QUICK NOTE.

Regarding my previous posting, a press release from PZLDF listing a link to the Insider Exclusive program, one particular poster on this site claimed that PZLDF paid producer Steve Murphy to be on the show & etc. This false rumor got some traction in the comment section, with much huffing and phony self-righteous posturing going on. Below is a forwarded reply from Mr. Murphy, Executive Producer of the show, regarding the matter:

“PZLDF did not pay the Insider Exclusive to produce this show. We [Insider Exclusive] represent many law firms who pay us to produce and broadcast TV and Radio shows in the media.”

[I presume the "many law firms" should be refered to as . . . sponsors?]

There was also some posted commetor’s huffing and puffing about the show’s not discussing sewers. In case anyone bothered to notice, this particular program was about LEGAL issues raised by PZLDF’s legal case. The interview focused on LEGAL issues that dealt with civil rights and property rights and due process rights violations being visited on The Los Osos 45 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

ANOTHER NOTE:

Over at Ron Crawford’s site, www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com, Ron’s posted another article that gets, once again, to the key question that still needs to be ‘splained. “What Ought To Be A Law, Part II (Oh, wait, it’s already a law.” Oh, Looooocy . . . . .


Reclamator Rises Again From The New Times

There’s a recent story by Kylie Mendonca in this weeks’ New Times (Dec 6, 07) on Tom Murphy of AES and his proposed onsite Reclamator. When preparing the story the reporter naturally had a lot of questions about Mr. Murphy’s system. The following email was sent to Kylie by Mr. Murphy and cc’ed to me. The email gives some further details on how the Reclamator is supposed to work. The New Times story quotes Harvey Packard of the Regional Water Quality Control board as saying that “he has never seriously looked at Murphy’s technology and can’t validate or disprove claims that the machine will virtually eliminate waste. 'But it doesn’t matter,'Packard said. 'If a resident wanted to hook up to the Reclamator right now, they would still be in violation, and as soon as the sewer is built, they would be ordered to hook up.'”

And there is the most interesting wrinkle of all that somebody needs to ‘splain. If you’re not polluting anything, what’s the beef and why would you need to hook up to anything? During the CDO “trials,” the RWQCB staff was repeatedly asked if they had any actual evidence that Citizen X was polluting the ground waters of the State of California and the repeated answer came back: No. Even more interesting, Harvey claims that there will be ZERO discharge allowed in the PZ, but had already issued a DISCHARGE permit for treated wastewater to be dumped back into the PZ for disposal from the defunct Tri W sewer plant. Zero discharge for Mr. Homeowner but lots of discharge from a ginormous community collection pipe?

Well, in the NT story, Mr. Murphy claims he’ll buy a house in Los Osos, install a Reclamator then wait to see Harvey in court. That’ll be interesting, indeed, since both Murphy and Packard assert things. But it will remain to be seen whose assertions will prove to be enforceable. And/or what the County decides as well. If it all comes down to what the meaning of “is” is, i.e. how are the words “discharge” defined, or “pollutants,” or,” zero” or whatever word Harvey Packard wants to use, then I suspect all of this will have to end up in court with some judge somewhere deciding what “is” means.

(Posted with permission from Mr. Murphy)


[in response to a Q from Kylie] You asked, "Can you give me an idea as to how many Reclamators there are inservice currently? Did you say that there are several in Los Osos? And hasthe Reclamator been EPA approved, or does it have any other "official" typecertification?"The RECLAMATOR is a product of over three years of design and engineeringwhich carries a California registered Professional Engineer's Stamp ofCertification. In 1994 the patented "biological" process technology used inthe RECLAMATOR underwent a third party Technology Evaluation at which timeit received an NSF Certification. (See attached) Until now, no othertechnology has demonstrated to consistently remove nitrogen pollutants to anaverage of less than 10 parts per million (ppm) with an average of only 3.9ppm, in fact, the highest level of all nitrogen which is called "totalnitrogen" was only 7.1 ppm, well below the limit for drinking water of 10ppm. The addition of the membrane didn't change the performance of thebiological process, only guarantees a particular quality of water as per thespecifications of the membrane. Just like the County sewer project, the only "approval" is a ProfessionalEngineer's Stamp certifying it to work as designed. There are no EPAapproval programs for such a device as the RECLAMATOR. Frankly, there arenone needed as the RECLAMATOR has the membrane which guarantees its waterquality. The membrane provides the "performance guarantee" as a "definitebarrier" to the "discharge of pollutants". It is very simple; it isimpossible for water containing pollutants to leave the RECLAMATOR becausethey can't get through the holes in the membrane.We do however claim the RECLAMATOR is EPA compliant as it meets the criteriadefined in the Clean Water Act which the EPA is required to administer. Theprimary criteria the RECLAMATOR complies with is it "eliminates thedischarge of pollutants". What determines a pollutant and what isn't apollutant? This question is answered by the USEPA treated drinking waterstandards, the first being the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) which arelevels of "pollutants" and then the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)which are levels of constituents that are considered "non-pollutant". Theseare the only two measures in the industry which define if a level of aconstituent is still a "pollutant" or not. Several of my engineer associates and I, after a substantial amount ofresearch, deigned the RECLAMATOR just for Los Osos specifically so as toprovide an onsite technology which would reclaim and repurify the householdsewage stream to a level which meets the US EPA MCLG Standard which isreferred to as "non-polluting" and is additionally defined as a"non-enforceable public health goal". Non-enforceable means "not subject toapproval or requiring a "discharge permit" as the water the RECLAMATORproduces, because it meets the USEPA MCLG Standard, is not subject toneeding any endorsement by an "enforcement entity" such as the Water Board.To engineer and design the RECLAMATOR to produce such a "water quality" wasaccomplished on purpose as it became clear to us that the Water Board, eventhough they were required to approve and promulgate the previous BESTEP-10technology as the solution for Los Osos because it eliminated the nitratedischarge, just weren't going to because they wanted a "sewer project",period. Because we needed Water Board "approval" and "permitting" toinstall the previous model, the BESTEP-10, it became obvious after over 10years, we were never going to get it. If we were going to be able toprovide the people of Los Osos a compliant economical solution as isrequired by federal law, regardless of the Water Board agenda, we were goingto have to develop an onsite water repurification technology which produceda "non-enforceable" quality of "water", i.e. permeate, which we did.The RECLAMATOR (BESTEP UF-900 is the actual Model) has an Ultra-Filtration(UF) Membrane which has been designed into it that is very much like aReverse Osmosis (RO) Membrane like is used for drinking water purificationthat a lot of people install under they sinks in their home. Thisspecifically designed UF Membrane WILL NOT allow water having levels ofpollutants any greater than that level defined in the MCLGs to pass throughit. The water produced by the RECLAMATOR is "beyond tertiary" quality and isreferred to as "permeate". Permeate is water after it passes through amembrane after having left the pollutants on the other side of the membrane.Those pollutants stay in the RECLAMATOR until they are removed approximatelyonce every 5 years. The UF Membrane is the guarantee of a "0" pollutant(which is the level defined in the MCLG). Please see the attached copy of atest result from my prototype RECLAMATOR at the Shaddox residence. Pleasecompare the level of constituents (pollutants) to the USEPA MCLG Standard(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html#listmcl) for yourself. The USEPA MCLG Standard even thought there are still "trace amounts" ofpollutants, isn't subject to enforcement and isn't classified as a"discharge" or "discharge of pollutants". The USEPA MCLG Standard is thestandard which your tap water in your house must meet. This is the samequality of water the RECLAMATOR produces. Look at "Definitions" to see itis a "non-enforceable public health goal". "Non-enforceable" means notsubject to Water Board control provided it is on private property, which itwill be.Maybe Mr. Packard is referring to the previous model the BESTEP-10 whichproduces "tertiary" quality water but still has levels of pollutants whichfall into the US EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Standard which defineslevels of pollutants in water which still poses a public health threat andis considered "polluted" and is still referred to as an enforceable"discharge". (Note: The word "discharge" means "discharge of a pollutant ordischarge of pollutants"). However, he has received the submittal on theRECLAMATOR which proves otherwise and is stamped and certified by aregistered professional engineer verifying it.For Mr. Packard, Henry Ford couldn't have said it better, "it is difficultto get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his notunderstanding it".In closing, I want to explain that I am not "selling" the RECLAMATOR. If Iwere, I would have to jump through many hoops just like I have had to nowfor many years attempting to convince obstructionist of what I had. To getaround these "progress killing" obstacles, I have designed the RECLAMATORfor my own use to provide the service to my clients of eliminating theirdischarge of pollutants as is required by federal law to be done providedthe technology is available, which it is. I, as the continued owner of theRECLAMATOR, don't require any endorsement or approval as I know what it isand what it does in order to use it in providing such service. I don't needa "third party" to tell me if it works or not, I am the inventor holding 9patents on my RECLAMATOR technology. As each homeowner signs up for mydischarge elimination service, each of them are relieved of anyresponsibility for their discharge as I am receiving it into my RECLAMATORand I then become the responsibility part for eliminating their discharge asI am the owner/operator of the RECLAMATOR which is receiving theirdischarge. It then, by law, becomes my responsibility. I would be glad to meet with you again if you wish. I have been copying youon several emails that give more information. I hope you have beenreceiving these.Thanks,Tom Murphy


And Speaking of Emails

The following email exchange [posted with permission from the participants] was the result of some sort of email-chat “thread” zipping around God Knows Where. I responded to an email from Mark Low (who’s working with Tom Murphy & AES ) and before you know it, some “anonymous” poster chimed in[ a group calling themselves the Baywood Beach Crew to smack Mark & Tom upside the head, then Ron (Sewerwatch) Crawford chimed in, then Tom came back to smack the Baywood crew upside the head, and so forth, then Gail McPherson of PZLDF added information about the issue of “Best Technology,” to which I replied, then Julie Tacker included a critical missing issue – water reuse and recharging the lower aquifer . . . and so forth. Makes for some interesting – if long -- reading, especially Ron’s observations about “accountability.” And also a reminder that emails, especially those posted on various threads sent to everyone, including God, are really public bulletin boards and anything you say to anyone will show up anywhere, often out of context, so caveat everybody.

Mark Low writes:

He states "Despite your claims, the RECLAMATOR does discharge waste is
subject to Water Board regulation.", when in fact the RECLAMATOR does not
discharge waste but rather produces PERMEATE.

Ann Calhoun beautifully captured the essence of this in her piece- Humpty Dumpty meets Humpty Dumpty.

The Los Osos Project is very contentious and was so, long before I became involved.
Add in the "ground breaking" technology that the RECLAMATOR represents
and the balance of "control" shifts from the WaterBoard back to the People
and will resolve the CDO's and NOV's at the best possible price.

There is allot at stake for Los Osos and beyond.
C26 calls for BADCT. Technology rules!

Calhoun replied, in part:

Hi, I got a cc of this. Hopefully, the correspondence will help Shauna illustrate to La Barbara (or the appeals court, more likely) that the people of this community have been trapped into a true Catch 22 and/or Hobson's Choice dilemma.

That said, however, the point of my Humpty Dumpty analogy is that nothing Briggs or you or Tom assert has any meaning until and unless a court of law steps in (or maybe the County asserts something during the due diligence phase and then they'll get to go head to head with Briggs or your company).

My guess is that NOTHING will change without a court ruling on just what the meaning of "is" is. If the county agrees with Briggs' assertions, then no onsite systems within the PZ will be considered. You will then have to sue the County and go argue in court against them. Or you can go to some sort of court now and argue about what the meaning of "is" is, and you may get a ruling one way or the other.

But until this happens, as near as I can see, this "war of words" is a waste of time. You, Briggs, Tom and Paavo can assert anything you want until the cows come home. Nothing will change.

As for this being a contentious project long before you came along. I have written previously that this train wreck was set in motion by a BAD initial basin plan followed by an absolute refusal to fix a BAD basin plan. From that one "poisoned" tree has come so much BAD fruit. And I have seen absolutely no effort on anyone's part over the years to try to go back to fix the original failure. Instead of updating with new data, shifting priorities to ask and answer a few critical Basic Questions, or make changes based on new, better information (i.e. water overdrafting), everyone, from the SWB to the RWQCB to the County on down to the CSDs just keeps stupidly trying to slap different coats of paint on a house foolishly built on swampland that's sinking further into the bog due to the weight of all those coats of paint.

It's nuts. But there you are.

And then Mark chimed in and I replied (in italics) . . .

Mark Low writes:

Following the laws as written is all that need and indeed should be done,
past local Bureaucratic WaterBoard interpretations and decisions, aside.

My point. "past local Bureaucratic WaterBoard interpretations and decisions" are NOT "aside." They're not even "past." Until you take them into court and put them aside.

The County is still permitting polluting septic tanks with the tacit approval of the
WaterBoard. Why? That is a bigger question which needs to be addressed, by those
elected, legal and regulatory government officials who may read this correspondence,
without losing sight of the Los Osos "thread" of course.

There, of course, is the most interesting point of all. WHY? And why haven't those "other" elected, legal and regulatory government officials" who must know about this mess, stepped in to correct this damage? Likely because so many of them have already been involved in creating the mess and now don't want any accountability, so turn away. "Not my problem," they murmur, washing their hands and then scuttling out the door.


There has never before been the level of technology used, that is currently "in play".
People who did not know about the Los Osos "plight", or the RECLAMATOR three
months ago, know about them both now.

There also is the great tragedy. There is more information and better technology now than ever before, but if the regulators, the county, the feds the state all insist on sticking with the same old house sinking in the quicksand, then that's what this community will get stuck with. Plus, ya gotta follow the money. Big engineering firms build big projects because (1) that's what they're trained to do and (2) because that's where the big money is.

The guy sitting in the house that's sinking in the quicksand, of course, doesn't matter. He's just the guy who will get stuck with the bill.

Then some the Anonymous Baywood Beach group chimed in . . .

Everybody,
Lets air a dirty little secret here first for all to read: Mark sent this email to over 200 additional people, kind of like spam, invisible to you, the To: & Cc: recipients, since Mark Bcc'ed the rest of us. The origin of Mark's large list of email addresses is likely from a an email sent to Paavo on 9/7/07 (Re: CRWQCB Letter - June 27, 2007). Now we are clear there are many eyes on the emails Mark sends to his new best buddies...

And I replied . . .

Since everyone's apparently forwarding and cc'ing and bcc'ing , with emails all flying around To & From and By . . . who knows? may I ask , Who's the Baywoodbeachcrew ? Another "anonymous" new Los Osos Sewer Group? Wheeeee!

In all these flying emails to and from Mark or Tom or whoever, I hope that folks will keep in mind why I posted on my blog the observation that both Mark, Tom, AES and the RWQCB are Humpty Dumptys. If you recall, Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland's Through the Looking Glass, sniffed in a rather scornful tone, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Those of you who sat through the RWQCB's appalling Morphing Mad Hatter Kangaroo Court Tea Party & Grand Auto de Fe ("More tea! More tea! Move down! Move down!" will understand the reference immediately. Ditto the various assertions made by Mark and Tom & Co.

Until and unless a court of law somewhere decides what the meaning of "is" is, this will remain nothing but entertaining Humpty Dumptys asserting whatever they wish to assert.

So, Caveat emptor.


Which, of course, brought in – Ta-DA! Ron Crawford’s more than apt comments. As with all things Sewerish, what’s gone so missing is . . . accountability . . .

Ann wrote (below):

"And why haven't those "other" elected, legal and regulatory government officials" who must know about this mess, stepped in to correct this damage? Likely because so many of them have already been involved in creating the mess and now don't want any accountability, so turn away."

I have come across that so many times in my reporting, since Three Blocks was published in Sept. 2004.

Consider the SWRCB, when their Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) chose to fund, with the SRF loan, the millions of dollars of park amenities found in the Tri-W project, even though the SRF Policy so brilliantly states: "Ineligible for funding: decorative items." They erroneously considered the amenities "mitigation," and made the decicion to fund them, but they weren't mitigation, they required mitigation... a lot of it. And if the staff of the DFA didn't make that illegal decision, then Tri-W COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, because as I've reported on many times: No park amenities, no Tri-W.

That single mistake -- and let's make no bones about it... that was a gigantic mistake -- had a huge hand in creating this mess. So, of course, these days, since they have ALL the authority, that will NEVER come out. Completely buried. Hidden away in some dark filing cabinet, in a dusty corner in the office of the SWRCB's Division of Financial Assistance.

And, by the way, both Darrin Polhemus and Barbara Evoy, the two state officials that made the decision to fund the park in the Tri-W project with the SRF loan, are no longer with Division of Financial Assistance.

The RWQCB also had a huge hand in creating this mess, when Briggs didn't do a thing, enforcement-wise, from early 1999 to late 2000 when the LOCSD futilely chased the Oswald plan that everyone, including Briggs, knew was never going to work. He was the ONLY person that had the authority to prevent those wasted two years, and he didn't do anything.

And what the LOCSD did to him in that time period? That is flat-out embarrassing. I wrote about that here: http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/10/briggs-blown-opportunities.html

(Paavo, as Interim GM for the LOCSD a good chunk of that time, you might find that link interesting.)

So, again, since the RWQCB has all the authority, except for a oversight by the SWRCB -- that ALSO had a huge hand in creating this mess -- the truth will NEVER come out -- well, other than SewerWatch, of course -- and Los Osos will be stuck shouldering all of the State's screw ups.

It's absurd.

I give details on all of those screw-ups, and more, at this link:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/10/putting-sue-in-sewerwatch-_116166032494217646.html

(And if the county REALLY wants to cut the cost of the project, then they should take up my recommendation, and sue the State for the SWRCB's Division of Financial Assistance decision to fund, with the SRF loan, the millions of dollars of park amenities found in the Tri-W project, BECAUSE the SRF Policy so brilliantly states: "Ineligible for funding: decorative items." The county would win that, and that could shave tens of millions of dollars off the project.)

Ann's right when she says that the law that has the SWRCB overseeing the RWQCB, and no one overseeing the SWRCB, needs to be changed, badly. There are no checks and balances whatsoever. They can screw up all they want and they have each other's backs, as Los Osos clearly shows.

And I'm right when I say that elected officials that are facing recall shouldn't be setting their own recall election dates. That is just asking for problems, and that horrible law never disappoints.

Imagine what Los Osos would be like today if those laws had been on the books since 1999. If Ann's law had been around, Los Osos never would have come to a recall election, and if my law had been on the books in 2005, the ESHA at Tri-W would not be ripped up, millions of dollars of State funds would not have been needlessly pounded into the ground, and the Governor's signing message on AB 2701 would not exist.

BOTH of those laws "Ought to be laws."

Ron Crawford
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

And then, Tom Murphy stepped in to smack the Baywood Beach group upside the head for their reply to Mark with a reply of his own. [first up, an excerpt of the Baywood group’s email reply to one of Mark’s bcc’d emails, then Mr. Murphy’s reply)

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:38 PM Subject: Re: Enforcement and water board consideration of alternatives
Mark,
Good to see you are still in town trying to sell us your fancy septic system. Also good to see you are no longer using your modernhunter meat-by-mail email address, the new one is much more professional.

Everybody,
Lets air a dirty little secret here first for all to read: Mark sent this email to over 200 additional people, kind of like spam, invisible to you, the To: & Cc: recipients, since Mark Bcc'ed the rest of us. The origin of Mark's large list of email addresses is likely from a an email sent to Paavo on 9/7/07 (Re: CRWQCB Letter - June 27, 2007). Now we are clear there are many eyes on the emails Mark sends to his new best buddies...

On to the subject matter at hand:
There seems to be an almost righteous tone to Mark's insistence that he, and he alone, holds the cure to the ills of Los Osos with his septic solution. The odd thing is that Mark's insistence seems to be based on his views of The Law, and that it is a simple matter of The Law to see that the AES system (BTW, you all do know that Mark is the AES sales rep, right?) is the only solution acceptable to the community.
Mark: Please cite court opinions specifically directed toward the AES solution's applicability to Los Osos.

We find it odd that there has so far been no disclosure of how well the AES system works in a community such as ours - could it be that AES has not actually deployed any significant number of these miracle devices? Could it be that AES wants Los Osos to be a guinea pig for their system? We have seen the words from Mark: "proven technology", but nowhere does Mark show us the use cases, the longevity data, the short and long term maintenance story, in a real world community implementation.
Mark: Please cite data showing AES solution use cases that provide real world community data on system longevity, the short and long term maintenance needs, and real end user costs.

Lastly, lets follow the money - Mark has cited that there will be Federal grants for those who purchase the AES solution, reducing the system cost significantly. However, nowhere has Mark been able to show a letter in hand stating that grants have been approved for the AES system. Next, has anybody read the AES proposal to the county? Thee is an interesting section that is basically a cut-n-run clause. with 30-day notice, AES can skip town and hand over system services & support to a 3rd party. Wow. Take the money and run! [An added note here: According to Section 10;1, sent to me by the Baywood Beach group, “10.1 SERVICE PROVIDER reserves the right to assign or transfer its rights hereunder, provide that in such event, SERVICE PROVIDER shall file with the SLO COUNTY AND/OR LOCSD Clerk written notice of any contemplated sale, transfer, assignment, or lease of such agreement or any part thereof, or of any other rights or privileges acknowledged hereby, 30 days before such sale, transfer, assignment or lease is to become effective. No such sale, transfer, or assignment or lease of such agreement, or any part hereof, shall be effective until and unless approved by the SLO COUNTY AND/OR LOCSD which consent and approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.” Clearly, if any community-wide onsite system like this were to be put in, it would have to be overseen by some sort of government agency ready to step in if a private company was sold or went out of business or whatever.]

Mark: Can you provide real $$$ amounts an end user expects to pay for your system? Over time? How much AES expects to profit from this adventure? Can you provide guaranteed Federal grant $$s approval? Lastly, what up with the 30-day escape clause?

Yes, lets follow the money - seems there are enough people out there wanting it pretty badly.
Regards,
Citizen of Baywood Beach

And finally, Mr. Murphy’s reply to the Baywood crowd.
[ . . . . ]
Shame on “U” who ever you are that is such a “coward” to attack the integrity of someone such as Mark Low and not even “sign” your name!!! Obviously it isn’t YOU that justifies my response as I believe that everyone should know the “truth”, thank you for spurring on the opportunity to tell all about Mark.
Mark has never done anyone in this community any harm, he only has tried to educate each of you to what 1) the most economical method of solution for the Los Osos waste management is, 2) what the federally compliant method is, 3) the best method consisting of the best available technology is, 4) solves the discharge issue of each individual homeowner. (Please, any other issue isn’t the citizens’ problems at this point as it doesn’t pose a current public health threat, especially now that the RECLAMATOR is available) Mark has done nothing except make a strong effort to befriend each and every one of you as the result of his own heart felt desire!
I had only met Mark Low one time prior to him electing to rally with me here to introduce the RECLAMATOR “again” to the County as the affordable, sustainable and common sense solution for Los Osos. With Mark, it is always more “heart” than money, even thought we all hope for economical opportunities. For those of you that don’t know, Mark Low is an heir of a family owned beef company and fortune.
Mark Low is ONLY here because he wants to be here. Maybe some of you are confused by some of the media but Mark Low is my associate and friend. Mark Low isn’t an AES employee, local or national. Mark is here because he knows what the RECLAMATOR represents to the future of water and the future of wastewater management. Because he has been in the wastewater industry, he has seen the “extortion” that is occurring and allowed by our regulatory authorities, and chose to try and do something to stop it; after all, it is the right thing to do, isn’t it?
Mark hadn’t been in the industry long enough to realize we have a governmental controlled force that is “preventing” the solution to preserving our water supplies as apposed to “promulgating” the solution as they are required to do per federal law until now. I have been in the industry for 35 years (the same age as the Clean Water Act amendment) since 1972; I have been a part of the onsite sector that has been totally suppressed just to keep this “extortion” movement by the engineering/regulatory community alive and well, at our expense. Technology has been around to meet the law in 1972 that would have eliminated this “discharge” problem in Los Osos if it had been “required” as per federal statute mandates. If you wish to gain a great understanding of the law, aka the Clean Water Act, which is in actuality the US Code, I will be glad to share my annotated working version which is 2MB and about 350 pages, just request a copy. You, as well as certian regulatory authorities, could obviously use it. It may also be able to be seen at www.nowastewater.com.
If you have a problem with my technology, my companies, or my integrity, please be either “man enough” or “woman enough” to contact me directly leaving your name. Of course so that everybody knows the one who has such a “founded” disposition about an individual who simply is sincere in their purpose for supporting the Community of Los Osos to do the RIGHT thing which will represent a community savings of over $200 million plus dollars? If you can’t trust this guy, who would one trust?
As I said before and will say it again, those of you who want to pay the County for their sewer project, please feel free to do so. However, as for me and my clients, we will use the RECLAMATOR and will file a class action suite against anyone who attempts to assess our properties with a tax to pay for a publicly provided non-mandatory sewer utility when there is no law which requires a home owner to 1) produce sewage, and 2) pay for any utility of option which he has no need for. The RECLAMATOR clients have no need for a sewer connection as we have no sewage as we are reclaiming/repurifying 100% of our own water which we have right to 100% consumptive use of. Any “required hook-up” would only result in a great expense to the County as I will charge for my water if it crosses my client’s property boundary to the County collection system. It is the law, California Water Code 13050. The water produced by the Reclamator is my resource of value that I have dedicated back to my client for his beneficial reuse applications as needed. Anyone besides my client will purchased if taken from my client’s property, no matter who it is.
The big bad wolf just keeps a huffin and a puffin threatening to force a hook-up. However, the RECLAMATOR produces “water” not “waste”, just fact. A ”forced hook-up” wouldn’t be a bad thing for AES or its clients, it would only be a bad thing for the County. The money AES would charge the County for its “new water” produced by the RECLAMATOR would enable AES to provide free service to its clients, works for us.
I will be glad to address your every question. You must leave your name though.
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy
PS. Shame on “who ever you are”!
AND, I would love for you to accept an offer to debate your issues in public with me. Got it in ya? I have the media who would love to cover it…………waiting………
... but be sure to send away the man who is ashamed of his name. ...

And now, a note about Best Technology from McPherson . . .

Unfortunately the Best available technology represented by the firm is equating "BEST" to "the one and only" thus saying his widget has to be selected, and this is just plain wrong. BAT consists of many technology solutions in the market place to meet the waste discharge requirements (WCR) which has (among others) numeric limits. The best available technology that is selected is determined on a case by case basis taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts, as well as ease of implementation or modification of existing technology in place.

There is absolutely no law that the Reclamator has to be selected over other technologies that also meet the WDR simply based on the fact that it removes greatest level of pollutants. The waste discharge requirements are established to fully protect the designated beneficial uses, and these limits include several levels of safety factors when established and applied to the watershed and receiving water. Again, only the level that is determined as fully protective to the beneficial uses is required. The Reclamator cannot be forced on the customer, because it goes beyond the WDR, whether it be a government wastewater agency, or private citizen----- period.

AES can demonstrate that it is in fact one option to meet a WDR, and then the customer has the right to choose among others that also meet the WDR. Again this is determined on a case by case basis taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts, as well as ease of implementation or modification of existing technology in place. If the WDR became more stringent, as they do from time to time, then the selection would again be determined by that criteria, and not beyond it.

Hope this helps clarify.


While Julie Tacker added this into the mix

Mark and Tom,
I have asked this paramount question before...how does your system get the farmers off the basin? The farms are using 800-950 afy and it is a community/sustainability goal to see them using treated waste water instead of fresh water from the lower aquifer (aka "in lieu recharge"). Your on site system does not pipe treated water out to the farms. Estimates are $3-$5 million in pipe alone, pumping, distribution and management i.e. incentives = money are also not included in your plan.
Los Osos is not necessarily building a waste water system for "clean up" or for the RWQCB, Los Osos needs a system for basin management. Capture the waste water, treat it and utilize it throughout the basin.
Again, as I've also stated before, your system does not factor that Los Osos landscapes are ONLY using 30% of the water pumped (still too much, in my opinion) but, your reuse scheme leaves too much for outdoor use. We do not want to encourage artificial habitats with additional water.
Your reuse scheme does not recharge the LOWER aquifer. The lower aquifer is what is in jeopardy. There are only select locations within the basin that treated waste water can be introduced back to the lower aquifer, how does an on site system get it to those places (distribution/managemenet = money)? It doesn't. Thus, I continue to support a central collection system over decentralized/on site systems.
Julie Tacker



To which, I can only observe,
Under the County’s “process,” the community is supposed to be given a professional, scientifically valid “survey” as to which system being brought forward we want to “buy.” For the sake of argument, let’s say somebody somewhere finally ruled that on-site systems in the PZ actually were legal and allowed and did not require any permit under whatever laws are applicable, providing they met certain “discharge” criteria. And let’s also suppose, for the sake of argument, the county could not legally force someone with an onsite system to hook up to the sewer if they had an onsite system that wasn’t “discharging,” whatever that means, what then?

The collection pipe is the costliest component of all, so if the community were checkerboarded with Wanna Hook-ups next to Don’t Wanna-Hook ups, the price tag for the Wanna Hook-ups would be astronomical – truly unaffordable. Now that would be a really weird scenario.

But then, let’s suppose it came down to choosing between an onsite system that didn’t require RWQCB “permits” (which can be made to be waaaaayyyy more expensive than even the most expensive, gold-plated community collection system), and several community systems,-- i.e. STEP or gravity-- and a majority of the community surveyed said, “Naw, don’t want onsite for $200 a month. I want gravity for $300 a month because I hate septic tanks.”

What then? Would the Board choose an onsite system (cheapest) or go with a community system?

Suppose it were reversed, and the survey showed the majority saying, “Gimme that onsite system for $300 a month. Beneficial reuse of my own water pencils out to about equal costs anyway, so it’ll will end up about the same, so I don’t want to tear up the streets for nothing. Don’t want any community collection system for $200 a month.”

And, of course, how would an onsite system recharge the lower aquifer without some kind of deliberate effort to move water to various sites where it could get down there? Which would mean well drilling and water pipe laying to move the water which would mean mo’ money.

Gets crazy, doesn’t it?

Well, at this point, all this is moot. Until a judge somewhere rules on the assertion that the Reclamator (or other onsite systems) don’t “discharge,” or that the PZ is artificially nuts and the word Zero Discharge is equally nuts when the plan was always to DISCHARGE wastewater back into the PZ aquifers, & etc, then the county evaluation will chug ahead on a community wide system and the alternatives will also get a hearing, i.e. Pio Pico’s Purple Pipe Cluster system and/or Murphy’s Reclamator & etc. .

And the War of the Words will continue. Aren’t “public” email threads, uh, fun? You never know who’s reading them or who’s writing them, or where they’ve been or where they’re going or where they’ll end up.

And, once again, when dealing with “Anonnymice,” caveat everybody. While this debate plays out, I hope everyone will keep their eyes on the ball. There’s lots of slips between cup and lip and it’s critical than nobody make any missteps.

And stay tuned.

Lights! Camera! Action! I’m ready for my close up, Mr. DeMille.

Yep, The Los Osos 45, those hapless citizens targeted and threatened and harassed and jerked around for the past 18 months by the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Mad Hatter Tea Party Kangaroo Court & Auto de Fe Public Hanging, have now gone public themselves. Here’s several press releases from PZLDF, with a link to the Insider Exclusive interview, and the Morro Bay Sun Bulletin “Viewpoint.”

In the Insider Exclusive interview is a clip of Matt Thompson, staff of the RWQCB, answering a direct question during one of the hearings by replying that he guessed he didn't think things through. Didn't think things through.

For anyone who sat through the apalling Mad Hatter Kangaroo Court Tea Party, Auto de Fey Hanging, Mad Pumping Scheme, Constantly Morphing Move The Goal Posts , More Tea! More Tea! Move Down! Move Down! CDO & CAO hearings, that phrase needs to be chisled in stone in letters twelve feet high and placed outside the offices of the State Water Board in Sacramento and in front of the RWQCB's offices on Aerovists Place here in SloTown. I guess we didn't think things through.

"Watch The Citizens for Clean Water" TV Show on The Insider Exclusive http://www.insiderexclusive.com/los_osos.htm

What happened in Los Osos is more than fighting over where to put a sewer. This story highlights several unprecedented actions including the FIRST default in the EPA CLEAN WATER ACT delegated State Revolving Fund Program. The default by the State Water Resources Control Boards' compromised money lending practices leads right to the Governors office.
This story goes to the heart of a broken system where regulators that were put in place to protect Americans are captured by the very industry they were meant to police. The SWRCB regulatory oversight and approval process stood by and enabled large consulting firms a free hand to fleece the community.

After voters stopped the highest per capita project in favor of a lower cost system, enforcement meant for industry was slapped against 46 randomly selected individual homeowners. Told they could lose their homes if they didn't hook up to a sewer --that doesn't exist, and required to "vote the right way" for an assessment, they are threatened with retroactive fines up to $5000 per day since 1988- The regional and state water boards have set dangerous precedents for coercion and regulatory takings in Los Osos.

A coastal comunity on the Central Coast half way between San Francisco and Los Angeles, most suspect the enforcement and bloated sewer project costs are designed for gentrification of coastal communities. Voters forced to self assess a minimum of $25,000 each, through liens on their homes will force over 30 percent from the community.

The citizens appeal filed last week in Superior court on November 20th by Citizens for Clean Water and the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund simply ask the court to vacate the Regional Water Boards punitive and misappropriated enforcement orders. The lawsuit, among other causes, challenges civil rights violations against the community and the 'sweeping under the rug' of the wrong-doing of the SWRCB board and industry consultants.

The California State Water Board money managing debacle, and the Regional Water Board’s enforcement against individuals with legally permitted and fully functioning septic systems, has always threatened a clean process for a sewer project. The California Governors' signing message bullies the families in the community to recover mishandled state and federal funds from Cal-EPA State Revolving Fund loan program. The lack of the up front studies on actual zones of improvement based on science, application of affordability criteria, and cost saving alternatives already developed, is a glaring example of the tainting of the project through continuation of the misplaced State Water Resources Control Board enforcement and retaliatory actions by water board officials against the citizens of Los Osos.

And further:


The appeal is the 1st amended petition filed last week in Superior court on November 20th simply seeks the courts to vacate the punitive and misappropriated enforcement [Note: the lawsuit can be viewed at the http://www.pzldf.org/ website, along with other documents and general information] The lawsuit, among other causes, challenges civil rights violations against the community and the 'sweeping under the rug' of the wrong-doing of the SWRCB board and industry consultants.

The viewpoint [below] in the Sun bulletin's addition of the Tribune explains the appeal of water board actions. The water board directed their staff to vacate the 46 random orders against homeowners, and to level the enforcement field. They have refused, and in fact the staff report to the board appears to saber rattle for placing orders on all 4400 homes, even with the overwhelming passage of the 218 assessment vote for $127 million.

The enforcement has always threatened a clean process for the County project. The governors signing message to bully the community for the State's mistakes, the lack of the up front studies on actual zones of improvement, affordability, and cost saving alternatives already developed, is a glaring example of the tainting of the project through continuation of the misplaced enforcement and retaliatory actions by water board officials against the citizens of Los Osos.

Protect your homes and future.

Citizens For Clean Water-PZLDF
PO Box 6095 Los Osos 93412
805-534-1913





The Sun Bulletin Viewpoint:

NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH A 218 LAWSUIT--- Los Osos citizens’Legal actions to overturn water board enforcement against individual homes is NOT a SEWER LAWSUIT. In fact the petition to vacate the enforcement is NOT ABOUT THE SEWER. It is foremost and purely defensive lawsuit in behalf of individuals and the entire community.

The Los Osos homeowner’s legal appeal stops the regulatory abuses by the water board that has resulted in dangerous and unprecedented violations of individual constitutional & statutory rights.

The seriousness of the retaliatory actions by the water board against voters should concern everyone with property in Los Osos because it violates the water board mandates, and the civil rights of law abiding citizens. (and no one is asking for the right to pollute!)

It is true the water board could vacate the punitive orders at any time, but have thus far refused, making the citizen lawsuit mandatory. There will be another chance to vacate orders promised by the appointed members of the Regional Water Board, December 6-7, 2007, however staff has flatly refused, even with the recent passage of the 218 funding assessment.

In the post recall hearings against the Los Osos district, the record shows executive director Roger Briggs intended to “fine them out of existence” responding to calls from opponents to the newly elected board. The water board stated their justification for going after individuals was “the district is the same entity as the voters.” However, the same records show the water board always had the power to continue the sewer project, but instead justified punishing individuals. The ‘first 50’ were randomly selected by the water board and intended as an example to frighten and intimidate the voters.

The first Cease and Desist Orders were issued to the county in 1983, and apply to the lead agency for the project. Today that is the county. Incidentally, those with individual orders have approved, properly working, and legally permitted onsite septic systems. You guessed it, county approved systems.

Today the original 46 individual stop orders are equivalent to convictions, with a suspended sentence until 2011, or earlier if there is a 218 failure, or project delays. The Water Board can impose fines up to $5000 per day, and criminal liability with referral of individuals to the attorney general for further prosecution as they see fit. The orders do nothing to remedy water quality, and force a few to bear the burden of defending the entire community.

The reports of enforcement abeyance are false. Notices of violation have been sent to all properties in the Prohibition Zone. On May 11 two more orders were issued, and the Water Board stated all homes could be subject to fines retroactive to 1988, without the need to put Cease and Desist Orders in place.

The Superior Court Appeal filed by Sullivan and Associates is based on the unprecedented enforcement that raises constitutional issues of unequal treatment, violation of due process, violation of the 5th and 6th amendments, selective enforcement, environmental justice, and a lack of direct evidence against the individual properties. Stop orders have the long term effect of "taking" private property, restricting the ability to sell, mortgage or rent property.

The very basis of the enforcement has been a moving target, as Resolution 83-13 has been reinterpreted by prosecution staff during the hearings from what was adopted in 1983. This is also true for the arbitrarily drawn “line in the sand” called the Prohibition Zone. The records indicate this zone was never intended to be a scientifically precise discharge remediation area and is challenged in the lawsuit. (The remediation benefits are also apparently the subject of a 218 challenge as well by another group).

Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) was founded to support Los Osos neighbors under regulatory attack who needed assistance. Some said the regulatory hearings make the IRS seem user friendly. The group has spent nearly two years of work to protect property and individual rights contained in the lawsuit. The Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF formed as is non-profit organization that supports compliance with the water board regulations, and a sustainable project for Los Osos.

If you are a citizen of California you need to stop the regulatory abuses and help with the lawsuit. Please send a donation in any amount to PZLDF 6095 Los Osos Ca. 93412 or online at http://www.pzldf.org/.
Or Sullivan & Associates-A Law Corporation 2238 Bayview Heights Drive, Suite C Los Osos, CA 93402 (805) 528-3366.

Ooops, the Behinder I Get . .



The following press release came in Wednesday, but what with all my pre-Turkey Day rushing around, didn't get it posted. A caveat for some folks who comment on this blog: This lawsuit has nothing to do with the possible challenge to the 218 vote. It also has nothing to do with stopping or dereailing any project. The County is rapidly chugging along with that. But it does have everything to do with securing homeowners rights from the apallingly unfair harassament that was set in motion by the RWQCB's looney Mad Hatter Kangaroo Court Tea Party & Auto de Fe Public Hanging via the CDOs visted on the singled out Los Osos 45.

This was sent Wednesday, November 21, 2007 3:38 PM from the Citizens for Clean Water --- First Amended Petition

The Citizens for Clean Water (PZLDF)
The 1st amended Petition that was due November 20th was filed yesterday [. . . ] This consolidates the appeal of the additional enforcement orders that were issued in May, and the Notices of Violation that ALL homeowners recieved in June.
The viewpoint below was published in the Sun Bulletin today. It explains the lawsuit and the issues that led to where we are today.
Please, Support the Lawsuit.

NOT TO BE CONFUSED WITH A 218 LAWSUIT--- Los Osos citizens’Legal actions to overturn water board enforcement against individual homes is NOT a SEWER LAWSUIT. In fact the petition to vacate the enforcement is NOT ABOUT THE SEWER. It is foremost and purely defensive lawsuit in behalf of individuals and the entire community.

The Los Osos homeowner’s legal appeal stops the regulatory abuses by the water board that has resulted in dangerous and unprecedented violations of individual constitutional & statutory rights.

The seriousness of the retaliatory actions by the water board against voters should concern everyone with property in Los Osos because it violates the water board mandates, and the civil rights of law abiding citizens. (and no one is asking for the right to pollute!)

It is true the water board could vacate the punitive orders at any time, but have thus far refused, making the citizen lawsuit mandatory. There will be another chance to vacate orders promised by the appointed members of the Regional Water Board, December 6-7, 2007, however staff has flatly refused, even with the recent passage of the 218 funding assessment.

In the post recall hearings against the Los Osos district, the record shows executive director Roger Briggs intended to “fine them out of existence” responding to calls from opponents to the newly elected board. The water board stated their justification for going after individuals was “the district is the same entity as the voters.” However, the same records show the water board always had the power to continue the sewer project, but instead justified punishing individuals. The ‘first 50’ were randomly selected by the water board and intended as an example to frighten and intimidate the voters.

The first Cease and Desist Orders were issued to the county in 1983, and apply to the lead agency for the project. Today that is the county. Incidentally, those with individual orders have approved, properly working, and legally permitted onsite septic systems. You guessed it, county approved systems.

Today the original 46 individual stop orders are equivalent to convictions, with a suspended sentence until 2011, or earlier if there is a 218 failure, or project delays. The Water Board can impose fines up to $5000 per day, and criminal liability with referral of individuals to the attorney general for further prosecution as they see fit. The orders do nothing to remedy water quality, and force a few to bear the burden of defending the entire community.

The reports of enforcement abeyance are false. Notices of violation have been sent to all properties in the Prohibition Zone. On May 11 two more orders were issued, and the Water Board stated all homes could be subject to fines retroactive to 1988, without the need to put Cease and Desist Orders in place.

The Superior Court Appeal filed by Sullivan and Associates is based on the unprecedented enforcement that raises constitutional issues of unequal treatment, violation of due process, violation of the 5th and 6th amendments, selective enforcement, environmental justice, and a lack of direct evidence against the individual properties. Stop orders have the long term effect of "taking" private property, restricting the ability to sell, mortgage or rent property.

The very basis of the enforcement has been a moving target, as Resolution 83-13 has been reinterpreted by prosecution staff during the hearings from what was adopted in 1983. This is also true for the arbitrarily drawn “line in the sand” called the Prohibition Zone. The records indicate this zone was never intended to be a scientifically precise discharge remediation area and is challenged in the lawsuit. (The remediation benefits are also apparently the subject of a 218 challenge as well by another group).

Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) was founded to support Los Osos neighbors under regulatory attack who needed assistance. Some said the regulatory hearings make the IRS seem user friendly. The group has spent nearly two years of work to protect property and individual rights contained in the lawsuit. The Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF formed as is non-profit organization that supports compliance with the water board regulations, and a sustainable project for Los Osos.

If you are a citizen of California you need to stop the regulatory abuses and help with the lawsuit. Please send a donation in any amount to PZLDF 6095 Los Osos Ca. 93412 Or to Sullivan and Associates, A Law Corporation located at 2238 Bayview Heights Drive, Suite C Los Osos, CA 93402

Now, Put Down That Turkey Leg and Grab A Toy

Yep, went into my Los Osos Rob-A-Bank and also into Ralphs and saw the Toys For Tots boxes sitting there. I'm sure they're also around town in other places. So, if you have any unwrapped toys for kids, do drop them off. Lotta kids have a tough lot in life, so the least we can all do is make sure a kid gets at least one nice toy for Christmas.

Also coming up fast, the Morro Bay Lighted Boat Parade on Saturday, the 1st, which, of course, conflicts with the Vocal Arts Christmas performance at the SLO Mission, and, I'm sure lots of other wonderful programs and performances. Ah, too much to do, so little time to do it in.
But, no matter what, be sure to pencil in as a Don't Miss, our own World Famous Los Osos Christmas Parade. Home town fun at its finest.

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, SLO, CA, for November 23, 2007


Good Enough

The name was just out of reach, whispering up from the L.A. Times story on the nomination and confirmation of Michael Mukasey to take over duties as the nation’s Top Cop. The paper noted that Senators Feinstein and Schumer praised Mukasey as someone who “ . . . would be a powerful antidote for the Justice Department, still reeling from Gonzales’ two-year, politically charged tenure.”

But it was deja vu that flickered in my mind when Senator Schumer, who, with Feinstein, broke Democratic ranks to vote on confirming Mukasey’s nomination, observed: “Judge Mukasey is not my ideal choice . . . “ but he was “. . . far better than anyone could expect from this administration.”

And in a separate Viewpoint editorial in the Times, I began seeing everything twice when Senator Feinstein added: “I believe Judge Mukasey is the best nominee we are going to get from this administration and that voting him down would only perpetuate acting and recess appointments, allowing the White house to avoid the transparency that confirmation hearings provide and to diminish effective oversight by Congress.”

It was then that the ghost of G. Harrold Carswell rose from the morning paper.

For those of you too young to remember, in 1970 President Nixon nominated Judge Carswell for a slot on the Supreme Court. During the confirmation hearings, it soon became clear that Mr. Carswell was, --Oh, dear, how can I put this?-- outstandingly mediocre, shall we say? Indeed, so many people at the time pointed out just how outstandingly mediocre Mr. Carswell was that Senator Hruska had to rise to the good Judge’s defense by observing that since there were “ . . . a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers . . . they [were] “entitled to a little representation” on the court, too.

It was a reverse Lake Wobegon effect, and also a guffawing, coffee-through-the-nose moment. And here we are again, only this time we’re faced with a whole administration of mediocre incompetents. On the other hand, since a good chunk of America consists of bungling mediocrities, then like Carswell, this administration is surely representing that constituency very well indeed.

But is “good enough” really . . . good enough?

In addition, one of the key sticking points on Judge Mukasey is that he is apparently having a hard time figuring out whether he believes waterboarding is “torture,” and if it is, is it “illegal.”

His careful dance around the word isn’t mere semantics or politics. The Washington Post noted that “[waterboarding] dates at least to the Spanish Inquisition and has been prosecuted as torture in U.S. Military courts since the Spanish American War. . . . “ and “. . .after WWII, the United States prosecuted Japanese officers who presided over waterboarding as war criminals.”


So, why would that be a critical point for Mukasey? According to the Washington Post again, “Officials have said the Bush administration authorized the use of waterboarding on at least three prisoners kept in secret detention by the CIA after the Justice Department [i.e. the clueless and bungling and now gone Alberto Gonzales] said it was legal . . .”

Oops. And therein is Congress’ dilemma. Do they confirm as top cop a man whom some senators think may not be the best choice, but is the best we can expect, a man who, if he states that waterboarding is torture and hence illegal, would be forced by his oath of office to pursue, for alleged war crimes, folks in the very administration who nominated him in the first place? Or do they let him skate on defining torture now, then quickly pass a new law after his confirmation that (post facto) defines waterboarding as torture, thereby letting the administration off the legal hook – can’t prosecute someone for past “crimes” that weren’t exactly “crimes,” now can you?

Well, no Shinning City on a Hill, no Best and Brightest for us. Nosir! Not in the Land of Carswellian Good Enough, home of an administration whose torture orders on “rendered” suspects has already put them in the same company as Pol Pot.

Which, when you come to think of it, really is a “Heck of A Job, Brownie, a Heck of a Job!”

RWQCB to All of Los Osos and The Los Osos 45

Here’s the meat of the RWQCB Staff Report for the Regional Board Meeting on December 7, 2007 at Aerovista Place, SLOTown. The staff report should be posted on the Waterboard site.

Because of the lawsuit filed by Shauna Sullivan on behalf of some of the Los Osos 45 (in reality on behalf all the homeowners in the PZ), the Advisory Team “recommends against scheduling a hearing to consider the Cease and Desist Orders . . ..” The Water Board can schedule regular closed sessions to discuss the ongoing litigation regarding the Cease and Desist Orders and settlement agreements and to base its decision on scheduling a hearing on the closed session legal discussions.”

Translation? NO action for the 45. They’ll be left hanging in the wind. Also, NO action concerning the rest of the homeowners in the PZ. They’re also left hanging in the wind.

Noted “staff”, “There is no compelling reason to rescind the Cease and Desist Orders and settlement agreements at this time. The Orders and settlement agreements do not require any burdensome actions now or in the near future. Parties subject to the Orders and settlement agreements are not treated differently with respect to the recent 218 assessment. The orders and settlement agreements may have a negative affect on property values; however, this possibility was known prior to adoption and is not a reason to rescind them.”

And, while rescinding the Orders “would be a good will gesture to the community considering the 218 assessment vote,” because of the Sullivan lawsuit and a possible challenge to the 218, there is “the very real possibility that attempts will be made to derail the project again.”

Translation? Bleep you, community. No “good will” for you. And if you 45 suffer property value loss (unlike your neighbor, say), well, Bleep you as well. You, dear homeowner in the PZ will remain in the gunsights of the RWQCB since the County does not have this project, the CSD does not have this project and while you, Dear homeowner may have voted overwhelmingly to support the 218, the RWQCB will not allow you to install any onsite systems to solve the problem they’re threatening you with and you individually have absolutely no power to build a community project yourself, but that doesn’t matter – You’ve been deliberately trapped in a Catch 22 and your home is still threatened and under the gun.

And finally, “the Water Board should not schedule a hearing to consider the Cease and Desist Orders and settlement agreements without first meeting in closed session to discuss the ongoing litigation. Multiple closed sessions hearings may be necessary as the court case progresses.”
PLUS this recommendation, “Regarding future enforcement actions, if any, the prosecution Team has indicated its intent to take enforcement action against all residents simultaneously. "

. . . And, “If the Prosecution Team proceeds with enforcement actions in the future, the Advisory Team my pursue the option of “paper” hearings, which means the enforcement actions would be processed entirely via written submittals, and there would be no oral hearings before the Water Board. This is a legally appropriate approach and would facilitate relatively promptly processing of the approximately 4,500 cases.”

Translation? The RWQCB has not stood down, has no intention of standing down, will not even bother with due process rights for individual homeowners, and the STAFF can, at any time, slap CAO’s on you – no hearings – and instantly retroactively fine you up to $5,000 a day since 1983 and/or institute criminal proceedings against you, anytime they wish, with Zip due process.

which is why at least some people think that Sullivan’s attempt to make sure that homeowners in this community at least get their due process rights heard in a “real court” and hopefuly protected by real judges following real laws is an important undertaking?

And for all of you in this community who think you’re “safe.” Think again.


And now, What’s Wrong With This Picture?

Front page story in the Tribune. Friends and family members of a young man killed in an accident at the Ocean Dune State Vehicular Recreation Area in 2006 expressed anger that the man being held responsible for the accident only got “30 days in County Jail and two years of probation and 200 hours of community service.” Mr. Evans pleaded”no contest to vehicular manslaughter without gross negligence, a misdemeanor.” And “No evidence showed [Evans] was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, attorneys for both sides acknowledge.”

The accident was caused when a truck being driven by Sean Evans, 25, went flying off a dune and crash landed on top of a multi-passenger ATV filled with four people that was on the other side of the steep dune, and so out of sight of Mr. Evans. One of the passengers in the ATV, Jerry Carter, 27, was killed.

I can certainly understand the sorry that the family of Jerry Carter must feel. He leaves a widow and two small children behind. But here’s where I’m having trouble with this story:

The whole point of the Oceano Dune Vehicular Recreation Area is to get in cars and trucks and tippy ATVs and go roaring up and over huge sand dunes – shifty and unpredictable terrain at best – often flying up and over the top at high speeds. There is no posted speed limit in most riding places, no spotters at the top of the dunes to warn a rider that there’s something or someone at the bottom or whether the wind has undercut the tip, thereby guaranteeing a bit a airborne flight and possibly a rollover.

In short, the Dunes is a very dangerous place where about 300 people a year are injured – some permanently – and every year, like clockwork, the headlines announce a death or two. And who knows how munch grief and loss and expense will haunt families forever. All for a few hours of pleasure zooming dangerously about a dangerous place.

Yet the friends and family of Jerry Carter want Sean Evans put in prison and punished more, apparently overlooking the sad fact that in an eyeblink their dead son could just as easily have been the one who killed Evans and so would end up in the dock facing prison time.

That’s just how arbitrary, risky and dangerous the Dunes can be – lives can be ruined in an eyeblink. Yet how many people who are regular users will tolerate various safety rules and limits that could make the place less lethal? After all, isn’t the whole point of the place the thrill that comes with that danger?

Of course, when things go wrong, everyone is then very sorry and will then spend the rest of their lives in the hell of hindsight and regret, living in the dark land o . . . If Only . . .


Plus, Let’s Hear From The Department of BWA-HAHAHAHAHAH


I love this one. Story in the Nov 20 L.A. Times: “Critics reject claims of GOP health proposals: Cancer survivors – like Giuliani, McCain and Thompson – might no be able to get coverage.”

The GOP candidates are touting various health plans to ‘fix” the mess we’re in now, but it turns out that if these fine candidates didn’t already have their very nice taxpayer-paid health coverage and to go get health coverage on their own – you know, like millions of regular Americans have to do every year – it’s likely they would be denied or, if offered any plans, those plans would be highly restricted as to what would be covered or be too expensive except for the richest among us. (Which, of course, wouldn’t be a problem for these three, but sure would be a problem for normal folks.)

Why? Well, all three of these men are cancer survivors and in the insurance industry, cancer survivors are NOT welcome, and often not welcome at any price.

Continues the Times story, “All three have offered proposals with the stated aim of helping the 47millionpeople in the U.S. who have no health insurance, including those with preexisting medical conditions.

“But under the plans all three have put forward, cancer survivors such as themselves could not be sure of getting coverage – especially if they were not already covered by a government or job-related plan and had to seek insurance as individuals.

“Unless it’s in a state that has very strong consumer protections, they would likely be denied coverage,” said economist Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, who has reviewed the candidates proposals. “People would not be able to get coverage or would not be able to afford it. “

Adds, Karen Pollitz,”a Georgetown University research professor who specializes in the field, “Most companies won’t touch you if you have a cancer history within five years, and with some companies . . . if you’ve ever had cancer, you can’t get coverage.”

And there’s the problem – legislators and presidential candidates who have very nice tax-payer financed health coverage presuming that their nice policies are available for everyone. Clearly, these three boys have NO IDEA of what real people face in the real Insurance world.

Adds “Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a health policy research group, “ People who advocate the individual market have a lot of work to do to explain how they are going to get better results than we get today. . . . One of the ironies is that that takes regulation by government and Repulbicans running in the primaries don’t like to talk about that.”

Well, let’s hope regular people can connect some dots. Meantime, millions of Mexicans head north looking for jobs and a better life, things sadly in short supply in their badly mismanaged oligarchic country. So, I keep waiting for millions of Canadians to start fleeing their country to come south to America so they can get better health care than their system allows. So far, I don’t see them coming. What’s the problem? Don’t they know we have the best health care system in the world?

And Now, Some Clarification, Please

I got the following email Press Release from Jeff Edwards. There follows my email request for clarification, followed by Scott Anastasi’s reply. In the world of Press Releases, where “spin” is the name of the game, sometimes clarification really does matter. My thanks to Scott for that clarification. Sometimes a gift really is a gift, which is why it’s important not to mix it up with things that are NOT gifts, such as mitigations and conditions.

Jeff’s email:

Los Osos-This Thanksgiving will be unlike any other in Los Osos thanks to the generosity of Anastasi Development Company, LLC. The local builder is donating a gift to the bayside community – a brand new decomposed granite sidewalk that will benefit the neighborhoods of Monarch Grove, Monarch Cove, Sunset Terrace, Cuesta by the Sea and provide a safe walkway for the school children going to Monarch Grove Elementary school and visitors to the Sea Pines Golf Resort along Pecho Road. For years locals have strolled through the eucalyptus tree lined roadway without the benefit of a safe path on this north/south artery. The trees have been trimmed, the path has been prepared and the gravel will be installed and compacted in the days before Thanksgiving, just in time to walk off that turkey and pumpkin pie. This improvement is one of the many gifts Anastasi Development Company has given as part of their commitment to the community of Los Osos over the past 10 years. Most memorable of which was the Monarch Grove Butterfly Preserve on the western edge of the community, a gift of approximately 18 acres of preserved habitat that remains a destination for nature lovers. Anastasi Development Company, a Redondo Beach-based firm with a strong sense of community and dedication as an exemplary corporate citizen. Founded in 1962, Anastasi builds each and every home with passion for excellence and enduring value. It’s for this simple commitment to excellence that so many of Anastasi homeowners come back as repeat buyers.For more information feel free to contact Scott Anastasi, Anastasi Development Company, LLC - 511 Torrance Blvd, Ste. 200, Redondo Beach, CA 90277, 310-376-8077 extension 265, cell 310-567-3866, or ScottAnastasi@Anastasi.com.

My reply:

Hi, Jeff. Thanks for the Press Release. One question: Was the butterfly preserve you describe as a "gift" really part of the legally required mitigation to offset the impacts of cutting down most of the grove in order to build those additional homes in the "new" Monarch Grove development? Ditto for the new pathway you mention. Was that also part of the original mitigation requirements or is the path part of some mitigation requirements for some other development project somewhere else?

Thanks for any clarification.


Scott’s reply:

Hello, my name is Scott Anastasi. The butterfly habitat was a condition of approval of the Monarch Grove subdivision. Besides the dedication of the land, Anastasi Development worked closely with Dr. Kingston Leong [Cal Poly biologist] to create and endow the habitat.
The new pathway is not part of any project or any mitigation requirements. Anastasi Development worked in conjunction with Sea Pines Golf Course to perform the work.
If you have any other questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Scott

There Ought To Be A Law.

Did you get the little post card from Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee inviting citizens to participate in the “There Ought To Be A Law” Contest? He wants to know what type of bills you, dear and gentle citizen, might like to see written into law. You can submit your ideas online to http://www.assembly.ca.gov/33 or can request a paper form by calling his District Office at (805) 549-3381.

Well, here’s my suggestion:

Dear Sam,

As you – of all people – should know, the State Water Board and the various Regional Water Quality Boards they’re supposed to be overseeing, could best be described as “The Wolf Guards The Back Of The Fox While He Eats The Chickens In The Coop.”

In short, the present system of regulators administering the Porter Cologne Act, for example, has no real system of checks and balances in place. This allows a lead agency and a subordinate agency to screw up big time, for example, and instead of an outside system of neutral checks that would allow the screw up to be fixed (or, better yet, caught in a timely manner before too much damage can be done), we have both agencies covering up and guarding each other’s backs. And they conduct the cover up at the expense and to the peril of regular citizens who have no real recourse or relief, since few of them can afford the gazillions of dollars needed to get protection from this abuse of power from the “real” courts. (Not to mention that too often “real” courts too readily bow to the might and power of corrupted state agencies, leaving individuals with no protections whatsoever.)

I know my proposed “Ought to be a law” will cause you to blow coffee out of your nose with laughter, because you – of all people – know that when it comes to “water” and “Sacramento” the controlling phrase is this: “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.”

And that he who forgets those words will mysteriously (no fingerprints) find his political career and ambitions ruined totally. But then you – of all people – know that already, don’t you?

But, hey, you asked, so, there’s my Ought to be a Law suggestion.

And The Sewer Project Goes To . . .

In my Nov 8 blog entry, A Mouse Tail , I stated, “ . . . . but you thought the RWQCB “stood down.” Which means you think these people [The Los Osos 45] are “safe” from CDOs and CAO prosecution. You think that because of the 218 vote, the County “has” this project so you’re in the clear.

“Errrrnnkkk, not even close. The RWQCB didn’t “stand down.” The County doesn’t have this project (and won’t have it until the BOS votes to accept it, somewhere waaaayyy down the line) Which means, dear and gentle Homeowners of the PZ, YOU and your home have never left the RWQCB’s cross hairs.”

Well, after posting that, some folks logged on to comment that I had rocks in my head, that the County DID have this project, that a (unnamed) Supervisor said they had the project and so forth. So, I emailed Paavo Ogren to ask him a couple of questions: (1). Did the county have the project? And (2) if it does, “what does it intended to do about The Los Osos 45? They’re still left hanging in the wind . . .”

Here’s Paavo’s reply and my partial reply to his reply. For the folks who claimed I had rocks in my head, sorry, not this time. To the anonymous poster who claimed a Supervisor TOLD him directly that the County DID have the project, please, please contact that Supervisor and send him a copy of Paavo’s email. Clearly, the Supervisor is gravely misinformed, which is soooo not good.

Paavo’s email is followed by one from the Staff of the RWQCB and an e-mail from Gail McPherson sent to Mr. Thomas in response to his email concerning the Dec. 7th agenda.

Read it and weep, Dear and Gentle Homeowner. The Mad Hatter Tea Party Continues Down The Rabbit Hole. Then scroll further below, to the Nov 8 entry, and re-read A Mouse Tail.

Paavo’s reply:

Ann
We need to go through the "due diligence" efforts that are included in AB2701 before the Board of Supervisors considers the formal resolution totake on the project or not. Also, the County cannot begin levyingassessments (making people pay) before that resolution and the duediligence period.

John can help with the details on our upcoming work that will include duediligence, EIR efforts, CDP efforts, technology and site selection, and theresolution.Hope this helps.

Paavo OgrenDeputy Public Works Director

And my partial reply:

Thanks. I also asked about the Los Osos 45, and since you didn't address that, am I correct in assuming that the answer is -- The county can do nothing for them since . . . the County doesn't have the project?. So they're still left twisting in the wind?

And now, an official email from the staff of your local, friendly RWQCB, concerning the December 7th, meeting.

From: Michael Thomas : Tuesday, November 13, 2007 3:24 PM
Subject: December 7 Water Board meeting

The next Water Board meeting is on December 7, in San Luis Obispo. The agenda will be mailed this Friday. There will be a Los Osos information item on the agenda, but it will not be a hearing. The Board will discuss the status of the enforcement actions and the County's process, and may give direction to staff, but will not take action on the CDOs at that time.

Thank you,
Michael Thomas


And now, some interesting comments from Gail McPherson to Michael Thomas regarding this missing agenda item. She reviewed the tapes of the meeting. I didn’t review any tapes, but I sure remember the last meeting. I remember the Board instructing staff to put this item on the Dec agenda so the Board could consider and be able to ACT (if they so chose) on The Los Osos 45’s CDOs and CAOs. (The October meeting didn’t give them enough time for an action item.)

Now, isn’t that funny, how that instruction apparently somehow just magically disappeared. Or an action item suddenly became merely an information item, which can’t be acted upon, but would have to be delayed until some other meeting waaaaayy in the future sometime, maybe., Oh, Darn, Sorry about that. Or, maybe the instructions all just went down a rabbit hole, along with the Mad Hatter. Which means, once again, dear and gentle PZ homeowner, you’re still – despite voting for 218 – in the RWQCB’s gunsights. And you thought the staff and Board would be doing the right thing. That you were “safe.” Think again. Since the County DOESN’T have this project, you’re IT.

(Oh, and need I remind you, some of the Los Osos 45 have hired Shauna Sullivan to file a lawsuit in order to try to secure their (and your) due process rights. If you think they (and you) deserve some help, then give Shauna a call.) .

McPherson’s email: (printed with permission)

Mr.Thomas

Mr _______sent me your message . . . [above] . . . concerning the December water board meeting . I had been looking for the Dec. agenda daily in anticipation of an action item to consider vacating the orders. It is my understanding that the board cannot take action to vacate the orders unless the action is noticed 30 days in advanced and those with the orders are noticed. I have reviewed the tape of the Sept 8 meeting at www.slospan.org the RWQCB staff was directed to do this, and said they didn't have enough time for the October meeting in Santa Barbara. The staff were then told to do it for the December meeting.

I don't understand why staff has refused.

Apparently with the overwhelming passage of the 218 assessment, the county project that is ahead of schedule, the individuals[in] full compliance with all the requirements of the orders- even prior to their issuance- has made no difference to the prosecution staff bent on punishing voters for the 2005 election, as promised.

I am sadly disappointed, and hope the board (and staff) will reconsider and agendize a special meeting to vacate the orders against individuals, level the playing field ASAP.

The Water Board attorney at meetings in May and September has alerted all property owners of their additional ongoing liability that is over and above the individual enforcement orders. He explained that each property could be prosecuted at any time for millions in potential fines for the alleged illegal discharges since 1988. Certainly with that risk and liability hanging over every property in Los Osos should be a sufficient threat to allow the Board to vacate the 46 special orders placed randomly on a few for added emphasis.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and please copy this to all the regional board members and SWRCB.

Gail McPherson




And Now For Something Truly Horrible.

News story recently informed us that the “Small World” ride in Disneyland will be closed for renovation. You remember that torture chamber, don’t you? You get into little boats and ride around from little minature cutzy-poo country to little miniature cutzy-pooo country while that hideous song, “It’s A Small World After All It’s A Small World After All It’s a Small World After All It’s A Small Small World It’s A Small World After All It’s A Small World After Alll It’s a Small World After All It’s A Small Small World,” peeps at them on a continuous feed loop, a torture much more effective and suitable for breaking Al Qaida suspects than waterboarding.

Well, it seems Americans and their children have gotten so fat that the little boats keep sinking lower and lower in the water until they get stuck on the bottom and staff as to come pry them off.

Instead of shutting down that appallingly hideous ride, the good folks at Disney are going to make deeper canals. Or floatier boats. And disappointed patrons being sent away were given . . . wait for it . . . yes .. . . . Food Coupons.

A Mouse Tail

The following little tale is from PZLDF. You know, The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund, the group that’s helping to support The Los Osos 45. You remember them? Oh, that’s right. You’ve forgotten those people. They were your friends and neighbors, but you thought the RWQCB “stood down.” Which means you think these people (and YOU) are “safe” from CDOs and CAO prosecution. You think that because of the 218 vote, the County” has” this project so you’re in the clear.

Errrrnnnkkk, not even close. The RWQCB didn’t “stand down.” The County doesn’t have this project (and won’t have it until the BOS votes to accept it, somewhere waaaayyy down the line) Which means, dear and gentle Homeowners of the PZ, YOU and your home have never left the RWQCB’s cross hairs.

Which becomes especially troubling when you stop to think what will happen to YOU if there are “delays” due to lawsuits or other serious issues, over which you have no control. True, the Board used the CDO's as a coercive method to get a favorable 218 vote, but it's also true that YOU, dear PZ homeowner, are the only ones in this game that they can get their hands on to "punish" if anything goes wrong. Yes, the recent vote made it clear that even though you voted overwhelmingly to support a project, you're still in the RWQCB’s abusive gunsights. The county isn’t. They don’t have this project, so they’re off the hook and to date the county has done nothing to help get YOU, dear homeowner, off the hook either. You're it.

Which means that YOU who voted to support a project but YOU who personally cannot possibly build a sewer plant yourself, YOU, who are forbidden by the RWQCB in one of their more specious Hobson’s Choice moves, to do anything BUT hook up to a sewer plant, (no onsites allowed, remember?) YOU stand to lose YOUR home –not the county – so long as this abusive Mad Hatter case stands.

And if you missed the Nov 6 Tribune story, PZLDF with attorney Shauna Sullivan was in Judge Barry LaBarbera’s courtroom recently. Sullivan represents both the folks filing the suit and the CSD in attempting to secure due process rights in this whole Mad Hatter Tea Party/Torquemada Auto de Fe ACL/CDO process started by the RWQCB nearly two years ago. The ISSUES at hand are ones that affect everyone in the PZ. Everyone.

To get an idea of the weirdness of this case, consider just one small point: Sullivan wants to amend her original case but to do so she needs the Official Record of the original ACL/CDO hearings. Problem? The RWQCB claims that she doesn’t need that record because it’s all online (not true) or can be looked at by going down to the office, Monday – Friday and plowing through boxes and boxes of documents.

Problem with that? As anyone who has sat through those Mad Hatter hearings can tell you, nobody in hell knows what was put into the Official Record or taken out or put in then taken out, or taken out then put back in, or partially taken out with only certain segments put back in or . . . . And since the goal posts kept morphing and moving as the original case bit the dust, then was changed and restarted, with the board’s attorney’s absolutely spooked at the possibility of something getting into that record they didn’t want to get in there, hence the parsing and snipping and in-out-in? No-out insanity, only God himself knows what was carried over, what got dumped. And things posted on the website kept disappearing, leaving everyone asking, WHAT “official record?”

So what’s the problem? Only stuff in the Official Record can ever come into a “real” court of law.

That’s the problem. Control the record, control the case. Deny the record, control the case. And that old standby, Morph the record, Delay the record, Muddle the record, Deny the record, run out the clock, and “win.”

But, wait, it gets better: In the courtroom, Sullivan was told that PZLDF could “buy” the record (they did and if you’d like to help pay for that cost, see the PZLDF address below) and it would be delivered within 90 days (this after over a year of requests to get the record, all foot-dragged and foot-dragged, forcing her to go to court to get the judge to ORDER the RWQCB to prepare the record).

Problem with that? Sullivan has only 20 days to amend her pleadings on a record that won’t exist for another 90 days. Without knowing what is or isn’t in the Official Record, how, do you suppose, that is possible? Hire a psychic?

When they say Justice is blind, they’re not kidding. In this case, blind, deaf, dumb and truly mad. Yet that’s the “justice” YOU, dear and gentle PZ homeowner, are now under. You, me and The Los Osos 45, you remember? Those people you forgot because you thought they had no relation to YOU since – Ha-ha – they got the CDOs and you didn’t, so you think you’re in the clear? And “safe?” Well, think again.

A little tale:

A mouse looked through the crack in the wall to see the farmer and hiswife open a package. What food might this contain? The mouse wondered -he was devastated to discover it was a mousetrap. Retreating to the farmyard, the mouse proclaimed the warning: There isa mousetrap in the house! There is a mousetrap in the house! The chicken clucked and scratched, raised her head and said, ' Mr.Mouse, I can tell this is a grave concern to you, but it is of noconsequence to me. 'I cannot be bothered by it.' The mouse turned to the pig and told him, 'There is a mousetrap in thehouse! There is a mousetrap in the house!' The pig sympathized, but said, I am so very sorry, Mr. Mouse, but thereis nothing I can do about it but pray. 'Be assured you are in myprayers.' The mouse turned to the cow and said 'There is a mousetrap in thehouse! There is a mousetrap in the house!' The cow said, 'Wow, Mr. Mouse. I'm sorry for you, but it's no skin offmy nose.' So, the mouse returned to the house, head down and dejected, to facethe farmer's mousetrap alone. That very night a sound was heard throughout the house – like thesound of a mousetrap catching its prey. The farmer's wife rushed to seewhat was caught. In the darkness, she did not see it was a venomoussnake whose tail the trap had caught. The snake bit the farmer's wife.The farmer rushed her to the hospital, and she returned home with afever. Everyone knows you treat a fever with fresh chicken soup, so the farmer
took his hatchet to the farmyard for the soup's main ingredient. Buthis wife's sickness continued, so friends and neighbors came to sit withher around the clock. To feed them, the farmer butchered the pig. Thefarmer's wife did not get well; she died. So many people came for herfuneral, the farmer had the cow slaughtered to provide enough meat forall of them. The mouse looked upon it all from his crack in the wall with greatsadness. So, the next time you hear someone is facing a problem and think itdoesn't concern you, remember -- when one of us is threatened, we areall at risk. We are all involved in this journey called life. We mustkeep an eye out for one another and make an extra effort to encourageone another. Please help Los Osos stop the enforcement against individuals and to deliver a sustainable project.

Give now:
Citizens for Clean Water
www.pzldf.org
PO Box 6095 L.O. 03412

Look, Up In The Sky, That Guy In A Red Suit In A Sleigh!



Don't know how many of you folks in Sewerville have had a chance to attend the Community Music Series at The Red Barn (next to the Community Center on Palisades Ave and LOVR). If you haven't, you're missing an extraordinary program. Every first Saturday of the month (and often other dates as well) an amazing variety of musicians assemble. The shows start at 7 pm., with a ginormous potluck din-din starting at 6. Local groups play during the pot luck, with the featured musicians starting up at 7.



The music is a range of bluegrass, Latin folk, banjo, acoustic music of all stripes by a wide variety of outstanding artists. And the donation for all these amazing concerts is $10. The money raised goes to support music programs in the local schools (with many of the visiting artists giving school concerts to the kids while they're up here)



And now, they have GIFT CERTIFICATES available for the $10 donation. You can pick some up at the upcoming Sat Dec 1 show or call Jonas at 528-4530 to find out how you can get some.



It's the Perfect Holiday gift. It's not fattening (well, except for the pot luck pre-show din-din), you don't have to dust it, re-gift it, hide it in a closet or end up putting it out on your next garage sale table.

In short, The Perfect gift!

Ooooooo, Noooooooo!

Uh-oh, Sunday morning heart-attack time, again. Wander to the end of the driveway in my bathrobe, peer into the gloom of the dawn, listen to the muttering of the crows expecting their ration of dog kibble to be thrown out to them, pick up the Tribune and see the headline through the plastic wrapper: "To sue or not to sue over sewer?"

Gaaakkkkk!

Well, I posted the Protest Letter here a few days ago, the one sent by Mr. Timothy J. Morgan, the one listing a whole bunch of reasons why Mr. Morgan thought the recent 218 assessment vote might come under legal challenge, and then I noted that IF there were indeed serious legal issues, I hoped the County could sort them out ASAP.

According to the story, we'll know in two weeks whether the law firm will actually file suit. In the mean time, the County will chug along with the engineering/CEQA/technology selection stuff, so no time will be wasted, BUT I hope Mr. Morgan and the County's attorneys can have a little tet-a-tet sit-down to ask and answer The Basic Question:

What's The Problem . . . Really? Is it the PZ screwing up an equitable, fair, "benefits" vote? As noted in the story, "Chief among Morgan's arguments is that a sewer would not just benefit those who live in the so-called prohibition zone but all property owners in the coastal town. "

If the real problem is the PZ, and if we lived in a place where we had a sane Regional Water Quality Control Board, they would have realized YEARS AGO that the PZ was nothing more than a stumbling block ROCK IN THE ROAD and potential TRAIN WRECKER, and so they could have led the way to demand that they and the County update the Basin Plan YEARS AGO, thereby giving this area more flexibility in solving WATER problems and BENEFIT problems in a SANER manner YEARS AGO. But we don't have a sane RWQCB.

So, despite that lack, is there any chance of that happening now? Like maybe if the County & the RWQCB & Mr. Morgan all sit down for a little chattypoo and maybe realize that they all need to rethink this really, really quick or else there'll be ANOTHER trainwreck? If so, could it be done quickly enough to result in a new PZ that would include basin dwellers who -- ironically -- are now under the control of the RWQCB and the new state-wide AB885 rules, some of which can get onerous, indeed.

Or could AB885 be quickly co-joined to the PZ with a new RWQCB Resolution 83-14-07, and the 218 be then re-written to include all those folks falling under AB885 and thence we'd end up with a way to write a 218 that offered a more balanced "benefits" assessment on everyone? And if that happened, would everyone -- again -- vote Yes? (My guess is, yes, they would vote Yes, again.)

If there's no chance of that happening, and Mr. Morgan's issues are really, really serious, then I guess we can hope that the county can re-write the 218 and we can all vote -- again? And if it can be done while other things are clanking along, no harm, no foul.

If not . . . . Gaaaakkkkk. Well, stay tuned.

Library Day

Supervisor Gibson and a host of Library Folk and various Friends of Libraries and Cal Poly Students and a whole raft of bookish folk gathered Saturday at the Atascadero Lake Pavillion for a "Library Summit: Great Expectations 2007," a sort of convention/workshop/brainstorming session for people to network and create a vision statement for how we want our libraries throughout the countyto be in the future.

Among some of the more interesting presentions were power-points on various super-duper updated libraries in other cities, including the new Idea Store in London -- a completely modernized library that was a combo of community center, bookstore, internet portal, government/social services connection, life-long-learning centers, and a coffee shop on the top floor. In short, a place far removed from the old 19th century fusty, dusty Temple Of Books -- Shhhhhhh -- of yore.

As Brian Reynolds, head of the County/ city libraries pointed out, libraries need to be somehwere . . . and everywhere. And with the internet, we now can have virtual libraries. No need for stone buildings set off in a park somewhere. We can now put libraries in the middle of shopping malls, let up mini-outlets, hook through e-government portals with your local branch so you can access government programs and doings without ever having to troop "downtown." The list of possibilities is endless. And exciting.

And, of course, is limited only by $$, a lot of which is seriously lacking because we live in the era of the Diminished Value of the Commons. Instead, we have become Blackwater Nation -- privitize it, baby. Want a new library? Go build it yourself.

Which, of course, raised an issue that seemed missing from the conference, and one I kept raising with our table as we were asked to "envision" a future for this county. It does no good to ask the Choir to envision what THEY want THEIR Choir to look like -- they're already engaged and will naturally enough make changes THEY want to see made.

But here's what I wanted to know: Has anyone done a full demographic study and a "marketing research" survey county-wide to find out two things: Who uses the libraries now, and why and how? and Who DOESN'T use the libraries now, and why not? Those two things would tell you a lot about the present and point the way to make changes that are needed in order to get to a future, it seems to me.

Of course, in a county that voted down Measure L, a minute sales tax that would have been earmarked for libraries, a county that constantly pleads poverty while slashing budgets and raising administrators and BOS salaries, there is no money to do such a comprehensive survey. Which means, a future envisioned by already committed members of the Choir, all of whom are flying blind, will result in more of the same, not real change.

But, for a really cool CD . . .

The Friends of the Library (our wonderful Los Osos Branch) did have an information booth at the conference that was featuring, among other things, a new interctive 90 minute CD-ROM commissioned by the Friends of Los Osos Library, "Exploring Morro Bay Estuary." The CD covers the estuary, how it works, all the critters and plants, the general Geology and georgraphy, protecting and restoring the estuary and all kinds of interactive suff. Way cool.

You can buy a copy at the South Bay Library, also it's available at the Morro Bay Natural History Museum and at the National Estuary Center on the Morro Bay Embarcadero in the Marina Square bldg. It's really a beautiful, interesting CD, for kids, adults, and for any friends living out of town or out of state, it would make a great Holiday Gift.

If your friends just think you live in Plain Old Sewerville, send 'em a copy of this CD and they'll see -- It's Sewerville-PLUS!

Now, do I dare go open the paper?