Pages

Wednesday, January 09, 2008

Is That More Whereas’s In Your Pocket?

The BOS met yesterday during the “Oh Darn Let’s Discuss Los Osos” portion of the meeting and up on the agenda was the Resolution asking that the RWQCB rescind the CDOs for The Los Osos 45.

The Resolution under discussion was astonishing, but even more astonishing to me was the following:

1. The County Staff and clearly some Supervisors, including Los Osos’ own Bruce Gibson, didn’t have any problem with the language used. Their concern was in placating the RWQCB, NOT placating citizens being injured by the Board’s actions, even though they acknowledged that they felt those actions were wrong, unfair and counterproductive. Nope, citizens weren’t of interest to them. Making another agency happy and officially scratching its back, even with demonstrably slanted and often inappropriate language and incorrect facts and conflations, was.

RWQCB’s backside: 10 – Citizens: 0

2. Several Supervisors and Paavo Ogren made it clear that they didn’t care what was said in this official Resolution. The language didn’t matter, the “facts” didn’t matter, history was important but not, apparently, correct history, and what was said didn’t matter. What was important was to “set a tone,” to “step into their shoes” (the RWQCB’s shoes, not the citizens’ shoes), that if the County is asking another governmental body for something (to rescind what all agree were wrong, unfair, counterproductive individual enforcement actions) then you have to phony up the document to soothe the other guy’s back, kissy-kissy, so he’ll have in writing “evidence” that you agree with his position (even if you don’t) so OFFICIALLY he’ll look good – “See? Even the County supports our [misleading] “history.” It’s all there in their Resolution.” – so it was a case, not of honestly presenting a formal request honestly, it was all about Bureaucratic ass-covering, one scratching back to another.

3. Even more interesting, from Supervisors whose votes create LAWS, was the rather cavalier attitude towards words and their meanings. Surely they, above all folks, know that Official Documents actually become “real” and that language really does count. A wrong word can land you in court. Language and wording are important. That wrong facts enshrined in some Official Document can cause all kinds of mischief later. (Look at the problems set in place by the recalled CSD’s unsupported SOC. That’s where not caring about language and facts can lead.)

4. Not even the folks who originally asked for this Resolution supported it. Not even CSD Board member Joe Sparks. He didn’t spell out exactly why he wasn’t happy with this thing, but it seemed to me to be tied to the CSD’s lawsuit. Perhaps it was the quid pro quo section that didn’t carry with it the quo from the RWQCB that they would not issue individual enforcement actions again, period. (Was there anyone in the room that trusted the RWQCB to actually keep their word, had the Resolution been accepted as written? I think not, not based on past experience with the RWQCB’s actions.)

Mercifully, Sup. Patterson expressed concern that an official county document should be involved with canceling out or tying up or voiding out a lawsuit the county wasn’t familiar with. Plus, he didn’t think the Supervisors should be supporting a Resolution that even the people who asked for it can’t support.
Sup. Lenthall noted, accurately, he admired the intent but this document didn’t hit the mark. He’d like to see it come back.
Sup Ovitt, no surprise there, is heartily sick of all things Los Ososian, didn’t care what the thing said, doesn’t want to spend any more time on it, wouldn’t make any difference, doesn’t care about the history, basically wanted it and Los Osos off the table permanently.
And Supervisor Gibson, true to form, eased his way out of this fiasco by giving his fellow board members an easy out: If there isn’t consensus, let’s table it; if you have any questions or are uncomfortable with any of this, table it. There’s no time schedule to adhere to, can always revisit this later, table it.

So it was tabled. For now.

Practically speaking, Unless both the RWQCB and PZLDF (CSD) both agree not only to drop their lawsuits and the RWQCB also agrees to not issue any future individual enforcement actions against people living in the PZ, and the PZLDF members agree not to sue for damages & etc, then this thing’s likely going nowhere. Each side clearly has too much to lose and absolutely NO TRUST in the other. With good reason for the Los Osos 45. They all have whiplash from Jeffery Young & Co. whipping them 180’ repeatedly for two years. Who in their right mind would trust anything that Board had to say? Not me, that’s for sure.

Meantime, if you want some more Whereas’s, here’s a list read yesterday by CDO recipient Bev Moylan: [posted with permission]


CDO #R3-2006-1041

If you decide to adopt this resolution, I have a few whereas’s of my own for you to consider before you sign off as true and correct the allegations of the CCRWQCB in their unilateral history of the Los Osos wastewater project contained therein:

WHEREAS San Luis Obispo County and the CCRWQCB together bear significant liability for the overdraft and alleged pollution of the Los Osos aquifer by permitting the construction of over 1000 homes within the Prohibition Zone between 1983 and 1988, despite CCRWQCB resolution 83-13, and

WHEREAS the CCRWQCB failed for years to engage in enforcement against San Luis Obispo County and the original Los Osos CSDs for failing to produce a WWTF for Los Osos, and

WHEREAS the CCRWQCB determined to engage in individual enforcement to occur directly following a legally conducted election in Los Osos, and

WHEREAS many of the CCRWQCB enforcement actions in Los Osos were carried out following a series of messages from a small group of citizens encouraging the CCRWQCB to fine their neighbors, in fact, to fine the CSD out of existence, and

WHEREAS the CCRWQCB determined to conduct their prosecution randomly, thereby ensnaring the elderly, the sick, the disabled, the poor, the incompetent, young families, single parents, and families without resources, and

WHEREAS individual prosecutions by the CCRWQCB have resulted in thousands of dollars of fixed and hard-earned incomes and thousands of collective hours of time spent in defense against enforcement actions and spent in protecting due process rights, and spent in doctors' offices, ERs, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and therapists' offices, and

WHEREAS citizens facing enforcement have requested compliance assistance from the CCRWQCB and suggested widely accepted compliance solutions, all of which were rejected by the CCRWQCB, and

WHEREAS the only compliance solutions proposed by the CCRWQCB to date are either to pay the daily fine for alleged violation or “vacate the premises,” and

WHEREAS the CCRWQCB has in effect provided no compliance assistance to Los Osos citizens facing enforcement as required by its own regulations, and

WHEREAS individual prosecutions have resulted in numerous due process and civil rights violations of private citizens, and

WHEREAS citizens facing prosecution were advised by no less than CCRWQCB Chairman Jeffrey Young to look to the courts for redress if they disagree with CCRWQCB enforcement, and whose right to legally challenge the process is endorsed by the Chairman of the CCRWQCB, and

WHEREAS hundreds of Los Osos residents of the Prohibition Zone have suffered for two years substantive harm to their health and welfare, much of that harm significant and some of it irreversible, with no discernible improvement to the waters of the state,

BE IT HERE RESOLVED AND ORDERED that the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors affirms its support for these citizens and respectfully requests that the CCRWQCB with all due haste vacate enforcement orders in Los Osos.

66 comments:

Ron said...

So, ummm, that seemed to go over well, huh?

What a complete waste of two hours, or, aggregately speaking, about a thousand hours.

How very Patriot Act-like of county staff to turn a nicey-nice law intended to support 45 families that are being jerked around by the RWQCB due to THAT agencies grave mistakes, into a law that calls the 2005 LOCSD a "failure," although we're not sure which 2005 LOCSD the language is referring to -- the pre-recall 2005 LOCSD, or the post-recall 2005 LOCSD.

That's why I asked Paavo Ogren, interim LOCSD General Manager in 1999, hired by then-Director,Pandora Nash-Karner, to clarify that extremely important distinction BEFORE the meeting that was to have that law go into effect, and, of course, he never replied.

I thought that was kind of an important distinction. After all, the law was blaming the entire mess on one of the two "2005 LOCSDs."

What a f-ing joke.

So let me see if I have this straight... one CDO recipient after anther begs the BOS to NOT adopt the resolution, Supervisor Gibson sits and listens to every single one of them, and then immediately ignores every single one of them, and immediately wanted to sign-off on the hastily written law.

Good lord.

Bev wrote:

"WHEREAS many of the CCRWQCB enforcement actions in Los Osos were carried out following a series of messages from a small group of citizens encouraging the CCRWQCB to fine their neighbors, in fact, to fine the CSD out of existence..."

That take comes up a lot, and I'm glad it does, but for it to have its full effect, there's something very important that needs to be added to it.

The person that conceived and developed the "strategy" to have a "series of messages from a small group of citizens encouraging the CCRWQCB to fine their neighbors, in fact, to fine the CSD out of existence," was Pandora Nash-Karner, Bruce Gibson's appointment to 2nd District parks Commission, a seat she has held since 1991, affording her access to county officials that none of us get.

I freaking GUARANTEE you that if Nash-Karner were to ask Ogren this question, "which 2005 LOCSD is that law calling a 'failure,'" she would get an answer.

If you ask me, some other WHEREASs should follow Bev's WHEREAS.

Bev's:

"WHEREAS many of the CCRWQCB enforcement actions in Los Osos were carried out following a series of messages from a small group of citizens encouraging the CCRWQCB to fine their neighbors, in fact, to fine the CSD out of existence."

Mine:

WHEREAS that "series of messages" was part of a "strategy" developed by Pandora Nash-Karner, and;

WHEREAS Bruce Gibson appointed Nash-Karner as 2nd District Parks Commissioner after she endorsed him during his campaign, and;

WHEREAS Nash-Karner was also the same person, that in 1998, developed a dead-on-arrival sewer project that was supposed to be "better, cheaper, faster" than what the county was proposing at the time, and the reason we all know that phrase -- "better, cheaper, faster" -- is because she saturated ALL of Los Osos with it throughout 1998 with her "behavior based marketing" tactics, and that misled Los Osos voters into establishing the LOCSD in the first place in November of 1998, and;

WHEREAS a bunch of water quality professionals, including Steve Monowitz, told Nash-Karner, BEFORE the election that formed the LOCSD, that her "better, cheaper, faster" was never going to work in Los Osos, and;

WHEREAS Nash-Karner proceeded to chase her "better, cheaper, faster," dead-on-arrival sewer project for two years as the #1 vote-getter in the initial LOCSD Board election, and;

WHEREAS, after chasing that lemon for two years, it failed, just like all those water quality professionals predicted in 1998, and;

WHEREAS, Roger Briggs was the ONLY person that had the authority to stop that ridiculous two-year-waste pursuing Nash-Karner's dead-on-arrival project, but didn't lift a finger to prevent those critical, wasted two years, and;

WHEREAS Nash-Karner has spent every waking moment over the past seven years trying to spin the fact that her dead-on-arrival project that formed the LOCSD in 1998, had simply "morphed" into the Tri-W project, when in reality her "better, cheaper, faster" project out-and-out failed, and then she lied to every regulator she could find in order to "bait and switch" her "morph" scam into existence, a scam that the Trib bought hook, line, and sinker.

I reported on all of that at this link:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/she-is-los-osos.html

There's no doubt in my mind that the entire LO Sewer development process would be infinitely easier if Nash-Karner were simply out of the loop, and that includes her seat as Parks Commissioner.

She is absolute poison to the process.

I've said this before, and I'm going to repeat it: When Gibson is inevitably recalled for his continued support for Nash-Karner over the 45 families with CDOs, I endorse Lisa Schicker as his replacement.

TCG said...

I tend to disagree with Ann and Ron about the County staff approach to the resolution. As they explained, their objective was to try and find a way to get the RWQCB to agree to the bottom line request to cancel the CDO's.

They reasoned that telling them that the County has done a good job so far; the property owners voted 80-20 to fund an assessment; and the 45 families are hurting because of this; is stuff that the RWQCB already knows and won't even discuss in open session while the PLZDF legal action is pending.

So, the options were to rehash the above to no avail, or try to give them something that they might possibly work with. The staff chose the approach that they thought may get something accomplished instead of the approach that would be a fruitless, feel food political gesture.

In general, keeping the emotion
out of the process as much as possible is what, I believe, will allow the County to ultimately succeed in getting the project built where the CSD could not.

GVD said...

Who wrote the resolution? This question was asked several times during the BOS meeting and no supe or staff offered an answer.

Mike Green said...

My guess for the author would be Sona Patel of the Triv.

I do believe it would be better if the SLOBOS were just kept at arms length, and not pestered by LO for a while, it appears that not much good could come of that boards efforts on our behalf until the WWTF design and siting are voted on.
After all, remember we are only represented by a fraction of one person on that board.
Expecting them to take any action that may undermine their constituency is foolish.
The other districts have business with the RWQCB,
would you want your supervisor poking a sharp stick into a water god for the sake of a few Osoans if you lived in AG or Pismo?
Backscratching? You bet! it's the way things are done round here.

Mike said...

Do you think the County or the State will listen to the 15 or so individuals of Los Osos as long as Mrs.Tacker and Ms.McPherson keep running their mouths/keyboards trying to out legaleze the RWQCB...

Don't you folks understand that you have worn out your welcome in front of the BOS...??? You keep trying to hammer on things so far beyond your control that you are no longer being listened to...!!!

Jane said...

Mike said, "Don't you folks understand that you have worn out your welcome in front of the BOS...??? You keep trying to hammer on things so far beyond your control that you are no longer being listened to...!!!"

Actually, Mike, upon review I feel that the opposite occurred. For the first time supervisors were expressing their responsibility to actually investigate the appeal for a greater understanding of the issues before acting, rather than just except the Gibson version.

Gibson needs to step up and serve his constituents, not protect the backroom dealers of Los Osos past. The first step is to cut the umbilical cord connecting him to Pandora. Paavo should be ashamed of himself for helping produce that document. He has shown that he works for the CCRWQCB, not the citizen’s of this county.

Mike said...

Keep on Dreamin' Jane...

The BOS is tired of the same 12 to 15 worn out whinners. Until we have the County's planning far enough along, no one cares any longer what the complainers say.

The only point all the boards have taken note of is Mrs.Tackers threat to derail any project she personally disagrees with. Of course you may think that is a positive point to which the BOS have heard, I would suggest you are mistaken. and now with this latest chipping incident, Mrs.Tacker has sunk her credibility to that of just another LO quack. She has derailed herself.

Mr.Gibson is serving all of his district and not just the 80% of the LO community who have voted to take the project away from the disintegrating LOCSD and place responsibility with the County. If the 12 to 15 constant complainers want to really accomplish something positive, they should stop the threats and just plain stupid remarks that we have all heard way too many times. Quit listening to the puppet mistress with her personal ax to grind and just let the County Engineers do their jobs, they know a hell of a lot more about waste water treatment than Gail, Ann, Ron and all of the other 12 combined.

As far as Pandora, you give her way too much credit/fault.

If you don't like the way the State Water Board operates, then change the laws. One clue though, the BOS has no control of those laws.

Mike Green said...

Mike, I think a lot of the real argument here is about those laws being followed, some pretty basic, like equal protection and due process.
And quite frankly, a lot of Los Osoans know more about sewers than the county engineers, ask anyone.

I wished for a simple resolution encouraging equal treatment for everyone,

Would that have been too burdensome for the Water Gods?

Jane said...

Mike,
The county is now seeing through the tale that the TW spinners have been weaving for years.

CDO recipients have a wide range of views as to the wastewater treatment system they would like to see implemented; some speak frequently at BoS meetings and some never show. The court case, on the other hand, is about defending against the use of individual enforcement as a remedy for government failure.

The 45 were selected guinea pigs for trial enforcement. No attempt was made by the CCRWQCB to ensure that the chosen received due process, or even to follow water code regulations. It is not the laws that need to be changed, but rather the oversight of the agency. Someone needs to make sure that they are following the laws.

This will not change unless is carried through in the courts, which is exactly what is now occurring. To prove the absurdity of the CCRWQCB actions requires digging into the past and exposing many years of government failure, backroom deals, and manipulation of information. Obviously those involved in these acts are not going to want the past exposed. Unfortunately many of those very people are still in positions of power. The proposed resolution was evidence of this as it was a blatant attempt to get the BoS signature on a document that: 1) validated the RWQCB version of history of the sewer process in Los Osos, and 2) approved of the way that the RWQCB was handling individual enforcement. You can bet that the RWQCB was planning to use this document as evidence in the current court proceedings. The BoS is getting wise to Paavo and Gibson. Thank goodness that we have some supervisors with integrity.

Mike said...

....."those" laws....or more correctly "which" laws....

We had a fully designed waste water treatment system which would be nearing completion without the obstruction of a small group of disssatisfied LosyOsoian "experts" who will not be satisfied with any sewer, any where. Al Barrow and Gail McPhearson are NOT waste water treatment system experts!!!! Our new snakeoil salesman is NOT a waste water treatment system expert!!!!

You are a darn good mechanic, but you are not a waste water treatment system expert any more than I am and I have a hell of a lot of very large scale industrial project management, but I'm no waste water treatment system expert!!!! But I can see the tremendous waste of time and money we are going through with the failed exercise in "local" government trying to produce a major public works project. I do support the fairness I've seen with the County and I do know they have experts and expert consultants. It is just time to back off and let this responsible level of government work without the same old tired voices harping about all they have been told is wrong with a design that is as yet produced. I am very tired of seeing these same anti-everything individuals bitch about every nit-picking potential problem they think they see. Is the real bottom line to drive the cost of any sewer so high that no one can afford to live here?

Those laws? It appears our local "experts" have over looked the laws that produced a purfectly workable WWTF and have selectively cherry picked laws they would use instead. It's time to exclude any further public input for the Los Osos sewer until after the County has actually produced a workable design!!!!

Mark said...

Don't forget these "laws"- U.S. Constitution and USC Title 33 Chapter 26 as they underpin everything to do with the State and County "process" regarding the Los Osos/Baywood Park septic tank discharge project. They now know it and you should too.

Mike said...
The BOS is tired of the same 12 to 15 worn out whiners. Until we have the County's planning far enough along, no one cares any longer what the complainers say.

Mike, these citizens to whom you refer to, are the patriots who are defending liberty.

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself.
Thomas Paine

Mike said...
It's time to exclude any further public input for the Los Osos sewer until after the County has actually produced a workable design!!!!

BWAHAHAHAHA! Your kidding, of course. BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

But seriously Mike,

You might want to try keeping an eye on the government's pocket book as government has its eyes on yours.
How about those deficits? See what I mean?

Government is not the solution to the problem, government is the problem.- Ronald Reagan.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.
Margaret Mead

Lets us be thankful and grateful that so many gave their lives building and defending our great nation so that forums still exist where the "people's voices" can be heard.
Even if it is only 3 minutes at a time...

Sewertoons said...

Mark, Mike isn't dissing the 12 to 15 whiners their RIGHT to speak, only that their repetitive, self serving content has gotten old, real old, and we are all sick of hearing it, that's all. They are making a very bad case for "liberty."

Mark said...

Ms. Tacker, please forgive me for again commenting on this issue.

Mike said...
and now with this latest chipping incident, Mrs.Tacker has sunk her credibility to that of just another LO quack. She has derailed herself.

Mike,

The timing of the release of the "piece" that you refer to is interesting to say the least and suspicious to say more.

It is also a sad commentary about the efficiency of the Tribune's ability to deliver news in a fiduciary, business-like and timely manner.

But, apparently publishing a front page "news" story that occurred November 15, 2007 on Monday January 7, 2008 had the desired effect on you. Too bad, so sad.

The nature of the paper's efforts in this matter are not wasted on me.

Regarding the "hope" resolution" -fortunately Supervisor Lenthall said it best, when he said- "simply didn't hit the mark". BRAVO!

Supervisor Ovitt said "Dose of Reality". Spot on!!

Supervisor Achadijian certainly understands civil rights given his comments.

Supervisor Gibson's tap dancing is getting old...

Kudos to newly minted Chairman Paterson for handling the "people's" work in a very adroit manner.
I will look forward to, with great interest, watching work!

Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.
-Plato

Sewertoons said...

Mark,

Who cares about the timing of the Trib article? The event happened. Plenty of us knew about it when it happened. Another case of Ms. Tacker's hoof-in-mouth problem was cited anyway - one where she specifically said she'd derail a project. Your paranoia is causing you to read far too much into the timing on this piece.

You want some facts? Los Osos is sick of the fight. We just want the County to do the job and get it over with. Deal with it and stop listening to the fringies. THEY are giving YOU a distorted picture of what Los Osos wants and far, far too much hope.

Mark said...

Los Osos has no sewer-toons.

Perspective and perception make the LOSTDEP a very big picture, one that exceeds the boundaries - of what Los Osos "wants".

Sewertoons said...

You and Tom exhibit way too much wishful thinking.

Mark said...

You will never do anything in this world without courage. It is the greatest quality of the mind next to honor.
- Aristotle 384 BC- 322 BC

Mark said...

Government is not the solution to the LOSTDEP...

The 2008 budget cuts are the latest in a string of State Parks cutbacks in the past 20 years.

Budget compromises have prevented closures, but State Parks officials are less optimistic that a compromise will prevent closures this time.

“We would love to think the budget situation will improve,” Stearns said. “But in California, we’ve had so many of these budget crises over the years, you have to ask yourself: ‘How likely is that?’ ”

Staff writers Sona Patel and Sarah Arnquist contributed.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/242996.html

So yea, let the county government roll on whatever its outside consulting engineering firm think's the citizens should pay for.
As long as they get paid, they won't care, why should you?

Was the "Consulting" Engineer contract put out to bid? I hope so...

Mike said...

Gee Mark, would you also have expected the LOCSD to have bid out the legal services that very much helped bankrupt the District?

Maybe Jeff Ewards should have bid out the very large private yard maintenance chipping he wanted the LOCSD to perform?

Maybe the Reclamator needs to be bid out?

Area51 said...

Easy Mike. When Low and Murphy become the Supreme water gods of Los Osos, not only will they charge us more because we voted yes on the 218, but they might also increase your rates just for, you know, being a wise ass.

Hold it. I think I hear another quote coming.......

Mike Green said...

Hey! maybe we should all construct RECLAMATOR effigies in our front yards!
I have some left over sticks and paper from Christmas!
It's been a while since we've had a "Story pole party"

All hail Mark, the new Water God!

Mike said...

I'll bet the Wreckdlamator goes the way of the Pirana. Can't wait for the next best system to slither into town. RAOTFLMAO

Mark said...

Signal set, blue dog, even, out,32, flare right, ready set hike, hike, HIKE!
(without attachments)
READY? -TOONS, GREEN, 52, MIKE!

From: Tom Murphy [mailto:tom@nowastewater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 4:55 PM
To: 'clcesena@charter.net'; 'jtacker@losososcsd.org'
Cc: 'lisaschicker@hotmail.com'; 'jharper@losososcsd.org'
Subject: LOCSD RE-ORGANIZATION PLAN-Draft



Memo: Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD)
Re: AES Discharge Elimination Service "proposal"

President Cessena, Vice- President Tacker and Board Members:

Respectfully submitted for your review and consideration is the attached "Re-Organization Draft" that when accepted and executed would cease the discharge of pollutants within your jurisdiction, eliminate the CDOs and NOVs currently in place and provide the LOSCD and citizens with ownership Stakeholder shares of the AES, LLC.

This "plan" provides the LOCSD the opportunity to emerge from bankruptcy while participating as a partner in a revenue generating business that would provide future funding for improvements to the district without having to increase prices or vie for other government funding. The LOCSD will become financially independent and secure.

We believe this proposal to be a win/win/win for the Citizens of Los Osos, our water and estuary, our environment and take care of the bottom line while fully benefiting the financial status of LOCSD while bringing all discharges within their jurisdiction into compliance in a very short period of time.

At your earliest opportunity I would like to schedule a meeting with you, the Board and its attorney(s) to go over the details of the proposed plan. Your comments and questions are welcomed.

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
Hi Mark,

I apologize for not putting your and Lynn’s addresses in to keep all in the loop. I just missed it because I was so anxious to get this off to the CSD before they closed at 5:00. Here it is Buddy, let me know what you think?

Do you think I’m taking good enough care of the Citizens of Los Osos?

The “45” get ownership percentages three times, which really adds up for them. They of all people deserve every bit of it for taking the abusive threat of the $5,000 dollars per day “if you don’t vote ‘right’ message” from the Water Board. That was absolutely WRONG of the Water Board and NOT in the public interest, just like a sewer.

The Prohibition Zone Citizens ALSO deserve extra. They were singled out as “non-desirables” by their own community. They were put at risk of losing their homes AND the life they chose to live. Furthermore, the ones of the PZ Citizens who could not afford such an astronomically over priced method proposed, weren’t even going to have any assistance, just to the contrary, it was considered that they may even have to leave their community. The Plan provides subsidies for them which, besides providing the RECLAMATOR at no charge to them, the subsidies will even pay their monthly User Fees if necessary. Besides all that, the Citizens of the Community acquire a ownership Stockholders, owning 33 1/3rd percent of the AES, LLC.

Every body in the Los Osos Community, headed by the LOCSD, becomes partners with ownership Stakeholders in a “Microsoft type-of” opportunity that covers not just their own community, but the entire region 3 of the Water Board’s jurisdiction that terrorized the Citizens of Los Osos for all these years. The PZ Citizens will literally “control” the Water Board jurisdiction in regard to wastewater projects as every application for a “wastewater system” or “project” will be deferred to the AES, LLC for the solution, the best available demonstrated control technology”, the RECLAMATOR, which as such, is mandated by federal law, the United States Statutes at Large, the United States Code, Title 33, Chapter 26.

The market AES, LLC/LOCSD market, upon the LOCSD entering into a Public, Private Partnership with AES, is approximately $2 Billion just in retrofitting currently existing “septic tanks”, which there are over 120,000 of, not to mention every “as needed” upgrade to every publicly owned wastewater system to the RECLAMATOR “best available technology”, which is required to be specified by “brand name or equal” (and currently, there is NO equal technology), per the USC statutes, as the RECLAMATOR technology is scalable to accommodate and repurify any size flow and retrofit any type of wastewater treatment system to a RECLAMATOR. What a GRAND OPPORTUNITY for ALL the Citizens of Los Osos and the CSD for being in on the ground floor of retrofitting an entire State Water Board Jurisdiction with “ultimate water conservation” technology??!!!

The NEW Water Conservation paradigm for the entire Nation for water “ultimate” water conservation and maximum sustainability now begins in Los Osos and guess who benefits GREATEST accordingly….. the ones that were attacked the most.

WE ALL WIN!!! THEY ALL LOSE!!! Now, wouldn’t you call that “poetic justice”???

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”. We DON’T want “BAD GUYS” as Stakeholder Partners in our business, do we….. didn’t think so.

The feed back on this Plan so far is AWESOME!

Tom

~~~ DRAFT ~~~

(This is only an insert into the 60 page LOCSD Reorganization Plan)





PUBLIC / PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT / REORGANIZATION PLAN

“The Demonstration Project of the Best Available Demonstration Control Technology”, (herein after referred to as “Demonstration Project”)



Terms and Conditions, Objectives and Goals of the Demonstration Project:



“Demonstration Project” means any “project” or “projects” within the boundaries of AES Discharge Elimination Services (AES DES) Licensed Territory.



“Objectives and Goals of the Demonstration Project” means facilitate to eliminate the discharge of all pollutants at all sources within the boundaries of AES DES (Region 3 of the Water Quality Control Board) to bring such sources of discharges into compliance under the objectives and goals defined within the United States Statutes at Large, the United States Code, Title 33, Chapter 26.



Commitments and Expectations on behalf of the LOCSD



LOCSD will provide for Operation and Maintenance


LOCSD will provide for collection and enforcement.




LOCSD will acquire available Federal and State Grants on behalf and to the benefit of the Demonstration Project.


Commitments and Expectations of behalf of AES DES.



AES DES will provide a sustainable, affordable and federally compliant “Turn-key” Alternative Water Source Demonstration Project utilizing the ultimate water conservation device, the RECLAMATOR, to provide such Discharge Elimination Services through retrofitting each Dwelling Unit Equivalent (DUE).


AES DES will complete Project in light of being the new paradigm standard for area-wide waste management nationally.


Contribution of Assets and/or Other Valuable Consideration on behalf of the LOCSD



Broaderson Property


Center Town Property


Contribution of Assets and/or Other Valuable Consideration on behalf of AES DES.



AES DES will commit a $20 Million Dollar Demonstration Project Re-organization “Nest Egg” to the LOCSD to bring it out of bankruptcy. Whatever amount is left over after satisfying their debt requirements of the law shall be applied toward the $17,500,000 25% left after receiving federal grant assistance of 75% until such time as the LOCSD acquires the State Grants to offset such 25%.


AES DES will permanently commit a $150,000.00 per month revenue stream that will be attached to the Consumer Price Index (CPI) to the LOCSD to cover all costs necessary for the LOCSD to administrate, promulgate, provide collection and enforcement services and provide the necessary ongoing operation and maintenance requirements and service requirements of all RECLAMATORS within the boundaries of the AES DES. The revenue will increase accordingly as the Discharge Elimination Services continue to grow beyond the immediate jurisdiction of the LOCSD.


The LOCSD shall be provided new offices within the AES World Headquarters Facilities to be located on Center Town Property.


As part of the Demonstration Project:



Our Legal Department(s) will negotiate with the Judge and the RWQCB to enable the RWQCB to assume all “sewer related” debts as they were the authorized entity who, in violation to the letter and intent of the USC 33/26, issued an approval to allow such waste management project to be initiated.


The Center Town Property will become the AES World Headquarters.


The Broaderson Property will provide for priority and affordable housing primarily available for AES / AES DES / LOCSD members and associates.






Notes on Partnership and Stakeholders Ownership and Revenue Sharing:



A “Harassment” Bonus of 3.3% Stakeholders ownership and revenue sharing in association with their Partnership with AES DES is granted to and equally distributed to all members (DUEs) of the Prohibition Zone who are referred to as the “45”. The following is representative of a 3.3% Ownership percentage:



Votes / Ownership % Return (in 2 years) Minimum Annual Income

3,300 / 3.3% $1,320,000.00 $49,500.00



EXAMPLE: The “45” DUEs served CDOs shall receive a “Harassment Bonus” in the amount of:



Votes / Ownership % Return (in 2 years) Minimum Annual Income

73.3 / .07% $29,333.33 $1,100.00





A “Hazardous Pay” Bonus of 10% Stakeholders ownership and revenue sharing in association with their Partnership with AES DES is granted to and equally distributed to all members (DUEs) of the Prohibition Zone. The following is representative of a 10% Ownership percentage:



Votes / Ownership % Return (in 2 years) Minimum Annual Income

10,000 / 10% $4,000,000.00 $150,000.00



EXAMPLE: Assuming 5,000, each Prohibition Zone DUE shall, in addition to other benefits herein provided, be subject to receive a “Hazardous Pay” Bonus of:



Votes / Ownership % Return (in 2 years) Minimum Annual Income

2 / .0002% $800.00 $30.00



A 20% Stakeholders ownership and revenue sharing will be granted to all residents within the LOCSD’s jurisdiction upon LOCSD promulgating throughout their jurisdiction the “Discharge Elimination Service” is additionally REQUIRED and MANDATED to be applied to serve ALL “DISCHARGES OF WASTES” within the boundaries of the LOCSD’s jurisdiction, other than and to include the Prohibition Zone, per statutes defined in USC§1311. The following, with the exception of commercial, industrial and publicly owned dischargers, is representative of a 20% Ownership percentage:



Votes / Ownership % Return (in 2 years) Minimum Annual Income

20,000 / 20% $8,000,000.00 $300,000.00



EXAMPLE: Based on a assumption of 5,000 DUEs within the LOCSDs jurisdiction, each would be subject to:



Votes / Ownership % Return (in 2 years) Minimum Annual Income

4 / .004% $1,600.00 $60.00



The DUE’s who voted YES on the proposition “218” (YES Voters) shall dedicate their “Return” and “Minimum Annual Income” associated with the Los Osos Demonstration Project only, to serve the “Public Interest”.



The dedicated funds to serve the “Public Interest” shall be placed into a “to be established by Founder of AES DES” not-for-profit “Good Samaritan’s Subsistence and Enforcement Program”. The Good Samaritan Program will make funds available to provide for necessary assistance, financial and otherwise, for all owners of DUEs located within the LOCSD jurisdiction in need of such financial assistance to implement the Discharge Elimination Services.



The “YES Voters” Partnership Stakeholders, with the exception of the Los Osos Demonstration Project, shall go on to benefit from all Returns and Minimum Annual Income revenues which will be generated doing business throughout the rest of the AES DES’s Licensed Territory (which is the same as the RWQCB Region 3 boundaries of jurisdiction in which there are currently over 125,000 illegally permitted and installed septic tanks).



The total market of the AES DES is over twenty times (20Xs) larger than just the LOCSD jurisdiction. All associated revenues generated from such additional Territory shall be shared equally according to the partnership (stakeholder percentage) interest held. The following is representative of such AES DES Licensed Territory market value:



125,000 X $ 15,000.00 Service Establishment Fee = $ 1,875,000,000.00 Minimum.

125,000 X $ 45.75 / Minimum Month User Service Fee = $ 5,718,750 Monthly Minimum.







NOTE: THIS IS ONLY A DRAFT FOR COMMENT AND NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A FINAL.

Mark said...

Somethin' to talk about...
If anyone wantsthe starting thread write me @ mark@NOwastewater.com as I am really pushing the envelope.

Hi Todd,

I am drafting a response to your last email. However, I thought I would
give you a short response to this so that we can both get on the same page.
You seem to be under some assumption that the RECLAMATOR is a "Onsite Waste
Treatment System" (OWTS) and are quoting California Water Code statutes to
the such. This is wherein your misunderstanding lies.

The RECLAMATOR is NOT an "OWTS"!

It doesn't "dispose"! It doesn't use a "soil based treatment component".
It produces "permeate" that meets the USEPA MCLG
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html#listmcl, Standard (not to be confused
with the MCL) which defines the level of "contaminants" which are of a level
that, with a margin of safety, no longer posses a threat to public health.

The MCLGs are "non-enforceable public health goals". Due to the fact that
the RECLAMATOR achieves this level of effluent (waste/sewage/pollution)
reduction, the RECLAMATOR isn't subject to any authority which you have
provided statutes representing. See the attached Shaddox Test Results.

The California Water Code 13373 states:

The terms "navigable waters," "administrator,"
"pollutants," "biological monitoring," "discharge" and
"point sources" as used in this chapter shall have the same
meaning as in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
and acts amendatory thereof or supplementary thereto.

As I pointed out to you in an earlier email, a septic tank that uses
"soil-based", i.e. drain field, is a "regulatory created/allowed/caused
"NON-POINT SOURCE" of pollution. However, the original "point source", the
sewer pipe coming out of a building, or the "containment", i.e. septic tank,
outlet which is ALSO a "point source" of pollutants. Your department is to
eliminate all discharge of pollutants, not convert "point sources" into
"non-point sources" by adding a "soil-based" toxic pollutant
discharge/disposal field to the "discernable" point source of discharge of
pollutants.

Heck Todd, if it weren't already law, it would only be "common sense".

Furthermore, the California Water Code 13376 states:

"The discharge of pollutants ... or the operation of ... other treatment
works treating
domestic sewage by any person except as authorized by
waste discharge ... no waste discharge
requirements or permit is required under this chapter if no
state or federal permit is required under the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as amended."

THERE IS NO PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THE RECLAMATOR UNDER THE FEDERAL WATER
POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, i.e. United States Code
Title 33, Chapter 26, herein after referred to as "USC 33/26 (Note Todd,
there is not such Act or Law having any authority, other than as was used in
the form of a proposed amendment to Congress in 1972 entitled Clean Water
Act. Please, for purpose of further communication in reference to "law" or
"authority", please refer to the above defined "USC 33/26"), Section 1311(a)
provide for a "discharge permit" to be issued provided technology to
eliminate the discharge of pollutants at the point source of discharge is
unavailable for the regulatory authority to promulgate as best available
technology by "brand name or equal".

I am preparing a "comprehensive" response, however in the mean time, I
recommend you might familiarize yourself with the Law of the People, the USC
Title 33, Chapter 26 which doesn't need a lawyer to "interpret". See an
attached "working" version, law in yellow or no highlight and annotations,
comments and references are in grey.

The United States Statutes at Large, the People's Law Todd, "NOT the Clean
Water Act, which is NO document of any authority at all, is written in
"simple English" which even I and understand, and I'm not the one who's
"job" is predicated on understanding it. Again, please don't confuse the
CFRs as a law which pertains to the people. The CFR is the "poor excuse"
state and federal regulations that defined how you guys are to enforce the
USC 33/26, which you refer to as the Clean Water Act, which by the way, you
also suggest it intent is focused toward "navigable" waters, when in fact
it's "goal and objective" are clearly "to eliminate the discharge of
pollutants" to further move toward the National Goal, to eliminate the
discharge of pollutants at the point source of the source. The only focus
it really has in regards to "navigable waters" was to have accomplished a
goal which was to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into navigable
waters by 1984 (USC 33/26/1251(a)). You guys are real far from making that
goal.

I think you may be being fed some bad misinterpretation of what the REAL
interpretation of this SIMPLE US Code really is. It is obvious that the EPA
really didn't want the public to know as they don't even post it on their
website. Don't you find that odd as the enactment of this very Chapter into
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act was the very purpose for their
coming into being, to administer this Chapter 26. They have only made it
WORSE by allowing "point source discharge" to be converted into "non-point
source discharges" through continued permitting the nation's number sources
of "toxic pollutants", conventional publicly owned treatment works and
septic systems, of which the very intent of that Chapter 26 was to NOT use
these waste management method anymore, but implement advanced innovative
altermative technology as pretreatment at each "new source" which would be
subject to the effluent limitations as defined in USC 33/26/1316, which is
to provide for the greatest degree of effluent reduction through the
Administrator requiring that the best available demonstrated control
technology, processes and 'other' alternative which, where practicable, will
meet a standard which eliminates the discharge of pollutants". This is the
RECLAMATOR Todd. It eliminates the discharge of pollutants at the source.
You, as a regulatory authority, are obligated by your authority vested in
you, to promulgate it throughout your jurisdiction.

As a matter of fact, you can start with the California Board of Professional
Engineers and Land Surveyors as it, to my understanding, is the particular
entity who is responsible for promulgating such law throughout their
jurisdiction, promulgating to all engineers of their membership the
requirements of them under Federal, State and local laws. They are
currently question my engineer on his use of his stamp, I believe as the
result of an act of harassment resulting from a complaint toward him from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board because THEY said my RECLAMATOR
discharge "waste" and what I was saying was a lie. I filed an $80 million
claim for "damages". That is only damages as the result of the RECLAMATOR
not being "specified" by brand name or equal by the RWQCB, which is what
they were REQUIRED to do in the interest of the public. The damages for not
promulgating such a federal water law intended to protect out waters from
toxic pollutant discharges which has resulted in about 1,000,000 toxic
discharges being allowed through specifying and permitting these discharges
by engineers who are members of this entity due to them not promulgating
such federal statutes 30 years ago, would be into the trillions. (1,000,000
X $5,000 per day (knowingly discharge violation/day/discharge) X 30 Years
(December 29th, 1977 until now).

I hope to find out that this wasn't intentional on their part. I guess we
will know soon when you and all other engineers receive your notification to
the fact of this new information, don't you think?

Have a great weekend Todd,

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

Mark said...

Sorry I left the "mast head" off the previous post...my bad. Here is the edited version:

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Murphy" tom@nowastewater.com
To: "'Todd Thompson'" tthompson@waterboards.ca.gov; Mark@ModernHunter.com; Bruursema@nsf.org; prjackson@nsf.org
Cc: john@airdiffusion.com; assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov; ffreiler@charter.net; BGibson@co.slo.ca.us; btolle@co.slo.ca.us; LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us; mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us; pogren@co.slo.ca.us; McGovern.Cheryl@epa.gov; Hudson.Joyce@epamail.epa.gov; Ong.John@epamail.epa.gov; hwang@proequipment.com; RobM@wallacegroup.us; "'Howard Kolb'" Hkolb@waterboards.ca.gov; "'Harvey Packard'" Hpackard@waterboards.ca.gov; "'Matt Thompson'" Mthompson@waterboards.ca.gov; "'Roger Briggs'" Rbriggs@waterboards.ca.gov
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2008 8:00 PM
Subject: RE: FW: 13301.1 "all possible assistance"


Hi Todd,

-Talk about "Pockets, Where as and Happy to see me"...

Mark said...

Area51 said...
Easy Mike. When Low and Murphy become the Supreme water gods of Los Osos, not only will they charge us more because we voted yes on the 218, but they might also increase your rates just for, you know, being a wise ass.

Hold it. I think I hear another quote coming.......

Easy Mike...
As you will note the cost of the "service" is tied to the Consumer Price Index just like the government uses to "pay out" and unlike anything government uses to "charge for".
Here is a section from the rest of the PPP Agreement:

6.6 Adjustment of Fee(s) and Charge(s) by “Consumer Price Index” (CPI). All fee(s) and charges associated with the Discharger(s) are established by the LOCSD within the guidelines and Sections of this Proposal and incorporated herein by reference are subject to adjustment per the CPI.



The charges described and set forth in this Proposal and which are in effect as of the effective date of this Proposal, and all charges established by the LOCSD hereafter shall be subject to annual increases based upon the percentage of change in the CPI, All Urban Consumers U.S., as published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Washington, D.C. commencing with the index for January, 2008, being the base period for purposes of making adjustments.



Adjustment shall be made effective as of May 1, of each year, and shall be based upon the CPI increase for the preceding January 1st to January 1st period, and rates shall be adjusted in the same manner annually thereafter.



Adjustments in accordance with the CPI shall be subject to the following qualifications:

a) Rates adjusted in accordance with the CPI shall not be greater than six percent (6%) nor less than zero percent (0%) in any one year regardless of the percentage change in the CPI; and,



As I have said "Government is not the solution to the LOSTDEP".

Mark said...

51-
It's still a free country! So you don't have to sign up for the RECLAMATOR Service.
If you wish you can stick with the county and pay them to eliminate your discharge.

Mark said...

Mike Said...

Maybe the Reclamator needs to be bid out?

It's federally compliant patented technology, but if anyone has anything equal or better, let's do it. It's the LAW.

The "rule of law" is better than the rule of any individual- Aristotle 350 BC

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law

The rule of law, in its most basic form, is the principle that no one is above the law. The rule follows logically from the idea that truth, and therefore law, is based upon fundamental principles which can be discovered, but which cannot be created through an act of will.

Mark said...

Bill Morem: There oughta be a lot fewer laws, actually

But Doug Swanson of San Luis Obispo made an excellent couple of points in his Dec. 30 letter to the editor.

“Please help me (and the rest of your over-regulated, excessively taxed readers) understand why this contest is a good thing,” he wrote.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/241861.html
“Government at all levels is already too intrusive.…Our government already spends too much and produces too little to show for that expense. …Aren’t there enough existing problems in our community that could be addressed without putting more laws on the books for costly oversight and enforcement?”

Bravo, point well made. Three days later, Richard Placak of Atascadero buttressed Swanson’s point and added his own twist.

“Mr. Swanson is absolutely correct. Encouraging the public to submit ideas for new laws to further control our lives and spend our tax money thoroughly disgusts me as well,” Placak wrote.

The Tribune's Bill Morem get's it!

Whny would anyone support a massive public works project when a cutting edge profit sharing PPP is on the table?

Any bets about when this story begins being covered by the Tribune?

Toons, Green, 51, MIKE?

TCG said...

Churadogs,

Your blog has been hijacked.

Mark said...

tgc:
Correction: The county "sewer" project has hijacked.
It is finished before it even began.

Area51 said...

"51-
It's still a free country! So you don't have to sign up for the RECLAMATOR Service.
If you wish you can stick with the county and pay them to eliminate your discharge."

Excellent!!!!!!! Thanks Mark, I think I will.

and now 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”. We DON’T want “BAD GUYS” as Stakeholder Partners in our business, do we….. didn’t think so."

Let me get this straight. Some odd fellow from who-knows-where rides into my community saying he can turn piss into drinking water (and he needs no government approval to do so); spends oooogles of money on a campaign to defeat the 218 vote (which passes overwhelmingly with 80% of the vote); threatens to punish me for my 218 vote by raising my rates when he becomes Water God Of Los Osos (here-to-for referred to as WGLO); threatens the CSD with a $200 million dollar class action suit if they don't do business with him; is suing the state for defamation; and he calls ME a "bad guy?"

Huh?

"and deserves NOTHING. This most certainly will be accommodated, AS WE WILL KNOW WHO THEY ARE,(emphasis mine), a “BAD GUY”."

You know, the Reclamator Dude (WGLO) has threatened so many people he's downright, well, threatening, ya think?

(Cue a 7 year old Billy Mumy's voice)

"Look at me waving my bad flag....
I'm a bad guy.....
I'm a very bad guy......

Wish me into the cornfield Mr. Reclamator Dude....Mr. WGLO.... Wish me into the cornfield..."

Mike said...

...opps...I thought I was logging into the Ann Calhoun blog...sorry, didn't realize this is the Mark to Mark Snake Oil Sales and Law School University blog...sorry for the intrusion...bye...

Shark Inlet said...

Mike,

I know that some will guffaw when I write this but ...

The problem with Mark isn't that he participates but that his comments don't seem to have any focal point. The comments seem to be cut-n-paste from e-mails (that are also lacking a focal point) and little else.

Perhaps if Mark were to re-read his college composition notes he would be reminded that one should at least introduce the topic and state one's point before providing the argument and justification.

And ... if Mark thinks he has already adopted this style, let me remind him that our good friend Ron Crawford is rather incapable of reading anything longer than four paragraphs and so Ron will ignore anything of merit in Mark's contributions.

All the best...

Mark said...

Shark:

I appreciate your kind words.
If you will think "LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution" when reading my input here, that should help.

MIKE...zip...I have nothing for you buddy.


----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Murphy
To: 'Mark Low'
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 11:45 AM
Subject: RE: 51


Tom Murphy said:

“By golly, I think he’s got it”……. He’s out of a “Stakeholders” interest AND, the County and CSD will tell him that “he’s going to be served by the RECLAMATOR anyway”. Not only is he a “self proclaimed” BAD GUY, but an IDIOT to boot.

And YES, we don’t want “idiots” as partners in out business either.

It is a GREAT DAY for Los Osos!!!

PS. Are you aware of any “corn fields” near Los Osos?

...more cut and paste from another Murphy/Low inter office exchange today- re:51:

Mark, the County won’t want to provide a “partial” AND “optional” non-compliant conventional sewer system service for Los Osos, so, by default, ALL citizens in Los Osos will HAVE to accept the Discharge Elimination Services (just like a sewer) or be fined $5,000 per day by the RWQCB for refusing to cease and desist their discharge.

Ain’t it just amazing how right always seems to win in the end???


Finally this,
Mark writes:

Area 51 wrote:
(which passes overwhelmingly with 80% of the vote);

The WaterBoard was only threatening 45 or 46 depending on one's understanding of math (CDO#s 1000-1045) citizen's homes with $5,000.00 a day fines. I understand that if the vote didn't pass CDO's could have blanketed the entire town. But that shouldn't be a problem because the WaterBoard must be the "good guys", right?

There is a document which was presented on the record by Tom Murphy at the end of public comment at the 1-08-08 SLOC BOS meeting titled "Fraudulent Use of the 218 by San Luis Obispo" . I'll be happy to send you an electronic copy.(mark@NOwastewater.com)

Where is your sense of government conspiracy, 51?

Mike said...

Mark...

If you think the County and CSD will tell anyone in Los Osos that “he’s going to be served by the RECLAMATOR anyway”... you have totally underestimated the citizens and the Laws which WILL effect the installation of the reclamator... and I am laughing at you thinking this CSD could ever have enough power to enforce anything... You really are nothing more than a snakeoil sales man...!!!

You better develope a thick hide to play in this game... I predict you wil slide off to some other community in another State once the State of California rolls up it's sleeves...

Mark said...

MIKE:

I would like quote a great Los Osos/ Baywood Park, SLO County, California/USA citizen/resident who at this time shall remain anonymous:
"from obstructionists to world visionaries"

Mike, technology makes it possible, the law calls for it.

Without citizens there would be no government.
Are you a State or County employee wanting/needing to increase the size of your government?

I look forward to the State "rolling up its sleeves"-
It should be very instructive, indeed

Los Osos is ground zero for the new paradigm in water.
Sit back and enjoy the show.

Not everyone likes spinach, but it is good for you.
Unlike that "sewer" everyone has been talking about for 30+ years. I like spinach and snake meat too;-)

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Area51 said...

Holy urine cocktail Batman. Did the Water God himself call me an idiot???!!

I think I'll pass on the obvious comeback. Way, way too easy.

Don't forget to clean up after you take down the Big Top and move on boys. And we'll all shower off and forget you ever stepped foot in our nice little community.

Best of luck.
A51

Mark said...

Mike said...
Mark...

If you think the County and CSD will tell anyone in Los Osos that “he’s going to be served by the RECLAMATOR anyway”... you have totally underestimated the citizens and the Laws which WILL effect the installation of the reclamator... and I am laughing at you thinking this CSD could ever have enough power to enforce anything... You really are nothing more than a snakeoil sales man...!!!

You better develope a thick hide to play in this game... I predict you wil slide off to some other community in another State once the State of California rolls up it's sleeves...

2:06 PM, January 12, 2008

----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Murphy
To: 'Mark Low'
Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2008 8:11 PM
Subject: RE: snakeoil salesman

Wanna BET???

Mike is proof “a fool is born every day” AND doesn’t have a clue about 1) the laws, 2) how “powerless” the “State of California really is” and bout to be even more in debt if they DON’T opt to change their ways, and 3) the “powerless CSD” as Mike puts it, is about to be part of the most powerful entities in the Nation. That entity will be asisiting the US EPA authority in regards to “administrating” the US Code, Title 33, Chapter 26.

Being that I am not a “betting man”, I’ll wager him the $15,000 cost of his RECLAMATOR service establishment! If he has to implement it, he pays me personally another $15,000

By the way, how much $$$ does Mike lose by the “sewer” not moving forward? What kind of “dead” deals is he caring around in his back pocket?

Mark said...

Area51 said...
Holy urine cocktail Batman. Did the Water God himself call me an idiot???!!

What professional skill/experience do you have in "wastewater"?

Idiot is a word derived from the Greek ἰδιώτης, idiōtēs ("person lacking professional skill," "a private citizen," "individual"), from ἴδιος, idios ("private," "one's own").[1] In Latin the word idiota ("ordinary person, layman") preceded the Late Latin meaning "uneducated or ignorant person."[2] Its modern meaning and form dates back to Middle English around the year 1300, from the Old French idiote ("uneducated or ignorant person"). The related word idiocy dates to 1487 and may have been analogously modeled on the words prophet[3] and prophecy.[4][5] The word has cognates in many other languages.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

Mark said...

The Feds are not getting the job done.
(Shark-think LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution here)
That is why the LOCSD must move to eliminate the discharge of pollutants.
It's both federal and state law.

This guy was a heavy equipment operator who used to work in California.
The kind of equipment that will be in Los Osos for years should the county continue towards its big pipe solution...
I am researching what company he was currently employed.

January 1, 2008 the toughest illegal immigration employer sanction law in the nation went into effect.
However, that is no consolation to the young girl this punk attacked.

Vigilance at every post, including but not limited to the LOSTDEP.


DNA links illegal immigrant to attacks
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/106468

Santana Batiz-Aceves, 39, a twice-deported illegal immigrant with a history of drug charges, was arrested about 11:49 a.m. Friday at his Chandler home near Arizona Avenue and Ray Road. He was booked into Maricopa County’s Fourth Avenue Jail on suspicion of 25 felonies, including kidnapping, child molestation, sexual abuse, sexual conduct with a minor, aggravated assault, burglary and trespassing.

Kiyler said Batiz-Aceves was deported twice for drug charges in California in 1999 and 2003.
Andersen Junior High principal Jim Anderson said the arrest was a “tremendous relief.”

“Everybody is going to feel a whole lot safer — if this is the guy — knowing that he’s not going to be around anymore,” Anderson said.

At least three of the attacks involved Andersen students, and the principal said the whole campus has been concerned.

The series of attacks started June 4, 2006, with the sexual assault of a 12-year-old girl. That attack was not reported to police until six months later.

The latest sexual assault victim was a 14-year-old girl attacked at her mobile home on June 8 while her grandparents sat outside on the front porch.

All of the victims were girls between the ages of 12 and 15.

The serial predator typically struck early in the morning and targeted young girls living in single-parent homes. Police also believe the man watched his victims and cased their homes before the attacks.

Mark said...

Shark: Again think LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution:
Los Osos has its own water basin and doesn't need Nacimiento Water "PIPE".
Los Ososans are too smart for a county "plan" regarding anything water.
It's part of that "world visionary" thing...


The City Council will consider spending up to $83,000 on a water-rate study to help decide how to pay for the Nacimiento Water Project.

The issue has been a hot topic since July, when the council adopted a flat-fee increase to water rates that outraged some residents. The flat rate would have gone up to $60 per month in 2010.

The council then considered a per-unit increase instead, with incremental increases ending at $4 per unit. This was supported by many homeowners but upset some businesses that use lots of water.

The idea of a tiered rate, which would have different per-unit fees for certain user groups depending on volume, has been mentioned as a possible alternative.

The city has signed on to the water project and is obligated to pay for a portion of the construction, infrastructure and other expenses. According to a staff report, Paso Robles must pay

$4.8 million per year.

The spending is set to be considered at the City Council meeting Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. at 1000 Spring St.

—Leah Etling

SLO County

Sunday 1-13-08 Tribune http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/244779.html

TCG said...

Exactly what does the Paso City Council have to do with us?

I have been a property owner in this county for over 30 years, and certainly don't need "Mark," who is here for one reason only--to make money off of us--telling me what I do or don't need.

This is rediculous!

Mark said...

tcg:
If the County gets control of the water in Los Osos/Baywood Park,the LOCSD and other water purveyors will be considering how they will get their customers "pay" for the Nacimiento PIPE water after they divert the citizen's water from the direct beneficial reuse delivery to the Los Osos upper aquifer.

The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution is federally compliant and will save the citizens plenty of money. It's the law that says so, I am simply promulgating that information.

For anyone to be against that is ludicrous!

Sewertoons said...

tcg - so nice to see you back here - and shark, mike and area 51!

Pssst - Mark - recharging the aquifer has been part of the County's plan all along. The County and the 3 water purveyors are in regular meetings. The County cannot "get control" of the water. Apparently you spent too much time talking and not listening at the TAC meetings, as you (or Tom) were there at many of them and should have heard this.

We'll see if you are "federally compliant" or not. A good start would be providing the County with the data they have been asking for. We will see if you stack up or not. Meanwhile, do yourself and us a favor. Ease up. All this pontificating is just pushing people away (- well, I should say pushing people away FARTHER).

Shark Inlet said...

Let's summarize the state of Los Osos today.

There are three kinds of people. One group are the folks who want to continue to fight the RWQCB, SWRCB, County, CCC, etc. until they get their ideal solution (a sustainable plant or collection of plants that costs so little to build and run that no one will be forced to move away because of the cost ... oh yeah ... it also can't be in located anywhere near any homes or churches unless it is the home or church of people who live outside the CSD boundaries). The second group are either folks who like the County running things, like TriW or have simply given up on fighting every regulatory body on every issue (perhaps because the cost of fighting is so darn high). The third group are folks who don't care so much either way ... probably because they live outside the PZ, are really wealthy or because they're renters who were thinking of moving anyways.

I would count myself in the second group. There is nothing inherently wrong with fighting for justice and for your way and the like ... but if the cost of the fight will bankrupt me, I would rather take my lumps and move on. Survival is smarter than winning thru a scorched earth campaign. Or, as Dr. Phil says, "would you rather be right or be happy?"

It is very clear to anyone who has seriously looked into the cost question at all that the cost of any solution keeps going up. Even the "cheaper" Ripley $154/month solution, once vetted by the County engineering staff, consultants and TAC ended up being more expensive than TriW's $205/month.

If the high cost of TriW was one of the key reasons for the recall passing, we're now facing higher costs ... because of the recall.

What is the best thing to do next? Stop going to County BOS meetings and complaining about everything. Start working with the TAC and County to make wise choices. Get with the program. To those who still want to fight the County and RWQCB and everyone else at all costs, I would offer a phrase from Gail: "you lost, get over it." I would also add that you've been gambling with my money for a long time now and you keep losing. I resent that you're unwilling to stop losing my money.

Mark said...

Sewertoons said...

tcg - so nice to see you back here - and shark, mike and area 51!

Pssst - Mark - recharging the aquifer has been part of the County's plan all along. -I understand you like big government. Are you a county or state employee? I would love to discuss the county's plan on recharge at a TAC or BOS meeting but it would be very difficult to have a meaningful dialogue when questions are asked and unanswered. The whole "best the clock thing doesn't help either. Is that how you manage you "big purchase" decisions?


The County and the 3 water purveyors are in regular meetings. -Are you a "water purveyor- owner or manager? I would be interested in their take on events.


The County cannot "get control" of the water. -If you pay the county to "take" your wastewater you no longer own it. If the 5,000 drainfields are decommissioned the self sustaining recharge cycle would be disrupted. You would then buy water as you do now, then pay to have it taken away and treated and if possible pay to have it returned to you for reuse. The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution provides for remediation of the drainfield and water conservation through on-site beneficial re-use, that is unavailable from any sewer pipe technology, using federally compliant advanced treatment technology.

Apparently you spent too much time talking and not listening at the TAC meetings, as you (or Tom) were there at many of them and should have heard this.

It's really tough to get the TAC to hear let alone understand anything substantive in 3 minutes or less(in my case) impossible when the TAC will not consider , EXFILTRATION, carbon footprint or Native American Burial grounds. see unanswered email below:

We'll see if you are "federally compliant" or not. That is why I am promulgating. Now we are getting somewhere!

A good start would be providing the County with the data the data they have been asking for. We will see if you stack up or not.

On October 30, 2007, I hand delivered a 100% complete "Stamped" submittal package on the RECLAMATOR to SLO County's John Waddel and to the front desk of the CCRWQCB. As of this post AES has not been contacted by the County for any more "data". It seems they have everything they need to make their determinations.
If you have any written evidence that supports your statements to the contrary, could you please post them here or you can email me- Mark@NOwasterwater.com.
If you do not have anything in print then we can agree to disagree. We all get to have our own opinion however we must all use the same facts.

Meanwhile, do yourself and us a favor. Ease up. All this pontificating is just pushing people away (- well, I should say pushing people away FARTHER).toons:

Your thoughts are truly appreciated, Thank you toons-

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Low
To: LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us
Cc: Mark Low ; Harvey Packard ; rbriggs@swrcb.ca.gov ; pogren@co.slo.ca.us ; Mark Hutchinson ; tom@nowastewater.com
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 9:02 PM
Subject: TAC Agenda for 1/7/08 SEWERAGE


Please address these components of the county's proposed 40+ miles sewerage and treatment:
EXFILTRATION & Hydrogen Sulfide Gas.

Carbon footprint of construction and operation(including electricity).

Native American Burial Sites

Mark Low

www.NOwastewater.com

----- Original Message -----
From: Los Osos ListMail
To:
Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 8:50 PM
Subject: TAC Agenda for 1/7/08



LOCSD TAC Agenda for 1/7/08


TAC Community Meeting
Monday, January 7, 2008 - 12:00 PM
County Government Center, Room 161 - 1055 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo

Public Input Slips
If you have a question or wish to speak either on a specific item on the agenda or in general comment, please fill out a slip and hand it to a member of the Project Team staff.
Please make sure that your questions or comments are on topics within the subject matter of the TAC.

Written questions and comments will be considered during our general discussions. Questions to the Project Team will be responded to as time permits.
Questions sent in advance to: LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us will be answered when that topic is on the agenda.





----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Low
To: Patel, Sona - SLO
Cc: tom@nowastewater.com
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:18 AM
Subject: Fw: TAC Meeting 1-7-08 Complaint


Hi Sona:
I wanted to get your reaction to the fact that TAC members refused to hear public comment from only two citizens who wanted to voice their comments.
San Luis Obispo County is still within the United States of America, I think.

Would you please call or write as I would like to get your thoughts on this issue?
Mark
480.363.1154
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Murphy
To: 'Mark Low' ; 'Ken Kotarski'
Cc: BDifatta@aol.com ; assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov ; senator@boxer.senate.gov ; steve@priawinc.com ; governor@governor.ca.gov ; hovitt@co.slo.ca.us ; jlenthall@co.slo.ca.us ; jpatterson@co.slo.ca.us ; mark@modernhunter.com ; pdouglas@coastal.ca.gov ; president@whitehouse.gov ; LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us ; hpackard@waterboards.ca.gov ; Strauss.Alexis@epamail.epa.gov ; 'Cinthea Coleman' ; mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us ; pogren@co.slo.ca.us ; jwaddell@co.slo.ca.us
Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:16 AM
Subject: TAC Meeting 1-7-08 Complaint


Mark,



For the record, Bruce Payne and I were denied public comment at the TAC meeting yesterday.



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...

Shark:

You make thecasefor the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution while ignoring it.

I like being right and happy, don't you? Dr. Phil??!?? Sheesh...

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Aren't you the one who is fighting the County and the RWQCB even suing the LOCSD? If not, why the various lawsuits and complaints here?

If, for some odd or good reason (I don't rightly care now) the fight to get "New! Improved!" Reclamators (TM) costs me money, Mark, I resent your involvement.

If you can guarantee me both that you'll win every fight you've got and that your system will save me money I'll support your cause. The problem however is that even with your word on these matters, I just plain doubt it.

As I've offered here before (probably before you joined up, Mark), I'll support your efforts if my costs will be limited to $205/month. Anything over that, you pay ... but if the real costs are lower, you get a windfall.

If the reclamator really does work, you should be able to get someone to bond you to provide these services to us for $205/month and you'll make a mint.

Be aware, however, that without an iron-clad guarantee, you won't find much support from me. I'm really tired of finding out that each and every "New! Improved!" solution ends up not passing muster for some reason and the real cost continually increasing because of our community tendency to trust everyone but the professional engineers who have designed systems that have been approved by permitting and financing agencies.

And if you don't like Dr. Phil you're no better than a muskrat in a wash-tub.

Mark said...

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Aren't you the one who is fighting the County and the RWQCB even suing the LOCSD? If not, why the various lawsuits and complaints here?


Mark says-Whisky is for drinkin', Water is for fightin" true enough- I prefer to think of legal action as "preservation of one's legal rights"

If, for some odd or good reason (I don't rightly care now) the fight to get "New! Improved!" Reclamators (TM) costs me money, Mark, I resent your involvement.


Mark says- I guess you believe the county conventional solution won't cost you a thing. The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR cost, pre-federal grant assistance, is $15,000.00. Federal Law calls for its use and the grants to help pay for it.

If you can guarantee me both that you'll win every fight you've got and that your system will save me money I'll support your cause. The problem however is that even with your word on these matters, I just plain doubt it.


Mark says- I can guarantee the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution will save money, water, energy and time. I suppose you'll just have to wait and see.


As I've offered here before (probably before you joined up, Mark), I'll support your efforts if my costs will be limited to $205/month. Anything over that, you pay ... but if the real costs are lower, you get a windfall.


Mark says- The monthly service charge for the service commences at $45.75/month and is attached to the consumer price index. If the LOCSD Board accepts the PPP agreement everyone will be much better off financially than with any other solution being "studied" bar none.

If the reclamator really does work, you should be able to get someone to bond you to provide these services to us for $205/month and you'll make a mint.


Mark says- The RECLAMATOR really works. Again the service is $45.75 attached to the CPI.

Be aware, however, that without an iron-clad guarantee, you won't find much support from me. I'm really tired of finding out that each and every "New! Improved!" solution ends up not passing muster for some reason and the real cost continually increasing because of our community tendency to trust everyone but the professional engineers who have designed systems that have been approved by permitting and financing agencies.


Mark says- What guarantee is the county offering, besides putting a lien on your property which will not cover the cost of a gravity sewer and treatment plant at that site formally known as the Tri-W?

And if you don't like Dr. Phil you're no better than a muskrat in a wash-tub.


Finally Mark says- I have never watched Dr. Phil, so I cannot say whether I "like" him or not. Does he know anything about the LOSTDEP?

Sewertoons said...

mark said:
"Mark says- What guarantee is the county offering, besides putting a lien on your property which will not cover the cost of a gravity sewer and treatment plant at that site formally known as the Tri-W?"

Uh,
#1 - The County has a great track record for getting huge public works projects completed. I don't think you can say that.

#2 - The County lives here, there would be constant pressure on them to deliver. You could just fly-by-night.

#3 - The County has demonstrated their reliability with the excellence and knowledgeability of their staff which we all have gotten to know personally over the past year. You come on like snake oil salesmen with threats to the County and to Los Osos that you are above the law, we must comply with your demands and pose to us unproven claims of drinking water out of toilet flushes. Where's the data the County is asking for?

#4 - No project has been chosen. You are trying to incite uneasiness.

Someone else may chime in, but that is all I could think of right know as to why we trust the County over you.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Just put up the bond in my name that promises that should the RWQCB not approve of a Reclamator (TM) for my home I'll get the right to pay $45.75/month (plus inflation) forever for my wastewater treatment.

I'll not argue the science and costs of your system with you. I will say that it seems like the RWQCB and County won't approve of Reclamators and if they won't any delay caused by fighting this issue will cost me.

I'm tired of my community being told repeatedly that there is a cheaper solution only to find out that those offering the cheaper solution had a misunderstanding of the situation or weren't careful enough or something else and ultimately I end up paying more than before.

You might be right ... but these days (because of the recent history) I want to see ironclad proof that you are right and an ironclad promise that you'll really lower my bills. If you can't provide these things, go find another test-case community.

Mark said...

Sewertoons said...
mark said:
"Mark says- What guarantee is the county offering, besides putting a lien on your property which will not cover the cost of a gravity sewer and treatment plant at that site formally known as the Tri-W?"

Uh,
#1 - The County has a great track record for getting huge public works projects completed. I don't think you can say that. Mark says-We wouldn't want to..Sewers and Treatment Plants are not the most cost effective and efficient method to eliminate the discharge of pollutants. Those methods are clearly over-priced, environmentally UN-friendly, waste energyand water and not appropriate for use as the LOSTDEP solution. The law and technology support that position. Despite big brother's opinion.

#2 - The County lives here, there would be constant pressure on them to deliver. You could just fly-by-night. Mark says-Why would we do that? I guess you have not had enough time to fully digest the Re-org plan summary posted elsewhere on Ann's Land. Los Osos will serve as the world class example for the RECLAMATOR and the citizens get to participate, guaranteed.

#3 - The County has demonstrated their reliability with the excellence and knowledgeability of their staff which we all have gotten to know personally over the past year. You come on like snake oil salesmen with threats to the County and to Los Osos that you are above the law, we must comply with your demands and pose to us unproven claims of drinking water out of toilet flushes. Where's the data the County is asking for? Mark says- everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts. History will demonstrate the quality of county staff's -"excellence and knowledgeability-" . We are working to abide by "all" the laws of the land. I guess that work can be a bit disruptive. At least LO/BP citizens won't have to suffer from it. Men at work...

#4 - No project has been chosen. You are trying to incite uneasiness. Mark says- If history and facts make you uneasy... they should.

Someone else may chime in, but that is all I could think of right know as to why we trust the County over you. Mark says- Given the history and acts on the ground, I would be as cautious about the county process as you are with ours. In God we trust.


8:47 PM, January 16, 2008


Here is aanother big brother public works "problem" which would have been avoided when Best Available Technology is put into use, as proposed by AES DES;


Mark says-This just in:


-----Original Message-----
From: Derrick [mailto:wheels@cvn.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:02 PM
To: Onsite/decentralized wastewater management issues
Subject: [decentralized] Ruptured Pipe Spills Sewage Into Schuylkill River

Ruptured Pipe Spills Sewage Into Schuylkill River

HARRISBURG (Jan. 11) - The Department of Environmental Protection is helping
with efforts to repair a ruptured sewage line near Reading.

A 42-inch pipe ruptured Thursday evening between the city's 6th and Canal
streets pump station and its Fritz Island wastewater treatment plant. The
estimated 10 million gallons of sewage that normally travel through the pipe
to the treatment plant are, temporarily, being discharged into the
Schuylkill River until repairs to the line are completed.

Downstream public water suppliers have been notified and will protect the
public by monitoring the quality of raw water. A bar screen is being used at
the pump station to remove solids.

The City of Reading continues to experience problems in repairing the break.
The discharge is on-going and DEP staff will remain on-scene. Currently,
there is no time estimate for repairs to be complete.

Meanwhile, back at the California State Budget Deficit: Belshé said the budget cuts highlight the need for the governor’s health reform proposal, which would raise additional money outside of state spending to qualify for $4 billion more in federal health care grants each year.

The additional state money would come from a variety of sources, including increased taxes on tobacco and new taxes on hospitals and employers. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/248686.html Mark says- Why should be accountable for spending the taxpayers money, they just tax some more...



Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Just put up the bond in my name that promises that should the RWQCB not approve of a Reclamator (TM) for my home I'll get the right to pay $45.75/month (plus inflation) forever for my wastewater treatment. Mark says- We can gaurantee that the county will charge $70,000.00.00 plus which will increase with every DUE that becomes a AES DES customer. As those AES DES customers will be exempt from obligation from the County's tax assessments (due to lack of need). The cost of the county sewer project will have to be divided accordingly with those who are left over. AES DES customers will be conserving water and money. Only the RECLAMATOR makes this possible and those properties that have the RECLAMATOR installed will be exempt from county's taxes. No other on-site wastewater ystem achieves the national goal.


I'll not argue the science and costs of your system with you. I will say that it seems like the RWQCB and County won't approve of Reclamators and if they won't any delay caused by fighting this issue will cost me. Mark says-The LOSTDEP Solution is already underway and is not "delaying" anything. The RECLAMATOR is "ultra compliant" and produces a water quality the meets or exceeds MCLG's which is an unenforceable standard. It's like the water that comes from your water hose, you do not need a permit to release it. This is perhaps the most difficult part for people "to get their head around". The future of water has arrived.

I'm tired of my community being told repeatedly that there is a cheaper solution only to find out that those offering the cheaper solution had a misunderstanding of the situation or weren't careful enough or something else and ultimately I end up paying more than before. Mark says- There is no "mis-understanding" about the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. It is the only solution being offered that is federally compliant and which qualifies for federal grant assistance. It is also the least expensive even before federal grants are considered. The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution will conserve, energy, time, money and water better than any other solution being considered bar none.


You might be right ... but these days (because of the recent history) I want to see ironclad proof that you are right and an ironclad promise that you'll really lower my bills. If you can't provide these things, go find another test-case community. Mark says- Los Osos/Baywood Park is the most "studied" water/wastewater project in the State of California. There is no better place to promulgate and demonstrate the RECLAMATOR. The WaterBoard knows it now you do as well. I think that folks in LO/BP will soon be using the term "obstructionists" to describe another very well known group. Nuff said. (I heard DR. Phil may have breached his legal duty regarding medical information disclosure and his meeting with whatever her name is...Poor guy sounds like he was just trying to help and ended up with headlines he may or may not have wanted. Oh well as the saying goes- there is no bad press, just as long as they are talking about you...I guess.)

9:56 PM, January 16, 2008

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

I note with interest that you did *not* offer a guarantee, just the hope that Los Osos *might* be a good place to try out reclamators.

Essentially your response sounds as if you are interested in taking advantage of our plight by using us as a test case. What happens if the RWQCB doesn't approve your device? What happens if trusting you costs us money? Are you offering to pay my very real bills if my trust in your results in those bills increasing?

Once you agree to cover my increases we can talk. If you're not willing to stand behind both your device and the permitting process in such a way that my butt is covered, you should find someone else to use as a guinea pig.

Mark said...

Toons asked: Where's the data the County is asking for?

Try looking here; http://www.nowastewater.com/engineering_report.html

You might also have a look at this: http://www.nowastewater.com/documents/fraudulent_use_218.pdf

Ever wonder why there has not been any letters circulating from the government about these "exhibits"?

It must have something to do about technology and the law...

Sewertoons said...

mark - you show 2 reports under test data. One from 1994 - 12 samples in a 6 month period. And I see one test in 2005. Where is your 10 years of required data? This isn't scientific proof by a long shot!

I can't see that you have anything stateside in the Los Osos range of 1MGD. Well except this -- is the Hudson beef plant you refer to in your literature that discharged 1.5MGD in Hope Arkansas? Is it this one - the one that isn't Hudson anymore?

(Off this site: http://www.rense.com/general6/arkTyson.htm)

"…the Clinton Agriculture Department stepped in to police an E. coli outbreak at one of Husdson's plants.

On August 12, 1997, Hudson issued a recall for 20,000 pounds of frozen hamburger when 16 people were sickened - none fatally - after eating undercooked burgers. Clinton Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman later determined the meat was contaminated by a potentially deadly strain of E. coli."

"…Hudson had to recall a crippling 25 million pounds of beef, costing the company its largest customer, Burger King."

Maybe they believed that toilet to tap stuff.

Mark said...

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

I note with interest that you did *not* offer a guarantee, just the hope that Los Osos *might* be a good place to try out reclamators.

Essentially your response sounds as if you are interested in taking advantage of our plight by using us as a test case. What happens if the RWQCB doesn't approve your device? What happens if trusting you costs us money? Are you offering to pay my very real bills if my trust in your results in those bills increasing?

Once you agree to cover my increases we can talk. If you're not willing to stand behind both your device and the permitting process in such a way that my butt is covered, you should find someone else to use as a guinea pig.

Shark:

Los Osos is a place which needs our service and is the beginning of our services being offered nationally.

The County is attempting to “take advantage of your plight” by shoving a ¼ Billion dollar sewer pipe into their pocket books.

We don’t care if the RWQCB doesn’t “do their job” and “approve our device” as we have already made them aware that we aren’t subject to their approval and that they are obligated to “promulgating” the RECLAMATOR throughout their jurisdiction. If they refuse to do this much longer, the next claim will be for the entire jurisdiction of the RWQCB at approximately 100,000+ septic tanks (permitted since 1977 in violation of federal law) X $5,000 per day (amount of fine per day per DUE established by the RWQCB) X 20 years. It isn’t going to get better for the RWQCB if they continue to play this game. Also, the County will be included in this one as the County is the entity that has been writing the permits. As the USC Title 33 Chapter 26 is the main Code which defined what their job responsibilities are and of course they all have attorneys who are suppose to be able to convey the meanings of such laws, there is NO excuse for “negligence” under international law, Duty of Care. The County’s liability is probably around 20,000 septic tanks.

Trust in whomever you wish. The county price is $70,000 and rising. The AES price is $15,000 and grant compliant. Appears to be a no brainer to me… Our program eliminates you having to “trust” us. Once you “deed” the private utility easement, all other responsibility for performance falls on AES. Other than that, there are no guarantees offered otherwise besides death and taxes.

We agree only to;

1) eliminate the discharge of your pollutants (discharge)-(1a-which is the purpose of the entire, federally mandated-state executed, excercise)

2) indemnify you of all liability for all your discharges (2a-A government program does not do this!!)

3) reclaim and repurify all your household water to a reuse quality that can be used for indirect and direct beneficial reuses by you(1a, 2a)

4) keep a $25,000 tax assessment from being imposed upon your property(2a)

5) make you a stakeholder partner in the AES Service Company itself, generating an ongoing income and revenue for you and the rest of the Community forever. (2a, GROUNDBREAKING!)

If these points are not enough, you will just have to take the County guarantee to “cost” you $70,000.00 plus otherwise, forever...

You won't get the benefits 1-5. Which would be a "real" missed oppourtunity in anyone's book

We are willing to “stand behind you”, however, the permitting process only applies to “wastewater treatment” system that “discharge pollutants”, i.e. still discharge. The regulatory is obligated to issue a “discharge permit” only if the technology that eliminates the discharge of pollutants isn’t economically achievable, the RECLAMATOR is such a pretreatment technology.

Your butt has been covered, one way or the other. Tom has filed a $79.5 Million dollar claim against the RWQCB. $75 Million will be committed to fund the Los Osos AES project one way or the other. The reorganization plan Tom is going to submit to the CSD requires them to put up the $20 Million they get to go toward the other 25%. End (butt) result is, you get your RECLAMATOR for FREE, paid for by State and Federal grant assistance.

Our work efforts are fixed and focused like a laser beam on the TECHNOLGY and the LAW which supports its promulgation and use.

I hope you will understand...
Knowledge is Power. Power to the People.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson

Mark said...

Toons wrote:

Where is your 10 years of required data? Mark says-Please provide the statute for the basis of this question.

Toons wrote:

This isn't scientific proof by a long shot! Marks says- Please provide the statute for the basis of this statement.

Toons wrote:

I can't see that you have anything stateside in the Los Osos range of 1MGD. Marks says- The RECLAMATOR was engineered and designed for the LOSTDEP. We will not be doing an "end of ~p~i~p~e", system here.

Toons wrote:

Well except this -- is the Hudson beef plant you refer to in your literature that discharged 1.5MGD in Hope Arkansas? Is it this one - the one that isn't Hudson anymore? Mark says- I'll research this and report back later.

(Off this site: http://www.rense.com/general6/arkTyson.htm)

"…the Clinton Agriculture Department stepped in to police an E. coli outbreak at one of Husdson's plants.

On August 12, 1997, Hudson issued a recall for 20,000 pounds of frozen hamburger when 16 people were sickened - none fatally - after eating undercooked burgers. Clinton Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman later determined the meat was contaminated by a potentially deadly strain of E. coli."

"…Hudson had to recall a crippling 25 million pounds of beef, costing the company its largest customer, Burger King."

Mark says- Toons, you have hit on a subject that will require a little graphic discussion to fully develop a substantive answer. E-coli 0H-157 found in meat products although sometimes is passed on by inadequate worker sanitation is mostly caused by cross contamination during evisceration at time of slaughter, 'nuff said. I could go on for an hour about the history and how processes have changed to include technology to reduce the incidence of contamination, but think it more prudent to point you and anyone else who is interested to a family style discussion located at- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O157:H7 while you are at the Wiki you might want to stop by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Osos . We are currently developing the RECLAMATOR Wiki page. I continue to work towards the technology promulgation and use for the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. It's going make one sweet Wiki exhibit!

Transmission
A major source of infection is undercooked ground beef; other sources include consumption of unpasteurized milk and juice, raw sprouts, lettuce, and salami, and contact with infected live animals. Waterborne transmission occurs through swimming in contaminated lakes, pools, or drinking inadequately treated water. The organism is easily transmitted from person to person and has been difficult to control in child day-care centers.

E.coli O157:H7 is found on cattle farms and can live in the intestines of healthy cattle. The toxin requires highly specific receptors on the cells' surface in order to attach and enter the cell; species such as cattle, swine, and deer which do not carry these receptors may harbor toxigenic bacteria without any ill effect, shedding them in their feces from where they may be spread to humans. Meat can become contaminated during slaughter, and organisms can be thoroughly mixed into beef when it is ground into hamburger. Bacteria present on the cow's udders or on equipment may get into raw milk. Although the number of organisms required to cause disease is not known, it is suspected to be very small.

Eating contaminated meat (especially ground meat) or produce that has not been cooked sufficiently to kill E. coli O157:H7 can cause infection. Contaminated foods look and smell normal.

Sewer Controversy

The community is deeply divided over the issue of where a sewer should be built. The cost of the sewer is well over $150 million and many are worried they will have to move because they cannot afford a potential $200- to $300-dollars-a-month sewer bill. There has been a building moratorium for decades because the town's septic tanks are too numerous and concentrated to dissipate nitrates, which are not broken down by septic tanks. Nitrate levels are regulated by federal and state environmental agencies because of the pollutant's health hazards. The Los Osos Community Services District is the agency in charge of building the sewer. It also provides for the town's drinking water, drainage, parks, recreation, and street lighting. Fire and rescue services, and trash services are franchised to outside companies. The CSD was formed after citizens balked at the cost of the county's proposed sewer. However, the price of the current plan has ballooned as a project is repeatedly delayed.

There is also a controversy about where the sewer should be built. A location in the center of Los Osos (also known as the Tri-W site after the name of the property) was chosen, partly because of a desire for an additional park. Despite critic's claims, the County, water board and Coastal Commission all approved a sewer at the Tri-W site.

In August 2005, the CSD began building a sewer at the Tri-W site, contractors began work on the project and were advanced payments from State Revolving Fund loan. Following a recall election which replaced the majority of the CSD board and enacted an initiative measure that would require relocation of the project, the new board stopped building the sewer, despite a letter warning them of severe consequences from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Due to the action of the new CSD board, the costs of the sewer project were greatly increased. In October 2005, the CSD defaulted on a low interest State Revolving Fund loan and the state subsequently refused to disburse additional funds and demanded immediate repayment. Project contractors filed suit for more than $23 million in lost profits and costs. State and regional water boards have used their regulatory power to impose fines against the district in the amount of $6.6 million for water pollution resulting from septic tank discharge of more than 1 million gallons per day. During February 2006 the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a state agency, threatened it would begin to issue cease and desist orders to citizens of Los Osos, and may require recipients to pump their septic systems every three years, and to stop using them by 2011.

On August 25, 2006, the district filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in federal court. While the district had enough money to cover day to day needs, they did not have enough money to cover their legal fees and consultant fees. This action stays the legal actions against the district related to money owed. Contractor lawsuits and other actions seeking monetary damages or claims against the district will be held in abeyance while the district addresses its financial situation.

Additionally, legislation has been approved by the California legislature that would return control of construction of the wastewater treatment facility to the County of San Luis Obispo. The bill, AB 2701, was signed by the governor and went into effect January 1, 2007.

The region’s daily newspaper has written many stories on the sewer. The San Luis Obispo Tribune’s editorial board has written editorials supporting and/or condemning many of the agencies, and elected officials involved with the sewer. The paper’s Los Osos reporter, Abraham Hyatt, has written about AB 2701, the bankruptcy, and the CSD’s financial and legal problems.


Toons wrote:
Maybe they believed that toilet to tap stuff.
Mark says- There is no link between wastewater and e-coli 0157 H7 at Hudson /Tyson or any other meat processing firm I know about. The RECLAMATER doesn't produce treated waste. It produces
ultra filtration "permeate" to meet or exceed Maximum Contaminant Level Goals- http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html

I guess you missed this:

----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Low
To: Mark Low
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:18 PM
Subject: O.C. sewage will soon be drinking water - Los Angeles Times


The RECLAMATOR turns wastewater into drinkable water on-site using less energy and for less money than this "process".
The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution..."from obstructionists to world visionaries"- who would stand against it?

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-reclaim2jan02,1,732425.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

As a hedge against water shortages and population growth, Orange County has begun operating the world's largest, most modern reclamation plant -- a facility that can turn 70 million gallons of treated sewage into drinking water every day.


Science & Technology: The 'end of the pipe' for O.C. water agencies | water, county, california, orange, district - OCRegister.com
http://www.ocregister.com/science-technology/water-county-california-1958363-orange-district

Thinking ahead
Water agencies aren't just jostling for more state water-bond money. They say increased conservation along with new ways to generate supply are also high on their list of priorities.


Toons- The RECLAMATOR is the future of water. -It "skate(s) to where the puck will be"- Wayne "the Great" Gretsky

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

You talk a good game.

A few issues still make me concerned. Perhaps you could address these issues.

First, if the RWQCB doesn't approve of the use of Reclamators for Los Osos as an alternative to tying into a community sewer, it would take a court to force them to allow this. What if the court doesn't order this or your company goes under before a court can render a decision in your favor. It would seem to me that I'm still needing to tie into the community system ... and if your legal actions force a delay in the community timeframe, that County price that you say is $70k per household will rise.

Second, what if you don't get the grants you say you think you'll get? Certainly suing the RWQCB doesn't seem like a good business model if you have to work with them in the future.

Essentially, you say that you should be trusted to provide a solution better, faster and cheaper than the County. The last two times folks in Los Osos heard these sort of claims and trusted them, hopes were dashed and costs have risen.

Presumably you can at least see why many are so hesitant to jump onboard.


I would also suggest you stop making claims like the County is using Los Osos to line their pockets. I rather doubt it is true and you certainly haven't offered us any evidence for this claim ... but ... even if it were true, again it sounds like the sort of thing which should be said with a far gentler tone. After all, if you want to work with the County in any way in the future, pissing off their professional staff is a poor way to start.

In summary, you say that you aren't offering a guarantee but you say that we shouldn't need a guarantee to trust you. I've seen enough business deals go South to realize that even with a guarantee from you, we would be out of luck if your company went belly-up. If you are so darn sure that your product works great and so darn sure that you can offer services that will solve our community water and legal (well, at least RWQCB) problems you should try convincing someone with deep pockets to offer a guarantee. Sure, they would want a cut of the action and I know that I would have to pay a whole lot more, but I would feel far better knowing that even if AES went under, we would have another party on the hook as responsible to provide services and pay fines if the services were deemed faulty by the RWQCB. If you raised your fees from what you say they should be, you would still be far cheaper than any other game in town.

Try to sell a deep pocket on the idea of backing you. If that works out, let us know and I'm sure that the level of interest in Reclamators will go way up.

Sewertoons said...

mark, the Orange County plant cost almost $500 million to do toilet to tap. Why weren't you there to save them bundles of money?

Here is what NPR had to say about the Orange County plant:
"But the real action takes place downstairs in a labyrinth of pipes. Engines push the water through the plant's microfilters. Using high pressure, reverse osmosis, it's then forced through a thin membrane. Finally, the water is injected with peroxide and blasted with ultraviolet light to remove lingering hormones and dissolved pharmaceuticals."

so - how do you propose to remove hormones and pharmaceuticals if your device doesn't use peroxide or UV light?

Mark said...

Shark:

The RWQCB has NO CHOICE but to approve the RECLAMATOR. Furthermore, if they don’t do it real soon, Mr. Murphy is going to file a claim against them for every septic tank they have allowed a permit to be issued for, allowing such a toxic discharge of pollutants. Since 1977, permitting of a septic tank has been done in direct violation of USC Title 33 Chapter 26 Sec. 1311 (a).



The number of septic tanks in the RWQCB jurisdiction is well over 100,000 which have been permitted in violation of this United States Statute at Large. The RWQCB became aware of the best available technology for pretreatment applications in 1993 which was required to be promulgated throughout their jurisdiction on that year, besides the ones in the prohibition zone. The little $80 million dollar “stinger” Mr. Murphy has already filed against them is only a sample of what they are about to have to answer to IF they don’t find a way to “approve” the RECLAMATOR before “D” Day, February 5, 2008. I will give you a hint; it is about 20Xs the $80 million claim.



It will never go to court, even though Mr. Murphy wants it to. If it goes to court and they lose, it becomes a new case law that the RECLAMATOR is mandatory nationally, not just a US Code anymore. They would be hung by their own kind if they allow this to happen. They have to surrender well before it ever goes to “court”. Besides, the delay court would make doesn’t effect us, only them.



You have a misunderstanding about the result of a “required hookup”. A “required hookup” to those with a RECLAMATOR only means they don’t have to pay for anything, no water fee anymore, no user fee for the RECLAMATOR anymore as well as no sewer fee. Mr. Murphy has already stated that if any property served by the AES Discharge Elimination Services is subject to a “required hookup”, AES will pay for his client’s water and wastewater services charges. “Tying into a community system” isn’t a bad thing Shark Inlet, but a GOOD thing.



The mindset that “we have to work with the RWQCB in the future” is wrong. We don’t have to work with any regulatory authority as the water quality the RECLAMATOR produces is of a standard which is “non-enforceable pubic health goal”. It is just like you when you turn on your irrigation water. You don’t have to work with the RWQCB do you? We don’t either because the water produced by the RECLAMATOR is of the same quality. They won’t “lead”, they won’t “follow”, so we are just going to require the RWQCB just get out of the way…. And stay out of the way as they have NO AUTHORITY OVER THE RECLAMATOR LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY! Their authority begins and ends with “discharge of waste” and management of wastes in public right of ways, i.e. conventional publicly owned collection systems. We have neither.



The County IS out to rape the Citizens of Los Osos, just fact. Mr. Murphy isn’t going to work with the County. The County will have to work with Mr. Murphy as each of their engineers will receive notification from the California Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors to specify the RECLAMATOR technology by “brand name or equal” in the very near future. Otherwise, they will be operating in violation of federal law and stand to lose their License to Practice.



The County’s job is to regulate on the behalf of AES in service to AES and the technology it represents. It isn’t for us to strive to make the County happy working with us, it is up to the County to do their job and make AES happy, promulgating the best available technology as they are required to do under federal law. Get the picture? Your idea in regards to the direction of a relationship we might have with the County is somewhat tarnished Shark Inlet.



Their 30 years of brain washing they have imposed on you guys has not affected us. We still know who they are and what their job is. They are our public servants. Their job is to serve us, like it or not, not us serve them. If they abuse serving us as is their obligation, they are the ones subject to correction, not us. AND, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SERVING YOU IN YOUR BEST PUBLIC INTEREST.



In regards to a guarantee, we are offering you a guarantee as a community. The community will own a third of the AES Discharge Elimination Company. What better guarantee would you want? Also, Mr. Murphy is installing the first RECLAMATOR in his home in Bayridge Estates where all can come and see it work. AES guarantees 1) federal law provides for federal grant assistance to cover 75% - the County guarantees there are NO federal grants to cover construction costs of the sewer, 2) AES guarantees its services are less than half the projected cost of the County sewer – the County guarantees that their projected costs are NOT guaranteed and are subject to increase, 3) AES guarantees each of its customers a discharge elimination service that will provide its customers a sustainable water source equal to the amount of water they use each day in their home, a 100% water conservation device which provides 100% of their water for a reuse benefit to them forever – the County guarantees depriving you of all water used in your household per day for ever and you will never have it back without paying for it again, 4) AES guarantees no streets will be ripped up in the whole community – the County guarantees ripping up 42 miles of streets and roads in the community over the next five years, 5) AES guarantees project completion within just a couple of years beginning hooking ups in only a couple of months – the County has stated it won’t even be able to hook up one home for at least 5 years, and 6) AES will guarantee that for each customer it provides Discharge Elimination services to the cost to each of the County sewer patrons goes up unilaterally, i.e. if half of the community wants sewer, they would have to pay $140,000.00 plus per DUE – the County can not legally impose public sewer services on those who don’t want it. And one last guarantee, Mr. Murphy guarantees you will be very unhappy with the results of the County sewer if it happed, which it won’t now just because it economically can’t.



Your right! Tom is already working on an insurance program that will insure you have no chance of investment loss. I believe it should cost an additional percentage and be available if it is desired. I recall hearing something on the order of 15%.



The other party is the LOCSD. Mr. Murphy is offering them an opportunity to be that other party you can rely on. He offered it to the County and they didn’t take him up on it, now it is the CSD’s chance. If they don’t, we have NSF International and who else could you want with more credibility than them?



For what “defined” reason does AES need backing? AES has done over 100 projects with no “backing”, why do we need any now? They don’t need the money as Mr. Murphy already has two banks that will provide any needed financing for the project. What could a “backer” offer that we need? What would we ask for? Your suggestion initially appears to be a reasonable consideration, but after evaluation, not logical or applicable. What would we tell them we needed, backing? Backing for what?



The lifeline is out. AES will start signing up subscribers to its Discharge Elimination Services the first of February and will start installing after the first 200 subscribers.

Mark said...

Sewertoons said...

mark, the Orange County plant cost almost $500 million to do toilet to tap. Why weren't you there to save them bundles of money?


Mark says- Toons: The Orange County project is already done. We are currently working on the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. "Be here now"- The CCRWQCB is...

Here is what NPR had to say about the Orange County plant:
"But the real action takes place downstairs in a labyrinth of pipes. Engines push the water through the plant's microfilters. Using high pressure, reverse osmosis, it's then forced through a thin membrane. Finally, the water is injected with peroxide and blasted with ultraviolet light to remove lingering hormones and dissolved pharmaceuticals."

so - how do you propose to remove hormones and pharmaceuticals if your device doesn't use peroxide or UV light?



Mark says- A few hormones and pharmaceuticals don't matter in your own water as they are yours. Additonally, they don't bother toilet flushing or irrigation reuse applications.

Mark said...

Toons wrote:
so - how do you propose to remove hormones and pharmaceuticals if your device doesn't use peroxide or UV light?

Toons: Here's a thought- Sue gig pharmaceuticals, it worked for big tabacco...

I wonder if John Edwards will be up for it after the primaries?

Bur seriously, don't you believe that "scaleable" or better technology that will augment the RECLAMATOR is just around the corner?

More seriously-how old is your computer, cell phone, kids electronic games?

Why are you so invested in a non compliant sewer that keeps climbing in cost because it's based on "old" technology that leaks/stinks and uses more energy (which keeps climbing in cost)compared with newer more efficient technology?

Actually suing big P isn't a bad idea, is it?

Sewertoons said...

Go for it mark if it floats your boat. Los Osos however, is sick of litigation. If you win (ha-ha) let us know.

Oh, btw your statement, "A few hormones and pharmaceuticals don't matter in your own water as they are yours," is just absurd. I don't usually ingest shampoo residue and don't care to start now. In case you weren't aware, water and the things it carries, percolates down to the upper aquifer which will be pumped for blending with lower aquifer water when the sewer is up and running.

Mark said...

Toons: I noticed you avoid the tough questions.-But seriously, don't you believe that "scaleable" or better technology that will augment the RECLAMATOR is just around the corner?

More seriously-how old is your computer, cell phone, kids electronic games?

LO/BP citizens have been dumping into the upper aquifer more than shampoo residue forever. The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR will be able to meet or exceed any requirement or statute any other technology is subject to, faster and for less money.

I'm certain that the water companies are well aware of their fiduciary duties to supply legally complioant water and willtake the necessary measures to insure MCLG level water to their customers.

We are all entitled to our own opinions true. So in the sprit of Goose and Gander: The non-compliant county sewer process is "absurd" given the RECLAMATOR technology available today.
I know that "change" can be tough...

Anonymous said...

must check [URL=http://jacket-dresses.net/]moncler jackets[/URL] for less nINKyqdX [URL=http://jacket-dresses.net/ ] http://jacket-dresses.net/ [/URL]