Pages

Friday, November 30, 2007

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.

56 comments:

Sewertoons said...

Ann said Mr. Murphy said:
" '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.' "

So which law firm paid for it? Shaunna Sullivan's? Mrs. Biggs? Will the CSD see part of this bill?

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

When you tell us that the PZLDF suit has nothing to do with a sewer, are you telling us that neither PZLDF, not anyone associated with PZLDF would take a win on PZLDF suit and then immediately file another suit asking the County to stop their sewer project ... either because the RWQCB cannot require a sewer or because the PZ definition has been struck down and the extent of the sewer and who should pay for one would then be a matter of dispute?

Ann, when you've earlier told us that the PZ definition is part of the problem with the sewer and when you've told us earlier that RWQCB actions have put a thumb on the scale that is the 218 vote ... I find it very hard to believe that you would take a PZLDF win as a way of trying to get the County process changed or kyboshed.

Maybe you should review your earlier articles before you write the new ones.

Shark Inlet said...

Toons,

Murphy told me that no one paid for the show. Presumably this means that it came out of the general operating budget the show has and that the producer (Murphy) thought the Los Osos issue was a good one to focus on.

Why, he hasn't told me yet, but he has assured me that it wasn't a "bought-n-paid for" show.

Sewertoons said...

Thanks shark - I then don't get why Ann has posted this misleading Murphy quote - unless it was to confuse the issue further.

On another note:

Murphy or Low said:
"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."

(WOW - there is no law requiring me to produce sewage!!! I am SO relieved!!)

This verbiage by Mark Low above, the lawsuit by PZLDF (which if won, could break up the PZ and nullify our recently passed 218) and another threatened lawsuit on the validity of the 218, is EXACTLY what keeps the Water Board wary of Los Osos. DUH!! Well, PZLDF, I sure wouldn't expect any orders to be vacated in the near future. (Maybe when the sewer is actually in and working though. Maybe then.)

Sewertoons said...

From Mr. Murphy,
"I don't need a "third party" to tell me if it works or not…"

Guess that is why he has not felt the need to show Paavo any documentation that this thing removes nitrates in the numbers required to pass the Water Board test.

His statements in Ann's column passed the ARROGANCE test however! Good for him!

Ron said...

Ann, that was excellent.

Is it just me, or do we have too much fun writing about a sewer project?

Thanks for the link.

(By the way, that case law I cite in that link is some of my favorite sewer stuff of all time. It's so damn interesting. Three judges and me, all coming to the exact same conclusion, fifteen years apart. Gotta love it. And I guess we can add another agency to the list of agencies that screwed Los Osos: The Sierra Club!

And how 'bout all those weasily communities, like Los Osos, overriding the entire environmental review process simply because the outcome of that process doesn't fit their agenda? Too much.)

Richard LeGros said...

Hi All,

The CSD was reprimanded by Judge Ribbet in US Bankruptcy Court this morning; critizing the district for their continued policy of delay towards resolving the districts financial woes.

Judge Ribblet then granted the contractor's request to be released from Bankrupcty court; thereby allowing them to proceed with binding arbitration with the CSD (called for in the orignial contracts) to adjdicate the size of the LOCSD debt.

Judge Ribblet also criticized the CSD's claim of poverty as a ploy to delay what the district must do to resolve the debt.

In short, Judge Ribblet has lost patience with the CSD's behavior and told them to come up with a debt adjustment plan ASAP.

Additionally, the CSD's bankruptcy attorney, Mr. Shoulders, argued with the judge that if the contractors are allowed to go to binding arbitration that the district would just close up shop.


A VERY VERY BAD DAY FOR THE LOCSD.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Sewertoons said...

WOW! And FINALLY Judge Riblet loses patience. Thank you Richard for posting.

Mike said...

...hmmm it would seem Ron's last words maybe taking on new meaning...

"...'bout all those weasily communities, like Los Osos, overriding the entire environmental review process simply because the outcome of that process doesn't fit their agenda?"

We might exchange the words to more correctly read...

"...'bout all those weasily CSD's, like Los Osos, overriding the entire process simply because the outcome of that process doesn't fit their agenda?"

A whole lot of folks are out of patience with the obstructionists
who can't accept the process of providing a system to begin correcting the pollution under Los Osos...

Conspiracy Boy said...

SharkInlet:

I would always fight a ticket if I was in the right.

The County delayed putting in a sewer -- they couldn't get it together and Pandora should have known that a (any) CSD couldn't pull it off. No way.

So people didn't fight and/or delay the sewer, they fought the process of getting to the point they did. There should have been a 218 -- you always disagree but that's the only way to truly guarantee a dedicated source of revenue for the state.

Pandora knew the RWQCB wasn't going to approve ponds and that there wasn't enough land anyway. That was a delay. A big delay caused by her.

Now if there is a challange to the 218 it will be because the County again, could have done the 218 legally and properly but didn't want to. Hmmmmm....

Gail's lawsuit shouldn't delay anything either. The RWQCB is causing the delay. They shouldn't have broken Federal Law to scare the people into voting yes.

No, the delay and cost of any delay is because of their actions, the County, the RWQCB, and Pandora Group -- not anyone else.

Sewertoons said...

cb,

Under the legal way the sewer was going in before, we either paid an assessment up front for property, design and permits or some of us are still currently paying for this on our property tax bill. The cost of the sewer itself would have been paid off with the utility fee.

There was no lien against our houses.

This time around we assessed ourselves to PUT a lien on our houses. Me? I prefer the old way - no lien.

Maybe you can explain why this new way of doing it is better for property owners.

Churadogs said...

Richard le Gros sez;"Additionally, the CSD's bankruptcy attorney, Mr. Shoulders, argued with the judge that if the contractors are allowed to go to binding arbitration that the district would just close up shop.


A VERY VERY BAD DAY FOR THE LOCSD."

First, considering how incorrect your last posting was concering the Insider Exclusive being paid by the PZLDF, & etc. why should we believe anything you report here?
Second, a bad day for LOCSD if it closes shop? Wouldn't that be a really, really good day for Taxpayer's Watch et al. And for you, especially!

Mike sez:"A whole lot of folks are out of patience with the obstructionists. . "

Uh-oh, MORPH WARNING. Mike's turning into Crap with his signal jamming "obstructionist" again. Ding! Ding! Ding! Look out!


Inlet sez:"Murphy told me that no one paid for the show. Presumably this means that it came out of the general operating budget the show has and that the producer (Murphy) thought the Los Osos issue was a good one to focus on.

Why, he hasn't told me yet, but he has assured me that it wasn't a "bought-n-paid for" show."

Then Sewertoons chimes in:"Thanks shark - I then don't get why Ann has posted this misleading Murphy quote - unless it was to confuse the issue further."

You guys are something. What was it CB called you guys in a previous comment section -- a circle jerk? The false claim by LeGros was that PZLDF paid to have the show produced. The executive producer of the show replied, no, various legal firms around the country "sponsor" the show. So then someone speculates (huffing and puffing) that they think maybe Sullivan paid for the show. (A suggestion: why don'tyou call her yourself and ask?)Or then goes off on a toot spinning wild agnels on heads of pins. Jeeze, have none of you heard of "Sponsors."

Then Inlet apparently writes the producer and gets an answere, but oooo, gosh, Inlet, how do we know you aren't lying about what Mr. Murphy supposedly told you. Maybe you're spinning lies now and the show is actually sponsored by Paavo Ogren. Woooooo.....

Inlet also sez:"When you tell us that the PZLDF suit has nothing to do with a sewer, are you telling us that neither PZLDF, not anyone associated with PZLDF would take a win on PZLDF suit and then immediately file another suit asking the County to stop their sewer project ... either because the RWQCB cannot require a sewer or because the PZ definition has been struck down and the extent of the sewer and who should pay for one would then be a matter of dispute?"

You're making stuff up again, Inlet. Updating the Basin Plan and eliminating the phony PZ line would allow the county more flexibility -- not less -- in building a BASIN system that would benefit everyone in the BASIN.

"Ann, when you've earlier told us that the PZ definition is part of the problem with the sewer and when you've told us earlier that RWQCB actions have put a thumb on the scale that is the 218 vote ... I find it very hard to believe that you would take a PZLDF win as a way of trying to get the County process changed or kyboshed."

PZLDF supports a project, always has. What PZLDF is focused on is civil rights, property rights and due process issues CAUSED by the WAY the RWQCB chose to enforce 83=13. If the RWQCB had, for example, put CDO's on everyone in the PZ and done it properly -- not morphing the rules, changing the language, jerking people around, singling out some but not others, etc. the issue wouldn't have come up.

Plus, if I understand 83-13 correctly, it cannot be challenged UNTIL enforcement happens. Well, enforcement happened, at least to 45 people, so this is the only opportunity to legally challenge the basic premis of issuing enforcement to those 45.

Also, if you take a look at this 218 vote, you'll see a community moving ahead to solve it's wastewater & WATER problems. The majority of this community was always "pro-wastewater treatment system," they were lied to and about by the dreaming signal jammers.And when they were finally informed that they had been lied to about Tri W, they simply wanted to change the location of the sewer plant. Hardly "obsctructionist," indeed a reasonable request.

Do you see the 218 vote as "obstructionist?" or what the county is doing as "obstructionist?" I don't. So why would a win for the Los Osos 45 in any way change that? If the PZ were updated and changed, do you think the county would stop moving forward? I don't. Or heave a sigh of relieve because now they'd have more flexibility to consider basin loading, thereby eliminating some of the big problems regarding water purveyors, undeveloped lots, etc., and could then bring into play a variety of options (even combined ones)under a re-configured septic management district (83-12) something that should have been done YEARS AGO.

Mike said...

WOW.... you make it sound so easy and uncomplicated...

"...they simply wanted to change the location of the sewer plant."

So what stopped them (the post recall CSD)...???

..................
Sorry you think I'm CrapKiller, but no, I'm just another of the tired 80% who view the incompetence of the post recall CSD as criminal mismanagement by a small group within the community who absolutely lied and threatened their way into office and then spent their way into bankruptcy...

Now we see that same minority within the community moving to the next step in creating as many delays as possible in order to create chaos and drive the cost of any solution beyond the means of the community...

I do hope you can bring the SWB into court, but I would expect you to finance the legal battle, not the rest of the 80% within the community, not the County, and certainly not the State... Just be prepared to accept that the outcome very well could be counter to all your simplistic claims that all you wanted to do was "...simply wanted to change the location of the sewer plant"...now morphed to a civil rights march using the Los Osos 12 as the banner...

It's not the civil rights of the entire community you sek to protect, in fact those of the 80% feel the process to have been legal and fair... But keep fighting and attempting to obstruct, but do it with your own money...

Shark Inlet said...

CB,

You would always fight an unjust ticket even though the fight would cost you a lot. I would prefer to save the money, time and hassle. Both choices are legitimate ... and I believe that in Los Osos we are in the exact same situation. The problem in my mind is, however, that the folks who are interested in fighting the RWQCB, SWRCB, previous board and County are also not willing to admit that this fight will be a costly one, both in terms of dollars and in terms of additional pollution.

On the issue of whether the Solutions Group knew their plan wouldn't be approved ... surely Julie, Lisa and the recall candidates should have known their $100/month plan (if they really had one) would never fly. One cannot fight deception with more deception. Honesty is the only way.

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

Mr. Murphy's quote from you was :

“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.”

Which only raises the question if one of the "many law firms" which "sponsors" the show is none other than BWS.

Additionally, Mr. Murphy's quote makes it clear that his program is funded by many attorney's for the express purpose of representing and promoting the attorney's 'interests'; which makes Mr. Murphy nothing more than a shrill hawking the attorney's lawsuits (in this case possibly BWS promoting the PZLDF lawsuit on behalf of the CSD).

As Mr. Murphy admits the source of his program's funding, along with his role to act as a shrill, he acknowledges that his program is an infomercial with no intent of reporting issues without bias.

So Ann, while PZLDF did not pay, which law firm did?
*******

As for what happened in Bankruptcy Court yesterday, my source reporting on the proceedings was present at Friday's hearing.
So Ann, if you do not have confidence in what I reported, why not you just investigate what happened in court and report back to us.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Conspiracy Boy said...

Mike:

If you lie about the 80% yes vote, then you're lying about everything else.

It was 80% of the 70% that voted. Then you add the school, county, and CSD property. Oh, and don't forget about Leon!

Right there brings it closer to 50/50 especially when you are talking about the "community" voting (and not government property!!)

That information goes for you too, Ann! I can't figure why you would want the gravity system. Doesn't make sense. And why do you not respond to any of my posts? What exactly do you think the County has in store for us? Tell me exactly why you trust them again?!?

Conspiracy Boy said...

Richard:

Since you're here, why don't you tell your "followers" -- you're the numbers guy, that the 80% is not the 80% at all when 30% didn't vote.

I believe SharkInlet got it and said he wouldn't use 80% again, but Mike, the RWQCB and others (including the Tribune) keep repeating misinformation.

Another day in Los Osos....

Mike said...

CB.... you are deluding yourself... 80% is all that counts... you can't consider what was not done... even a 70% tur out was huge..!!! At any rate, the County has the project.

I don't have a crystal ball, but from what the County has told us throughout the process, I trust them to proceed with what will turn out to be in the best interests of this community... there will always be some in the community who will fight any sewer, you seem to be in that small minority at this time...

I wish you well even if you chose to leave this community...

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

No worries, I don't lie.

So Ann, are you telling us that if the definition of the PZ is eliminated entirely, there won't be additional lawsuits should the County either choose to change or to keep the areas served by the sewer? Sounds rather doubtful to me. If PZLDF wins on any substantative issue in their suit, another suit will follow. If not from PZLDF, from someone else.

On the matter of whether PZLDF supports a project ... I've got to wonder ... after all, your comments and Gail's comments make me think that you all are opposed to certain projects even if the County determines those projects to be best for the community. Is that really support?

No matter, if you're a gonna bring up dreamer signal jamming ... why have you not raked Gail over the coals for her repeating of the "$154/month" plan (that we all know is based on the Ripley report which would not pass RWQCB muster and without RWQCB approval we won't get SRF funding which is the only reason it is $154/month)?

Why haven't you taken the recall candidates to task for their $100/month plan which ... I'll go out on a limb here ... never existed at all. They had a hope, but not a plan. They sold us the sizzle but there was no steak. Why are you not mad at these folks?

The issue here is really much like I told CB ... we can choose to continue to fight the County, RWQCB, SWRCB, former LOCSD directors and everyone else who doesn't support a $100/month out of town sewer which doesn't exist and will never happen. We could also choose to stop fighting and choose the cheapest and best plan available today ... whatever the County comes up with.

I've heard many wise people say that we should never allow the best be the enemy of the good. We shouldn't refuse the County's best possible permitable solution because there is a possible experimental solution which might allow us some grants.

Let's go with what makes the most sense for most of our town. Let's not screw the middle class like the lower class has already been screwed. Let's not continue to litigate and stall and delay until the only people who can afford to live here are as wealthy as those who like Gail and Julie live outside the PZ.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"And when they were finally informed that they had been lied to about Tri W, they simply wanted to change the location of the sewer plant. Hardly "obsctructionist," indeed a reasonable request."

Wanna have a little fun?

Put yourself in the shoes of former CSD Directors, and ponder this: What will you do when county officials "eliminate" the Tri-W site "from further consideration?"

The day that happens -- and it's just a matter of time before it does (hopefully, before Feb. 1, 2008) -- put yourself in the shoes of people like former CSD Directors, Pandora Nash-Karner, Gordon Hensley, Stan Gustafson, Bob Semonsen, and Richard LeGros. All of them were directly responsible for throwing more than $20 million of Los Osos taxpayer money at a project that county officials, after quickly identifying zero "pros" and a laundry list of egregious "cons," now deem unpursuable.

What will all those former CSD Directors say on that day? "Oh well, jamming a picnic area in our sewer plant, and then jamming that sewer plant in the middle of town so everyone could easily get to the picnic area in our sewer plant, seemed like a good idea at the time, especially since it allowed us to cover up the fact that or first project at the site -- our "better cheaper, faster" plan that got us elected and the CSD formed in the first place -- failed?"

Does anyone actually think, that the day the county finally dumps the Tri-W mess, that that will be that? That everyone will just shrug their shoulders and say, "Ah shucks. Sure, that $25 million could have been better spent, but let's just focus on the future?"

That's not going to happen, hombres.

There are going to be some serious questions that will need to be answered, chief among them, this one:

If smart county officials like Noel King and Paavo Ogren "eliminated" the Tri-W site "from further consideration" after just a few months of analysis, then why did the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD throw more than $20 million, over six years, at the project?

Put yourself in the former CSD Directors' shoes, and try to answer that inevitable question.

If I were in their shoes, I would be doing everything possible to delay that question.

(Real quick, Richard, you wouldn't happen to know where that "substantial evidence" is that shows the so-called "strongly held community value" for a sewer plant that also doubles as a "centrally located recreational asset," would you? Justice Anderson, Justice Perley, Justice Poche, and I would be very interested in seeing it.)

Mike Green said...

Thoughts that come to mind,
30% didn't vote, there is no way to determine what the thinking (or lack of) those people were, therefore to assume that they were against any county process is speculation and illogical.
Nearly 80% of 70% of the property owners voted yes. this is a fact.
Regardless of why they voted that way the results clearly indicated a desire for the county to continue and complete a WWTF for Los Osos.
The citizens of Los Osos will have some choices to make in the upcoming survey. The county has to complete the due diligence and EIR work before that happens, whatever comes up during that process is what we will get to pick from.
We will have almost no say in what those choices will be, the county will decide, that is why its so important to read the TAC reports (The sewer bible) and to be familiar with other systems that are studied during the due diligence phase. What we see is what we are going to get.
A perfect process- no but the only one going forward, forward good, backwards bad.
As for some of the creditors getting arbitration outside of the bankruptcy hearings, well you have to wonder about the timing.
What do you suppose the arbitration would be if during the bidding process it's found that TriW could be built for (for argument purposes only) 30% less? (This scenario is made possible by the county and LOCSD letting the CC permits lapse)
Would it be better to have the final payment to those creditors based on arbitration or a judgment?
One has to wonder.
Oh, BTW if certain folks want to castigate people for unnecessarily causing added expenditure of CSD funds. One word Coastkeeper.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Is Biggs law firm a sponsor of Murphy's show?

On Ron's comments ... no wonder he uses the phrase "signal jamming" so much ... his whole goal now seems to be to try to distract our community from what we know really matters.

Sewertoons said...

cb asserts:

"It was 80% of the 70% that voted. Then you add the school, county, and CSD property. Oh, and don't forget about Leon! Right there brings it closer to 50/50 especially when you are talking about the "community" voting (and not government property!!)"

I think the County and the school are the same for starters. Leon, I assume falls into the commercial category?

I have said this before, but since you didn't see it I will repeat it again here.

Most of the voting bloc was single-family homes, condos and mobile homes. 86% of the total for an assessment of $109.2 million. The other 14% was commercial property, apartment buildings and other rentals equalling $17.9 million. The combined assessment for the three properties in the school district (Baywood, Monarch Grove, Sunnyside) was a bit over $1.5 million (a tad over 1%). The CSD's assessment was, as I recall, $61,000.

Someone else might be able to recall the percentage breakdown counting the people who didn't vote. It wasn't 50/50 even parsing out the 14% commercial properties.

In any case, in the recall election, NOT counting those that didn't vote, the results were almost 50/50, yet that was a "landslide." Get over it cb, you can't spin this to make it be the outcome you preferred.

Sewertoons said...

Ann says:
"…a project that county officials, after quickly identifying zero "pros" and a laundry list of egregious "cons," now deem unpursuable."

Where is that written Ann?

Mike Green said...

Ron wrote:
"That's not going to happen, hombres."

Ron, waste of taxpayer money is neither unusual or litigated regularly.

Do you know about Slick Six?
It's a complete space shuttle launching facility at Vandenburg Air Force Base. It cost waaaay more than 20 or so mill!

And it was built knowing full well that no shuttle flying at that time would be able to lift off there with anything like a full payload.

Questions never answered, thats what will happen, it's the American Way!

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Ann,

You wrote :
"Plus, if I understand 83-13 correctly, it cannot be challenged UNTIL enforcement happens. Well, enforcement happened, at least to 45 people, so this is the only opportunity to legally challenge the basic premis of issuing enforcement to those 45.:

Response:
Incorrect. This is no the 'only opportunity' to file lawsuits......CDO's and enforcement actins have been filed by the RWQCB in this conmmunity for years (going back to the 1980's).

Do not forget the enforcement actions have been taken against others in the ccommunity, such as the fire station, the water yard, Monarch Grove, Vista del Oro, Bayview Heights, and several others.
Gee....lawsuits could have been filed then too.

Sewertoons said...

mike green said:
"Oh, BTW if certain folks want to castigate people for unnecessarily causing added expenditure of CSD funds. One word Coastkeeper."

Good gravy Mike! Why are you pointing out an amoeba in District costs when a Tyrannosaurus rex of unnecessary millions has been spent on bad advice - and the results of bad advice? You are pointing out a fraction of a percent here!

This all would NOT even be an issue if the Board had followed staff recommendation and kept the permit! The grading could be done with nary a peep out of Coastkeeper. Looks like killing Tri-W was more important than financial reality.

How about Chuck's promise after the recall they would update the Habitat Conservation Plan? Where exactly IS that now? Had THAT been done, this would NOT be an issue.

How about BWS? How about Bleskey? If you want some good material on the topic of unnecessary costs - you'll find it here!

Coastkeeper is just doing what he has done for the past 20 years with issues all over his jurisdiction! Get some perspective here! Is sewer tunnel vision clouding your scope? This doesn't sound like you!

Mike Green said...

Well I'll bet if my friend Steve, who lives in Monarch Grove (motto, We buy our house paint in bulk) had been singled out to correct the problem there on his own, there would have been a lawsuit.

The RWQCB should have issued CAO/CDOs to ALL of us at the same time.

They should either do so now, or drop the selective enforcement plain and simple.

Mike Green said...

Toons projected:
"Good gravy Mike! Why are you pointing out an amoeba in District costs when a Tyrannosaurus rex of unnecessary millions has been spent on bad advice - and the results of bad advice? You are pointing out a fraction of a percent here!"

Amoeba? BWA HA HA HA HA!
That is sooooo funny!

Didn't know an amoeba could lay T.Rex eggs!!!

Thanks, Best laugh I've had all week.

Have you ever researched just what "Coastkeeper"
and the Water alliance are?

Sewertoons said...

Thanks mike green! :-)

Yes, I actually have and it is pretty amazing! They even have Waterkeeper programs in China! Not to bring that up and diminish how much we need water watching here - it REALLYy is bad there!

I also agree - it was a bad idea to single out 45 - should have been CAO's to us all - no hearings needed the way they are needed for CDO's. All that is needed is a wastewater treatment plant! All the penalty threats go away with one of those.

Mike Green said...

Toons! good on ya!
Maybe you can clarify to me what the actions of "Coastkeeper" have to do with Water alliance?
Far as I can tell, nearly nothing, and as far as I can tell "Coastkeeper" is just one person.
You say twenty years????
And the web links say "under construction"
Now if memory doesn't fail me....
Didn't Gordon cast a no vote on TriW?
Hmnnnnn, strange.

How much will it cost to send our "Coastkeeper" to China?

Shark Inlet said...

Mike Green,

Monarch Grove is one entity from the point of view of the RWQCB ... all or none. Robyn Hayhurst (the PZLDF secretary and treasurer) and your friend Steve are jointly responsible for their WWTF failures just like they jointly benefit from having a WWTF and aren't facing the same situation as everyone else in the PZ.

Mike said...

I'll vote to send Ann, Ron and Gail on a one way trip to China to go clear up their "civil rights" issues.... what's your Visa charge number Mike Green...

Mike Green said...

Sharkey, Thanks for making my point!
The actions of the RWQCB in Monarch Grove (motto, neener neener we got a sewer) can not be equated with the prosecution of the doomed 45.

We should all be treated equally too!

And Mike, use your own card.

They would probably all like the vacation.

Churadogs said...

CB sez:"I can't figure why you would want the gravity system"

You're makaing stuff up, CB. Who says I want a gravity system?

Mike sez:"Now we see that same minority within the community moving to the next step in creating as many delays as possible in order to create chaos and drive the cost of any solution beyond the means of the community..."

Who says that the Sullivan case, for example, is creating "chaos" in the community? Or "delays?" I see no sign of "chaos" or "delay." Indeed, just got a flyer in the mail yesterday that the County's scheduled an upcoming EIR scoping town hall meeting on the 18th I believe. Doesn't sound like they're in "chaos." at all. Or "delaying."And I bet only a small percentage of, you know, the "community" that you think is or will be in "chaos," even bothers to show up.

Inlet sez:"On the matter of whether PZLDF supports a project ... I've got to wonder ... after all, your comments and Gail's comments make me think that you all are opposed to certain projects even if the County determines those projects to be best for the community. Is that really support?"

Inlet, You're making stuff up again, then proceeding as if it were true, basen on ZERO evidence. Ya gotta stop doing that.Ooops, there goes the angels hopping up on the heads of your pins. Quick, Watson, the can of Raid!

Mike Green sez:"
The RWQCB should have issued CAO/CDOs to ALL of us at the same time.

They should either do so now, or drop the selective enforcement plain and simple."

Ah, the voice of sanity. Thank you. The interesting question to me remains: Why didn't they do that? Forget CDOs (too much paper work requiring a "trial.") Go straight to CAO's a "on-paper trial," with appeals denied in seconds and mailed back with a 41 cent stamp.)

Ron sez:"Does anyone actually think, that the day the county finally dumps the Tri-W mess, that that will be that? That everyone will just shrug their shoulders and say, "Ah shucks. Sure, that $25 million could have been better spent, but let's just focus on the future?"

That's not going to happen, hombres.

There are going to be some serious questions that will need to be answered, chief among them, this one:"

Normally, I'd like to agree with you, but we live in the Age Of NO Accountability. None. It'll all be one huge, "No Need To Dwell In The Past, Time To Move ON." Trying to rectify some of the more egregious screwups is called "obstruction." Trying to get justice is called "obstruction." & etc. The only way to get questions answered is to put everyone under oath with penalties for perjury at some huge trial somewhere (which the signal jammers and dreamers will call "obstructionist" as well) or maybe have some South African-type Truth & Reconciliation Hearings where everyone can fess up to their part in this massive screw up and be given prior amunity for their Truthi-ness.

Alas, I just don't see that happening. The community will be forced to swallow the gazillions pounded down rabbit holes, all of it squirreled away in huge piles of "creative bookeeping" and told to Move Along.

Or, to quote Mike Green: "Do you know about Slick Six?
It's a complete space shuttle launching facility at Vandenburg Air Force Base. It cost waaaay more than 20 or so mill!

And it was built knowing full well that no shuttle flying at that time would be able to lift off there with anything like a full payload.

Questions never answered, thats what will happen, it's the American Way!"

Yep. The American Way. That's my bet as to what'll likely happen here, too.

Sewertoons said...

Ann qoutes shark:
"Inlet sez:"On the matter of whether PZLDF supports a project ... I've got to wonder ... after all, your comments and Gail's comments make me think that you all are opposed to certain projects even if the County determines those projects to be best for the community. Is that really support?""

Ann's answer, which DOES NOT really answer the question:
"Inlet, You're making stuff up again…"

OK, I'll ask you Ann, point blank, if Tri-W is picked, will you wage a protest?

(I expect this will be the last comment on this posting of Ann's. This is Ann's Way.)

Bear EXCREMENT said...

"They should either do so now, or drop the selective enforcement plain and simple."

GRRRR, AGREED!

Ah, the voice of sanity. Thank you. The interesting question to me remains: Why didn't they do that?

GRRRREED! Indeed 46 vs. 4,500+/- = divde and conquer.

December 7, a day that will "continue" to live in infamy, the WaterBoarding of Los Osos continues, unless and until the attidues change. It is not just the46, who are being tied down to the board.

Remember Mouse Tails?...There is a snake in the house.

GRRRRR! FREEEEDOM!!

More tea?

Mike Green said...

Bear Excrement!!!!!!!!

Great Handle! Did you consider "Ursine Copralite"?

Do you live in Redfield Woods? Seems logical

Ever notice how you really can't yell GRRRRRRR?
I mean try it, go outside and yell GRRRR as loud as you can... See?
Now yell" GHOD ALMIGHTY WE ALL ARE GETTIN SCREWED!"
See how vowels help?
Welcome! Tea? no thanks, would you like some wine?

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I guess you are saying that should the PZLDF suit prevail that you and Gail would be satisfied that justice was done and neither of you would pursue any further legal action which would stop or delay the County in any way. I guess that somehow you also know that no such suit would be filed by anyone named Al or Conspiracy Boy or Pam.

You are asking us to take as a matter of faith that the PZLDF suit will have zero implications for the sewer timing.

I was raising the likelihood that should the foundation of the RWQCB action be shaken, the other things that are built on that foundation will be questioned and litigated.

Sounds like common sense to me.

I would think that you, of all people, would get it because you've told us before that the science behind the PZ is questionable and if the PZ is questionable the mandate is questionable and if the mandate is questionable, we should not be forced into any particular type of sewer and if ...

I know that you'll say that I'm making stuff up again ... and that is fine ... but those who read here often enough over the last few years will recognize that many of your statements do, indeed, question aspects of the sewer that are tied to the PZ definition.

Sewertoons said...

So NO SEWER trumps even Tri-W in the world of possible litigation. That fits the data presented previously.

We'll be ripe for the picking should this 218 be deemed illegal or built on a baseless foundation of no such thing as a PZ. First, the Ripleys and Reclamators will swoop in even more energetically on the confused and helpless. Then, there is the possibility of the State getting grumpy to find out ITS got to play the heavy in this drama.

Well, PZLDF might just lose and Morgan just might not take the case. We can only hope…

Churadogs said...

Sewertoons sez:"Ann's answer, which DOES NOT really answer the question:
"Inlet, You're making stuff up again…"

OK, I'll ask you Ann, point blank, if Tri-W is picked, will you wage a protest?

(I expect this will be the last comment on this posting of Ann's. This is Ann's Way.)"

Oh, Sewertoons, you need to grow up.

It's very simple, always has been. IF the County Process is not tainted, no sticky fingers on the scale, no phony SOC, no ginned up numbers, then why would I protest anything? What I protested for years (by asking that Looooocy 'splain things)was a Process that was tainted from day one. If the county process remains clean, then whatever system floats to the top, and is selected by the community as the one they want to "buy," then that's the one they'll get. EXACTLY what I called for years ago -- while Sewertoons apparently wasn't paying attention to what I was writing -- when I called for a Chinese Menu. Unless the county or other sticky fingers rig this Process, that's what this community -- not me, not Sewertoons, not Inlet -- will get: Want Fried Rice for X$? or Won Ton Soup for Y$? Survey SEZ!

Like every homeowner in the PZ, I will either get one "survey" "vote," just like Sewertoons or Inlet or other Annonymice, or I will be fitted into into a statistical number somewhere, and then the majority's wishes will prevail.

Which is what SHOULD have been done years ago. And COULD have been done years ago if people like Sewertoons and Inlet and many others had gotten off their duffs and showed up at meetings to demand a clean process. (That vigilance is still required, which is why I keep telling people to keep their eyes on the ball. There's a lot of powerful sticky fingers still at work out there. Watchword: "C'mon, Jake. It's Chinatown." So, don't say you weren't warned.)

Inlet sez:"I would think that you, of all people, would get it because you've told us before that the science behind the PZ is questionable and if the PZ is questionable the mandate is questionable and if the mandate is questionable, we should not be forced into any particular type of sewer and if ..."

I "got it" a long time ago. The RWQCB is forbidden by law to mandate any particular type of sewer. Bwa-hahahahahah. The RWQCB has been playing Hobson's Choice with that law ever since.

What apparently you don't get is this: There's many ways to skin cats. If the problem is BASIN LOADING, the FIRST thing you do is STOP issuing permits to build more homes. If the issue is also WATER OVERDRAFT, the FIRST thing you do is STOP issuing water permits for the homes you've stopped building. THEN, you retain the flexibility to solve both WATER AND WASTEWATER issues in the best way possible -- Suppose the best way is partial collection for lowlying areas, onsite and/or cluster systems for higher areas, de-watering X areas for ag exchange and reducing western well pumping, mandated low-flow, water rate adjustment for conservation, & etc. For example.

If that flexibility gave you more bang for the buck, while reducing the polution load and dealing better with salt water intrusion, why would you tie your hands by continuing to allow more homes be built, then do the Hobson's Choice game of mandating Zero Discharge/full collection within a scientifically shakey artificial PZ? Wouldn't it make more sense to back up and view the problem as one of WATER MANAGEMENT and WATER REUSE MANAGEMENT, not merely collect, treat and DISPOSE?

Shark Inlet said...

So Ann,

Suppose that the PZ definition is overturned. Wouldn't you argue that the County process, in particular the 218 vote, was tainted because if no one is really under a discharge prohibition and there are no imminent threats of fines and CDOs, the vote might well have gone differently?

This is an important question. After all, even if you wouldn't (and I note that you didn't actually answer the direct question at all) hire a lawyer, there are many who will and things are delayed considerably. Nope, a PZLDF suit will only cost us money. The LOCSD gets to pay some of the legal bills whether PZLDF wins or loses and of PZLDF wins we all lose because of inflation. Sorry to sound so harsh, but until I get an assurance that there will be no additional delay because of this PZLDF suit, I cannot support it. If the suit were to only ask for the 45 CDOs to be dropped and were to not raise other issues at all, I would view the situation quite differently.



Ann, presumably you believe that the LOCSD made a mistake when they chose TriW for both cost and park reasons. Did you stand up then at that meeting and argue that they were mistaken, that really people don't want a park and that really out of town would be cheaper? Let's face facts, going back to square zero every time new information comes along is a great way to guarantee that nothing ever ever gets done. Once the site was chosen in 2001 the die was cast. Arguing over the location since then has only raised our costs.

We were given the opportunity to discuss, back in 1998-2001, the benefits and drawbacks of all the options before TriW was selected. The Chinese menu idea was out there ... it just required people to go to meetings to state their opinions. Not a bad process, really.


If a sewer is needed (do you disagree?), the best solution is to get one online ASAP. Otherwise the costs keep rising and we all agree that they are too high already.

Sewertoons said...

Hating to be redundant, but still wanting an answer to my question,
"OK, I'll ask you Ann, point blank, if Tri-W is picked, will you wage a protest?"

I'll amend my question with the information given above --- will you reason that if Tri-W was picked, it couldn't POSSIBLY have been done fairly, so you will wage a protest?

Anonymous said...

[url=http://pandora.jewels-love.com]Pandora Jewelry[/url]
[url=http://ralphlaurensale.itsplaza.com/]Ralph Lauren Outlet[/url]
[url=http://ralphlaurenuk.itsplaza.com/]Ralph Lauren UK[/url]
[url=http://ralphlaurenoutlet.itsplaza.com/]Ralph Lauren UK[/url]
[url=http://pandoraau.jewels-love.com]pandora jewelry[/url]
[url=http://pandoraau.jewels-love.com]pandora charms[/url]
[url=http://abercrombieoutlet.shop7x24.co.uk/]abercrombie outlet[/url]
[url=http://gucci.itsplaza.com/]GUCCI Outlet UK[/url]
[url=http://pandora.jewels-love.com]Pandora Charms[/url]
[url=http://cheapburberryhandbagsbags.shop7x24.co.uk ]Burberry Handbags[/url]
[url=http://guccihandbags.itsplaza.com/]Gucci Bags Outlet[/url]
[url=http://ralphlaurensale.itsplaza.com/]Ralph Lauren Sale[/url]
[url=http://cheapralphlauren.itsplaza.com/]Ralph Lauren UK[/url]
[url=http://guccibags.itsplaza.com]Gucci Outlet[/url]
[url=http://pandoraau.jewels-love.com]pandora australia[/url]
[url=http://gucci.itsplaza.com/]Gucci UK[/url]
[url=http://pandora.jewels-love.com]Pandora Jewelry[/url]
[url=http://pandorausa.jewels-love.com]pandora jewellery[/url]
[url=http://ralphlaurenuk.itsplaza.com/]Ralph Lauren Outlet UK[/url]
[url=http://pandorausa.jewels-love.com]pandora usa[/url]

nfl jerseys in las vegas
http://www.cheap-nfl-jerseys.us/
nfl jerseys cheap jerseys
nfl jerseys virginia beach
nfl jerseys elite

NFL Jerseys On Sale
Ralph Lauren UK
Gucci Bags Outlet
Gucci Handbags
Ralph Lauren Sale

Anonymous said...

We accommodate all kinds of excessive property s that go about a find in a variety of styles, colors and sizes at wholesale price.All [url=http://www.g-marrybridal.com/cheap-prom-dresses/]cheap prom dresses[/url]
[url=http://www.g-marrybridal.com/wedding-dresses/]wedding dresses[/url]
[url=http://www.g-marrybridal.com/mother-of-the-bride-dresses/]Mother of the Bride Dresses[/url]
are cheap with up to the minute styles associating apparels including draughtsman wedding adorn, coast wedding dresses, bridal gowns, bridesmaids dresses, prom outfits, cream young lady dresses & mother dresses.Even we can stock the services of open size customization and manumitted extra scope Blow the whistle on buy affordable astonishing wedding dresses at this very moment!lift searing shopping, dress perfectly for the whacking big wedding ceremony with the help of G-marry bridal.


http://www.g-marrybridal.com/

Anonymous said...

order an [URL=http://e--store.com/]louis vuitton online store[/URL] and check coupon code available tkcJsths [URL=http://e--store.com/ ] http://e--store.com/ [/URL]

Anonymous said...

It is one of the most important travel gears that we must possess. http://www.verynorthface.com Edwards Grade School and Boylan High School here in Rockford before attending Northern Illinois University. ugg boots So what does Cinna to do to try to protect her? He makes her appear vulnerable and demure. http://www.morenorthface.com Additionally the retailer from which you buy your diamond fashion jewellery should be certified as a diamond dealer.. ghd hair straightener septembra 2012..

Anonymous said...

Some of the most popular designers are using this color combination in their clothing lines. north face backpacks Wang has a magical way of taking what's happening on the street and reinterpreting it for his runways. ghds Check them out after the jump and tell us what you think!. north face But this one, folks, features ribbing and armhole and neck shaping! Are you going to see a picture? Well, no, not now, because the camera is with my beau in Portland. ghd hair Fine hair, for example, needs a extremely reduced heat environment whilst program, thick and very curly hair need high heat options.

Anonymous said...

Just click on the clerk3. http://www.morenorthface.com There were a few stops to peruse through before entering the main ballroom. http://www.fitghdhair.com San Diego Sports Commission, 2131 Pan American Plaza, San Diego , CA 92 101 . ghd sale It simply -be like in bet, stopping abruptly. ugg I am in a hellish situation in which I have to go on cyber school since I am on disability.

Anonymous said...

The most eye catching piece of the outfit is the Bow Blazer five stardollarsfrom Stardoll Girls and really sets of the sophisticated look. ghd hair straighteners On the luxury end, these two sites have been reigning the market. north face uk This is a very common construction technique in turn-of-the-century garments, you can see a similar example (though not a tea gown)here. buy ghd This world has developed where each nation favors a different flavor of steampunk including DieselPunk and Teslapunk. http://www.verynorthface.com says, I ready to party but I still look really chic and fun.

Anonymous said...

Good luck with bookin that stage u speak of.". ghd hair straighteners Of course nice shoes are important. north face Rachel is also rocking the ever-so-trendy Love Quotes scarf (not sure what color; any suggestions?) and the turnlock sandals from Coach. ghd iv styling set In 1946, Christian Dior moved on avenue Montaigne close to the most intimate luxury hotels in Paris. http://www.verynorthface.com A little while later, Cho arrives at Summer's apartment and he notices that something is off when Summer refuses to come out of the bathroom.

Anonymous said...

Now that Malick again, about to top eighty years might be entering his most prolific phase now that, honestly, he doesn have that many years left. ghd new wave limited edition "Schofield was depicted carrying out" mind forged wives "in an illustration to Jerusalem. ugg Kerry wears designers Gazar gown, Prada, Lanvin dress, Chanel, J Mendel, Vivienne Westwood, Bulgari, Mary Katrantzou dress, YSL, Harry Winston jewels, Duchesse calf pumps, Bottega Veneta. http://www.lateuggboots.com Paper arts have a religious significance in Japan, and Miyake experimented with paper-like pleating in linen crêpe, woven cotton, polyester, and jersey, seeking functionality with interesting texture. ugg slippers In cases where what folks glance at the means one costume factors for your requirements, in that case, youl chanel wall socket agree with the fact that you need to huge a certain amount of time frame, dollars and even awareness to the ladies handbag a person take.

Anonymous said...

I love to hand make everything that I design because it then has something unique and warm about it. http://www.softuggboots.com And these women would even make purchasing decisions based on her suggestions. ugg canada They would see steel being lifted into the sky by a steam crane. north face Film:CONNED, LOVE SIGNS. north face The new ideas on military were absolutely fantastic on the NY catwalks.

Anonymous said...

Whatever your mood, there are a Chanel handbag. http://www.manyghdhair.com Designer Wei-Chieh Shih built a laser suit with multiple rows of lasers stretching across the wearer back. ghds For gentlemen, I suggest for beginners, Thom Brownefor intermediates and Luigi Borrellifor bragging rights. ugg uk Coach bags are created from the most effective excellent leather. north face outlet I don't want to do clothes just to do clothes, but rather to reveal something about shapes and geometry and measurements in a minimalist and restricted point of view.

Anonymous said...

He doesn live five minutes from the hospital. ugg Guest of honour was the lovely Asher Keddie who joined Audi Guests and an assortment of other Beautiful People for Dinnigan's 2012-13 Resort Wear launch. north face sale My personal favorite API function is hotnesss, which returns a numerical description of how hot an artist is. ugg sale Elizabeth Geoghegan earned an MFA in Writing from The School of The Art Institute of Chicago and an MA in Creative Writing from The University of Colorado at Boulder where her graduate thesisThe Sound of Skin was selected for the Ruth Murray Underhill Award. ghd online Go with what you feel the perfect and comfortable for you and which you can carry confidently.

Anonymous said...

I want to make sure she's good in her future. http://www.fitghdhair.com How wrong I was! The Chichu Museum hosts three of Turrell's pieces. http://www.lateuggboots.com Aware of our economic times, Li understands the importance of affordable, versatile looks. north face sale we see the children of Charles I of England where the girls are swathed in pale blue and the boy in bold pink:. north face outlet How can you get sweatbands custom? The answer is SerTop, the world best supplier of custom sweatbands.