Pages

Friday, January 18, 2008

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, for January 17, 08


Poor Lost Osos

What a week for my poor Bangladesh By The Bay: A Dead On Arrival (but very revealing) BOS Resolution, plus our very own “Tacky Chippingate” scandal.

First up was the Board of Supervisors’ proposed resolution asking that the Regional Water Quality Control Board rescind the CDO’s on The Los Osos 45, those hapless citizens who were singled out for nearly two years of jerking around by the RWQCB. What some of the Supervisors had in mind was a simple resolution noting that the RWQCB’s process of individual enforcement was wrong, unfair, pointless and counterproductive, and that in light of the good progress the community and county are making on the wastewater project, ask that the RWQCBoard rescind the CDOs and “stand down.” Simple.

Instead, what arrived on the Supervisor’s dais was an elaborate Selectively Misleading History Of The Sewer Wars (With Really Interesting Parts Left Out) that contained a one-sided request that the CSD and others involved in the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund lawsuit (the one that is now in Superior Court) all agree to drop that lawsuit, with no guarantees from the RWQCB that they, in turn, would stop future individual enforcements on everyone in the PZ.

Worse, the resolution conflated that lawsuit with totally unconnected “derailed” projects, or what “others have stated” and falsely noted that “The Cease and Desist Orders and settlement agreements do not require any burdensome actions now or in the near future.”

That last howler indicated that the county staff members who had written this resolution had not followed the ACL and CDO hearings at all. No mention that the Los Osos 45 had been threatened with daily retroactive fines all the way back to 1988, nor that the RWQCB reserved the right to “revoke and impose” all fines totally on their perception of whether the County was “making progress,” nor that should the county project fail for whatever reason, those 45 people would be forced to leave their homes after 2011, nor any mention of the onerous burden those CDOs put on anyone trying to sell their homes, and certainly no mention that the CDO process itself requires that the recipients file any objections in a “real” court of law before a certain amount of time has elapsed or else they will lose all their rights.

And then, closing the long list of “Whereas’s” was this capper: “The foregoing recitals are true and correct.”

Errrrnnnkkkk, not even close. Add in Supervisor Patterson’s cogent observation that he was not comfortable with an official County resolution that would demand a quid pro quo on a lawsuit he was not familiar with, one that could possibly interfere with a citizen’s constitutional rights, one that wasn’t even supported by the very people who had originally requested it, and this resolution was soon sensibly tabled, for now.

But the citizens of Poor Lost Osos should now be on notice: That resolution, which Supervisor Gibson supported, makes one thing absolutely clear: Protecting the interests of the County and the interests of the RWQCB come first -- NOT protecting the interests of the citizens. You have been warned.

Then adding insult to injury, there was the embarrassing front page Tribune news story about CSD Board officer, Julie Tacker and her boyfriend Jeff Edwards, involved in last November’s community-wide Chipping Day. That day is mandated by and partially paid for out of the community’s solid waste franchise fees, while any budget overruns come out of the fire department fund and/or the CSD’s water fund. In short, the ratepayers pay for this service.

Which is why this particular piece of idiocy warrants a full CSD public hearing since this one involved inappropriate verbal abuse of CSD employees, either misunderstood and/or incorrect procedures used to sign up homeowners, and stupidest of all, clear indications of someone attempting to game the system while sticking the ratepayers with the bill.

Well, if the CSD can devote a whole meeting to consider the censure of a particular private citizen, surely it can spend a meeting to determine who the players were in this game, what reimbursement to the CSD is required, how the system can be fixed to avoid this in the future, and if any Board member was involved in this scam, to consider an appropriate response.

Like poor Lost Osos doesn’t have enough trouble, now we gotta hide the silverware? And the eucalyptus leaves?

38 comments:

*PG-13 said...

The Chippingate entry hardly warrants a comment. I mean, what can one say? Dumb and dumber just got dumber? Still, I can't help myself:

Isn't it amazing that some names just keep popping up - again and again - under questionable actions and circumstances? Put another way, why do my nightmares always star the same people? Don't these citizens have anything better to do with their lives? And does everything they do always have to be a scam? All together now ..... (Really Big Sigh)

Poor Los Osos indeed. It just keeps get'n sillier and sillier. And deeper and deeper. (No Ann, that's not a reference to a sewer. Wait, maybe it is.) Its gotta be the water! What it does to our cars it's doing to our brains. Bottled water is looking better every day. Forget about its carbon footprint. We need all the help we can get.

Did Jeff Edwards ever see a tree he didn't want to be rid of? What is Julie Tacker smoking? Wishing no harm befall them but can we dare hope their social union some how, some way qualifies for a Darwin Award?

It would be sad if it wasn't so funny. No, make that it would funny if it wasn't so sad. Both seem appropriate.

Mike said...

Is JULIE TACKER trying to "derail" yet another project that doesn't suit her personal agenda, or to just have the LOCSD take on the removal of all nonnative trees so we can all share in the expense of clearing and maintaining the Edwards yard???????????

.................................
from the Telegram Tribune 1/18/2008

"Coastal Conservancy

Audubon grant OK’d after challenge
More than$3 million will flow to five Central Coast cities and nonprofit groups engaged in conservation.

Local conservation groups received an infusion of more than $3 million Thursday when the state Coastal Conservancy unanimously authorized grants funding five separate projects.

Only one grant generated any substantial discussion at the conservancy’s Thursday meeting in Avila Beach.

Los Osos developer Jeff Edwards and Los Osos Community Services District director Julie Tacker questioned the allocation of $1.1 million to the Morro Coast Audubon Society to add eight acres to the Sweet Springs Nature Preserve in Los Osos.

The pair criticized Audubon’s management of the preserve, particularly its failure to remove eucalyptus trees, which are invasive and are forcing out native plants.

The grant includes $100,000 for restoration, but this is not nearly enough to effectively reduce the eucalyptus stands, Edwards said.

Coastal Conservancy staffers called the $100,000 seed money for a larger restoration project that will include removal of nonnative trees.

Complicating the matter is the fact that eucalyptus provide habitat for monarch butterflies and birds of prey.

“When we’ve tried to cut down eucalyptus in the area, we’ve had people complain,” said Sam Schuchat, the conservancy’s executive officer.

The conservancy board directed staff to give an update at the panel’s next meeting on efforts to resolve the issues raised at the meeting."

.................................
Didn't our sweet Julie have a fit over the removal of the Tri-W eucalyptus because of the raptor roostings???????????

I certainly hope there is a real investigation of the stupid chipping incident and Julie gets the boot off the Board and maybe pays a fine in the neighborhood of $10,000!!!!!!!!!!!

Kari said...

Don't Tacker/Edwards have any shame? You would think they would be embarrassed to be caught bullying the chipping crew into extra chipping at Los Osos' taxpayers expense; that they would keep a low profile and try not to invoke any additional ire from Los Osos residents.

In continuing hubris and chutzpah, these people once again, get their names in the paper for trying to beat up our local Audubon Society!

This is the same woman who a few years ago shed wet crocodile tears about the removal of a few trees at TRI-W, now is on a eucalyptus vendetta- monarch butterflies be damned.

Los Osos, is this the type of person you want as a director of the CSD?

Can you spell R E C A L L??

SHAME ON YOU, JULIE, AND SHAME ON YOU, JEFF!

Churadogs said...

The euc/native argument is an interesting one. Went to a mini-seminar last year on the mnarch butterflies and eucalyptus -- excellent speakers, experts on each. It's one of those Barn Door's Open, Now What problems. Yes, the eucs are non-native, but they've been here long enough to create much needed habitat for the monarchs. So, if you're hell-bent on returning everything to native, where's the trade-off?j

Of course, climate change will come in as an added player here. Instead of wntering in Mexico, maybe the flutterbies will stop off in SLOTown by the gazillions. Who knows.

Meantime,the debate continues between the rabid nativists and the sami-rabid quasi non-nativists, with everyone not really clear as to just what constitutes "natural." Pre-human? Post-human, pre Spanish? Post Spanish, pre Yankee? Is 1776 "native?" How's about 1812? 1900?

Well, you see the problem. Well, deep breaths all round, belay the chain saws, maybe set up "dead lines" around the eucs and monitor and count and watch and wait and see.

Maria M. Kelly said...

**Reminder**

If you haven't changed out your shower heads....
If you want to learn how to do a water audit on your house....
If you want the chance to win a Caroma low flow toilet....
If you want information on Culligan's more efficient RO systems...
If you have a few questions for Golden State or the LOCSD.....
If you want info on water supply and development.....
If you want to see some "hilarious" artwork done by the 3rd graders at Baywood Elem....

Please come to the Methodist Church between 10 and 2; corner of LOVR and Pine and take 15 minutes to save 15 gallons of water in your home daily.

Thanks!
Maria M. Kelly

Mike Green said...

Egads! someone call the Audubon people!
They just sighted a cukoo at the preserves!

Mark said...

Maria:

**Great Idea**

Cut down on flushing to conserve water, today.
The RECLAMATOR is the "ultimate" water conservation appliance.
It costs less than the non-compliant sewer project the county is studying.

Mark said...

We interrupt this blog thread for an important special message for the citizens of Los Osos/Baywood Park and the SLO County/CCRWQCB public servants:

Sewertoons said...
No - it is the ALLEGATION as stated in the Sullivan case that CALLS it illegal. If the Sullivan case wins, the door is open to explore that allegation. Meanwhile, while the courts would be sorting this out, where is the County - where is the 218 - where is our sewer project? We are in limbo, sewerless, and more ripe for the picking than ever.

9:25 PM, January 08, 2008

Toons: "sewerless"- it's a good thing.

Stay off the ~P~I~P~E~ it's a bad thing- it's non-compliant and costly, in more ways than one.

-This has been a public service announcement brought to you by the "RECLAMATOR"-the future of water.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled "program"...

Sewertoons said...

I want a Tivo for this blog so I can scan past the commercials.

Mark said...

Toons:
You want a technology that was not available 35 years ago to make your life better?!?
What is this discussion coming to?!

Sewertoons said...

Gee mark, repetition only gets you so far, then you just start to annoy people.

Mark said...

Toons"
Are you speaking from personal experience?

I suppose that everyone just loves how they have been treated by the WaterBoard and county for "permitting" septic tanks in the first place and how "they" are going about dealing with that "mistake", everyone, right?...

My invitation to chat off list is still in full force and effect. What have you got to lose?

Mark said...

This was buried a few blogs back as part of the 51st comment. it bears repeating:

Mark said...
The People of Los Osos/Baywood Park must demand integrity and make certain that the LOCSD Board gives fiduciary and timely due diligence in the matter of the CDO's/NOV's and the AES DES PPP/BK Re-org "offering"-

If that oppourtunity is lost, it will be more than a shame, it would be a tradegy waterwise/moneywise/energywise and legally speaking which could have been "avoided".

Forgive but don't forget the past.
Focus on the present to insure the future...

Toons: I am learning through personal experience that- very few people get it on the first try.

Churadogs said...

Mike Green sez:"Egads! someone call the Audubon people!
They just sighted a cukoo at the preserves"

Well, don't know about any cukoos, but the other day, driving down LOVR about 1/2 way to SLOTown, spotted near the road, sailing along big as live, two GIANT SWANS, heading towards Morro Bay. Thought maybe they were special guests of the Bird Festival or something. Emailed my bird friend and come to find out they're MUTE SWANS who show up occasionally to paddle around at Laguna Lake before heading north. Beautiful things.

Mark said...

This just in:
I sure will appreciate "COMMENTS"

After all "Sanluis Obispo Couty is stillin the United States of America, isn't it?

I've been thinking about the "basin plan". (Mark says-it's a good thing!)
Let's see if I've got this right:
* It was created in 1983 as 83-12 and immediately changed to 83-13 by Roger Briggs and
Frank de Marco, who were "staff" at ccrwqcb.
* The plan forbids discharging anything.
* It's based on NOTHING.
* It's "reviewed" every 3 years.
* No one at the County or State thought it was wrong?
* It wasn't enforced.
* The county disregarded it, allowing 1159 septics in LO/BP that altered the water situation
negatively.
* No one did a septic survey, not even the county who was ordered to do so, plus a septic maintenance program which was never done either.
* CDO's were issued to the LOCSD November 19, 1999 for the community systems under their control
* After 23 years, it was enforced "randomly" against individuals.
* Based on NOTHING.
* LO/BP weren't "allowed" to challenge the basin plan.
* NO Challenge= NO DEFENSE, as we all use our water in our homes.
* The condition of the septics didn't matter and the pumping every other month, as was ordered by the "draft" CDO, wasn't allowed.
* Only 1 person, Lisa Schicker, ever "talked about" challenging the basin plan.
* Since only "state agencies/state employees" are involved in the whole mess, I suggest that there is a HUGE conflict of interest and a big threat of losing their jobs if they don't "go along" with the, in my view, illegal plans for a sewer in Los Osos/Baywood Park.(Mark says- I really like this part as it shows reader comprehendsion!)

Sound close?

Mark said...

Then there is this:
~ PLEASE BE INFORMED ~
PROPOSED PLAN BY AES DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SERVICES
for
DISCHARGE ELIMINATION TO COMPLY WITH STATE WATER BOARD ISSUED CEASE AND DESIST ORDERS (CDO) #s 99-3053, 99-3054 and 99-3056
to
BRING INTO COMPLIANCE WITH SUCH CDO REQUIREMENTS
the
TWO WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEMS
of
BAYRIDGE ESTATES AND VISTA DEL ORO SUBDIVISIONS

Residents of Bayridge Estates and Vista Del Oro are subject to a $6,600,000.00 (six-million dollar) fine that has been imposed upon the Los Osos Community Services District by the RWQCB for failure to bring into compliance the two wastewater treatment systems serving the above subdivisions per requirements of issued State Cease and Desist Orders as defined above.

Estimated economic exposure per home (Dwelling Unit Equivalent, “DUE”) within the above mentioned subdivisions as the result of this fine is approximately $30,000.00 (thirty-thousand dollars) per home, i.e. DUE.

This economic exposure per DUE will be eliminated upon initiation of action by the LOCSD to bring such wastewater treatment systems into compliance with CDOs.

The AES Discharge Elimination Services is proposing to the LOCSD to bring these two wastewater treatment systems into compliance utilizing RECLAMATOR technology. The total cost is $2,125.00 (two thousand, one hundred and twenty-five dollars) per DUE.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cost for AES Discharge Elimination Services per DUE $8,500.00

Less 75% Federal Grant Assistance Credit provided for by AES <$6,375.00>

Total actual cost per DUE for compliance $2,125.00
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Note: It will be made a matter of record of those dischargers who signed the petition in support of compliance and also those who did not sign in support of compliance. DUEs who sign the petition in support of bringing into compliance their wastewater system shall not be legally subject to a $25,000 tax assessment upon compliance.

Technology and the law pulls the LOCSD's fat out of the fire. Citizens protect the environment and their wallets while coplying with the CDO's. A rare win/win/win.

Area51 said...

Do y'all remember the flap a few months back between Ann and Crapkiller over Crapkiller's comments about the 218 vote being a matter of public record? (September25, 2007 "New Rules.") Ann actually kicked Crapkiller off for perceived threats, then reconsidered with a "warning."

Now, we get a lot of this from Wrecklamators Low and Murphy:

"Note: It will be made a matter of record of those dischargers who signed the petition in support of compliance and also those who did not sign in support of compliance."

and this:

"I can say one thing, anyone that doesn’t’ support THIS Plan, is raising and waving the “BAD GUY” Flag and deserves NOTHING. This most certainly will be accommodated, as we will know who they are, a “BAD GUY”."

and this:

"However, I am going to exempt all who voted NO and who DIDN’T VOTE. Only the ones who protested our program and voted “yes” are going to be the ones who must pay all “reward” amounts."


Nary a peep from Ann about these continued implicit (and not so implicit) comments.

I'm just curious, what gives Ann? What is the difference between Crapkillers perceived "threats" and the continued rantings of the Wrecklamators?

Mike Green said...

Actually I'm beginning to think Mark is a shill for the county, annoying everyone so much that the assessment will be a blessing in comparison.

Mark said...

51 wrote: over Crapkiller's comments about the 218 vote being a matter of public record? Mark says- I'm sorry I wasn't following the blog at that time 51. This is Ann's Land so I will abide by any requests from her EVERYTIME. I'm thinking the comments from the "crapkiller" may not be as applicable as what I am writing(it's business), but I could be wrong and will await Ann's decision. Again this is her space and she is a "gracious" host.

Green wrote:-0 Mark says-the assessment will be a blessing in comparison. WOW!

Fortunately we live in a country where we have freedom of choice. You will be able to participate with the county in its non-compliant sewer process which will increase in cost proportionately with every "discharge" that does not become "hooked" up on the ~P~I~P~E~. No matter how little your were assessed, those using it will have to repay the costs of construction with interest. Any increases in cost of O&M will be borne by the user (think Nipomo CSD here). I haven't seen a county cost contract yet and seriously doubt there ever will ever be one. Why should they provide any or be obligated to produce a profit and be accountable. It is a government thing (not good)...Think Post Office here. Do you believe that the county could/would/should/will build a gravity sewer in Los Osos beginning in 2009-2010 for 127 million dollars? blahahahahahaha! You are a funny man Green! A very funny man, indeed...

Anyway, here is some more inter office mail for your reading enjoyment. Useful too if you are still thinking about your "pocketbook".



----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Murphy
To: 'Mark Low'
Sent: Monday, January 21, 2008 11:41 AM
Subject: "DISCHARGE", a clearly defined wastewater industry term.


Mark,



Please allow me to make an attempt to “clarify” your misunderstanding of the meaning of “discharge” obviously caused by the Water Board’s lack of understanding it or attempting to impose authority on the public which they don’t have by suggesting to the public a meaning of the term which isn’t able to be substantiated. I will attempt to do this based on fact and law and point out the difference between the public perception of the meaning of “discharge” and the actual meaning of the term when used in the wastewater industry, i.e. RWQCB or any other pollution control agency.



The term “discharge” when used without qualification includes a discharge of a pollutant, and a discharge of pollutants.(Sec. 1362.(14))



All power/authority of the (any) regulatory entity over “discharge or discharges” comes from Congress via U.S. Code Title 33 Chapter 26.


Development of a “basin plan” is a requirement under USC 33/26.


Their “authority” is limited to control of “discharges” of “pollutants”, not “water”.


“Discharge”, as defined within the USC 33/26 DOES NOT apply to “discharge of water” as used with “qualification”.


“Discharge” is defined in USC 33/26 Sec. 1362 (14) as meaning “discharge of a pollutant” or “discharge of pollutants”.


The “enforcement powers” of the “Pollution Control Agencies” of out nation are defined by two standards of measure (MCL and MCLG) that define levels of constituents in water that are considered “pollutants” and levels of constituents in water that are defined as “non-pollutant”.


Water which only meets the MCL (not safe to drink water) standard falls under enforcement powers of “Pollution Control Agencies”. Water that meets the MCLG (safe to drink water, even thought it isn’t intended for drinking) standard is defined within itself as a “non-enforceable public health goal”. This means, regardless of their attempts in convincing the public otherwise, the RWQCB (or any other “Pollution Control Agency”) HAS NO AUTHORITY OVER “DISCHARGE OF WATER” which meets this US EPA MCLG Standard. The RECLAMATOR produces water that meets this US EPA MCLG Standard.


“Pollutants” are levels of “constituents” in water that are of a level in concentration which “poses a threat to public health” as is defined in the US EPA Standard, the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL) and are therefore “pollutant”. “Flows” of water WITH such levels of pollutants in it is a “DISCHARGE”, i.e. “DISCHARGE OF WASTE”.


A “Flow of water” NOT having a level of constituents as defined in the MCL does not constitute a “DISCHARGE”.


Levels of “Pollutants/constituents” in this range are considered “discharge”, i.e. a “discharge of pollutants” subject to control by the federal, state or local regulatory authorities, whoever the power/authority has been passed down to from the US EPA who was commissioned it via US Congress in 1972.


“Discharge of water” is not subject to their control, regardless of what they say. They have NO AUTHORITY over ANY WATER having constituents of “pollutants” of levels as is defined in the Maximum Contaminant Level GOALS (MCLG)


When the “discharge” is eliminated, they have no authority over anyone. They power under the authority provided them begins and ends with the “discharge of waste” and the “discharge of water”.



Now, this is the reason they have no authority to force anyone utilizing the Discharge Elimination Services provided for by the RECLAMATOR to participate in 1) paying for a publicly provided sewer project or service AND, 2) if there was a REQUIRED HOOKUP, the public entity is “obligated by law” (California Water Code Sec. 13050) to “purchase” the “recycled/reclaimed” water they would be taking from the private sector.



Now, you know the rest of the “LIE”, or would that be just yet “ANOTHER LIE” told to you and the people of this community, or would that be the entire jurisdiction of the RWQCB. Furthermore, when the State Water Board becomes aware of such, they are obligated to step in and correct the problem. Why haven’t they done this? Who is going to be responsible for all the damages occurred resulting from this multi-decade fiasco being allowed to continue at the economical and emotional expense that has been unlawfully imposed upon the citizens (tax payers) of this community.



Obviously, they (federal, state and local authorities) are ALL “accomplices” to this “conspiracy”. Correction, I have just identified how they are all accomplices to this “Act of Extortion”, i.e. “Blackmail”.



“Accomplice” means “at law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offence.”



“Conspiracy” means “Conspiracy (crime), agreement between persons to break the law in the future, in some cases having committed an act to further that agreement” Also, “an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime or accomplish a legal purpose through illegal action.” (NOTE: “Person” is defined as an “agency”, i.e. the EPA, Water Board and Regional Water Board)



“Act of Extortion” means “Extortion, outwresting, or exaction is a criminal offense, which occurs when a person either unlawfully obtains money, property or services from a person, entity, or institution through coercion or intimidation or threatens a person, entity, or institution with physical or reputational harm unless he is paid money or property.” Also, “Illegal use of one's official position or powers to obtain property, funds, or patronage.”



“Blackmail” means “Blackmail is the act of threatening to reveal information about a person, or even do something to destroy the threatened person, unless the blackmailed target fulfills certain demands. This information is usually of an embarrassing or socially damaging nature.” Also, “In a broader sense, blackmail is an offer to refrain from some action which would be legal or normally allowed, and is thus distinguished from extortion, which carries the threat of unlawful and often violent action if demands are not met.”



“Stupidity shows its face as the truth grows nearer” ---Tribal Elder Unknown

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it” ---Henry Ford



The “83-13”, aka Basin Plan, is a meaningless and powerless document (just as is the authority who implemented it) when there is no more “discharge of pollutants/waste”.



The lights are on!

Best regards,



D. Thomas Murphy

Inventor,

RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Water”

(775) 848-8800

AES Central Coast Discharge Elimination Company, LLC.

Founder

(805) 305-2378

Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc.

President

(775) 425-0911

www.NOwastewater.com



“Lead, Follow or get out of the way” ---Thomas Jefferson

Mike said...

Correcto Mark... Get out of the way!
We'll be working with true professionals such as Siemens http://www.water.siemens.com/
LONG, LONG before listening to your much too much overhyped sales bullcrap.....

Mark said...

Mike is that the Royal "we" or do you have a mouse in your pocket?

As the federally compliant LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution is already underway, how is it in your way?

I'll let the "professional" tag go for now as I know change can be difficult for some and I see you are feeling the "change".
We can always visit that later;-)... Los Osos is to become the national/and first world headquarters for the AES RECLAMATOR so we can talk then.

AES RECLAMATOR technology is superior to anything GE or Siemens represent, it is simply the "best".
Mike, LO/BP need to cease the discharge of pollutants that is why we are here with the best technology at the best price.
It is a statement of fact that "best" is to be implemented by law USC 33/26.
California doesn't have a more stringent law in this regard, which is also fact.

The citizens Los Osos/Baywood Park are front and center in process of history being made, all salesmanship aside.
I am interested in your getting a pricing quotation and posting it to the list.
Please be certain to get their on-site appliance price as that is the one they will need to meet or beat to be best. I'll be waiting.
It's a no brainer to beat the end of ~P~I~P~E~ price.

Finally, Mike the RECLAMATOR technology is simply the best for less...so what is the problem???

Mike Green said...

Mark, please hurry up and install your device somewhere in L.O. and show us the rescinded NOV and permit from the RWQCB and county.
Thanks.

Sewertoons said...

Yeah, how's that buying a piece of property going? Found one yet? By the time you have your 10 years worth of data - Los Osos will have a sewer!

Mark said...

Mike Green said...
Mark, please hurry up and install your device somewhere in L.O. and show us the rescinded NOV and permit from the RWQCB and county.
Thanks.

3:05 PM, January 21, 2008

Sewertoons said...

Yeah, how's that buying a piece of property going? Found one yet? By the time you have your 10 years worth of data - Los Osos will have a sewer!

3:47 PM, January 21, 2008

Your interest in our project is most appreciated! When the RECLAMATOR is operational in LO/BP, Ann's Land will be one of the first places I will promulgate that event. When the discharge of pollutants has been eliminated the "public servants" will by law, react accordingly. It will be an interesting process. As I have stated before- "change can be difficult for some".

Toons_ I am interested in the "statute" that defines-"10 years of data". For the last time, can you please provide it? Rumor, impressions and assumptions are certainly not part of the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. No matter how many times they are injected into the discussion. Rumor, impressions and assumption are part of the problem but are not part of the "solution". So unless and until you provide some "law" to prove your assertions, I will consider this matter closed no matter how many more times you bring it up.

Sewertoons said...

mark, you really need to ask the Water Board this question, not me. And you certainly do not know your Los Osos history if you do not know what my comment refers to. This is a perfect time for you to learn! Have fun!

Prefix528 said...

D. Tom Murphy installed two prototype "Reclamators" in Los Osos years ago. He has said that there are currently 100 in operation.

He should easily be able to report on their performance and say how many of these received the 75% federal support grants.

Sewertoons said...

There were three installed in Los Osos and only one is one currently in operation. Two of them were pulled out. The one remaining requires quite a bit of adjustment and monitoring, and if it goes out of whack, it stinks for several days until the process re-balances.

100 in operation is a pretty small number. These things have been around since the mid-90's! Maybe the patent office can enlighten us as to the difference between the "prototype" and today's version. Maybe Murphy will tell us out of the 100, which are prototype and which are "new and improved."

Great question prefix528! I hope to see the answer to your question here on Ann's blog!

Mark said...

Sewertoons said...

mark, you really need to ask the Water Board this question, not me. And you certainly do not know your Los Osos history if you do not know what my comment refers to. This is a perfect time for you to learn! Have fun!

8:43 PM, January 21, 2008

Toons:



The WaterBoard did not follow 13301.1 law and is not following that law now. Rodger Briggs and Harvey Packard think that the RECLAMATOR produces a discharge when in fact it produces an ultra filtration permeate that meets or exceeds the USEPA MCLG water standard.



Why would I reply upon their "opinion" regarding law or water quality?



In the spirit of learning and fun, this is the perfect time for “you” to look at the Maximum Contaminant Level GOAL (MCLG) http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html#listmcl . As anyone can see this is the US EPA Standard which defines “water” suitable for drinking, i.e. does not pose a threat to public health.



After you have had an opportunity to “open” the MCLG, notice near the Standard, the “Notes” refered to as “Definitions”. Under “Definitions” notice the “definition” for MCLG:



“Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.



Tightly focus on the part which states “…are non-enforcable public health goals”, now, focus like a “laser beam” on “non-enforceable”. The National Safe Drinking Water Requirements (NSDWRs) are the “non-enforceable” requirements your “tap water” must meet prior to entering into your home. Your tap water has already complied to this “non-enforceable” standard. The RECLAMATOR simply removes what you put into your water during household water use. Everything you put into the water belongs to you and the water “whatever” you put into it, also belongs to you.



The RECLAMATOR simply reclaims your water to the original NSDWR quality so you can reuse and recycle your water without posing any threats to public health while doing so.



This is very simple for the RECLAMATOR to do as the RECLAMATOR consists of the best and most advanced biological technology available within the entire industry and it is the subject of over six US patents and over 30 international patents, which removes toxic nitrogen constituents to a level which meets the “non-enforceable public health goals” as defined in the MCLGs.



Then, all other containments are retained, i.e. contained (as is required by the USC 33/26), within the RECLAMATOR to be removed on an average of once every 5 years. The same ultrafiltration “membrane” technology that is used to treat your water for delivery to your tap is the same membrane technology that is incorporated into the RECLAMATOR to reclaim you water back to nonenforceable “tap water quality”.

Ultrafiltration is a type of filtration. Industries such as chemical and pharmaceutical processing, food and beverage processing, and waste water treatment, employ ultrafiltration in order to recycle flow or add value to later products. UF's main attraction is its ability to purify, separate, and concentrate target macromolecules in continuous systems. UF does this by pressurizing the solution flow. The solvent and other dissolved components that pass through the membrane are known as permeate. The components that do not pass through are known as retentate. Depending on the Molecular Weight Cut Off (MWCO) of the membrane used, macromolecules may be purified, separated, or concentrated in either fraction. Ultrafiltration is used as a pre-treatment step in reverse osmosis processes in many Middle Eastern countries to produce fresh water as there is little fresh water available in those areas.

The ultra filtration membrane decanter module of the BESTEP UF-900 was specifically developed to insure the permeate which leaves the RECLAMATOR consistently meets the MCLG standard. This was the primary goal of the mission during the engineering, design and development of the RECLAMATOR, in order to achieve the “non-enforceable public health goal” standard so as to remove all regulatory authorities out of the way so as to achieve the National Goal of Eliminating the Discharge of All Pollutants.

The RECLAMATOR has now become the new National Standard of Performance (USC 33/26 Sec. 1316 (a)(1)) and as such, is required to be specified by “brand name or equal” as the “best available demonstrated control technology” currently available and economically achievable that, where practicable (possible), will achieve a standard eliminating the discharge of pollutants.

The Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO) (Twelfth Report, FEB 1988, Cm 310), is a set of procedures adopted by Great Britain with the goal of managing waste and other environmental concerns. According to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, BPEO "emphasizes the protection and conservation of the environment across land, air and water. The BPEO procedure establishes for a given set of objectives, the option that provides the most benefits or the least damage to the environment, as a whole, at acceptable cost, in the long term as well as in the short term."

The word “best”, as a superlative of good, means “Surpassing all others in excellence, achievement, or quality; most excellent.”

The word “practicable” means “means available and capable of accomplishment after taking into consideration the existing state of technology and economic feasibility for the facility involved.”

The supreme law of the United States next to the United States Constitution states, the United States Statutes which is commonly known as the “People’s Law” specifically requires per the following states of the following statutes of such Law:

USC 33/26 Sec. 1311 (b) Timetable for achievement of objectives

In order to carry out the objective of this chapter there shall be achieved—

(1)(A) not later than July 1, 1977, effluent limitations for point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, (i) which
shall require the application of the best practicable control technology currently available (USC 33/26 Sec. 1311 (b)(1)(A))

“…effluent limitations for categories and classes of point sources, other than publicly owned treatment works, which (i) shall require application of the best available technology economically achievable for such category or class, which will result in reasonable further progress toward the national goal of eliminating the discharge of all pollutants,..”(USC 33/26 Sec. 1311 (b)(2)(A))

“Waste treatment management plans and practices shall provide for the application of the best practicable waste treatment technology…” (USC 33/26 Sec. 1281 (b))

And it just goes on and on and on………..something we will be happy to, when asked or as needed.

Mark said...

This will help serve to illuminate why the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution is so "visionary" to keep from getting on the ~P~I~P~E~.

"AES DES provides sustainable solutions that help utilities and households save money, water and energy."
The RECLAMATOR is the ultimate water conservation and pollution control device, by design.


1) EPA Reports on Clean Water Infrastructure Needs
A new report from the EPA estimates $202.5 billion is the nationwide capital investment needed to control wastewater pollution for up to a 20-year period. Delivered to Congress last week, the 2004 Clean Watersheds Needs Survey summarizes the results of the agency's 14th national survey on the needs of publicly owned wastewater treatment works. The estimate includes $134.4 billion for wastewater treatment and collection systems, $54.8 billion for combined sewer overflow corrections, and $9.0 billion for stormwater management.
"Water infrastructure is a lifeline for health and prosperity in communities across America," said Assistant Administrator for Water Benjamin H. Grumbles. "EPA is working with our partners to promote sustainable solutions and help utilities and households save money, water and energy."

Communities across the country face challenges in sustaining their water infrastructure. EPA is working with states, tribes, utilities, and other partners to reduce the demand on infrastructure through improved asset management, improved technology, water efficiency, and watershed-based decision making, and is working with Congress to enact the Administration's Water Enterprise Bond proposal.

The report provides information to help the nation make informed decisions about pollution control needs necessary to meet the environmental and human health objectives of the Clean Water Act. The figures represent documented wastewater investment needs, but do not account for expected investment and revenues. Wastewater treatment utilities pay for infrastructure using revenue from rates charged to customers and may finance large projects using loans or bonds. State and federal funding programs, such as EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund program, are also available to help communities meet their wastewater pollution control needs. The needs in this survey represent a $16.1 billion ( 8.6%) increase (in constant 2004 dollars) over the 2000 report. The increase in overall national needs is due to a combination of population growth, more protective water quality standards, and aging infrastructure. More information on the needs survey: http://www.epa.gov/cwns/

Mark said...

----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Murphy
To: 'Patel, Sona - SLO'
Cc: 'Mark Low'
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:32 PM
Subject: Interview


Hi Sona,



In answer to your asking “Can you give me specific examples of how the material is being distorted and perverted? Maybe we can try to remedy the situation. I do very much appreciate you as a source, so it’d be great if we could talk about it.”



I believe that we could start “talking about it” by your paper printing retractions for the Bob Cuddy article which referred to me and my associates as “Snake oil salesmen”. This would be a win/win for the paper and AES.



Then, you may want to address the following:



http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/139287.html



A pair of salesmen from Nevada Mark is from Arizona(no big deal..)

In addition, Cesena said the pair is using the district as a reference without authorization. We never used the CSD as a reference.(big deal)

The men claim their machine— the Reclamator—will turn sewage into drinking water Reclaimed and purified to meet the USEPA MCLG's, the drinking water standard, no one with AES ever said drinking water. The water produced by the RECLAMATOR is however, when passed through our Merlin RO unit is “drinkable”, but not intended for drinking.



http://www.sanluisobispo.com:80/429/story/169691.html



Those ads tell property owners they could avoid costly sewer hookup costs and fines from state water quality regulators if they buy the Reclamator, a septic tank-sized, underground device that its inventor claims filters a home’s sewage and turns it into drinking water. We don't “SELL” the RECLAMATOR, It is used by the company to provide a service to its clients to conserve and reclaime 100% of all water used inside their homes so that it can be reused and recycled for a beneficial reuse applicaton, such as toilet flushing, irrigation, indirect potable reuse, etc. What is it your paper doesn’t understand about a revolutionary disruptive innovation that “ends all wasting of water”? Eliminates need for sewers! Reduces the demand on public drinking water supplies by approximately 250 gallons per day per home! Provides a totally sustainable alternative water supply for the community that qualifies for federal grant assistance and state grant assistance and will ultimately be applied to the entire community as the first community wide 100% water reclamation and conversation project in the world. The RECLAMATOR is the “Ultimate Household Water Conservation Device” which eliminates all discharge of all pollutants…..forever! Sewers are now antiquated, besides being unlawful since 1972.





Public agencies involved in the attempt to debunk AES’ claims said they can’t run their own ad campaign because they’re barred from using public funds for political purposes. Still, they’re hoping to warn Los Osos property owners that entering into any agreement would not preclude them from hooking up to a sewer and a possible assessment. Lacks balance. AES was never offered a chance to respond before this article was printed. AES has NO PROBLEM with any “required hooking up to a sewer”! As a matter of fact, AES welcomes a required hookup as AES will have a publicly owned “water” customer to which AES will provide its reclaimed/recycled water for the fair market value of 5 times the cost of the public water supply. Being required to hookup is a GOOD THING for our Clients as, under that scenario, AES will provide free services to its clients including paying their Client’s water bill too. I really don’t know where the County is going to get the money to pay AES for its water though (forgive me for my sarcasm). Regardless, it is just the “truth”, which your paper obviously has a problem recognizing. Sona, the RECLAMATOR produces WATER. It is a privately owned device which will solve the Los Osos sewer delema at ultimately, no cost to the Citizens of Los Osos. The RECLAMATOR will provide 1,300,000 gallons of new water per day as an alternative water source, to the community.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com:80/429/story/223041.html

Two salesmen who say their device would end the need for a sewer in Los Osos have filed a claim against the state, demanding nearly $80 million for alleged defamatory statements about their product. It’s the latest move by Tom Murphy and his business partner, Lacks balance. No weight given to Tom Murphy "Inventor/Patent Holder" etc. Mark Low, of AES Central Coast Discharge Elimination Co. to persuade authorities to scrap the long-awaited sewer and install the unconventional “Reclamator” on thousands of properties in the coastal town I believe ultimate water conservaton divice, saving the citizens of the community $100s of millions of dollars, providing the solution to the pollution problem is a fractin of the time, and eliminating all wasting of water at every property in the coastal town utilizing the latiest advanced total household water conservation device resulting in no need for a $25,000 dollar assessment being placed on every property to pay toward installation of a non-federally compliant and illegal “conventional” sewer system? Your paper lacks balance and has no regard for the law which provides (requires) application of "Advanced Innovative Alternative Technology" to, as the best available technology, be specified as “brand name or equal” based on its performance.

The men say their machine will turn sewage into drinking water. If you repeat something often enough some folks may tend to repeat it too... A statement such as this is totally defaming to our credibility as we did not say this, obviously your paper’s intention thinking that defaming me would somehow assist in the County sewer prevailing, WRONG! Noting will stop the RECLAMATOR from prevailing in the Los Osos project as there is nothing that can, again, the RECLAMATOR produces WATER.

In late October, the town’s property owners overwhelmingly approved a $127 million tax to pay for a sewer. The vote outcome was the result of an act of extortion on the part of the RWQCB threatening to fine all homeowners $5,000 per day “if they didn’t vote the right way”. The “tax” is not legal to impose on any property which voted NO. Use of a publicly provided service by a property owner is not mandatory and is a homeowner’s option.

County officials said they would do an independent analysis of private proposals — including the Reclamator —because they’re obligated to evaluate all potential solutions. This was written 12/18/07, The Tribune previously reported that the county would complete an analysis before December.January is almost over, yet no follow up with "Paavo" about the County's analysis. Lacks balance to say the least.

Then there is Bob Cuddy's snake oil piece

Best regards,



D. Thomas Murphy

Inventor,

RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Water”

(775) 848-8800

AES Central Coast Discharge Elimination Company, LLC.

Founder

(805) 305-2378

Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc.

President

(775) 425-0911

www.NOwastewater.com

Mark said...

Prefix528 said...

D. Tom Murphy installed two prototype "Reclamators" in Los Osos years ago. He has said that there are currently 100 in operation.

He should easily be able to report on their performance and say how many of these received the 75% federal support grants.

7:45 AM, January 22, 2008

Sewertoons said...

There were three installed in Los Osos and only one is one currently in operation. Two of them were pulled out. The one remaining requires quite a bit of adjustment and monitoring, and if it goes out of whack, it stinks for several days until the process re-balances.

100 in operation is a pretty small number. These things have been around since the mid-90's! Maybe the patent office can enlighten us as to the difference between the "prototype" and today's version. Maybe Murphy will tell us out of the 100, which are prototype and which are "new and improved."

Great question prefix528! I hope to see the answer to your question here on Ann's blog!

1:05 PM, January 22, 2008

P- The RECLAMATOR was developed in the last 3-4 years. The two units that D. Thomas Murphy "retro fitted" in Los Osos were already installed septic tanks, in which he provided "kits" that would provide advanced biological treatment befitting the BESTEP 10, a predecessor of the RECLAMATOR. The CCRWQCB conducted its own in-field Demonstration Project on the AES Technology serving a commercial establishment which demonstrated to be a viable onsite solution for the Los Osos nitrogen discharges. The NSF Report also was completed at this time which demonstrated the latiest form of the AES Technology to be capable of producing an average nitrate level of 1.6 mg/l. To date, no other biological process technology in the industry has been demonstrated to consistently produce nitrates below even 10 mg/l. The highest level of nitrate during the entire 6 plus month Performance Evaluation was 4 mg/l. The AES Technology was, by law, required to be promulgated to serve the Los Osos Project in 1995 upon awareness of this performance demonstration.

The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution was specifically designed for Los Osos. The RECLAMATOR will be provided for use by a service. The "system" will be regulated by the service provider, unlike every other previous installation. If you are interested in reviewing the installation list please stop by http://www.nowastewater.com/documents/section13_aes_technology_list.pdf it is part of the recently posted Engineering Report located @ http://www.nowastewater.com/engineering_report.html Federal Grant Assistance is available as provided in USC 33/26. Again the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution was specifically designed over the past 3-5 years to serve LO/BP without regulatory approval being required as the quality of water produced was a non-enforceable. No longer could the CCRWQCB nor the County of San Luis Obispo stop the RECLAMATOR as they no longer had control of AES needing a “discharge permit” as the RECLAMATOR no longer “discharged”, ON PURPOSE. Without the 75% grant assistance the "Solution" costs less than any other. Additionally, only the BEST qualifies for the federal grant assistance as no other waste management method or onsite wastewater treatment system provides such an economic advantage to the community as they won’t be the BEST or EQUAL. I appreciate your interest and look forward to hearing from you again.

Toons- It appears that you have some information on a system we know nothing about. Would you please share your specifics? There will be no homeowner involvement with the RECLAMATOR. Everything will be monitored from a centralized location using technology to monitor the technology. AES will provide a satellite monitoring station located at the CCRWQCB and the County offices so all RECLAMATORs can be monitored by the State and County regulatory authorities. I didn't actually see a question from P, it was more of a challenge, I believe. If you are interested in learning more I suggest you stop by www.NOwastewater.com as we have added information recently you might find useful to your study.

Mark said...

Toons wrote: Maybe the patent office can enlighten us as to the difference between the "prototype" and today's version.

I see you have not had very much patent office experience.
Good luck!

Sewertoons said...

So, if as mark says, "Sewers are now antiquated, besides being unlawful since 1972," just HOW many have been built since then, and WHY did NO ONE notice (except the Wrecklamator duo) that they were "illegal?"

Do you really think that this continued barrage is somehow going to convince us to support you? If the Water Board and County find your contraption to be OK, then it can go on the list of things to vote for in the County's advisory survey. If that is the case, you might want to slow down, try a different tact. Right now, even if the County said it was the greatest thing since indoor plumbing, I would select ANY other process, as your continual, blog-clogging repetition is a big turn off. Capiche?

Mark said...

Sewertoons said...

So, if as mark says, "Sewers are now antiquated, besides being unlawful since 1972," just HOW many have been built since then, and WHY did NO ONE notice (except the Wrecklamator duo) that they were "illegal?" ...Mark says: Toons "be here now". Namaste...

Do you really think that this continued barrage is somehow going to convince us to support you? If the Water Board and County find your contraption to be OK, then it can go on the list of things to vote for in the County's advisory survey. If that is the case, you might want to slow down, try a different tact. Right now, even if the County said it was the greatest thing since indoor plumbing, I would select ANY other process, as your continual, blog-clogging repetition is a big turn off. Capiche?

Mark says: Toons, The RECLAMATOR is required to be implemented by law, whether you or anyone else "likes it", it's the law. The county has not decided to "take" the "responsibility for the LOSTDEP. From what I understand that won't be unless and until a environmental impact report is successfully completed. Please forgive me if I do not take your advice regarding my work efforts. I know you have been going through the same old process for many years. I commenced on the ground efforts August, 28, 2007. I am fresh to the fight with the most effective weapon to stop wastewater pollution on-site, the RECLAMATOR. You are free to do whatever you want to eliminate the discharge of pollutants for your residence, which is part of the beauty of the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. I wish you good luck! La dolche vida!!

Churadogs said...

Mark sez:"You are free to do whatever you want to eliminate the discharge of pollutants for your residence, which is part of the beauty of the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. I wish you good luck! La dolche vida!!"

Free? Free to do whatever you want? No. Sorry. You don't seem to understand. Yes, I'm "free" to install a reclamator on my property, then I'll be "free" to spend the next 20 years and $250,000 in court "fighting" the Water Board and County and praying a judge will also agree that I'm "free" NOT to ALSO hook up to a county-built sewer system.

Otherwise, I'll be "free" buy a reclamator ($$$) AND pay legal fees ($$$) AND spend 20 years of my life drving back and forth to L.A. to federal court, AND pay to hook up to a sewer line ($$$$) AND pay a monthly sewer fee. That's a lot of "freedom."

Mark said...

The people should think to demand integrity and accountabilty only then will the laws of the land will be followed.

Meanwhile, the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues, which may or may not provide all the legal wranglings you suggest. If common sense can raise up its head, the government will serve the people while abiding by the law, not standing on its neck.

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
Thomas Paine

When men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.
Thomas Paine

Sewertoons said...

mark, you should offer politely pay for all of these legal wranglings out of your own pocket. You WILL NOT get the people of Los Osos to pay, so give it up.

And enough with the quotes already. They don't make you look any smarter. We already did the thinking here, and guess what - you are on your own! Go cozy up to a Wrecklamator and stop bugging us.

Mark said...

tooned out? Too bad.
Meanwhile, the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues...

At his best, man is the noblest of all animals; separated from law and justice he is the worst.
Aristotle