you saying that you want the entire basin sewered? The 1 acre lots? Out into the farmland where the basin peters out?

Why not fix the real big problem first (which, with its numerous 25 ft' lots IS THE PZ) and then add in the others as it is practical to do so.

And, any of the on-site systems that really clean the water cost about $40,000 and require you to have a great deal of time and commitment plus expertise to maintain them. Hardly something I'd want left up to folks that can't maintain a septic syste. Were it run like a utility, you would have hundreds of employees doing daily maintenance checks.

Brass Tacks said...

Sewertoons 7-8 @ 5:31 PM

While there are numerous 25' lots in the PZ, there are also many parcels over 1 acre (some over 2 acres)inside the PZ that WILL HAVE to be sewered while smaller parcels of less than an acre outside of the PZ WILL NOT have to be sewered and this is based on a line determined by the State Water Board. This is certainly not fair. If the concern is really over the possible pollution of the upper aquifer then, YES, I think all parcels using the aquifer should be treated equally. This unfair dividing line is certainly a concern to many who live on over 1 acre in the PZ when their neighbors (across the street) living on smaller parcels and closer to ground water will not have to hook up to a sewer. The process used by the Water Board is unfair and broken, many very bad decisions have been made. If not fixed now, do you really think it will ever be "practical to do so"? I doubt it very much.

Churadogs said...

Brass tacks, above, puts it clearly. IF the RWQCB were dealing with a water basin and water pollution in a basin and dealing with it scientifically, instead of politically, (i.e. politically expedient; draw some lines on a map and be done with it, never mind if it doesn't make a lot of scientific sense)then they wouldn't possibly have come up with this cockamamie PZ mess. Oddly, it's probably caused more delay and problems than if they'd stayed flexible and looked at basin loading and been open to a variety of systems (s, plural) that could help with that load then slap some lines on a map and delcare that everything inside must be sewered, period end of sentense, all the while pretending that they're not telling anyone what to do, no, no, perish the thought. That kind of siliness has caused no end of problems here.

As for de-nitrification, the County did three test studies years ago, apparently the first of its kind, and they found denitrification taking place in the soil column and, weirdly, even in standing water. Surprised heck out of everyone since everyone knew -- "common knowledge"-- that denitrification does NOT take place, period, end of sentence. The study results were done on Bud Laurent's watch and are buried somewhere in all the county papers. Percy Garcia headed up the study team and I think, was it Questa Engineering ???? was also involved. The problem was that the nitrate reduction on the three parcels studied wasn't enough, but was taking place, and this wasn't using any Pirana enhanced in tank systems or enhanced bio-mats or anthing else. Just plain old tanks.

As for the Pirana results for the firehouse test, haven't heard what those finally were? Did anybody else?

The point here is this: Technology for various water clean- up systems has grown by leaps and bounds. IF you stay flexible, you'll stay open to a variety of ways to skin the cat rather than get locked into one politically expedient method (draw some lines on a map and instally 19th century sewer pipes and claim you've solved the problem) that may not really solve the problem.

Shark Inlet said...

Okay,

I have an idea about why onsite systems won't be permitted unless the County proposes a method for the entire PZ to go to onsite...

The answer has many names, but the most common are "the tragedy of the commons" and "prisoner's dilema" (from Economics and Game Theory).

Essentially it boils down to this ... if you go with an onsite system and don't tie into the sewer as a way of saving money, your neighbor has to pay more because of the fixed costs you aren't picking up This is true even if the plant can be scaled down in size to match the number of participants, essentially the collection system can't be ... it needs to extend into every neighborhood.

(As a side note, a similar argument can be made for why a sewer is needed even if one's individual septic system can be said to be "working properly" or not a "sizable contributor" to the nitrate problem.)

Now that's unless the County proposes entirely onsite as a solution but we all know that won't happen for one reason or another.

Shark Inlet said...

As an addendum to my earlier post ... if one wanted to try to use the same logic to extend the sewer to areas outside the PZ it wouldn't work. The plant would be scaled up for the additional load so there wouldn't be much cost savings there. Extending the collection system also has a very heavy cost, so it is likely that adding the PZ wouldn't save anyone any money at all.

I won't discuss (now) whether the PZ was right or wrong or justifiable based on science or what ... it is, however, an unfortunate political divide that has caused some tension in our community.

Ron said...

'toons wrote:

"ron, there is a quick link to the sewer project off to the right on the County home page. Now how hard is that? "

Again, not my point, and I don't feel like explaining the joke again.

You know how when you tell a joke, and the person you're telling it to doesn't get it, so you have to explain it like three times, and by then it's lost all of its humor? Yea, well I guess 'toons is kind of like that.

"Your continual nitpick on the County is just a big,fat bore and makes your other comments seem very superfluous."

Jeeze, tough crowd. Someone doesn't get one little joke, and all of a sudden everything I've reported on over the last seven years is "superfluous."

Anonymous commentor (8:34 AM, July 09, 2007) wrote:

"... if you go with an onsite system and don't tie into the sewer as a way of saving money, your neighbor has to pay more because of the fixed costs you aren't picking up"

Just like I reported in my prediction, January 1, 2007.

You know what else I find funny, I've yet to come across one valid reason why a LO homeowner can't simply order a composting toilet, install it, and then tell the RWQCB to come up with the evidence that shows that the homeowner's GREY water is polluting the aquifer.

In fact, the only quality information I've seen on the topic comes from the excellent source I quote in this link, when that excellent source told me regarding the RWQCB's great Item 19 document:

"They (the staff of RWQCB) said what they said, [composting toilets are] on the table as a viable option. The decision (the dollar one) is for the discharger. As a discharger, it is my decision how I meet the discharge order (within certain codes and guidelines). Remember, the RWQCB never mandated a sewer, they prohibited a discharge."

Then the excellent source added:

"Seems to me it would make a great test case. Take one of those houses with the C&D and show the Board their working composting toilets and they should be off the hook... and that's a hook from them as well as from anything the County is cooking up."

And, of course, at this point in the conversation, an anonymous commentor usually shows up and says something completely unsourced like, "The county will not issue a permit for composting toilets."

To which I always have to reply:

"Well, if that's the case, then why did the staff of the RWQCB consider requiring them? And, why would you need a permit at all? You're not discharging anything?"

And, also of course, the Anon never has an answer.

*pg wrote:

"(source)"

I'm not too sure Wikipedia is the best source out there. They can't even get Los Osos right. For example, they write:

"A location in the center of Los Osos (also known as the Tri-W site after the name of the property) was chosen, partly because of a desire for an additional park."

That is not accurate. According LOCSD and Coastal Commission documents, the Tri-W site was chosen ONLY because of a desire for an additional park. Not "partly."

That is a key, KEY distinction, and they have it wrong. But they're certainly not alone on that. Sometimes I think the only two people that have their mind's completely wrapped around that complex, and deliberately obfuscated notion are me and Steve Monowitz.

Ron said...

You know... that link above got me started on reading Wikipedia's "Sewer Controversy" portion on their Los Osos page, and I have to ask: Who wrote that stuff? Pandora?

Right after the inaccurate quote I mention above, it reads:

"Despite critic's claims, the County, water board and Coastal Commission all approved a sewer at the Tri-W site."

Despite critic's claims? Who are these "critics" they are talking about? I can't think of one person that's said something like, "Tri-W was never permitted."

Oh no, no, no. The fact that it was permitted is not in question at all, and never has been, so far as I know. What IS in question is how those permits were acquired. THAT's what is in serious question.

and this:

"Following a recall election which replaced the majority of the CSD board and enacted an initiative measure that would require relocation of the project, the new board stopped building the sewer, despite a letter warning them of severe consequences from the Regional Water Quality Control Board."

Wikipedia really needs to tighten up their act.

"Following a recall election which replaced the majority of the CSD board..."

An election that was set by the same officials that were up for recall and they set it at one of the latest possible dates, and that delay allowed them the window of time to begin pounding millions of California taxpayer dollars into the ground.

"... the new board stopped building the sewer... "

No they didn't. They suspended building the sewer, which not only was completely in their... what's the word... justification?... to do, it was why the only reason why the recall was successful.

It wasn't until the ones of Tri-W supporters subverted a compromise in October of 2005, that construction was officially "stopped."

"... despite a letter warning them of severe consequences from the Regional Water Quality Control Board."

A letter from Roger Briggs that came exactly six years too late.

"State and regional water boards have used their regulatory power to impose fines against the district ..."

After being heavily lobbied by the ones of Tri-W supporters to fine the LOCSD "out of existence."

"The region’s daily newspaper has written many stories on the sewer..."

Yep, they sure have, just no good ones.

Back to work.

Mike Green said...

Dose anyone else see the irony in this?
Maybe we should all just chip in and buy a nice house in the PZ and then give it to the director of our local waterboard.


SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, CALIF. --The head of the agency charged with protecting Lake Tahoe's famed water quality says his agency needs to rethink its environmental rules after the devastating Angora fire.

The home of Harold Singer, executive director of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, was among the 254 homes destroyed in last month's fire.

The water board's priority has been protecting the lake's storied clarity and emerald color from erosion and urban runoff. To that end, it barred logging and clearing of dense brush and trees along 64 "stream environment zones" that feed into the lake.
Logging and the use of heavy equipment could release sediment into the lake, which already is losing about a foot of transparency each year from runoff and air pollution.
But Singer said the fire, which followed Angora Creek, has made him reconsider if more clearing of stream areas is needed.
He is consulting with federal and state land managers and the Lake Valley Fire Protection District.
"The biggest tragedy of all of this will be if we don't learn from what happened," Singer said. "I am willing to open up the book on this. If there is something that tells us there is a better way to protect water

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

Don't feel bad, only some of what you've written over the last seven years is superfluous" ... only the things you've repeated many many times.

The joke was funny and makes a good point. The rest of the County has a "just f*cking get on with it" attitude and doesn't want to spend any time or money on the mess that was originally created and then worsened by County decisions. Admittedly we didn't help ourselves with the formation of the CSD or the recall, but when folks outside Los Osos take a high-and-mighty tone I often feel compelled to remind them that it was the decisions of the County supervisors in the 1970s and 1980s which created the mess.

Back to the website. I think that actually the County has bought a name for the project but they haven't made the website, TheRapeOfLosOsosByBureaucratsAndSupidResidents.gov live yet. I think they're still considering a change to CCRWQCBandCCLOscrewLosOsos.com which is why the delay.

On you contention that composting toilets are our savior ... I would love someone to take your approach, do the work and then see what the RWQCB says. I'm curious whether the RWQCB really wants a prohibition on all discharges or a prohibition on the discharge of nitrates. Presumably a sewer would take care of nitrates and other possible pollutants as well.

There are two issues here that you would perhaps want to consider before promoting composting toilets. First, the tragedy of the commons argument says that composting toilets pretty much need to be adopted by everyone or shouldn't be allowed for anyone. Second, there is no way the RWQCB will sign off on a composting toilet sort of system for the entire community without some sort of regular monitoring. It might be a really good idea if these devices don't really cause any odors.

On the issue of Wikipedia ... Wikipedia contains information that is essentially a consensus opinion and that it doesn't agree with your opinion means that your opinion is likely controversial. For example, you've never shown that TriW wouldn't have come out on top (at the time of the site selection) because it was cheaper than other sites even if the park hadn't been a component.

*PG-13 said...

> You know how when you tell a joke, and the person you're telling it to doesn't get it, so you have to explain it like three times, and by then it's lost all of its humor?

I think it was Wavy Gravy who said - "It's just not funny when you don't have a sense of humor". Or something like that. Or it could have been somebody else. If I can't source wikipedia its just not worth trying.

> I've yet to come across one valid reason why a LO homeowner can't simply order a composting toilet, install it, and then tell the RWQCB to come up with the evidence that shows that the homeowner's GREY water is polluting the aquifer.

I totally agree with ya. 100%. I'll tell ya what, let's do it. You 'n me. I'll supply the site, pay for half the price of the toilet and installation (the balance to be paid back over time once we get legal clearance for its ongoing use). One more thing. You gotta cover all our legal expenses, CDO penalties, and other expenses associated with getting legal certification. I'm good with it if you are. What do ya say? I can have some papers drawn up by the end of the week.

Oh, you see it a little differently now? Kinda thought so. Nothing like calculating the *real* costs of something to add clarity, eh?

Hey, I agree with you. Your point is well taken. It should work like that. But, uh, ....... that isn't the way it seems to be working in this situation. The RWQCB owns the table and the cards, has cut the deck, is shuffling and dealing, and makes the rules. Ya wanna get into this game? Here's your chance. On the cheap. You don't even have to move or buy property in Los Osos. Just ante up with a huge gob of money to ensure we can play a few hands. What do ya think? I'm guessing a $300K buy-in. And that's just a ballpark guesstimate. What's your estimate?

> I'm not too sure Wikipedia is the best source out there.

Noted. I love wikipedia. I think wiki's are great. But I wouldn't usually use wikipedia as a source for anything important. But as a source for all things related to The Hitchhikers Guide to Galaxy? Dude, it's THE font of knowledge! I daresay it is the single best source other than the ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha appreciation society and the BBC H2G2 wiki. Perfect example: see the Wikipedia entry for H2G2. A good place to start. But the H2G2 wiki predates the actual Wikipedia by two years. That's a long time span in WikiLand. So which came first? The wiki or the Wiki? 'Nuff said. I stand by my source.

Ron > Wikipedia really needs to tighten up their act.

Shark Inlet > Wikipedia contains information that is essentially a consensus opinion and that it doesn't agree with your opinion means that your opinion is likely controversial.

No, no, no. Gentlemen, YOU are the wiki editors. You got a problem with what Pandora wrote? Correct it. But anything posted in wikipedia does not establish credibility. It is what it is. I wouldn't assume wikipedia would have anything right about the Los Osos Sewer. Nor could it possibly establish fact versus controversy in this scenario.

4crapkiller said...

Ann:

Will you please find out what the de-nitrification process is and how it differs from NITRATE reduction?

De-nitrification produces NITRATE.

A septic tank is a de-nitrification chamber. Our septic tanks work perfectly for this. They always have and always will unless the sludge builds up.


Use your google.com before you write.

You have been inadvertently (maybe not) misinforming your readers for years, and it is time to stop and get the meaning of the word and then ask questions of people who misuse it deliberately to confuse.

Your misunderstanding of this has been the basis of your opinion for years as to site and systems for nitrate reduction, removal, etc.

I wish everyone to do the same. I will not even bother to reply to RON. Thank you, sharky.

Ron said...

*pg wrote:

"I totally agree with ya. 100%. I'll tell ya what, let's do it. You 'n me. I'll supply the site, pay for half the price of the toilet and installation (the balance to be paid back over time once we get legal clearance for its ongoing use). One more thing. You gotta cover all our legal expenses, CDO penalties, and other expenses associated with getting legal certification. I'm good with it if you are. What do ya say? I can have some papers drawn up by the end of the week. "

I'd be glad to help out in the logistics area, but in my opinion, what *pg-13 says there is exactly what the PZLDF should do. If there's an option to get the RWQCB off the backs of the CDOers, then it seems like it would be a good idea for the PZLDF to explore it. I'd love to hear their attorney's take on the staff of the RWQCB's remarks regarding composting toilets found in Item 19.

Keep in mind, a source that knows WAY more about public works stuff than all of us commentors combined, told me:

"Take one of those houses with the C&D and show the Board their working composting toilets and they should be off the hook... and that's a hook from them as well as from anything the County is cooking up."

That makes so much sense, so why isn't the PZLDF all over it? Why don't they set-up a test case? I've seen "advanced," according to the staff of the RWQCB, composting toilet systems for about $1,200. Why doesn't the PZLDF just scrape together a couple of grand, and do exactly what I and my excellent source are talking about? (Now that I think about it, maybe they are. Does anyone know?)

As for the permits for a composting toilet system, I'm no Joe Contractor, or anything, but I'm pretty sure that you don't need a permit to install a new toilet. In other words, if someone were to go down to Home Depot today and purchase a new toilet, I'm fairly positive that they could drive it straight back to the PZ and install it without having to get a permit. So what's the difference with a composting toilet system? I'm not seeing it. They look like simple systems, according the web sites I've looked at. Oh, and one more thing, the staff of the RWQCB was considering requiring them in Los Osos.

Bounce around the Internet and do your own research. According to one source I read -- and this is HUGE in today's Los Osos -- a composting toilet system can reduce a HOUSEHOLD's water use in HALF... not just cut in half the amount of water used for flushing, but the entire household's water consumption. That blows me away, and it also gives me an idea on just how much water is used for flushing.

You know, I'm not pitching composting toilets here, or even supporting the idea for that matter, all I'm showing is that, according to the staff of the RWQCB, and a source that knows WAY more about public works stuff than all of us combined, you PZers have a "viable option." And do you have any idea what that does, Los Osos? That hands you, the individual homeowner, the reigns to the sewer type wagon.

Now, all of sudden, because you have another option, YOU control the shots. You now have leverage. If the county is still in the mood to "continue to carry through" the Tri-W project through the entire screening process, you just say... (uh, just a sec... hey, 'toons, humor alert! humor alert!)... you just say, "Great," and then hold up your composting toilet catalog in front of the county supervisors -- and state officials, too, by the way -- break out your cell phone and say something like, "I'm going to do it. I mean it. I'm calling the composting toilet manufacturer right-freaking-now unless you shove the Tri-W mess FAR off the table, immediately. See? I've already pressed 1-800... Still going to "carry Tri-W through?" Yes? 1-800-732... Still "carrying it through?" No? Yea, that's what I thought."

Get the PZLDF to set up a test case. If successful, and according to my source, it will be, the power shift would be swift and awesome. It'd be beautiful.

As my excellent source told me, "They said what they said."

The staff of the RWQCB can't unring that bell. I don't give a f--k what they say today. After Item 19, I don't care if they take the goal posts and run them up to Gorda, and a test case would show that.

I wrote:

"Sometimes I think the only two people that have their mind's completely wrapped around that complex, and deliberately obfuscated notion are me and Steve Monowitz."

... and then Anon wrote:

"For example, you've never shown that TriW wouldn't have come out on top (at the time of the site selection) because it was cheaper than other sites even if the park hadn't been a component. "

See what I mean?

Anonymous commentor... I really don't care if you can't grasp that complex, and deliberately obfuscated notion. I only care if Steve Monowitz gets it. And, I can assure you, after several excellent phone discussions with him, he does. What you guys in Los Osos should be concerned about is if Ogren is as clear on that notion as Monowitz. Because, if he's not, and I don't think he is because he actually listens to his former boss Nash-Karner (big mistake), that could cost you, and county taxpayers, a lot of money.

*pg:

"No, no, no. Gentlemen, YOU are the wiki editors. You got a problem with what Pandora wrote? Correct it"

Wanna hear something funny? I tried to, but it wanted me to register, so I said screw it. But I like Wikipedia, too. It's fun and it's amazing what it encompasses.

Maria M. Kelly said...

Would this mean we would have to create a "Composting Toilet Maintenance District"?

I hope they have improved their odor control because the only ones I am familiar with vent outside of the house and require a fan running, pretty much all the time, to help with the composting - 120volt +/-

I'm game but am unclear on how to make the system work on the interior walled second story bathroom.

Suggestions welcome.

Mike said...

I've done a bit of research and the compost toilet is not something for most existing urban/subburban houses.

I'd like to see how the compost toilet could be installed on an existing concrete slab floor, small interior bathroom. From everything I've read and seen, maintenance would be a problem and that's assuming one could even be retrofitted into the bathroom. Might work on a raised floor, back porch with an exterior wall so as to build in a maintenance access. The term the appraisor will use to describe the compost bathroom will quite likely be "cureable function obsolescense". Not a term most lenders will want to see on your refi appraisal.

Conspiracy Boy said...

I'm back from vacation now and have to respond to our dear friend Crapkiller.

Crap says: "Even if the 218 fails, the state will have a sewer system in and a lien against your property long before you case gets to court..."

Crap, a lien will go directly on your property as soon as the 218 passes (if it does, but it won't) and then we'll get more 218 assessments (with additional fees and charges) and more taxes go on way into the future. Our kids will be paying and probably our grandkids too. Oh brother. You are wrong -- it is a blank check for the county who likes to spend money big time -- our money.

And please tell us again exactly what arm of the state will come in and put in a sewer!

Crap, we're better off voting no and taking our chances with the RWQCB because they have to prove we are polluting first. You can not fine with no proof or evidence. This is still America, right? The RWQCB thinks they're above the law but it's still innocent until proven guilty. They've got to prove I'm polluting! And I am not.

It is absolutely crazy to build the most expensive sewer that does not guarantee it will help with any alleged pollution problem. The state and regional board say they "hope" the sewer will correct pollution. Yeah, right. Morro Bay is in worse shape with their drinking water and their pipes!

Since the 218 is a benefit analysis then does the county and/or Wallace guarantee that the big expensive sewer will correct what our septics can't? What is the benefit exactly? Can you please tell me?

And why on the sample 218 ballot, does it say at the top left corner
"total proposed amount for the ENTIRE DISTRICT" -- the 218 is about the entire district, not part of a district and never has been. The PZ shouldn't exist, the county knows it, everyone knows it, but does NOTHING to correct the phoney line in Los Osos.

You sound like Shirley or Paavo's wife!

Mike said...

and you sound like Keith Swanson

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

You seem to be saying (yet again) that the only reason TriW was selected was the park. The funny thing is that (yet again) you don't know that to be the case. It is sort of like a little kid saying "he hates me" but then, when asked why, the only answer is "because I know". Considering Steve Monowitz himself hasn't made any public comments on the record to back up your claim, I hardly think that "Ron says Steve says" is a solid argument.

What it all boils down to is this ... "parkiness" was given some weight in the site selection. You don't know how much and neither do I. Because you don't know the weight given to "parkiness" and you don't know any of the other details of the site selection analysis, you cannot say for sure that it was only because of the park.

Yes, the "parkiness" was discussed in the SOC, but that doesn't mean that "parkiness" was the reason for the selection, it was one justification given for the site.

Insult me as you like, but it does seem that the person having difficulty understanding a complex issue is you. Perhaps a course in logic at a local university might serve you well. If I recall those intending on careers in journalism tended to be a bit weak on logic and quantitative things. However, in discussions that involve science, engineering and finances, a bit of logic is a good thing.

Give it a try ... broaden yourself.

Perhaps a class like pre-calculus as well would be a good idea. Understanding interest rates and how they impact the real costs would also be good for you.

Conspiracy Boy said...

To Mike Green,

Mr. Smarty Pants, I'm not Keith and don't sound like Keith.

I asked some questions, don't YOU have any answers to them other than to butt in only to say that I sound like Keith?

Foolish...

*PG-13 said...

Ron > Wanna hear something funny? I tried to, but it wanted me to register, ...

Curious that. Not too long ago anon's could comment on this blog too. Now imagine what anonymous postings to wikipedia could do. < shudder > If you think wikipedia is suspect now - with edit registration and recent new review protocols - I'm sure you wouldn't want anonymouse postings too.

re: composting toilets - We discussed composting toilets on this blog a few months ago didn't we? Seems none of us has changed our position on them either. While the RWQCB seems to be stonewalling and saying "no" Ron still thinks the board has created an opportunity (read: loophole) which can be exploited. Many others aren't so sure.

Regardless whether they can be certified to get around the CDO's AND future assessments AND hook-up fees AND neighbor goodwill (read: odor) they still present a lifestyle challenge. Composting toilets are definitely not for everyone. I daresay they are for only the few people & families willing to make the commitment required for living with them. They are much more sophisticated than they used to be. And they do work. But they aren't flush & forget. Retrofit installation is something to think about but much less problematical than living with them. And the other household water - so ingeniously tagged grey water - is not so easily written off either. We forget that our take-away sewer lines dispose of lots more stuff than just 'human' waste. (Note, I have no credible links to use as source for my next statement. But I'd bet good money on it.) Simply put, Los Osos is a growing community consisting of thousands of households and an increasingly large commercial district located at or near sea level on geologically, environmentally and ecologically sensitive land. Its time we face some modern realities. Unless we want to become Findhorn we gotta use systems to mitigate our exuberant lifestyles. And composting toilets aren't the solution even if they do slip by or around the current legal crisis. Nor do last century's septics adequately address this century's waste stream.

Believe me, I'm aggravated over how the various commissions and elected bodies have mucked this whole thing up. But that doesn't change that the right thing for us to do is learn how to live and/or design systems so that we can continue to live is this beautiful place without spoiling it. As much as I would love to live sensibly with a composting toilet and appropriately monitored grey system I also know that would require me to learn how to live with and within those systems. I would relish that. But I question whether the community shares similar commitment. So the question isn't whether we can slip/trick/screw the RWQCB. The real issue is how do WE ALL manage to live here without spoiling it. And that includes citizens living outside the PZ too. If you're already on a modern system or living an aware and calibrated lifestyle great! Otherwise you're part of the problem.

Sorry about the rant.

SayethDog said...

PG-13 > We discussed composting toilets on this blog a few months ago didn't we? Seems none of us has changed our position on them either.

Did *pg-13 really say that?

(sigh)

Shark Inlet said...

Thanks, PG for summarizing a difficult issue.

While composting toilets will work for individuals, they seem a red-herring right now unless as a community we're going that way wholesale ... all of us. Unless we all take that route, suggesting that some should be allowed that option will tend to encourage the sluffing of sewer costs on those not dedicated to the cause and tolerant of the odors. Then there's the monitoring of one's setup ... what's the cost of that?

I like the idea of the composting toilets but suspect that if I had to fuss with them a lot or if they had smells I would be less enamored. The part that I especially like is the idea of re-using the other household wastewater (dishwasher, laundry machine, shower, etc.) as a way of watering plants in the yard, something I can't do now.

The problem really is this ... no one wants to stick their neck out to test this one and even if it did work well for some, the idea that it is the best solution for a community as a whole is questionable.

Mike Green said...

Conspiracy boy, In order to remain unfoolish I suggest you check before blogging.

There are two "Mikes" here, simply click on the name if you are confused.

Shark Inlet said...

Mike ... some would argue with you when you write "remain unfoolish". Not me, but I'm generous to a fault.

Myself, I'm still waiting for evidence that shows that Orenco is a guaranteed cheaper solution. I still think they are lowballing us like Ripley did just to get a contract and then, once they realize the real needs and restrictions they'll raise the bill.

Remember, "yes" on a 218 vote is not a blank check ... it actually sets a limit. A "no" on a 218 vote is what is really the blank check. There is no limit on the costs if we vote no.

Conspiracy Boy said...

To Mike Green -- sorry. Guess it was the "Mike" that is really crapkiller and he/she didn't want to answer the questions I asked. But he/she sure sounds like our old BOS, Shirley. Hmmmmm.

To Shark Inlet -- there you go again, endorsing a very bad project and a very bad 218 vote.

A "Yes" on the 218 is a blank check!

A yes vote on this (first) 218 that only opens the flood gate for the county to keep piling on more and more taxes, charges, fees, and whatever else they can pile on us to take our homes.

There is no end to it -- and no turning back!

You can't tell me that we won't end up with a $100,000.00 lien on our home with the project that you support, endorse and cheer (monster/gravity)!

You aren't an honest person by any stretch...look how you tried to sell the gravity/Tri-W saying pipes had been laid down already when in reality only 1-2% had been done.

Now you're telling us that the 218 isn't a blank check.

If we vote no we will be guaranteed an affordable sewer and THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO GET ONE!

P.S. Did I hear correctly that Carollo got the $190 plus contract for the pipeline imported water project? Hmmmmm. How cozy!

Churadogs said...

Inlet Sez:"Now that's unless the County proposes entirely onsite as a solution but we all know that won't happen for one reason or another.

8:34 AM, July 09, 2007"

O.K. Dumb question. IF (please note capital letters, IF) a type of onsite system reduced nitrate loading and cleaned up a varieity of Title 22 type pollutants and IF such onsite systems were being run by a Septic Managemnet District so they'd be maintained (avoiding the tragedy of the commons) WHY WOULDN'T such a basin zone plan be allowed? (And simply saying Mr. So and So wound't allow it, etc. isn't really an answer. I'm curious as to what scientific basis would be a reason for not doing such an approach?)

Ron sez:"You know what else I find funny, I've yet to come across one valid reason why a LO homeowner can't simply order a composting toilet, install it, and then tell the RWQCB to come up with the evidence that shows that the homeowner's GREY water is polluting the aquifer."

If you wade through all the Official CDO paperwork, you'll see that the original CDO's used words like pollution and waters of the state of California and Nuisance & etc. By the last few Official CDO pronouncements, ALL REFERENCES TO ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH WATER, POLLUTION, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, NITRATE, NUISSANCE, anything at all were removed. Gone. Zip. All that was left was "discharging." If you "discharge." you're guilty of . . . discharging. WHAT you're discharging is no longer on the table. Interesting morphing. Right out of Alice in Wonderland.

PG-13 sez:"So the question isn't whether we can slip/trick/screw the RWQCB. The real issue is how do WE ALL manage to live here without spoiling it. And that includes citizens living outside the PZ too. If you're already on a modern system or living an aware and calibrated lifestyle great! Otherwise you're part of the problem."

That's the real problem all over the world. Greywater used to be some all-natural soap. Now it's a hellacious mmixture of god knows what chemicals. Look at the negative impact all the antibiotic soaps are now suspected of having on increased immunity problems (the thinking now goes that kids NEED to be exposed to plenty of germs, our obsessive anti-biotic-ness may have a very negative long term effect indeed). But all that stuff is now going down the drain, even as "greywater.". So PG's right. This isn't simply about black water, it's also about greywater and finding systems that will clean up that problem too.

Shark Inlet said...

Perhaps you ought to explain how voting "no" on a 218 vote will guarantee an affordable sewer it would be helpful.

All I've seen you do so far is complain about what the County is doing and tell us that some company from Florida will be our savior.

Some details about how yet another delay and yet more uncertainty in times of legal crisis (CDOs) and inflation will actually save us money.

Heck ... what if we vote "no" and then Orenco says "well, we were just kidding ... we don't want the job after all"? What would we do then?

Simply put, how do you or how does anyone know as a fact that turning down the County project in a 218 vote will lower our bills.

I continue to wait patiently and hopefully. Until you explain in a financially sound way that relies on something more than hope and prayer, I'll continue to think that the County plan is probably better than some fairy-castle-in-the-sky undefined wishful thinking brought to you by yet another carpetbagger wanting to make a buck off our plight.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Your "dumb question" is really a great question. I actually don't see much of a problem with composting toilets other than ... I would bet that a majority of this town would rather pay $300/month to flush a regular toilet that doesn't stink. Even those who like the idea of composting toilets would probably be afraid that adopting such a plan PZ-wide would hurt property values even more than a "mega-sewer" would. (If there were complaints about a possible odor problem from an odor-scrubbing TriW, what do you think would be the result of the far more often smells of such toilets.)

Then, as you point out, the "grewater" really does need to be treated.

I wonder myself about the issue of discharge versus nitrates. What would be best if if all the neighborhoods had something like what Monarch Grove does ... a small plant where the water is used for irrigation after treatment. If I had the option, when a sewer pipe is put in, I would want a tank installed that could handle 599g of treated wastewater which I could use for watering plants.

*PG-13 said...

Sorry, this is a bit off-thread. But I think its worth it. I'll try to tie it in to the comments as best I can -

re: wikipedia's - Consider The Encyclopedia of Life. A single compendium of everything we know about living organisms on earth.

re: mosquito eating waterbugs from the previous blog.

re: our responsibility to living sanely in Los Osos

If you didn't see the E.O Wilson interview on the Bill Moyers Journal then you must watch it here. If you did see it you probably want to watch it again. Enjoy. Yeah, its a 35 minute interview. But its Bill Moyers interviewing E.O Wilson! (Think Craig Venter of the previous era.) So get comfortable, pour a glass of your favorite bev and settle down for a focused listen. Very sobering. Also inspiring. Always enlightening.

Sewertoons said...

conspiracy boy, why don't you ask the Moylens how much fun having a CDO has been for them? You are advising that we each get one by voting no. Do you really think that the Water Board will do nothing if we vote no? Whether or not it is legal still hasn't been settled for the Moylens or any of the other CDOers -- and how long has that been going on? Whether Orenco or some other company jumps in or not will not matter. It will be years before they can get anything going just for the permitting alone. It all looks to me to be yet another version of NO SEWER.

What does matter is that there will be l boatload of legal for everyone in the PZ. It may take years to get it settled. Want to live with that kind of stress? Don't you dare put me in that position by spreading your phantom "solution" by voting no.

Mike Green said...

Ann hits this one so spot on I just have to comment on it:

All that was left was "discharging." If you "discharge." you're guilty of . . . discharging.

This one observation, that is by the way, not an opinion,but a fact. Is the issue that shoots conspiracy boy down completely.
He wants to vote no and take his chances with the Water Gods.
Now that is truley a foolish suggestion.
Bad as the county has been in the past, bad as both LOCSDs have been in the past, The one government agency that has NO meaningful oversite and has produced conditions of compliance such as the one noted by Ann above.
That's the one he thinks he can either reason with or fool.
Better give Pandora a call buddy, your only chance is going to rest with some kind of Jedi mind control, And even the great master Nash-Karner has failed miserably the last few times around.
And don't even THINK about negotiating
Court of Law? that 100,000.00 lean you decry would only get the paperwork started.
I guess that leaves defiance and barricades.

That would probably work, but count me out, I'll move first.

Mike Green said...

For Toons, sorry it took so long, this is what the helicopter was spraying, I met the pilot, at the airport resturant while waiting for an airplane.

Mosquito abatement uses source reduction techniques and larval control to reduce the mosquito population. Source reduction focuses on things the property owner can do such as eliminating discarded tires and emptying containers that can hold water. Large-scale source reduction such as clearing flood control channels, drainage of water bodies and removing vegetation from edges of persistent water sources will not take place at this time. This requires long term planning, obtaining proper permits, and is expensive to accomplish.
Larviciding is the addition of a control product to a water source to kill mosquito larvae. Controlling the larvae is more effective than controlling adults. Control products available include bacterial larvicide products that are forms of naturally occurring bacteria and Insect Growth Regulators (IGRs), which prevent the larvae from completing their development. San Luis Obispo County is using two bacterial larvicides (bacteria registered as pesticides) that are easy to use, are not toxic to other living species and are registered as control agents.
Source, SLO mosquito abatement program "West Nile"

Mike said...

Geez Conspiracy Boy, you really do sound and say all the nice words that Kieth does, and you are such a sweet guy.

Sometime when you actually ask a reasonable question, maybe you'll actually read a few "answers" already sent your way. The problem is your optical nerve is connected to your anus. You just can't accept answers that don't fit your agenda! You finally got off the big pipe ranting when someone pointed out the flexibility of modern plastic pipes, so now you are trying to make us believe you know something about Step. You haven't been too successful in producing anything other than emotional BS about subjects you know NOTHING about! Sit down and read what Shark and Mike Green and, yes, Crapkiller, have been pointing out. Until then keep wipeing your anus so you maight actually begin to read some honesty. We're quite tired of your stupid emotional outbursts! Try using Charmin to keep from scratching the retina!

4crapkiller said...

To All: Press release!


From: zorro63 11:52 am
To: 4CrapKiller (2727 of 2733)
1414.2727 in reply to 1414.2716

Sorry I haven't posted much lately, been extremely busy. I was appointed as a Research Fellow in Wastewater Treatment at the Sam Houston Institute of Technology. My research has been directed at developing a system like the Piranha (but mine actually removes nitrates). I call it the CARP in order to better compete with Piranha. I wanted to call it the CRAP but found that it was too difficult to put appropriate words to the acronym. The CARP (Comprehensive Aquacultural Reduction of Pollutants) is definitely the solution to the nitrate problem. It is based on the principle of energy flow through an aquatic ecosystem. Have you ever heard of Blind Trout (not the common Headless Brown variety of septics)? There are complete ecosystems in deep caves, the organisms of which have never seen the light of day! What the CARP does is establish a microcosm in a septic tank, based on the flora and fauna of deep caves. Macro and microflora convert nitrates to biomass production through dark cycle photosynthesis. The flora are then consumed by upper level food chain species, of which the Blind Trout is the ultimate consumer.

Here's how it works. You first purchase the Starter Kit form De la Vega Industries, the commercial arm of the Sam Houston Institute. We mail you the kit, which you simply flush down your toilet. I cannot divulge the exact contents of the spore, egg, and seed packet, but you will find it remarkably similar to the "Sea Monkeys" which so many of us ordered from Comic Books as kids. The kit also contains a very fine meshed screen that you place over the tank's exit to prevent all those little buggers from escaping.

Once the ecosystem is well established (about a week) you place your order for your Blind Trout. These will be delivered to your door as live fingerlings. We have made arrangements to purchase several septic pumping trucks for this purpose, since they will no longer be necessary once the CARPs are functioning in their final configuration.

Now here's the real beauty of the system, it will ultimately serve as a backyard industry to offset the initial cost. Did you know that the most profitable aquaculture ventures are those "pay to fish" operations that you see around the country? They charge fishermen, by the pound, for every fish caught. All you have to do is make sure that at least one of the inspection covers on your septic tank is accessible. Fishermen from all over the State will rush to LO for the opportunity of landing a Blind Trout.

The CARP comes with the famous De la Vega "tail light warranty". That is, it's guaranteed to work (as long as you can still see the tail lights of the delivery truck. Well, gotta run. The Blind Trout in one of the ponds are spawning, and I don't want to risk any hybridization with the native Headless Brown Trout. That could result in a really yukky situation.

4crapkiller said...

To ALL: 4Crapkiller's endorcement of the system!

Press Release!

From: 4CrapKiller 8:23 pm
To: zorro63 unread (2733 of 2733)
1414.2733 in reply to 1414.2727

And there it is! The system! It even has an individual payout, and is self supporting, affordable, and sustainable!
It works. Your septic tank is the proof!

I knew that someone with advanced expertise in cutting edge biological technology could effect a system that would not drain the resources of the property owners of Los Osos.

HOWEVER: I notice an absence in cost plus delivery charges.
Is it available for the trade of "headless brown trout" from my septic tanks? Otherwise I am sure low cost financing is available in the form of a grant. I wish to pay as little as possible for the kit.

My ANTICIPATION is intense! There is no doubt that the regulating boards, branded by many as fools, will easily accept this new technology. They cannot do otherwise. It is new technology, and technology rules!

The warranty, "tail light", will surely give any buyer confidence. At last we have a system that actually has a warranty.

I will surely vote NO on any 218 assessment to make sure that this fool proof, advanced technology system is adopted IF it is not accepted by the county. Surely, when presented to the LOCSD, four members, a majority, will support it, and WILL sell it to the property owners. Renters will take to the streets, pound on doors, and WILL sell it. The county will study it and support it. They will understand it's nature and value.

I MUST invest! Surely those fighting the CCRWCQB in a CDO legal battle would wish to divert their funds. I see this as offering a payback on the investment as a tenth power return. It cannot get any better! It will NEVER get any better!

Thank you for saving Los Osos with the development of this BRILLIANT technology. Thank you for your time, effort, and treasure to develop it. We knew it would come, we have prayed for cargo for years, and at last it has arrived!

Mike Green said...

Sorry Crappy, that wont work, We are in the new marine reserves, blind trout would be a protected species.

Read it on the trivs, site. A rare gem indeed.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"I wonder myself about the issue of discharge versus nitrates. What would be best if if all the neighborhoods had something like what Monarch Grove does ... a small plant where the water is used for irrigation after treatment. If I had the option, when a sewer pipe is put in, I would want a tank installed that could handle 599g of treated wastewater which I could use for watering plants.

10:48 AM, July 10, 2007"

From what I've heard about Pio Lombardo's cluster system plan, that sounds like what he's proposing. Personally, with water the real issue (water shortages) I'd love a system that purple piped my hard. The inside is all low-flow everything, I've planted natives outside, have no lawn, put most everything on drip and have a Darwinian philosophy -- survive or die! -- but I know water bills are just going to continue to go throught the roof. So, from your lips to God's ears, I'd love a system that closed the loop, especially if it penciled out about the same: i.e. add your water bill with your (new) sewer bill and see what it comes out to.

PG 13 sez:" If you didn't see the E.O Wilson interview on the Bill Moyers Journal then you must watch it here. If you did see it you probably want to watch it again. Enjoy. Yeah, its a 35 minute interview. But its Bill Moyers interviewing E.O Wilson! (Think Craig Venter of the previous era.) So get comfortable, pour a glass of your favorite bev and settle down for a focused listen. Very sobering. Also inspiring. Always enlightening."

I saw that interview. Amazing. Being egocentric ninnies, we think we're at the top of the food chain. Have no idea that our life is made possible by a gazillion little guys whithout which we would have an uninhabitable planet. And if we don't wise up fast, that's exactly what we'll end up with. Bye-bye humans.

Mike sez:"Until then keep wipeing your anus so you maight actually begin to read some honesty. We're quite tired of your stupid emotional outbursts! Try using Charmin to keep from scratching the retina!"

Actually, "Mike," much of your own "emotional outbursts" are in need of some Charmin. Or being dumped in the trash can. Folks reading these comments are free to make up their own minds about various postings, including your own "emotional outbursts," without being called names. Keeping this comment board out of the gutter (or dumped into the trash can) is up to each poster, including you.

*PG-13 said...

4crapkiller > The CARP (Comprehensive Aquacultural Reduction of Pollutants) is definitely the solution to the nitrate problem.

Wow! This is great! I especially like this part ....

> ..... the most profitable aquaculture ventures are those "pay to fish" operations that you see around the country? They charge fishermen, by the pound, for every fish caught. All you have to do is make sure that at least one of the inspection covers on your septic tank is accessible. Fishermen from all over the State will rush to LO for the opportunity of landing a Blind Trout.

FANtastic! No more luggin' our rigs over the sand to fish in the surf. And no more need to stand in the mud along the bay. And we're pretty much guaranteed to catch something every time. This integrates so nicely with previous proposals to place wine bar(s) atop the sewer. Even if the RWQCB doesn't buy in to on-site systems and if our sewer ends up at Tri-W we should still go with this technology. I think a revenue producing fishing pond is a great addition to the park. BTW, what do you use for bait?

4crapkiller said...

To PG-13:

I did not invent the technology but it is apparently clear that small pieces of "headless brown trout" could be used as bait. You could scoop them and then cut them. Perhaps some hairnet would keep the bait intact.

Be sure to wear gloves. Charmin should be available to cleanse the cutting surface.

I am glad NOEL KING was reading this blog. There will be a rush to this technology! He might share with Paavo.

*PG-13 said...

< sigh >
I think perhaps we have passed the line of common decency for this thread. Like many blogs we've had flame wars and we've suffered many vocabulary impaired posters. But this most graphic description of cutting bait slips over the edge. I don't think I'm gonna eat any fish for awhile.

4crapkiller said...

TO PG-13:

We are just not cutting bait, and you did ask!

Eat all the fish you want, but be very careful not to eat "headless brown trout".