In my previous posting (Dec 14), I printed an email sent to Supervisor Gibson from Bev De Witt-Moylan. Herewith Mr. Gibson’s reply to Ms. De Witt-Moylan, posted with her permission. I look forward to “a Board resolution,” if any, on the fate of The Los Osos 45. So far, the silence from day one from them has been deafening. And posted next, Ms. De Witt-Moylan’s response to Supervisor Gibson’s’ reply. As she has in other postings, her comments should be read very carefully by anyone who doesn’t seem to understand what has happened to The Los Osos 45 and what the implications are of this whole insane RWQCB Mad Hatter Tea Party & Auto de Fe Public Hanging, and what it has really been like for those who are living through it. Her observation about the utter "bait & switchy" untrustworthiness of the RWQCB warrants particular attention for any who wonder at the “why” of this lawsuit. I can only trust that at least the other Supervisors are paying attention.
Subject: Re: Fw: Contact Us (response #787)
Ms. De Witt-Moylan: First, on Tuesday, I do believe that I said I hadn't read the PZLDF lawsuit "recently". I did read the first complaint, which I understand has been substantially modified subsequent to the first hearing. Second, I believe that I also said that the CDOs at this point were "more symbolic than substantive". I certainly acknowledge the unfairness of 45 households out of 5000 being singled out for enforcement and I do hope that the Regional Board acts soon to rescind those actions. That said,the progress made by the County over the last year has impressed the Regional Board and its staff. With that progress, the RB has held new enforcement in abeyance and has indicated that no action on the existing CDOs will occur in the forseeable future. I believe the RB would likely rescind the existing CDOs if the current litigation can be resolved. I appreciate Sups. Patterson and Achadjian suggesting a Board resolution. This will give us an opportunity to speak to many important issues facing the County and community in the coming year. Sincerely yours, Bruce Gibson
Email Reply 101
And now Ms. DeWitt-Moylan’s point by point response to Supervisor Gibson’s e-mail reply. [For clarity, I have put Gibson’s original email comments in italics]
Ms. De Witt-Moylan: First, on Tuesday, I do believe that I said I hadn't read the PZLDF lawsuit "recently". I did read the first complaint, which I understand has been substantially modified subsequent to the first hearing.
It would seem logical, Mr. Gibson, that substantial modifications in the PZLDF lawsuit would have led to your curiosity and to your own research into the amended lawsuit to keep yourself current, so that you might be able to report to the BOS from the original source rather than from what someone had told you about the suit or what you vaguely remember from the first suit that no longer fully represents the case. The PZLDF lawsuit in its entirety is very important to your District 2 constituency, and as I explained in my previous communication, it has implications for the entire state of California. Though you are engaged and occupied with the business of all the towns within District 2, the PZLDF lawsuit addresses issues that impact all your constituents, and such it deserves your time and attention.
Second, I believe that I also said that the CDOs at this point were "more symbolic than substantive". I certainly acknowledge the unfairness of 45 households out of 5000 being singled out for enforcement and I do hope that the Regional Board acts soon to rescind those actions.
With all due respect, Mr. Gibson, this response is unacceptable given the situation at hand. Your explanation and elaboration are as unsatisfactory as your original statement. Indeed, your comments are insulting to recipients of enforcement actions and demonstrate that you have not made a conscious cognitive connection with what we have been telling you since before you took office. I would sincerely appreciate your suggestions about what else people can say about their experiences as Designated Parties in receipt of CDOs and as Interested Parties living in fear of enforcement to help you to comprehend that the effect of these CDOs has been and continues to be crushingly substantive.
When we say we have spent thousands of dollars of our fixed and hard-earned incomes and thousands of collective hours of our own time in our defense, we are describing a substantive impact. When we say that we have spent time in doctors' offices, ERs, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and therapists' offices, as a direct result of CCRWQCB prosecution and enforcement, we are describing a substantive impact. The collective thousands of dollars in medical bills alone would add up to an impressively substantive amount if we enumerated them all.
We have lost our privacy. Though my husband and I do not have our address printed in the telephone book, on January 22, 2007, our name, address, and a map to our house was displayed on a screen, video recorded, live streamed, and shown on television many times subsequently. Anyone who accesses that hearing on line today can see it for themselves. Our request for redaction was denied. The ruling was that the public's right to know outweighed our right to privacy. Other information which I considered personal and private, which many people with whom I worked and socialized did not know about me, has become common knowledge in our defense against CCRWQCB enforcement.
At the December 2006 hearing the CCRWQCB prosecution team displayed on a large screen the name and address of a CDO recipient who had requested and been granted redaction. Reminding the prosecution team of the redaction, that defendant had to ask them to remove the personal information from the screen. Of course, the damage was done. Prior to receipt of the Proposed Cease and Desist Orders in January 2006 we were all private citizens exercising our choice to live and work anonymously in the community. That part of our lives is gone for now. The loss of our right to privacy because we had become defendants in a random prosecution is yet another substantive impact. A reading of the amended lawsuit would provide you considerable background on substantive impacts of the CCRWQCB enforcement actions to date.
It is confusing that you believe that, because the Water Board "indicated that no action on the existing CDOs will occur in the foreeseable future," we are out of danger. The CCRWQCB has a poor record of consistency, of doing what they said they would do, except for their resolve to continue to prosecute us, even as they insist they intend to treat everyone equally. It is astonishing given the CCRWQCB's history with your constituents that you continue to take this board at their word when our experience has been so different. "Unfairness" hardly begins to describe the CCRWQCB's actions toward us who have received orders. Nothing short of their vacating our orders will take us out of harm's way. They have the power of the Attorney General's office behind them. We have you. And you are not behind us. "I do hope that the Regional Board acts soon to rescind those actions," is simply not a commitment from you for those of us who have been on the receiving end of this enforcement for this long. We have enough experience with the CCRWQCB to know that mere hoping is futile and weak. The CCRWQCB does not respect "hoping." It is surprising that you do not know that yet.
Your peers on the Board of Supervisors see a significant enough degree of substantive threat in these enforcement orders that they are willing to consider drafting and presenting a resolution to the CCRWQCB in support of CDO and CAO recipients. Your failure to initiate such an action yourself and your noncommittal response to the action of your peers demonstrates a lack of support for vulnerable members of the community you represent.
That said,the progress made by the County over the last year has impressed the Regional Board and its staff. With that progress, the RB has held new enforcement in abeyance and has indicated that no action on the existing CDOs will occur in the forseeable future. I believe the RB would likely rescind the existing CDOs if the current litigation can be resolved.
The CCRWQCB has repeatedly changed the conditions of the prosecution, the orders, the dates, and the timelines throughout the past two years. They have changed the meanings of important words. I can only wonder about their definition of the word, "forseeable," as in "forseeable future." Elderly people and invalids who hold CDOs and CAOs are waiting for this process to end so that they can sell their homes and move into assisted living. As you know, the enforcement orders go with the property. It is very hard to sell a home with an enforcement order. These are people with no time to spare. That is a substantial impact.
You may remember that CDO defendants spent quite a bit of money to develop and propose a settlement agreement a year ago at this time, which many of us signed, the Sullivan agreement. We pledged to hook up to a WWTF as soon as one became available. We were naively hopeful a year ago that this reasonable action which demonstrated cooperation with the spirit of the CCRWQCB's enforcement would embody a satisfactory compromise. That agreement was unacceptable to Mr. Reed Sato and the CCRWQCB. Subsequently Designated Parties and many Interested Parties have spent considerable money to comply with the interim compliance requirements. The 218 has passed. Nothing is left for us to do except to hook up to a WWTF when one becomes available. Yet the orders remain. The Sullivan agreement is dead. There is no way to explain how maintaining enforcement orders on 45 households has any useful purpose in promoting the safety of the waters of the state.
That the CCRWQCB "has held new enforcement in abeyance" is cold comfort and an unacceptable rationale for 45 families to continue to have their property encumbered and threatened by CDOs and CAOs, with the real, substantive consequences occurring right now for people you represent. This tradeoff does not make sense as the best way for you to protect your constituents and stand for environmental justice. All around us people are remodeling and enlarging their homes, getting ready for the holidays, spending disposable income. At the same time we who face enforcement are concerned about what 2011, a mere three years away, will bring. No one has reassured us that when the CCRWQCB is finished with us we won't be walking away from our homes, for most of us our single biggest asset, at some future date. We have spent money on document costs, mailing costs, interim compliance costs, court costs, legal fees, contributions to the legal defense fund, medical costs, and therapy costs. Some of us have no disposable income left to spend on Christmas this year. My husband and I are dipping into our savings as it is to cover our own costs. All of these are substantive impacts.
The CCRWQCB has had almost two years to treat citizens rationally, respectfully, and equitably. We begged them. Defendants, your constituents, met with them personally, repeatedly, to tell them what this prosecution was causing and to ask them to use other means. They persisted with the prosecution, however, leaving us no choice but to ask a court of law to protect our rights. No one else has stepped forward in our defense. We are alone. I am sorry that you see the sacrifice of 45 of your families as an acceptable exchange for the County's good graces with the CCRWQCB and for the merely relative safety of the rest of the town - for the time being. I am most sorry that you have put yourself in a position to make the CCRWQCB's case, to represent them instead of us.
This is what I wish you had said at the CCRWQCB meeting on December 7, 2007. Instead of politely and passively expressing your hope that the CCRWQCB might resolve the enforcement issue soon, I expected you to tell them as our representative that you protest their actions against us. I expected you to tell them that, while you are committed to working with them, you also have a solemn obligation to protect your people. Standing for us and working with the CCRWQCB do not have to be mutually exclusive. If you do not take a stand for us, Mr. Gibson, who will?
I wish you had stood up for us. I wish that you had explained to the CCRWQCB the absurdity of their requirement, that no individual homeowner can build a WWTF, that this enforcement action is unacceptable, that prosecuting 45 private households for failures of government is a dangerous, destructive, unproductive, ill-conceived and poorly thought out strategy that threatens the health and welfare of your constituents. At the least, you could have demonstrated your support for us silently by staying at that December 7 meeting. Instead, you demonstrated the distance you put between yourself and us by leaving as soon as you were finished with your remarks. We got the message, as I am certain the CCRWQCB did, as well. We stood alone again.
Our country was founded, not by those who hoped that things would work out eventually, but by those who took a stand against tyrrany and established a government of the people. A grave mistake of those in power in a democratic society is forgetting who their employer is, who pays their salary. The citizens of Los Osos are taxpayers, and as such are the CCRWQCB's employer as well as yours. We deserve in that capacity the respect and protection we are due. Sometimes those who have temporarily been granted a modicum of power forget that the people ultimately decide who is protecting them, and who is not. Sometimes those with temporary power require a substantive reminder.
As our representative to the Board of Supervisors, I expect so much more from you, Mr. Gibson, than what you have offered so far. It is regrettable that we 45 families must look for relief and support in this struggle to Supervisors who have their own constituents to protect and defend. How fortunate for us that those Supervisors recognize that the CCRWQCB's prosecution in Los Osos has implications for all citizens of San Luis Obispo County and are willing in the name of San Luis Obispo County to come to our defense.
"The first obligation of government is to protect our people."
- Senator Susan Collins of Maine - 4/27/2006
In case you missed it, there’s a rather funny story by Patrick Howe in this week’s New Times, “Merry Christmas, Sunny Acres!”
Seem Dan De Vaul and the county are at it again. The De Vaul ranch is that stretch of land near the corner of Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Rd. A short time ago, Mr. De Vaul was in hot water with the county code enforcement folks for running “Sunny Acres, a not-for-profit clean-and-sober living facility” without the proper permits for the renovated barn where the residents were sleeping.
This resulted in the “evicted” residents setting up a sort of mini- “Little Hoover” rough camping arrangement by the road (for maximum exposure) of wind-shelters, cots, a fire pit, all asking a pitiful Question for passing motorists with winter coming on, “If we can’t stay in the barn, where are we to go except to camp out here in the wind and weather?”
And of course, embarrassment to the County by raising another question: Shouldn’t the COUNTY be doing something to help these people so they don’t have to go live in a Little Hoover encampment next to Los Osos Valley Road, right across the street from all those nice million-dollar ranchettes with people looking out of their million-dollar windows to this constantly changing . . . eeeuuuuu mess, and . . . eeeuuuu… all these homeless addicts and who knows who else . . . eeeuuuuu?
Now Mr. De Vaul’s selling Christmas Trees to raise money to support the Sunny Acres project but according to this story, doesn’t have the proper permit to sell the trees. Plus, the County enforcement is now fed up and threatening to charge him $99 per hour to deal with any new enforcement complaints. Says Mr. De Vaul, “I think all they’re doing is looking for a chance to bust my balls because of what I did with the beds.” Naturally the County denies any connection.
But here’s the question that rattled through my head reading, again, about this ongoing saga: Isn’t one of the first steps in recovery the No Bullshit Rule? No cons, no weasels, no games, take responsibility for your decisions, own what you do, clean up your act, straighten up, play by the rules, do it right?
If so, then what seems like a merry game to outsiders looking in – Merry Prankster Dan versus Mean County Code Enforcement Scrooges – is actually counter productive to Recovery 101 that the “clean-and-sober living facility” – Sunny Acres – is supposed to be all about.
Interestingly, in the same New Times, was an update on “Project Amend,” the only drug and alcohol detox live-in facility in the county. The group, headed by Michael Axelrod, has been working diligently to upgrade their small facility on Broad Street, raising money to do the work AND GET THE PERMITS NEEDED. They are still looking for donations of “cash, computers, office equipment, bedding, a lawnmower and volunteer labor” to finish the job.
So, there’s a recovery facility abiding by Recovery 101 – no excuses, no BS, do it right.
Which is a good thing since there are about zero facilities for live-in drug and alcohol treatment in this County.
And for more irony, the story following the De Vaul story was an excellent piece, again by Patrick Howe, “Putting the Pieces Together – If San Luis Obispo County is such a nice place to live, why do so many people kill themselves? Or is that part of the answer.” And at the top of the list given for the high suicide rate is this: “There aren’t enough mental health amenities.” Add in the high association of suicide with drug and alcohol abuse (chicken and egg) and you have some interesting dots to connect running through all three of these stories.
Which reminds me, since Project Amend over on Broad Street is in need of volunteer help, why not give Mr. Axelrod a call at 782-9600 at get on the work-party list. In the season of giving, the gift of time is the most precious of all. Barring that, send ‘em some cash to help pay for all the various proper permits the county requires so they can continue to do the work the county should be doing.
And, There Ought To Be A Law 101
As previously posted, Ron Crawford’s “ought to be a law” was one of seven selected by Assemblyman Blakeslee in his recent contest. Ron cc’d the following email to Blakeslee’s office to make the following important corrections to his proposal:
Thank you for your phone call the other day informing me that my "Ought to be a law" idea was one of the seven finalists.
In the Trib, it said that my law idea was:
"* Prohibit special districts from establishing their own recall election date and instead transfer that authority to the Local Agency Formation Commission."
Here's my question: When that says "special districts," does that also include things like City Councils and Board of Supervisors, and the like? Because that's what I meant, and it's very important.
What happened in Rosemead, for example, involved a city council, and not just a community services district.
So, I guess what I'm not clear on is this... is a city council considered a "special district?"
My suggestion is that ANY elected official facing a recall in California should not have a say in setting their own recall election date.
Just wanted to clear that up.
As always, much thanks,Ron
What’s in a Name 101
Well, it is true: Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan. There in the Dec. 15 Tribune is the headline: "Firm disputes sewer moniker -- Tri-W Enterprises wants public works officials to adopt a different name for the midtown parcel. "
Awww, Jeeze, and here we were told that the Tri-W Sewer Plant” was gonna be a jewel in the crown, a tremendous benefit and beautiful addition to the community, a community resource complete with tot-lot and playing fields, the ONLY solution to Los Osos sewer woes, the BEST solution, in short a tremendous asset. You didn’t hear anything from the Tri-W Enterprise lawyers threatening mayhem if the name Tri-W was associated with our centrally located Tri-W “resource park.”
But now? Quotes the Trib: “The company’s attorney, in a strongly worded letter, says that the repeated use of the name “Tri-W site” or “Tri-w parcel” with the “ill-fated wastewater treatment project . . . continues to defame my client’s good name.”
Lordy! Defame? Continues the Trib. “While there haven’t been specific problems with Tri-W’s name being attached to the site, Ochyliski [the attorney writing the “strongly worded letter”] said, ‘The way the name is used has a potentially bad connotation.”
Lordy! A “potentially” bad connotation? As in, maybe someday somebody might connect a sewer plant sited on the basis of an unsupported SOC with some kind of “bait and switchy” nefariousness? And maybe suspect that the Tri-W Associates had something to do with all that nefariousness? That kind of “potentially bad connotation?”
Thankfully (no doubt because they’d get laughed out of court?) the lawyers haven’t threatened to sue over the matter. Continues the Trib, “It has offered suggestions to the county, such as calling the land the “midtown site,” the “Pallisades site,” or the “Los Osos CSD site.”
Or how’s about doing like the rock star Prince did when he decided to change his name to “Artist” or “The Artist,” and/or used a weirdo symbol to represent himself, which forced everyone to print the weird symbol and then add, “The Artist formerly known as Prince.”
So, how’s about this? The Palisades site, Formerly Known As Tri-W.
In the meantime, my advice for the Boys over at Tri-W Enterprise, GET A GRIP. If the County Process doesn’t get derailed or a fix isn’t in or there isn’t some bait and switchy pulled at the last minute, it seems, at this point, that the FormerlyKnown As Tri-W site may never be selected for the sewer plant. In which case, it will be sold or traded or – God willing—be bought by the county and turned into a public park for under-parked Los Osos, with the result that maybe we’ll end up with a “resource park” without the sewer plant in the middle of it.
And should that happen and should the park be a beautiful park, we could call it Formerly Known As Tri-W Park and who knows, maybe the boys at Tri-W Enterprise will donate money to build a huge bronze monument to The Sewer Wars, something really artistically mediocre involving horses, goats, dead bodies, pikestaffs, snarling faces, leaflets flying everywhere – you know, like one of those monumentally ginormous realistic heroic sculptures found all over Russia to commemorate the Great Struggle To Save The Motherland.
Something big and bronze that the pigeons can poop all over. Something we can all be proud of. Something we can bring our grandchildren to see and point at and say, in a feeble voice, “Sonny, Ah served in thet War. An’ ever' time hit rains or Ah flush mah toilet, Ah gits a twinge in mah old war wound. Them wuz the days!”
More Sewerville 101
The following email was cc’d to me from Mr. Murphy of AES. With the following attachment. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. As I’ve posted here previously, it will remain to be seen in this Battle of Words, (and battle of government agencies) just what/who will prevail: county? State? Feds? And what the meaning of “is” is. Which means we’re back in Humpty Dumpty Land: What are “pollutants?” What’s a” point source discharge?”And so forth. And who decides? A state judge? A federal judge? Well, stay tuned.
My “goal”, which is in alignment with the “National Goal”, is to “comply” with the already existing laws, not to change any law as the laws already in place to support (require) everything that I am saying, doing and proposing to do toward the implementation of the AES program, not only locally, but nationally. The RECLAMATOR, as the “Ultimate Water Conservation Device” achieves the “National Goal” as defined in U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26 of “eliminating the discharge of pollutants at the source”.
The County’s due diligence phase, provided done ethically, will result in the County’s not moving forward with the project and turning it back to the LOCSD who are going to have an opportunity to enter into a Public Private Partnership Agreement with AES and move forward with the only federally compliant solution for Los Osos. However, if for any unforeseen or known justifiable reason the LOCSD doesn’t accept our generous offer, put $20 million in their account, acquire a $150,000 ongoing monthly revenue stream and challenge the current debts against them as unjustifiable as a result of them being a part of an unlawfully “Water Board” approved sewer project that was not in compliance with the requirements of U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26, AES is prepared to, as a private organization, move forward and retain all revenue and proceeds from the project as a totally private entity. This will simply be the LOCSD’s own choice. Please understand that the AB 2701 does not preclude nor prevent the LOCSD form moving forward with AES to provide its “Discharge Elimination Services”. This is a “service” and not a “sewer project” and upon us, i.e. AES and the LOCSD, or AES alone moving forward to provide this service to Los Osos, the County will then be precluded from moving forward with any “sewer” project for Los Osos as there will no longer be any “sewage” to “collect” within the community and therefore, no need for a County provided sewer collection system.
In regard to the County “entertaining proposals for decentralized solutions”, we are prepared to file a federal injunction against the project if any solution, decentralized or otherwise, is proposed which does not comply with the requirements as defined in statutes provided in U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26. Any proposed “solution” shall consist of the “best available demonstrated control technology currently available which will eliminate the discharge of ALL pollutants at the source” and additionally meet all other criteria (U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26, Sections 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1316 and 1317) that is required to be considered by any authority who is authorized to identify such “best available innovative and alternative technology” and them to promulgate, require and assist in the implementation of such as an area-wide waste management solution and shall be specified by “name brand or equal” based on its performance. The RECLAMATOR is such a technology which achieves this “National Standard of Performance” as defined in U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26, Section 1316 and is additionally superior in comparison with all other “decentralized solutions” which, by law, if not “best”, aren’t such solutions at all. I have attached my “annotated working version” of this U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26 for you to familiarize yourself with if you wish.
In regard to your suggestion that there is a need to “replace septic systems in high density areas with a community system”, you are absolutely wrong. There is only a need to “eliminate the discharge of pollutants” through retrofitting such septic systems to “eliminate the discharge of pollutants”. This is what the AES Discharge Elimination Service will do. Neither “density” nor TMDL considerations are any longer an issue when the “discharge of pollutants” has been eliminated. A “community system” as you are suggesting will only be a community “water collection” system and I really don’t think the County wants to purchase our water which they would be collecting via their “community system”. How logical would that be? They have many other sources of water that would be much less expensive.
[ . . . ], the RECLAMATOR may show up in the “environmental review process”, however, AES isn’t going to enter into any working relationship with the County as their deadline to enter into an agreement with AES was the 23rd of October. I have already made that very clear with them. Any more money that the County spends on moving forward with the Los Osos “community sewer project” is only an unnecessary expense which is not justifiable since the AES Discharge Elimination Service providing the RECLAMATOR has become available as the most cost effective and best available technology which can eliminate the discharge of pollutants at the source as the federal law requires. I would encourage and support the citizens of Los Osos in gaining reimbursement of any unnecessary economic burden that may be unjustifiably imposed upon them as a result of the County continuing its project in light of recent developments.
The County process is dead as they cannot implement a “sewer collection lateral” with no positive revenue stream to pay for it. It is only simple arithmetic. To borrow funds to build and pay for a conventional system, they must guarantee the payback of the loan. It has always been a “basic operational procedure” in the past under these circumstances to provide to the lender a guarantee of payback through implementing a security agreement which would result in an ordinance being established that would require every property within the to-be-sewered-area to “hook-up/connect” to the publicly owned treatment works.
When in the past, a “required hook-up” justified a positive revenue stream to help pay for a conventional system. The “required hook-up” was able to be “required” and legally implemented upon the individual sources, i.e. homeowners, as they were discharging “pollutants”, however all that has been changed with the availability and implementation of the RECLAMATOR technology.
Rather than a “required hook-up” generating a positive revenue stream to assist in paying for a conventional system as has been the previous practice in the industry, a “required hook-up” would only create a NEGATIVE revenue stream for the County as California Water Code § 13050 defines the permeate produced by the RECLAMATOR as a “valuable resource”. Furthermore, California law clarifies that whoever owns the “facilities”, i.e. RECLAMATOR, that reclaims such recycled water also owns the rights to the water. AES retains ownership of all of its facilities it uses to provide the Discharge Elimination Services to its Clients. AES also has full right to establish the “price” of such and its price would be sufficient enough to cover any additional assessments or other economic impositions which may have been placed upon its customers by any public entity. For the record, the price of the AES recycled water has been currently established at 5Xs that of the cost of the public water source serving the same property.
The County, who is already in a $20 million dollar deficit, won’t be able to pay AES for its water. There is no law which requires a homeowner to deliver “sewage” to a public sewer service, and just to the contrary, we all have the right to 100% consumptive use of all the water we purchase from a public water supply entity. The RECLAMATOR enables the homeowner to benefit from such 100% consumptively. There is no legal means for a public entity, such as the County, to impose a service fee on anyone who has no need for such service.
[ . . . ]
D. Thomas Murphy,
AES Central Coast Discharge Elimination Company, LLC.
Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc.
RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Water”
"Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity." ~~Inventor Nikola Tesla
“ADDENDUM” TO GOVERNMENT CLAIMS FORM1) DEE THOMAS MURPHY, an individual; ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTALSYSTEMS, INC., A Nevada Corporation; AES CENTRAL COAST DISCHARGEELIMINATION COMPANY, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company15) There are approximately 5,000 dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs) in theLos Osos area. The Service Establishment Cost Profits are $37,500,000(5,000 DUEs X $7,500 [net profit after service establishment cost]). The OngoingMonthly Service Fee Profits are $42,000,000 over 20 years (5,000DUEs X $35.00 [net profit per month per DUE] = $175,000/month,$2,100,000/year and $42,000,000 [plus inflation]/20 years, which is thetime frame defined for such facilities in 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).18) The state agencies or employees against whom this claim is filedpublished various false and defamatory statements with malice orconstitutional malice during the course of a radio broadcast on September14, 2007, as well as in writing on September 6, 2007, which include, but arenot limited to, assertions that: Claimants have misinterpreted relevantfederal law; the Reclamator is not exempt from federal regulation; theReclamator discharges “waste;” the Reclamator discharges levels of “waste”that are not acceptable; Claimants have made claims related to theReclamator and its role and place in wastewater purification that areunsubstantiated and untrue; and, Claimants told representatives of theRegional Water Quality Control Board that Claimants were in Los Osos todisrupt the county assessment vote process.19) Under California law, a public entity may be held vicariously liable forthe conduct of its employees acting within the scope of their employment,but only to the extent that the employees may be held liable. (Gov. Code, §815.2, subd. (a); Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. (1976) 60Cal.App.3d 814, 819 [131 Cal.Rptr. 854].) The state is responsible for stateagencies or employees, such as those against whom this claim is filed, thatmake statements with malice or constitutional malice that are false in theirentirety as they pertain to Claimants, are slanderous or libelous on their faceas written, as well as through innuendo, and where such false andunprivileged publications expose Claimants to hatred, contempt, ridicule orobloquy, which has caused them to be shunned or avoided and which hasinjured them in their trade and occupation.