Friday, December 14, 2007

TAC Meeting, Dec 18th

Don’t forget, Tuesday, Dec 18, the TAC meeting will coincide with the EIR Scoping Workshop meeting. Public input and attendance is important. Speak now or . . . .

A special meeting of the Los Osos Wastewater Project Technical AdvisoryCommittee (TAC) will be held on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 7:00pm in theSouth Bay Community Center at 2180 Palisades Avenue, Los Osos.Members of the TAC will attend the Environmental Impact Report ScopingMeeting for the Los Osos Wastewater Project presented by County PublicWorks Department staff. The TAC will take no action at this meeting.The meeting agenda is attached. This information can also be viewed on theProject website at

1 comment:

Mark said...

A little good GOOD NEWS...

Los Osos/Baywood Park: From obstructionists to world visionaries!

Technology makes it POSSIBLE!

The lowest environmental impact possible and lowest cost possible solution that provides water conservation ability as never before possible.

Keep in mind that those in government are public servants, some of whom are sworn to uphold the law.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse...not now, not ever.

I thought everyone might want to see the "memo" below:

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Low
To: Mark Low ; John Waddell ; Mark Hutchinson ;
Cc: John_Waddell/PubWorks/ ; noel king ; ; ; Harvey Packard ; ;
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 5:27 PM
Subject: How is your review of the AES DES/RECLAMATOR "program" and technology going?

Memo: Federally Compliant Conservation Technology

Greetings Deputy Public Works Director Ogren:

Good day Paavo,

As I mentioned before you have a splendid opportunity to provide the necessary leadership which would place you in a unique and exemplary position of demonstrating smart and beneficial policy for the citizens of your county. Of course I am referring to the Los Osos/Baywood Park septic tank discharge solution as presented by Tom Murphy/AES DES and the RECLAMATOR, the “Ultimate” water conservation device which conserves 100% of all household water used, eliminates “waste” of water, eliminates “flow of sewage” and associated “sewer user fees”, qualifies for up to 75% federal grant assistance as provided by federal law just because it does all the previous things I mentioned. Oh, and by the way, you can recommend that $17,500,000.00 be taken out of that $35,000,000.00 Federal Grant that Supervisor Gibson says has been “slated” and the County can keep the rest, or not. The Citizens of Los Osos will gain the solution to their “discharge” problem in the most sustainable, affordable (no cost), and futuristic way which is the “Future of Water” not only here in Los Osos or San Luis Obispo County, but the World, i.e. the RECLAMATOR.

How is your review of the AES DES/RECLAMATOR "program" and technology going?

Mark Hutchins has demonstrated his working knowledge of Federal Statutes during a presentation he made to the LOCSD about "storm water control", which was encouraging given the high level of unawareness about USC Title 33 Chapter 26 (C26) generally. As Mark may know, once one is notified/made aware of what is required and chooses to ignore it, any subsequent acts or inaction that follows become compounded as a knowing violation. I'm not an attorney but it seems reasonable and perhaps your counsel has an opinion.

Your part in the solution should the county supervisors decide to accept the "project" would become critical as to what "recommendation" would or would not be made to the Board.

The consulting engineering firm would be liable to a degree but you and or John Waddel would ultimately be the “responsible party".

Why would anyone wish to disturb the LO/BP water ecosystem currently in place, when all that is needed is to purify the water entering the ground with substantially less expensive technology that remediates as it abates and provides for 100% on-site beneficial re-use like toilet flushing, car washing, irrigation, indirect potable reuse or any beneficial water use of the homeowner at his source, providing for the maximum degree of “effluent reduction” and totally eliminating the “wasting” of WATER from any residential or commercial source, not only within Los Osos, but within your entire County. Why? This is a very important question from my vantage point.

How often have you seen an opportunity such as this one? An opportunity to retrofit an entire community with the ultimate water conservation device which conserves water not only by reducing flow at a fixture, but by reclaiming and repurifing 100% of ALL water produced by every source within the entire community, producing 1,400 acre feet of water per year! Won't you agree it is both groundbreaking and rare? Isn’t it a bit obvious that this is the way the solution should go? Why would anyone NOT embrace and support this program? After all, there is no need for SRF or other Bond funding to do the project and it can be implemented tomorrow.

I suggest that you direct the County to turn back all power to the LOCSD as we discussed in early September 07 during a meeting in your offices with John Waddel and Tom where you said, “the county could let the project go back to the LOCSD next Tuesday” . Paavo there is no reason for the County to continue spend more money it does not have to perform “due diligence for a sewer”, as there is no way it can provide a collection system and expect to gain a revenue from the Citizens who are using the discharge elimination services of AES. Two laws stand in the way, 1) the law that protects our right to 100% consumptive use of the water that we buy the rights to use, and 2) the California Water Code Sec. 13050 which defines the permeate produced by the RECLAMATOR as a “valuable resource”. You can implement an ordnance to require 100% hook-ups if you wish, but you cannot force the clients of the AES service to produce “sewage” which would justify a positive cash flow to the County, but instead, the County would incur a negative cash flow, as it would have to purchase the “valuable resource” from the owner/operator of the facilities, AES. You already are aware of the law which states that whoever owns the facilities owns the rights to the reclaimed water, aren’t you? I guess you may want to say this is the “3rd” law that seals the deal that the County cannot move forward with a viable sewer project as they won’t have anyone to “pay” for it.

I have heard that the use of the 218 to impose a required assessment on the homes of citizens for a “non-required” sewer service is an unlawful use of such law and those folks who may be imposed with such an “assessment” can demand their rights and the assessment to be dismissed. One must keep in mind that the only power any political subdivision has ever had to force a hook-up is the “discharge of waste”. The RECLAMATOR doesn’t “discharge waste” but produces “recycled water” which is a “valuable resource”. Bridge is out….., even though the political subdivision can force each property to “hook-up” with a ordinance, they can’t force a “revenue stream” in the favor of the “sewer provider” from such property anymore.

As Tom Murphy has already said that if the County didn’t embrace his program prior to the date of the 218, he wasn’t going to work with the County on the Los Osos Project. There is no other choice for the County but to turn all rights and powers back to the LOCSD so they can move forward with AES to put the end to this issue forever, once and for all. The County is no longer needed in regards to providing any assistance toward the discharges in Los Osos, as the federally compliant best available advanced innovative alternative technology which eliminates the discharge of pollutants, which meets the “National Goal” as is required by U.S.C. 33/Chapter 26 has arrived. By such law, the County, having the waste management authority (septic tank permitting) within their jurisdiction, is required to “require and to assist” the implementation of such technology if it exist, which it does, and to promulgate it throughout their jurisdiction. It is the federal law, i.e. Statutes at Large, Congress said it, not me or Mr. Murphy, Mr. Murphy just happens to be the person who not only knows the law, but also owns the technology which is required by such law to be implemented at every pollution abatement application within your, the County’s, jurisdiction by the County specifying it, due to its performance, by “name brand or equal”. I’m sure Mr. Murphy and the LOCSD, via their upcoming Public Private Partnership Agreement relationship, would be glad to work with the County to provide this technology throughout the rest of the County.

Happy Holidays,

Mark Low
Conserve through Re-use

----- Original Message -----
To: "Mark Low"
Cc: John_Waddell/PubWorks/
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2007 3:21 PM
Subject: RE: CWA or C26? Which document has supremacy


Do you send these to John Waddell? If not, please do so.