Pages

Saturday, December 08, 2007

Regional Water Quality Control Board to The Los Osos 45 – No Christmas Candy For You! You Get Lumps of Coal In Your Shoes.

Yes, while the rest of the community slumber all safe in their beds this Christmas season, at their Dec 7 meeting, the RWQCB decided that The Los Osos 45, those hapless folks who have been singled out for two years worth of continued jerk-around punishment (and despite of the overwhelming passage of the Prop. 218 vote), will remain burdened with their CDOs and CAO’s hanging around their necks and encumbering their properties, to twist slowly in the winter wind.

This unsurprising decision was announced while the three Board members present coolly washed their hands of all responsibility in the flood of copious crocodile tears that flowed down from their bored eyes. Talk to the hand. Not our problem. Not our fault.

But the non-action item was not without its ironies and delights:

-- First off, a thank you to the last minute intervention of Paavo Ogren and the LOCSD, who agreed to split the cost of having AGP Video cover the meeting. The community owes them a real thank-you. As usual, the meeting will be broadcast over the usual channels and video-streamed from the AGP website. And hooray for AGP Video as well.

-- There was real confusion over what was supposed to happen at this meeting. It was understood that the Board had previously asked the staff to bring this item back for some kind of decision in Dec. Silly community. They thought that meant that the Board would actually do something about vacating the CDO’s, especially since by Dec, the Prop 218 vote would be in. Indeed, one member of the community, a CDO holder, noted that she voted “the right way” and trusted that since she had voted “the right way” that the Board would keep their part of the bargain – since everyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size knew that the point of stringing up those 45 was to coerce the whole town to “vote the right way,” but now she was shocked – shocked! – to find out that the Board wasn’t to be trusted!

Well, silly community. The staff had decided on another course of action and what should have been a possible action item was listed as an information item only, no action. Chairman Young then ‘splained that they had asked it be put on the agenda so “we could consider vacating CDO’s,” not that they actually might do that. Nope, just “consider” the idea. But before that could even happen, the Board’s lawyers met with them in closed session several times and advised them to do nothing about rescinding the CDO’s. Why?

Ah, now it gets interesting. Shauna Sullivan is to blame. Yep. In order to protect their homes, protect their civil rights and due process rights, some of The Los Osos 45 did the only thing they could do and did exactly what the law allowed them to do – walk through the constantly changing goal-posts of the RWQCB & SWB’s Mad Hatter Tea Party & Auto de Fe Public Hanging Civil Hearing Process, and then into a ‘real” court of law to get a ruling on the Board’s procedures.

Alas, following the rules and following the law governing the rules is exactly what the RWQCBoard didn’t like because actually standing up for one’s legal rights doesn’t allow the Board to play the role of noblesse oblige that they’re clearly so fond of playing -- and so, like the parent who beats his kid because the kid made him angry and then blames the kid because if he hadn’t made him mad he wouldn’t have to beat him, see? –the Board now wants this all to play out in the courts. As Boardmember Shallcross noted, he wants this all to stay in the courts to validate their methods to determine if what they’ve been doing is legal.

In short, Los Osos 45, you have been singled out to be the guinea pigs in the Board’s trial run at using individual CDO’s and CAO’s as a state-wide enforcement tool to get certain votes to go the “right way,” and/or get built whatever the RWQCB wants built. In other words, when governments fail the citizens, the RWQCBoard wants a new tool to punish citizens for their government’s failure. And lest the rest of the citizens in the Los Osos PZ think they’re somehow off the hook, they’re not, they’re next.

--As further reasons for keeping The 45 hanging in the wind, Chairman Young cited a comment in the Tribune from CSD Board member Julie Tacker threatening to “derail” the Tri-W project if it landed back in the middle of town. What makes Young’s citation of Ms. Tacker’s quote as a reason to keep The Los Osos 45 strung up so funny is that during the Mad Hatter Tea Party “trials,” it was Mr. Young who was ADAMANT that newspapers were NOT a credible source of any information so NOTHING in a newspaper would be admitted into evidence and so would NOT be allowed to even be brought before the tender eyes of the Board.

Yet here was Chairman Young citing a [out of context] quote from the Tribune as a direct reason to keep the 45 strung up. Even funnier, Tacker herself stood up during public comment to note the irony there and asked that before staff or even Young based any decision on that quote – in the non-credible newspaper – he could easily have called her and gotten the context correct.

But even stranger is this: Chairman Young noted that he was afraid that if the county picked Tri-W the citizens would – again – derail such a project. What’s Chairman Young’s obsession with Tri-W? Why would he think the County would pick Tri-W? That project came in dead last on the TAC’s evaluation process. Heck, even the Peer Review Dr. T Group listed Tri-W as at the bottom of the heap.

Then Board member, Monica Hunter, during Supervisor Gibson’s brief update of the 218 vote, tried to make a comment and the Board’s lawyer kept trying to shut her up. After some wrangling, Ms. Hunter’s observation to Gibson became a bell that couldn’t possibly be un-rung.

And what was her comment that had the Board’s panties in a twist? Just this – Morro Bay has recently been designated a national marine estuary and as such the rules governing what happens near it, around it, upwind of it, upstream of it, downstream of it, have changed. And Ms. Hunter wanted to caution the county that in their due diligence evaluation process they needed to be aware of those new rules.

Translation? Near as I could see, it was a warning shot across the bow that at least one member of the RWQCB fully intended to take another look at the Tri-W site, should that site be chosen for a sewer plant. And that second “look” would NOT be benign. No smiley faces this time. No phony SOC. Instead, lots of diligence – at least from one RWQCBoard member.

So why the flurry to shut Ms. Hunter up? Why the “fear” that the county will pick Tri- W? Does the Regional Board know something we don’t know, but should??? It’s no secret RWQCB CEO Roger Briggs has been playing Hobson’s Choice with Tri- W for years. There was a reason why Pandora Nash-Karner emailed him to beg him to “fine the CSD out of existence” even before the recall was certified. And a reason Roger replied that he was way ahead of her and clearly had been working on doing just that even before the election. And now that the County has the project, are those sticky little fingers now melding with sticky little fingers from Chairman Young?

-- and then for some comic relief came Mr. Golden to observe drolly that if Los Osos wanted better treatment the community should change its name from Los Osos to . . . Olin.

It was a reference to an earlier agenda item concerning Olin chemical company that had contaminated the water basin of Morgan Hill and environs with thoroughly nasty perchlorate and the Board was considering the various staff recommendations as to the severity of the Clean Up and Abatement Order requirements – from relatively minimal to harshly pro-active. What made the contrast so interesting is that the Board spent a lot of time wringing their hands over choosing between A and C, with Mr. (“Kumbaya”) Shallcross noting that he really wanted to vote for C (higher severity level/pro-active) and Oh, Oh, Eeeuuuuu, he would hate himself in the morning for NOT voting for C, but, oh, well, he’d back off and vote for some lesser requirements, oh, dear, oh, woe.

So for Olin chemical company, compassion and Christmas candy. For The Los Osos 45 – coal in their shoes. Season’s Greetings.

-- And, then there was this: One of the cases cited during the original Mad Hatter Tea Party “trial” was the curious case of Morongo vs. RWQCB/SWB – a case that has been appealed several(?) times now and is heading for another major hearing. That case had to do with the fairness of a regulatory board using staff as prosecutors in their various Mad Hatter “trials.” The argument is that there is an inherent bias when a member of the staff is interacting on a day to day basis with the Board -- “all cozy and chatty as Auntie,” to quote poet John Giardi – and then comes the “trial” and poof! There he/she is acting as Prosecutor to the Board members who Poof! are now acting as Judges. (To avoid “Morongo” was one of the reasons the original Mad Hatter Tea Party was shut down, the Grand Inquisitor was brought in from Sacramento, and the whole mad process started over – which still left all the bells in the Board’s ears tainted and un-rung since the 45 and the original Board (Judges) remained the same.)

But at this hearing, if you wanted a perfect illustration of just what Morongo was about, you only had to whip out your cell phone and take a snapshot of the dais. There, sitting at the left hand of Chairman Young, was Roger Briggs. Cheek by jowl, elbow to elbow, Tweedle-Dee, Tweedle-Dum, Brothers in Arms, Bosom Buddies, Trenchermen at The Dais, nameplates and heads often barely inches apart.

Morongo doesn’t get any clearer than that.

-- meantime, as per Supervisor Gibson’s report, on Dec 18, the BOS will open the month-long “window” to challenge the recent 218 election. It’s during this period that anyone wishing to file a protest lawsuit & etc. can do so. After Jan 18th, that window will close.

Also, meantime, the county chugs along with the project. On Dec 18 at the Community Center in Los Osos, will be an EIR scoping workshop. Public welcome, though it’s a puzzle to me what remains to be “scoped, since the original EIR (the one that was overridden by the old (and now removed) unsupported SOC – the one about “overriding community values” that nobody seems able to track down, though Lord knows Ron Crawford over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot has been trying for years – talk about due diligence!) still seems to be mostly valid in and in little or no need of updating.

On the other hand, perhaps that Scoping workshop will be the time to bring up RWQCB member Hunter’s, advice concerning Morro Bay’s new status?

And now for folks who don’t have CDOs, maybe citizens in the PZ who have not been singled out to be jerked around and hammered for two years then left to swing in the wind, folks who might not understand what it feels like to get coal in your shoes this Christmas, the following remarks were prepared to be read during public comment, and printed with permission from CDO holders, the De Witt-Moylans.


December 7, 2007


RWQCB REMARKS

On April 27, 2006, the day before the first RWQCB CDO hearing Senator Susan Collins of Maine said, The first obligation of government is to protect our people.

At a CDO hearing on December 15, 2006, Chairperson Young said,
CHAIRPERSON YOUNG: Okay. This is a
cumbersome procedure, but it actually goes towards
higher levels of due process being offered,
believe it or not.

On May 10, 2007, Vice Chairperson Jeffries, who was not present at the January 22, 2007, hearing and had to base his vote on the record of that hearing said,

RWQCB meeting Transcript for May 10, 2007
P. 47
VICE CHAIRPERSON JEFFRIES: I read all
202 pages.
CHAIRPERSON YOUNG: Okay. And did you
watch anything?
VICE CHAIRPERSON JEFFRIES: No, I did
not. When I found out the length of the meeting
my wife wouldn't let me tie up the DVD that long.
(Laughter.)
VICE CHAIRPERSON JEFFRIES: So I read
all 202 pages during "Deal or No Deal".


Vice Chairperson Jeffries subsequently voted to issue two Cease and Desist Orders that day based on that record. No one on the board objected or made any reference to his comments. The transcript to which he jokingly referred contained evidence of extreme hardship and duress endured by the CDO defendants sitting before him.

None of you has any idea what it is like to be us. None of you has any idea what it is like to come home to a hysterical phone message from a CDO co-defendant saying, “I can’t take it anymore; I’m going to kill myself!”

You have no idea what it is like to be us. And so you can make jokes or tolerate jokes about our lives and deceive yourselves into believing that the CDOs are not burdensome. In fact, the human cost has been and continues to be incalculable.

By deciding not to vacate these CDOs but instead to consider further individual enforcement, you continue to fail in your obligation to protect the people. Holding citizens accountable for failures of government is irresponsible and unconscionable.


“The first obligation of government is to protect our people.”
-Senator Susan Collins of Maine

And

“I’d like to start by saying that unlike “Olin” corporation, who has a way to remediate their pollution, we residents on septic systems have no way to remediate the use of our septic system personally that the board is willing to accept.

You stand at a juncture where to take no action on the CDO’s you have issued is a cowardly act. You have stated that you want to treat everyone in the “Prohibition Zone” equally, and yet 13 CDO’s exist and have existed for almost a year now. 25 settlers face the same fate. Your resolve to do nothing on these enforcement actions keeps us recipients at a distinct disadvantage from the remaining 4500 homeowners in the “Prohibition Zone.” This is unfair and unequal treatment. It has been unequal treatment for almost two years now. How can you consider yourselves unbiased when just 38 households out of 4500 bear the burden of enforcement actions and have borne them for almost two years?

This is what having a CDO has done and continues to do to us:

It keeps us from getting a loan on our home for the full value of what we could borrow if our home were unencumbered.
It has cost us thousands of dollars and countless hours, days, and months of living a normal life while the rest of the community continues to lead lives untrammeled by regulatory actions.
We have put holds on our plans to remodel our home, not knowing if we must walk away from our property on January 1, 2011. As Matt Thompson said on April 28, 2005, “You will have to vacate the premises.”
Our doctor’s visits have increased as a direct relationship from the stress of this two-year long process. My wife has had several $7000 infusions to help with her immune disease. Prior to this harassment by the water board she was symptom free for almost a year. I have developed chronic heartburn, something I never had before our proposed and subsequent CDO.

This is what your own board members have said or done:

When I asked Michael Thomas how he would feel if his own mother had received a CDO, he said, “I wouldn’t like it.”
Mr. Hayashi said, “ I don’t know what I would do if I got a CDO.”
When I told Matt Thompson that I wanted to build an on-site, completely enclosed system that would not allow my wastewater to enter the soil, he said, “You don’t want to go that way, Bill.”
When we asked repeatedly for an extension of our hearing, we were denied each time, even after we complied with a twenty-page letter explaining in detail why we needed an extension. When I specifically asked Michael Thomas just what “substantial justification” for an extension was, he said he would get back to me with an answer from the chairman. He never got back to me with an answer.

But these men on the Water Board who sit in judgment of us are all honorable men. These are men who have promised to be fair to all. These are men who would not dream of having something done to members of their families like what they have done to us.”



Unfair and unequal treatment? Of course! Unfair and unequal treatment goes along with being held hostage as a guinea pig so the RWQCB can “validate” their procedures. They don’t call it Waterboarding for nothing.

Merry Christmas.

42 comments:

Bear EXCREMENT said...

In short, Los Osos 45, you have been singled out to be the guinea pigs in the Board’s trial run at using individual CDO’s and CAO’s as a state-wide enforcement tool to get certain votes to go the “right way,” and/or get built whatever the RWQCB wants built. In other words, when governments fail the citizens, the RWQCBoard wants a new tool to punish citizens for their government’s failure. And lest the rest of the citizens in the Los Osos PZ think they’re somehow off the hook, they’re not, they’re next.

DOUBLE BULLS-EYE!!

Mike said...

Thanks those of you who support this lawsuit... Let's get this into a court and fight on... and when this one is lost, let's appeal until the Supreme Court makes the final ruling... With luck and millions of dollars, we may never have to put in a sewer...

I can't wait for Ms.Tacker/Edwards to repeat her performance and shout out her ability to derail any project on the Tri-W site...

Maybe Lisa can convince the courts that Los Osos is an independant nation and the State should be working with little Los Osos instead of Los Osos having to work with the RWQCB...

Yes Los Osos, fight on... in the mean time, I'm making my monthly donations to the TaxPayers Watch to fight the battles which can be won...

FBLeG said...

Mike,

Before you open your yap again on what the LO 45 should or should not be doing with their CDOs and CAOs, I would suggest you take your donation to TW and go the RWQCB office and use the money to pay staff to issue you a CAO (or for an extra fee, a full blown CDO and personal hearing before the board). Then, when you make suggestions about what someone with a CDO/CAO should do, you at least can claim to be one of them.

I am sure everyone here but the TaxPayers Watch and TriW Fanboys realize that if the RWQCB had not issued the CDOs/CAOs then the 218 would have still passed and things would be moving forward just as they are today without all the anguish and heartache for the LO 45. Young's comments basically admit that the CDO/CAO was nothing more than an electioneering tactic. He has explicitly tied the CDO/CAO actions to the 218 through his reference to Sullivan's lawsuit - even when this lawsuit is not about the 218. The overwhelming support of the 218 indicates it would have passed without the threat of CDOs and CAOs. It just takes a level of idiot on the level of Briggs not to realize this. Now the RWQCB is in potential deep poo, because if enough of Sullivan's lawsuit holds then this whole saga takes a few more turns in the washing machine with unknown outcome. The RWQCB has a lot to lose in this one and almost nothing to gain. That's why they are fighting so hard. There's way more at stake here than the legitimacy of the LO proceedings - and its their fault. They have some dim bulbs working in that office. How much of our money is being spent by the state to defend this moronic action?

By the way, there have been some misleading posts in my opinion on the validity of the PZ. A court did rule that the RWQCB has a right to create a PZ as a basis for enforcement. What has never been ruled on is whether evidence to support individual enforcement action is valid enough to actually justify the enforcement action. Now that formal enforcement actions have been executed, challenges to the legitimacy of the PZ based on science/evidence may proceed. Up until these CDO/CAO enforcement actions, no one in the PZ has suffered any direct (significant) harm. Now that government action has led to real harm, it may be challenged.

The way I see it:

Bottom line - No CDO/CAO from the start, then no Sullivan lawsuit, and still a successful 218.

It is quite evident that the RWQCB really "didn't think this through" as Matt Thompson admitted under oath.

Mike Green said...

How about this bottom line.

Vacate all existing CAO/CDOs thereby stopping the Sullivan suit and let the county get on with it!

Seems like the quickest solution to me.

It does seem like the Water Gods fear a challenge to TriW, Why? The county has already proposed several alternatives that would fit the bill.
"Why quote Tacker?
Interesting.

Ron said...

First, thank god for Calhoun's Can(n)ons.

Unless I missed it, there wasn't a mention of this story on KSBY last night, or on the Trib's web site this morning, so, not only did Ann get the scoop, as usual, her story is amazing.

"Then Board member, Monica Hunter, during Supervisor Gibson’s brief update of the 218 vote, tried to make a comment and the Board’s lawyer kept trying to shut her up. After some wrangling, Ms. Hunter’s observation to Gibson became a bell that couldn’t possibly be un-rung.

And what was her comment that had the Board’s panties in a twist? Just this – Morro Bay has recently been designated a national marine estuary and as such the rules governing what happens near it, around it, upwind of it, upstream of it, downstream of it, have changed. And Ms. Hunter wanted to caution the county that in their due diligence evaluation process they needed to be aware of those new rules.

Translation? Near as I could see, it was a warning shot across the bow that at least one member of the RWQCB fully intended to take another look at the Tri-W site, should that site be chosen for a sewer plant. And that second “look” would NOT be benign. No smiley faces this time. No phony SOC. Instead, lots of diligence – at least from one RWQCBoard member.
"


Apparently a rift has developed on the ol' RWQCB between the new-comers and the old-skoolerz. On one side you have the SewerWatch fans, like Monica Hunter, (smart, like SLO County Public Works Director, Noel King), and on the other side you have the people that continue to f-up and listen to Nash-Karner, like Chairman Young.

"But even stranger is this: Chairman Young noted that he was afraid that if the county picked Tri-W the citizens would – again – derail such a project. What’s Chairman Young’s obsession with Tri-W? Why would he think the County would pick Tri-W? That project came in dead last on the TAC’s evaluation process. Heck, even the Peer Review Dr. T Group listed Tri-W as at the bottom of the heap..."

... and that it is also an illegal...

"bait and switchy"...

park-project-with-a-sewer-plant...

embarrassing...

illegally environmentally overridden for no reason whatsoever...

... mess.

Chairman Young needs to read the hell up, or else he's going to continue to embarrass himself. (You know what it sounds like to me? It sounds like their attorneys are also SewerWatch fans. I know that a lot of attorneys are.)

Allow me to translate what is obviously happening here: Those "hapless folks who have been singled out for two years worth of continued jerk-around punishment," are being jerked around by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and its staff, because that office has made horrendous errors over the past 10 years - numero uno grande among them; listening to Nash-Karner (big mistake) -- and now they are in full-throttle Cover Your Ass mode, because of the Tri-W debacle.

In other words, their mistakes over the past decade were so catastrophic -- we could be talking over a hundred million dollars wasted because the Central Coast RWQCB and its staff f-up and listened to Nash-Karner from 1998 to today, just like I've reported on all along -- that they aren't about to fess up now, so they are punishing all of those "hapless folks" just to CYA.

It is sickening. There is no other word for it. It's sickening.

That entire house needs to be cleaned. I don't know how that happens, whether it's the Gov that just cleans house, or what, but that needs to happen, pronto. Because, what is happening right now, is awful... and the only local media to cover it, so far, is Ann.

"As Boardmember Shallcross noted, he wants this all to stay in the courts to validate their methods to determine if what they’ve been doing is legal."

We'll see ya there, Shally (I'll offer to help "validate their methods," pro bono).

And then we'll all sit around and sing Kumba-f-ing-ya, huh?

Bear EXCREMENT said...

FBLeg- Your entire post is spot on the money!! These point are really sharp from this bear's POV. My eyesight may be poor but my sense of smell is EXCELLENT...I smell SNAKE!

FBLeG said...
Mike,

Before you open your yap again on what the LO 45 should or should not be doing with their CDOs and CAOs, I would suggest you take your donation to TW and go the RWQCB office and use the money to pay staff to issue you a CAO (or for an extra fee, a full blown CDO and personal hearing before the board). Then, when you make suggestions about what someone with a CDO/CAO should do, you at least can claim to be one of them.

The RWQCB has a lot to lose in this one and almost nothing to gain. That's why they are fighting so hard.

How much of our money is being spent by the state to defend this moronic action?

It is quite evident that the RWQCB really "didn't think this through" as Matt Thompson admitted under oath.

GRRRRRREAT! FBLeg!! grrr

TCG said...

Regarding the Tri-W site--I don't believe that the County will ever propose that location for a treatment plant, and hasn't planned to for a long time. I think that the staff there knew what they were doing when they proposed the group of TAC members that they did. Even though King knew that some of the members would be unpopular with the Tuesday afternoon public comment crowd, I think that he believed that the TAC would do a good objective job of evaluating and summarizing the information generated by their consultants.

I think that the staff knew that Tri-W would not stand up with the facts out there, and that was proved out by the TAC's analysis.

I do not believe that the County staff cares one bit about which option some members of the RWQCB may prefer, and they will do what they have been directed to by the BOS. If the Reg. Board doesn't like that, tough.

Sewertoons said...

OK, so suppose Sullivan wins.

Next logical step, some court case will attempt to prove that the PZ is baseless. Down goes this 218. If it is baseless, we are not polluting, says one side! Oh yes you are, says the Water Board. Tests ensue. $$$$$$$$$. Thoughts of a 218 are laid to rest, buried in fact.

Yup, 8 homes per acre are just too much for the "magic sand." Surprise, surprise, we are all polluting!

Time (months, years?) pass and our sewer will now cost $350 - $400 million. Cabrillo with its umpteen dollars of needed pipes has been added into the mix.

Grants are long gone, forget cheap loans, LAFCo finally caves, the CSD is dissolved, the entire County picks up the debt, and Los Osos is attacked by hoards of angry citizens brandishing torches and pitchforks. Los Osos accidently burns to the ground, despite CDF's brave efforts. Everyone is forced to move.

Peace finally returns to Los Osos.

Churadogs said...

Toons sez:"OK, so suppose Sullivan wins.
Next logical step, some court case will attempt to prove that the PZ is baseless. Down goes this 218. If it is baseless, we are not polluting, says one side! Oh yes you are, says the Water Board. Tests ensue. $$$$$$$$$. Thoughts of a 218 are laid to rest, buried in fact."

Toons, You're mixing up cases. Sullivan's case is a defensive case to protect civil rights, due process rights, & etc. It stems directly from the RWQCB's original action of singling out these 45 people and then STILL screwing the whole prosecution up horribly. This is and was a totally unnecessary mess that they created either through sheer ignorance (Does Chairman Young NOT KNOW that the development permit for Tri-W is gone, zip, zero and that a newly chastened (wised up) Coastal Commission will NOT be wearing their smiley-faces if the county shows up again with Tri-W on the plate? How is it possible that Chairman Young DOES NOT KNOW THAT? WHAT ELSE DOES HE NOT KNOW?) or is this a result of incompetence? (This from the staff that couldn't set a postal machine correctly when delivering time-sensitive documents that forced people to jump through hoops linked legally to accurate filing dates?

Filing a lawsuit to protest the 218 is something entirely different. Personally, I'd view it as a waste of time because even if a judge finds some technical glitch, the county would hold another assessment election and ONCE AGAIN the homeowers would vote Yes. (That's another thing the RWQCB got WRONG -- the big lie told to them repeatedly by the signal-jammers and dreamers and The Recalled that Los Osos was filled with "anti-sewer obstructionists." Wrong. Never was.

So much damage done on the basis of so much incompetence and false information. It's amazing. And, yes, SICKENING. And totally unnecessary.

Mike said...

OK, so suppose Sullivan loses...???

Sewertoons said...

OK Ann, you say I am wrong. What does this point mean then from the "First Amended Petition for Writ of Mandate" 11.06.07 found on the PZLDF website.

"Point 103 - Page 29 -The prohibition zone was legally undefined in 1983, has changed and was and is not based on science nor proper apportionment of the benefits and burdens of a community wastewater project."

Please give me your interpretation of that statement and what might be made of it by those who want to stop progress on a WWTF. Do you see any way that the Water Board might take this to see a possible cause for a delay in progress toward a WWTF should this suit be won?

If the PZ is illegal and not defined by science, those who state we have "magic sand" would chime in with their lawsuits -- so just how long do you think drilling test wells, or putting lysimeters under every house would take, how much would it cost and who would pay for it. Have you never seen the cost estimates to add Cabrillo? The winning of this case opens all kinds of doors for delay and cost increases.

Civil Rights are only part of this case.

Churadogs said...

Toons seZ:"If the PZ is illegal and not defined by science, "

If the PZ is illegal, not defined by science, then upon what basis are the Los Osos 45 being threatened with home seizure, fines, criminal jail time? During the "trials" Harvey Packard was repeatedly asked a variant of Do you have evidence -- direct imperical evidence -- that Mr. X is polluting the waters of the state of California, and the repeated reply was "No."

Now here's an interesting question: This community is in the middle of a severe WATER shortage, the BASIN is in overdraft. Hooking wasteWATER and WATER and BASIN together is necessary if Los Osos is not going to turn into a ghost town. Who out there doesn't think for a minute that this community would instruct the county to keep going were the PZ to be found illegal? Who out there wouldn't say to the County, good, NOW, let's take a look at the BASIN and pull out all our tools out of the box and solve the basin wide WATER use and reuse issue in a variety of ways? Onsite, collection, cluster, Step along the bay & etc. I don't fear that approach at all. I would welcome it as the SMART way to go at this, rather than remaining hobbled by an outdated, scientifically wobbly, limiting, crippling resolution that's hurting, not helping.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Ann,

By all means continue with the PPZLDF lawsuit. Please.

While all on this blog have opinions and points of view, the reality is that the only decision that matters is that of a judge assigned to the case. The various causes of action will be legaly scrutinized and decided upon; hence I welcome the lawsuit to finally put these issues to rest.

Having analysized the lawsuit, I predict that the lawsuit will fail. The lawsuit is indecipherable; and will be demured. After the judge reaches a decison, I hope that those backing the lawsuit will accept the ruling of the court. After all, much being litigated in the PZLDF lawsit has been litigated before in the CAWS lawsuits of the mid 1990's and in the Keller v LOCSD in 2002.

Regards, Richard LeGros

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Any attempt to do what you call SMART will end up costing us all a lot because it will delay the solution ... which is not smart at all from a wastewater, groundwater or financial point of view.

Studying the situation further will give us better insight ... but at such a huge cost it would be a mistake.

Do you remember the Bob Dylan song Subterranean Homesick Blues? One of the lines is "It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows". Los Osos is like that. We don't need to hire all sorts of fancy scientists to tell us what we already know ... we are polluting our groundwater, harvesting too much from the lower aquifer and if we have a sewer we'll solve those problems. The exact nature of the sewer is far less important than getting one ASAP.

Sewertoons said...

Oh Ann, it is so tiresome to argue with you, you just don't want to see any different take on things, no matter how well the evidence is presented or by whom.

Ann says:
"If the PZ is illegal, not defined by science, then upon what basis are the Los Osos 45 being threatened with home seizure, fines, criminal jail time?"

I guess I didn't spell it out clearly enough. Should the case be won on "civil rights," don't you see that with the language contained in the suit, even if untrue, it would open the door to delay and more expense when the WWTF finally does get built?

You seem to be saying we aren't polluting. But we ARE polluting! You just DON'T LIKE the way the evidence has been put together! There are up to EIGHT houses per acre in the PZ. Septics are thought to work one house per ONE acre lot. We have nitrates in our upper aquifer - along with drug residues excreted in urine. Some septics are under the water line. There are times the bay stinks like a cesspool! At what point do we say - time to clean up the water that we messed up? How about NOW?

Ann says:
"Who out there doesn't think for a minute that this community would instruct the county to keep going were the PZ to be found illegal?"

Are you kidding? I mean, ARE YOU KIDDING? Oh right. All the No Sewer people who don't want to pay are now converts to getting some sort of WWTF? Do you think that they are thinking about a water shortage? The whole point is to not PAY anything! They are just looking for a case like this to put some legs to their claims. It doesn't matter how many of them are wanting to do this - they can, by law, screw it up for the rest of us.

The County RIGHT NOW is working on solving the water issues with the water reuse components in the various wastewater treatment plans. They have gotten the three water purveyors together to work on water pumping and inter-tie issues. There are laws regarding rights to use wells and to stop work to delve into those right now means we may wait years to move ahead on a project. They may never have to give up their water rights.

Let's just deal with the bulk of the issue for now. Let's fix what we can - OH, ALL components are not dealt with perfectly? Too bad, keep moving. Delay only costs us more and it is expensive enough already.

Ann says:
"I would welcome it as the SMART way to go at this, rather than remaining hobbled by an outdated, scientifically wobbly, limiting, crippling resolution that's hurting, not helping."

The resolution is irrelevant - it ISN'T hobbling our going ahead with a project at all! It is holding in check those who don't want to pay for wastewater treatment, who have - and will continue to make it - hard on the rest of us. The County is solving the problem. Let's just let them get on with their job.

Ann, do you really think that we are not polluting?

Churadogs said...

Toons sez:" Ann says:
"Who out there doesn't think for a minute that this community would instruct the county to keep going were the PZ to be found illegal?"

Are you kidding? I mean, ARE YOU KIDDING?"

Uh, Toons, I suggest you go take a look at the 218 vote count.

Toons sez:"You seem to be saying we aren't polluting."

Toons, you are getting so tiresome. Clearly you don't you bother to read what I've written, but instead, "assume" incorrect information then run with it as if it were true.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"... meantime, the county chugs along with the project. On Dec 18 at the Community Center in Los Osos, will be an EIR scoping workshop. Public welcome, though it’s a puzzle to me what remains to be “scoped, since the original EIR (the one that was overridden by the old (and now removed) unsupported SOC... still seems to be mostly valid.. and in little or no need of updating. "

That reminds me... Mark Hutchinson, environmental specialist for the county, never answered my excellent question:

---
Since there is no substantial evidence in the record on why the 2001 EIR was overridden in the first place, doesn't that mean that the original EIR, or a large portion of it, would suffice today, and then all that would be needed to comply with CEQA would be some sort of supplement detailing the out-of-town sites under analysis, like the Giacomazzi site, that are, all of a sudden, now "feasible?"
---

Good question.

TCG said...

I do not think that the County will "short-cut" the EIR by not giving full, current attention to the Tri-W option. This is because they don't want to leave the door open for legal challanges to the CEQA process.

I am certain that they have ruled out any possibility of construction of a treatment plant at the site, so that will not be a concern to people like Ron who dislike the site so much (I'm not wild about it either, after reading the TAC analysis).

If the RWQCB does not like that conclusion, it won't matter because, by running the objective process that they have, the County can not be challanged by the Reg. Board. The only concern would be less than current and complete CEQA work being done that could lead to challanges that would delay the implementation. I think that Mr. Hutchinson knows how to get through this process in a complete and effecient way. Let's let him do it.

Sewertoons said...

Ann said:
"Uh, Toons, I suggest you go take a look at the 218 vote count. "

AND
"Who out there doesn't think for a minute that this community would instruct the county to keep going were the PZ to be found illegal? Who out there wouldn't say to the County, good, NOW, let's take a look at the BASIN and pull out all our tools out of the box and solve the basin wide WATER use and reuse issue in a variety of ways? Onsite, collection, cluster, Step along the bay & etc."

Seriously, do you really think people want to vote one more time on this? How much time will that take - as meanwhile the prices on anything sewer go up and up and up? I assume you do not want to pay more - or am I wrong about that? Why do you think people want to stop the process now after they have just voted - when logic tells them the next vote will be $30,000 or $35,000?

If the PZ is busted, the County just doesn't keep on going! "Instruct the County?" Just exactly how does that work?

I spelled this out before, but I guess I will have to spell it out again. If the PZ is busted, how do you "prove" we are polluting? TESTS. That's what the "No Sewer" people will want - no - they will INSIST on it. Anything that DELAYS works for them. ANYTHING. That is the "science" YOU want I guess. Lysimeters under every house, tests run for one or two years - five, ten - I have no idea. How much will that cost and who will pay for it? Meanwhile, what do you think the Water Board will be doing? What happens to our drinking water with all of the added years of pollution?

The County is moving along with the project, and they are looking at ALL options. The areas that come in under new laws will be dealt with later - (not as later as this turned out to be, I hope). Farmers with water rights are not going to just give them up, or install meters without legal wrangling. How does dealing with all of that right now help US keep the costs down? These are two separate issues. Let's clean up the water we are messing up and deal with the water basin later. Not to do so puts out doubt that you want to solve the problem at all, but are looking for some "perfect world" solution, that in the end just supports the No Sewer folks.

Mike Green said...

Can someone give me one good reason the RWQCB needs to keep the original 45 CAO/CDOs alive?
Does dropping these 45 cases give the Sullivan suit a court win? No.
Does keeping the doomed 45 swinging in the breeze help in any way the county process?No.
Does letting this mess go to trial bring with it the possibility of breaking the PZ? (according to Toons maybe)
So just who is the villan here?
I'll say it's the RWQCB, They have the ability to short circut Sullivan by SIMPLY DROPPING THE 45 cases before them NOW.
So if you want to point fingers at WHO is the greatest threat to the PZ and the county process I submit it's the RWQCB itself, and for what reason I can only fathom as an attempt to save the EGOS of that board.
What other evidence is there?

Sewertoons said...

Chicken or the egg. Today at the BOS - it was mentioned if Sullivan dropped the case, the RWQCB would drop the CDO's. If the CDO's were dropped, would Sullivan be out of a job? - Or would Sullivan be asked to defend the community on the threatened CAO's? Also on their radar, Julie threatening to derail Tri-W if it is somehow (unlikely, but theoretically possible) chosen is keeping the CDO's in place, as is Pam Och's threat of a case alleging an illegal 218. Now maybe if they would step down - naw-w-w-w-w, this is Los Osos, we'll just keep on fighting. The Water Board knows this, doesn't it?

It isn't GOING to trial that is the issue, going is fine - although in my opinion, costly and unnecessary and unlikely to be won. It is winning at trial that opens the door to busting the PZ, perhaps with other players or perhaps not.

Everyone should read the Sullivan case and understand the language therein. It might clarify the RWQCB's actions.

Mike Green said...

Toons, you are gluing feathers to an egg and calling it a chicken!

One way to make sure an egg doesn't hatch is put it in the fridge!
If the RWQCB dropped the selective enforcement now do you think the PZLDF would be able to modify their suit before the survey and SLOBOS decision?
I don't think they would have the time or the interest.
Do you want the PZ adjudicated?
I think both you and sharkey have made solid arguments against delay, The RWQCB is not helping IMHO
These are government officials that are APPOINTED! supposedly for their expertise and knowledge, can we not demand better action than what we get from elected laymen?
They should be helping the county all the way, and one way would be to even the field for everyone on the hook.

Shark Inlet said...

Mike Green,

The only reason that I can see for keeping the CDOs alive is the one Young stated during the hearing. They want the issues raised in the Sullivan lawsuit tested by a "real court" as Ann says. Other than the random selection of 45 to be the first 45, they want the potential legal issues to be all resolved so that ... should there be some silly reason for delay ... they can roll out the big guns with some 4500 CDOs.

Not really that good of a reason, I know, but it makes some sense.

One other thing that will help understand the motivation of the RWQCB folks ... they've been dealing with this issue and various forms of obstruction for quite some time now. (Ann, please don't go ape over my use of the word .... it is appropriate in this context.)

Sewertoons said...

mike green,

I'm not saying that they shouldn't drop the CDO's - I am simply showing how the RWQCB might look at us and our clever ability to stop projects, no matter what the cost. This feature of Los Osos will not help them get us to clean water any faster. My GUESS is that they want every tool in their toolbox at the ready. But I also think the way they handled this from the get-go was clumsy at best.

I have never been a party to putting together a lawsuit, so would have no idea how fast Ms. Sullivan - or some OTHER attorney - could make a case for the illegalty of CAO's. They did use the plural when they referred to suits out of closed session however. Here is what was on their closed session agenda of 15 items - 6 relate to Los Osos:

4.      Los Osos Community Services District v. Central Coast Water Board (ACL Order R3-2005-0137) (San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case No. CV 060633);
5.      Central Coast Water Board v. Los Osos Community Services District (San Luis Obispo County Case No. CV-051074);
6.      Stephen Onstot, Gregory Murphy and Julie Tacker vs. Central Coast Water Board and State Water Board (San Luis Obispo County Case No. CV 060196; Second Dist. Ct. of Appeal Case No. B195375) (Public Records Act);
7.      Los Osos CSD v. Central Coast Regional Board (San Luis Obispo County Case No. CV 060146 (TSO 00-131);
8.      Los Osos Community Services District (Bankruptcy), Central District of California Case No. ND 06-10548-RR;
10.  Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund, et al., v. Central Coast Regional Board, et al. (San Luis Obispo Superior Court Case No. CV070472) (Los Osos CDOs)

ALSO:
The Board may discuss significant exposure to litigation as authorized by GC Section 11126[e][2][B].

As if all of this wasn't enough, Ms. Tacker and Mrs. Ochs have poked the bear with their words on crashing sewer projects and the illegality of the 218. Now these reasons combined may be why they did not drop the CDO's. Why do you think they didn't drop them?

No, I do not want the PZ adjudicated. This means delay and higher costs. We are polluting, I don't want to spend more than I already will spend to find out something I already know. Adding in other areas to the mix will only raise my cost. They can pay later when their turn comes.

Mike Green said...

El Tiburon!

Screw their "impatience" That is an emotional term!
And screw their egotistical wish for some sort of individual validation! I've had enough of inflated egos in this friggin mess. IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!

It's way past time for new blood in the Water God Club! Get Er Done!

They can roll out those 4500 CAO's anytime they want!

Why the hell don't they?

Mike Green said...

Toons projected"
As if all of this wasn't enough, Ms. Tacker and Mrs. Ochs have poked the bear with their words on crashing sewer projects and the illegality of the 218. Now these reasons combined may be why they did not drop the CDO's. Why do you think they didn't drop them?"

Lets guess, They are afraid of a lawsuit brought on by a loser LOCSD board member (who by state decree has no say) and the owner of a local non profit newspaper.

Yep that's our STATE government at work, learned nothing in the last twenty years.

And you defend these people? (is someone typing for you?)

Sewertoons said...

Don't forget, there were about 15 lawsuits put out by CAWS, CASE, CCLO, TTF, LOTA from 1987 to 2005 - all lost but they took time and cost money in LO's efforts to get a WWTF. Julie may not act alone in a suit against the Water Board - she was a member of CCLO in the past. Pam was in LOTA. The State Water Board was sued by both. They may recall this history. They may be remembering the players. I repeat, I am not defending them, I am GUESSING as to their thinking in keeping the CDO's in place. You seem to think it is ego - sure - could be that too, but it was staff (their lawyers) who advised them not to drop these. Maybe they would have preferred to have been heros and dropped the CDO's? All just guesswork.

Shark Inlet said...

What Toons seems to be saying is that because there currently are folks suing the waterboards and threatening to sue the waterboards and the legal climate maybe won't allow for them to "stand down" until the other Los Osos groups drop their action.

To pretend that all these legal issues are unrelated is simply silly.

Jane said...

The CCRWQCB has not taken responsibility for any of their actions in this saga, starting with allowing 1150 homes to be built over a “polluted” aquifer prior any remediation efforts. For them to now lay the blame on the 45 randomly selected victims is just par for the course.
They are now implying that the CDOs would be dropped if there were no lawsuit, but to drop the lawsuit leaves the CDOs open to $5,000/day fines retroactive to 1988. I think the chances of them dropping the CDO/CAOs are about zero; remember that they said they would drop the CDO/CAOs after a positive 218 vote.
The CCRWQCB wants to collect fines from us. They want blood. If the Sullivan lawsuit loses in court you can expect CAOs for all, and fines at the first opportunity. Any work stoppage, regardless of the cause, will result in fines. The 45 will quickly lose their homes from fines or lawyer fees. Roger Briggs is looking for retribution from those who dared question him, who dared to stand up for their legal rights.

Sewertoons said...

jane,

How would the Water Board take responsibility for any of their past actions? A public confession? I'n not sure what you want. They were wrong, but that was then - as we say. Maybe it would have been best just to issue us all CAO's right from the beginning, don't you think?

The County is certainly culpable too. And one might make out that they have now given us their brightest and best to solve the problem as penance.

While the Water Board was kumbaya-ing at that conciliatory meeting, their lawyers were probably in the back room wringing their hands and popping Rolaids. Maybe the Board seemed crabby at the Dec. 7 meeting because they were given a talking to by THEIR lawyers, and all their nice overtures were squelched? Who knows!

I disagree that they want to collect fines from us. I think they want us to get a d@#n sewer ASAP so they can finally, FINALLY, get the dreaded Los Osos off their backs.

You might also note that in some places where they have collected fines in the past, that money was turned back to the entity collected from to use as funds to correct the problem.

I disagree that if the Sullivan lawsuit loses it's CAO's for us all and fines. It will be CAO's for us all and fines if the COUNTY PROJECT is DERAILED. Work stoppage might be caused by obstructionist lawsuits. If you think the No Sewer group has disappeared, think again. You don't have to be a "majority of voters" to strike out on your own with a lawsuit. (I was actually thinking for a bit that once the 218 had passed, I could rest and mark some time! Hah!)

I would venture that Roger Briggs probably tries to repress every wayward thought he has about Los Osos at this point, rather than cooking up "retribution."

(Side note: it is always best I have found, to look at the evil action I have ascribed to someone else to see if I have been guilty of doing the same thing. Nine times out of ten, I have been. Hmmmm.)

BTW - we do not have the "legal right" to pollute. That is what we are doing every day. So far we have chosen not to fix that problem, despite the best efforts of many. I support the County effort as our only way out of this mess - created by many, but left for us to resolve.

FBLeG said...

Toons admits,

"BTW - we do not have the "legal right" to pollute. That is what we are doing every day."

Toons, would you be willing to sign a legal affidavit stating that "I, (insert sewertoons' legal name), owner of improved property at (insert address), within the so-called Prohibition Zone of Los Osos, CA set out by resolution 83-13 of the CCRWQCB, am polluting the waters of the State of California" ?

If so, would you also supply any site specific evidence you have that would support your signed statement?

I think the RWQCB and taxpayers of the state would appreciate such candor as such a simple admission would allow the RWQCB to forgo, in your case, any necessary and messy legal proceedings and thus save everyone some time and the state some money in the face of an estimated 14 billion dollar deficit.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"One other thing that will help understand the motivation of the RWQCB folks ... they've been dealing with this issue and various forms of obstruction for quite some time now. (Ann, please don't go ape over my use of the word .... it is appropriate in this context.)"

No, it's not appropriate even in this context. The RWQCB has been LIED to for years. It was the same BIG LIE that that was deliberately used to muddy the water and keep the RWQCB and the SWB confused as to just what was going on with the old bait & switchy in Los Osos. (Another perfect cover: Question the old bait and switch? Why, those people are nothing but ANTI SEWER OBSTRUCTIONISTS, pay no attention to them!) It's a simple lie, which is why it was so effective -- terribly harmful to this community, but clearly some of the liars who pushed the lie didn't care since they wanted the CSD (i.e. the community) punished and "fined out of existence" anyway. And that LIE has always been: Any person who objected to Tri-W was "an ANTI SEWER OBSTRUCTIONIST" Anyone who even asked questions about Tri-W was an ANTI SEWER OBSTRUCTIONIST. Community members who said, clearly, loudly, We want a sewer but we just don't want the treatment plant in the middle of town (a reasonable request to many, many people) were branded ANTI SEWER OBSTRUCTIONISTS. Anyone who dared wonder about that SRF loan was an ANTI SEWER OBSTRUCTIONIST. That was the drum-beat mantra: Los Osos Is FILLED With Anti-Sewer Obstructionists. That was The Big Lie. But the RWQCB members, repeatedly told that lie by their staff, and by other community members, were too lazy to actually go find out for themselves. Ditto the State Water Board. Too lazy to actually find out the truth. The Big Lie was easier for them even while that Big Lie was nearly destroying the citizens here. (That big lie was also a perfect cover for CYA for their own failures. Better to blame the victim than step up and straighten up a mess of their own making.)

Toons admits,

"BTW - we do not have the "legal right" to pollute. That is what we are doing every day."

Really? And what evidence to you have to support that statement? If you have that site specific evidence, then you need to report yourself directly to the RWQCB and demand your CAO. Now.

If you don't have that evidence, but only presume that you, like all the homes in the basin, are (collectively, not individually, specifically) overloading the basin, (via legally issued septic tank permits by both the county and the RWQCB) then you need to support, with an assessment vote, efforts to build a good collective system that will diminsh that collective load. Which is EXACTLY what this community of "Anti Sewer Obstructionists" has done.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"It's a simple lie, which is why it was so effective -- terribly harmful to this community, but clearly some of the liars who pushed the lie didn't care since they wanted the CSD (i.e. the community) punished..."

Some of those folks might find one of the 7 finalists in the "There Ought to be a Law" contest, um, interesting.

Boo-yea!

Mike said...

...gee Ronnie, you must be talking about the "little" lie brought to this community by Lisa, Julie, Chuckie, Steve and John....

"We REALLY have a plan and the monthly costs will only be $100 per month!"

...or maybe...

"We REALLY have a plan and we will move the sewer out of the 'center' of town!!"

...or maybe...

"We REALLY have a plan and the RWQCB has no teeth and are too busy to bother about LO!!!"

Sewertoons said...

Ann said:
"Community members who said, clearly, loudly, We want a sewer but we just don't want the treatment plant in the middle of town…"

No, it wasn't that way at FIRST - the middle of town site was OK with a large majority. The question no one wants to answer - is why did that change? Who started the CHANGE in opinion and WHY? By the time THAT got rolling, it was spurred on by $100 out of town. (OK - this was cheaper - I can see why this got traction.) There is something that doesn't smell right about the big change and I can't find out what it was. I'd like to know why Lisa, John, Steve were invisible, yet they lived here, didn't they? Julie was NO SEWER, and then for some reason joined the $100/out of town thing. WHY? (The words "real estate" and "money" keep popping up, tho.)
WHERE WERE THESE PEOPLE IN 2001 when the time to change location was a possible?

Then this cracked me up!
"If you have that site specific evidence, then you need to report yourself directly to the RWQCB and demand your CAO. Now."
AND
"I think the RWQCB and taxpayers of the state would appreciate such candor as such a simple admission would allow the RWQCB to forgo, in your case, any necessary and messy legal proceedings and thus save everyone some time and the state some money in the face of an estimated 14 billion dollar deficit."

Hey - THEY already think I am polluting! They have a CAO ready and waiting for me if the County project is stopped! I don't need to tell them a thing! It would be more paperwork for them if I did! Your understanding of bureaucratic process is a tad lacking, I'd say! No need for little me to push that deficit any further!

No, I don't have site specific evidence, nor do I want or need any. The reports we have show stuff in our upper aquifer that only people can put there. I am NOT going to say - "Well, only properties x, y and z are polluting, so only THOSE properties have to pay, not me." That isn't COMMUNITY. WE are polluting - maybe not proportionally EQUAL, but ALL of us need to help EACH OTHER to fix the problem. I 'm no where near a communist, but I think to single out part of the community is absurd - and don't go off on me about the PZ. Yes, 15% have been left out ON THIS ROUND. Their turn will come too, and I'll bet it will cost more than this round of ours. To stop this process of fixing this part of the problem will jack up the price for us even further.

Ann says:
"If you don't have that evidence, but only presume that you, like all the homes in the basin, are (collectively, not individually, specifically) overloading the basin, (via legally issued septic tank permits by both the county and the RWQCB) then you need to support, with an assessment vote, efforts to build a good collective system that will diminsh that collective load. Which is EXACTLY what this community of "Anti Sewer Obstructionists" has done."

I suppose you are meaning to be clever with this statement, but taken literally, your premise is wrong. You claim it is a community of Anti-Sewer Obstructionists supported the assessment vote. SOME of THOSE DID vote yes - haven't we been hearing plenty of that - all of those "letters of protest?" But plenty of people who voted yes have no such problem with the vote. They just want to get this thing OVER WITH.

People who support busting the PZ at this point - after the vote, are asking for yet another roadblock to getting a plant. These people may not see what they are doing, but that IS a component to the way the Sullivan suit is written.

No shortage of blame - there is enough for the County, the WB and Los Osos combined! WE ARE ALL GUILTY! The problem is simply to FIX the problem without roadblocks that will make it more expensive.

Ann says - Inlet sez:"One other thing that will help understand the motivation of the RWQCB folks ... they've been dealing with this issue and various forms of obstruction for quite some time now. (Ann, please don't go ape over my use of the word .... it is appropriate in this context.)"
Ann then says:
"No, it's not appropriate even in this context. The RWQCB has been LIED to for years."

Ann, you have focused too narrowly. I think he is referring to the multiple court cases that have been thrown in the path of getting a sewer for Los Osos over the years - generated by the NO SEWER population in this town. He can correct me if I am wrong, but they have been hearing NO SEWER from Los Osos since 1987. And it wasn't JUST Tri-W - it was ANYTHING sewer!

Speaking of BIG LIES, how about this one - $100/OUT OF TOWN.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Are you saying that the various lawsuits and other requests for hearings that delayed the construction of a sewer over the years (whether the County or the LOCSD was in charge) didn't obstruct a sewer? I find it hard to believe that you are saying that I can't use the word obstruct in the way that it's defined because you don't like the way some others have used the word.

Second, you cannot interpret the results of the recall as indicating the people want a sewer out of town. As has been pointed out repeatedly to you and others who would make this claim, the recall candidates promised something they should have known they could not deliver ... a cheaper plant ... and that is how they won. This is strangely parallel to the claims Ron made about the vote forming the LOCSD.

Votes for people or anything more complex than a single issue (and Measure B was multi-faceted to say the least) aren't easy to interpret.

That being said ...

To Ron, congrats on Sam taking your idea to heart ... it's a good one that should apply to all political bodies, not just CSDs. I wouldn't be so quick to say that one should always bet on sewerwatch, however ... did you re-read your Jan 1, 2007 posting recently? How are those predictions going?

Bear EXCREMENT said...

Tacker, Ochs, Shickner are mother bears who are defending their young, tooth and claw.
grrr

Technology will be less expensive tomorrow than is it today. Compare the cost of the technology in the computer you all are working from.

How much did it cost you when you bought it? Compare the features in them with the features and cost with anything available today.

The reason technology does more for less is because of market forces and competition.

Compare market forces with government forces. Government is largely free from competition and those in government are free from the forces that drive most honest hard working people and their businesses, namely financial accountability, as evidenced by the federal, state and county budget deficit(s). If a business or individual were in the same financial shape as the county or state they would be in Bankruptcy.

Why would any thinking person be taking advice from a political subdivision that handled its affairs in this way? A person or business cannot continue to borrow or raise taxes on its citizens/customers the way a political sub division does, because no bank would continue to fund an individual and businessesare suject to market forces and competition.

GRRRR

Shark Inlet said...

Bear Excrement ...

I get it ... you're pulling a funny, comparing computer costs to sewer costs, implying sewer costs will drop as technology changes.

Hahahahahahahaha.

Glad I wasn't drinking coffee when I read that or I would have probably ruined my computer. But then, I guess it would be free to replace it anyways (haha) so it probably wouldn't have mattered.

Bear EXCREMENT said...

Beverley De Witt-Moylan, M.Ed. another mother bear...grr

Churadogs said...

Toons sez:"Ann said:
"Community members who said, clearly, loudly, We want a sewer but we just don't want the treatment plant in the middle of town…"

No, it wasn't that way at FIRST - the middle of town site was OK with a large majority. The question no one wants to answer - is why did that change? Who started the CHANGE in opinion and WHY? "

The original Ponds of Avalon were pegged at about $38 a month vs nearly $85-100 for the County project. And THAT was tied to the creation of the CSD. (No CSD no Ponds of Avalon, no $38 sewer bill) Which is what started the ball rolling. When it became clear that the Ponds of Avalon wouldn't hold the nitrate numbers and the mitigation footprint pushed the cost waaaaayyyyyy over the County Project, THAT's when this train started going off the tracks. That was the point when the CSD should have gone back to the community and put the clear choice to them: Stay locked into a downtown site that would drive the cost waaaayyyyy up or turn the sewer element back to the county in hopes they would have had the resources to do what the "new" CSD did, actually spend the money to get a clearer picture of alternatives, then present those options to the community for a vote -- i.e. the Chinese menu Method, which I advocated way back when.

In truth, Paavo nailed it when he said, recently, the CSD didn't have the resources to do the Process right (i.e. like the county's doing now with looking at alternative technology -- there was no Ripley study done back then, for example )And Paavo knows what he talking about: He was the CSD's first General Manager -- present at the creation.

Shark Inlet said...

Perhaps an oversight on your part, Ann, but during the exact same timeframe that the Ponds of Avalon costs were going up ... due primarily to inflation ... the costs of other sites and other systems were going up in much the same way ... the County project that was sandwiched between 18th street and the middle school was going to cost about the same as TriW.

Sewertoons said...

Ann says:
"That was the point when the CSD should have gone back to the community and put the clear choice to them: Stay locked into a downtown site that would drive the cost waaaayyyyy up or turn the sewer element back to the county in hopes they would have had the resources to do what the "new" CSD did…" (I'm not sure a $40 million bankruptcy was worth the full-of-unanswered-questions Ripley Report, and which still doesn't include the range of projects the County is bringing forth.)

But that DOESN'T answer my question, Ann. (Who says the County would have taken it back anyway - the CSD was formed to DO the project.)

My QUESTION was - where were the protesters in 2001? If not to guide WHERE they wanted the project, but to do as you say SHOULD have been done? Something happened to turn people off on midtown. I can buy cost issues, but that wasn't the whole story.

As I said before,
I'd like to know why Lisa, John, Steve were invisible, yet they lived here, didn't they? Julie was NO SEWER, and then for some reason joined the $100/out of town thing. WHY? (The words "real estate" and "money" keep popping up, tho.) WHERE WERE THESE PEOPLE IN 2001 when the time to change location was a possible?