Pages

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Here Come da Judge, Part Duh

Press release from PZLDF regarding the court hearing Wed, the 20th.

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

February 18, 2008


CONTACT:
Gail McPherson, Citizens for Clean Water -805-459-4535 mcp@charter.net

San Luis Obispo, Ca.

Regional Water Board Fights California Citizen’s Who Seek To Protect Homes from Regulatory Taking
---- Court to Hear Arguments Wednesday February 20, 2008 in San Luis Obispo.

The State has filed legal actions to try to stop the Los Osos Citizen’s appeal from proceeding. The lawsuit challenges enforcement orders against individuals which is usually reserved for corporations.

Los Osos Citizens’ filed a defensive lawsuit in May 2007 appealing actions they claim abuse water board delegated regulatory authority, do not comply with basic legal requirements, and violate individual citizen’s constitutional protections. The Water Board has continued its wrangling, insisting the Central Coast Regional Water Board doesn’t have to follow legal requirements of other agencies.

In a civil rights lawsuit filed by Shaunna Sullivan in behalf of the 46 individual homeowners, and the community at large, the State and Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board has been asked to simply vacate the orders they issued last year. The orders threaten to move 15,000 residents from their homes by 2011, and impose possible fines, up to $5000 per day, for each property-all the way back to 1988. These targeted individuals cannot build a commuinity sewer and have already committed liens on homes to pay for it. According to a spokesperson for the petitioners, "the lack of a mandated sewer is clearly a government failure. The orders meant to punish and intimidate individual citizens should be dropped."

Individual enforcement and threat of more orders followed one of the largest fines assessed in EPA history against the community services district in 2005.
($6.6 million fine levied against less than 200 homes.) The District was forced to file bankrupcy protection and turn the project over to the County in 2006.

The court documents filed opposing the citizen’s appeal, and arguments supporting the civil rights lawsuit will be heard in the San Luis Obispo Superior Court, Wednesday February 20, 2008 at 9:00 am in Dept. 2, Judge Barry T. LaBarbera presiding.

END

More Information: www.PZLDF.org

CV070472: Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund v. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Other Contacts:

Sullivan & AssociatesShaunna Sullivan2238 Bayview Heights Drive, Suite CLos Osos, CA 93402(805) 528-3364 fax Shaunna Sullivan, www.Sullivanlaw.com
805- 528-3355
Central Coast RWQCB
Michael Thomas
805-788-3571
mthomas@waterboards.ca.gov


Don’t Go Near The Water. No, I’m Serious. Don’t Go Near The Water

Interesting story in the L.A. Times a few days ago: “Our medicines are altering marine biology: Study finds chemicals from wastewater are ending up in coastal waters – and affecting hormone levels in fish.”

Yep, as our local SurfRider group has been saying about the Morro Bay sewage outfall – and a lot of research data is confirming -- our pass-through drugs, i.e. birth control pills, and other pharmaceuticals that end up in our pee and from there into various water sources as well as the ocean, and all of them are having an adverse effect on sea life, in the form of, for example, “ . . . male flat fish contain unusually high levels of the female hormone estrogen, possibly in reaction to one or more of these hormone altering chemicals. As many as 90% of these male fish were found to have produced egg yolk proteins, and one had actually produced eggs, indicating that the feminizing of fish seen in freshwater streams and lakes can happen in the open ocean as well. This evidence, scientists said, suggests that diluting pollution with a vast amount of seawater may not be an effective way to dispose of these new and little understood contaminants.”

And, “ Sewage treatment plants only remove 50% -70% of these chemicals . . .” and “ . . . sewage plants could remove virtually all estrogen with more advanced forms of treatment. Primary treatment, the type used in San Diego, doesn’t take out much estrogen as secondary treatment, use by Los Angeles Hyperion plant in El Segundo. Those plants, if upgraded to tertiary treatment, could remove nearly all of the estrogen . . .”

Furthermore, the story noted, “ The results showed that the chemicals and responses from the fish were widespread and not confined to areas near sewage outfalls, showing how easily the chemicals get dispersed. Besides elevated estrogen levels in male fish, test results showed altered thyroid hormone levels in the turbot. They also had depressed cortisone levels, an indication that the fish were worn out and are vulnerable to disease.”

On the bright side, if tertiary treatment is effective, then can we hope that communities from Morro Bay to everywhere will upgrade sooner rather than later? The flatfish will certainly thank them.

60 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

Judge:

A return to first principles in a republic is sometimes caused by the simple virtues of one man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example.
Niccolo Machiavelli

Mike said...

Ann, you are aware that the final WWTF as designed for the Tri-W site was a tertiary treatment facility?

Watershed Mark said...

Mike:

Would you please provide a description, make, model, data, etc?

Got link?

Watershed Mark said...

Where is the ~P~I~P~E~ People's blogspot? Hmmm...

Watershed Mark said...

Taxpayer's Watch Blogspot? See what I mean..

Watershed Mark said...

Thanks for the article Tribune it made my day. I will look forward to watching the meeting in its entirety. Good thing the meetings can't be considered in a budget cut, by law.The retirement and pensions are a big drag on the budget, why would the county want to hire more folks to run a conventional wastewater system?

The perverbial excrement is beginning to hit the fan...I am very happy that the law is "on the table" when it comes to the County's study of their study and consideration of whether to "take" the LOSTDEP, as following the law there will be no "financial pinata"/county windfall. This is indeed good news for the citizens. The County party is over in Los Osos, last one out, turn off the lights, we need the energy and the money...

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/281881.html

Supervisor Harry Ovitt "gets it", Bruce Gibson "does not"...

Where are you Taxpayer's Watch people?

*PG-13 said...

ShedHead said > ......

ShedHead responded > ....

ShedHead asked > .......

ShedHead responded > .........

ShedHead said > ..............


Talking to one's self - in public - is seldom a good thing. Don't you have your own blog for that?

Speaking of which. Your recent comment on your own blog should probably be posted over here too.

ShedHead said > I am not advocating that anyone actually drink the "harvest water" directly from the RECLAMATOR, yet. It would have to be processed through an R.O. Membrane or better.(pesky technology)

Golly, that's sure a different take on the clean water / no discharge argument that's been so boringly presented over and over again on the other blogs.

Maria M. Kelly said...

I was just looking at the AES website for more information on the test data and at the bottom of the page 2 of the test data section, it says:

This report may not be reproduced in whole or in part without the expressed written consent of NSF International Page 52 of 52, March 1995

Now I want to see the rest of the report. Mark, could you please give me a link where I can review the previous 51 pages to find out how the testing arrived to page 52.

I need to understand why AES Services doesn't need to comply with permitting agencies or the county process as defined in AB2701 and maybe the answer is in that NSF report.

Prefix528 said...

Maria -

The reference to page 52 seems to have fled the AES website. What's the location? It appears that the testing took place in 1994 so it isn't likely there is anything there that connects to California and local regulations.

Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

Finally turning the pages of the Certified Engineering Report"...Now we are getting somewhere!

13-Happy, I was able to finally communicate the message in terms you seem to understand;
There is no other way to measure the "Harvest Water" produced by the RECLAMATOR except to use the "MCLG" (drinking water) standards.

We don't discharge "effluent", so those standards would be useless and down right unhelpful. The WaterBoard knows this by now, or they should.
Sometimes industry terminology can be a bit "confusing" even for those within the industry itself.

Tom ordered the nitrogen series testing "extra" and paid for the testing to prove "in" his patented process in 1994. There was no spiral wound ultrafiltration membrane technology in 1994. The RECLAMATOR combines these two technologies into the on-site "water harvester" appliance called "RECLAMATOR".

Ms. Kelly, don't worry too much about the first 51 pages, the LOSTDEP is all about the Nitrogen Reduction, which cannot be accomplished unless and until nitrification has been sufficient. Besides, I understand that the SWRQB may received a copy of the entire report in 1994/5 as part of NSF's protocol. If they did, someone should have read it then, don't you think?

"Esoteric" stuff, sorry. But those "charged" with the duty of care and regulating know how to read the "data" and should, by now, know how to read the law.
It's gotta be a real buzz kill when a technology that eliminates the discharge of pollutants at the source shows up on your (CCRWQCB) doorstep, if you don't like technology... "But that's federal law for ya. Gotta obey even on a sunny day." Think 14th. Amendment of the Constitution here, equal protection...

Los Osos-Baywood Park Citizens "from obstructionists to world visionaries". Conservation of money, energy and water through the use of technology as law provides for its promulgation and use, makes it possible.

Who would want a leaking collection ststem polluting an unknown amount of pollution into the aquifer?

Maria M. Kelly said...

Mark,
When I sit and read technical memo's that are provided to the TAC, they give us the entire report because the last page would be out of context.
Again, where can I access the original 51 pages. Please account for and respond to the bottom of the page that the NSF prints on their testing reports regarding the not printing of the report without permission from the NSF. I would like to see your permission.

I am curious as to why 1994 data would be presented as relevant data if different technology is being used than was used in the original testing.

Why would the RWQCB have received a copy of the NSF report? If the Reclamator has been tested and approved by the NSF/INSF, how come AES Services is not listed as a product that has been approved?

These are some of and just a few of the questions that may arise and would need to be covered if a technical memo were going to be provided on the product. Just suggestions really.

Watershed Mark said...

Maria wrote: I need to understand why AES Services doesn't need to comply with permitting agencies or the county process as defined in AB2701 and maybe the answer is in that NSF report.

Because the harvest water/permeate produced by the RECLAMATOR meets the USEPA Standard MCLG's which are a non-enforceable standard. http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html Go to definitions at the bottom of the standards.

The http://www.trisep.com/ membrane http://www.trisep.com/SpiraSep/SpiraSep%20Spec%20Sheet.pdf gaurantees this standard.

Watershed Mark said...

Ms. Kelly:

Do you have your TAC hat on and is this an official request?

The 1994 NSF test proves "in" the biology. Biology never changes just like any other process.
Are any of the gravity parts and processes your TAC is studying certified by the NSF?

The I.D.E.A. C.F.C.R is the latest process to be invented and is scalable to a household sized unit. It would be the best process at the end of a P~I~P~E~, better and less expensive, that's why it is not being considered. Think destabilizing technology, here.

Tom Murphy owns the report and will show it if and when he thinks it appropriate. You see the LOSTDEP is about "Nitrogen Reduction". Think about how much "raw sewage will exfiltrate at 500 gpd per mile per diameter in of sewer ~P~I~P~E~.

I understand that the TAC is not going to review Exfiltration. Can you say why?

Infiltration in high water areas would be an unauthorized "taking of water" without paying for it and there would be no way to measure the amounts over time as leaks increase. Can you offer us all some of your insight in your capacity as a representative of the government. I would be careful about liability associated with your volunteer work for the county... But that's just my opinion.

Maria M. Kelly said...

Mark,
I am not asking as a TAC member, I am asking as a community member and pointing out that when reading other reports supplied by the county we usually get the whole thing whether it's for a community committee for the CSD or any other group or organization. I am not a representative of government, I am a community member who is being affected by the process. I am a community member who may be affected by AES not participating in the process and making assertions that increase my personal liabilities through threats of stopping the project and the subsequent enforcement action. What liability do you think my requests carry? What liabilities do your assertions carry?

I suggest you take a look at the TM being reviewed currently which is titled: Flows and Loads

O.k, but to get the permeate, you need to install 2500 gallon systems throughout Los Osos. Installation would require county and RWQCB permits and since this could potentially impact the water purveyors, I would have to assume that there may be legal agreements that need to be made with them.

In addition, you didn't answer the rest of my questions and now in addition to my previous questions, when does EPA supersede state regulators?

A comparison might be the FBI stepping in on a local enforcement agency's investigation. Please give the citation or case law that would permit the Federal Government to overstep the oversight it has already deferred to the State of California through the authorities of the State Water Board.

These are all assumptions on my part but my curiosity has been piqued in how everyone else must be compliant and follow California Code and this technology does not.

Your remedies through the local Superior Court could maybe lead to Federal Court but then your battle would be down in LA.

In my 2 years of involvement, one of my concerns has been Los Osos being used as a "Poster Child" for arguments that either belong in Sacramento or Washington DC. It feels as though we are being used to further an agenda that has not clearly been defined as to how it is a benefit to this community.

In addition, how does this service plan to comply with county ordinances and storm water runoff and their permitting process and oversight of unincorporated urban areas such as Los Osos?

My apologies to Ann, I will take this conversation to the other site if I chose to continue. It could but only if Mark provides some satisfactory answers that are beyond simple quotations of great thinkers and a pat on the head and "don't worry yourself about that...see what I have going over here..." type of responses.

You've got law? Then show it. You're above the law? Prove it.
Your product means no need for collection,treatment, disposal/recharge for Los Osos - prove it.
Prove how your product can support a sustainable water supply in Los Osos. There has to be more to convince me, a community member and property owner in Los Osos.

Prefix - check the site and click on the right hand side down toward the bottom of the page with the AES Reclamator "Certified" Engineering Report section .09. It is only 3 pages long but page 2 most definitely states that permission is required when publishing.

Thanks Ann as usual and again, I apologize to you but I jumped in late and will take the discussion elsewhere.

Watershed Mark said...

storm water runoff... Got law? (hint it's federal...)

Federal law is always superiour to State law unlessstate law is more stringent. The Federal Stsatutes are always superior to CFR's...

This is the short answer as there is muuch to understand before you can "get it". The reulators are well on their way...

Mike said...

I believe we all are now fully aware of Mr.Mark and the Wrecklamator. He has taken over the Calhoun blog as an extention of his advertisement. He has provided little to no real time data and prefers to insult and threaten the potential customer base. There is absolutely no way that my family will support the Reclamator installation within Los Osos. There are more than one household in this and we will not be intimidated by Marks arrogance!

Maria M. Kelly said...

Storm water is managed at the city and county level. Their plans have to be approved by the RWQCB not the Federal Government. It is becoming clear that you may not understand agency relationships and the responsibilities they have to the communities they serve.

I suspect that many of us "get" more than you think we do and ultimately if you are going to sell us a service, we better understand it.

Why are you not answering all the other questions I've posted? How am I supposed to understand if you aren't giving the information that the community is asking for? When will the community have the answers they need? Has your business registered with the Secretary of State yet? When are you going to file a business name with SLO County and be able to provide a local DBA? Are you going to join the Chamber of Commerce? What sort of insurance will your business be required to carry? Will your employees be licensed waste water operators? Will you contract out to the local purveyors? Do you have a business plan for the investors? Have you sold enough contracts to develop a nice nest egg for start up capital costs? Have you looked in the phasing of the construction and can you produce a time line for the community?

Every response just leaves me with more and more questions.

*PG-13 said...

ShedHead will say > You're ALL confused. But I can help! P~I~P~E~, you got it! Biology never changes, effluent bad, discharge is pure, but I won't drink it. We don't need no stink'in documentation, the law is the law, you just don't understand, but you can read everything all your small minds need to know on the AES website. It's all there. Until you can't find it. Don't worry about the missing pages cuz we only publish what you need to know. When you need it. It's sure a good thing I'm protecting your rights cuz Nikita said "Bend over stupid mongrels" and we all know Black Feather's response to that! Tom's my man. Yaaaaaa, Tom! You're all screwed. But that's federal law for ya. Gotta obey even on a sunny day.

I feel better now. Don't you?

Watershed Mark said...

Mark,
I am not asking as a TAC member, I am asking as a community member and pointing out that when reading other reports supplied by the county we usually get the whole thing whether it's for a community committee for the CSD or any other group or organization. I am not a representative of government, I am a community member who is being affected by the process. I am a community member who may be affected by AES not participating in the process and making assertions that increase my personal liabilities through threats of stopping the project and the subsequent enforcement action. What liability do you think my requests carry? -If you have read "Just the Facts" or studied the "FACTS" doc, I blind copied you and still proceed with a process that does not include the RECLAMATOR, you might consider getting a legal opinion, you are now knowingly involved in the county's "process". The County is going for broke studying the LOSTDEP...What liabilities do your assertions carry? -None, I am promulgating technology and the law that supports its promulgation and use, all perfectly legal and sustainable, unlike the process you are helping to promote.

Flows and Loads : -we are individualized. I didn't read how infiltration/exfiltration would be measured, can you cut and paste the excerpt that details this information, please. You should have my email address...or you can postit over on www.NOwastewater.blogspot.com > Also if you could post any data on performance on the processes you TAC has studied that 13, toons and fly have been crying about wanting from the RECLAMATOR, I will appreciate it.

you need to install 2500 gallon systems : -where did you come up with this? I hope your study and findings of all the TM's are not this flawed. Liability, see what I mean.

when does EPA supersede state regulators? -C26 underpins everything waterboard and LOSTDEP.

Please give the citation or case law that would permit the Federal Government to overstep the oversight it has already deferred to the State of California through the authorities of the State Water Board.-Your question is not relevant to the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution, yet.

how everyone else must be compliant and follow California Code and this technology does not. -Our technology is "ultra compliant". -Please provide the "cite" of California Water Law you think is not being followed.

Your remedies through the local Superior Court could maybe lead to Federal Court but then your battle would be down in LA. -I won't discuss our legal strategy.

In my 2 years of involvement, one of my concerns has been Los Osos being used as a "Poster Child" for arguments that either belong in Sacramento or Washington DC. -USEPA HQ instructed us to "go local", think LOCSD Nov 19, 1999 CDO's here.

It feels as though we are being used to further an agenda that has not clearly been defined as to how it is a benefit to this community. -It feels as though you have not been reading the emails you have been receiving in the "blind" since mid December 2007.

In addition, how does this service plan to comply with county ordinances and storm water runoff and their permitting process and oversight of unincorporated urban areas such as Los Osos? Not relevant to the NOV's and CDO's, Didn't you read our counsel's Legal Opinion of AB 2701 that your sent via blind copy email? Funny how it, the Fraudulent useof the 218 by San LuisObispo County and the "FACTS" have not been challenged, by anyone...any thoughts as to why there have been none?

My apologies to Ann, I will take this conversation to the other site if I chose to continue. It could but only if Mark provides some satisfactory answers that are beyond simple quotations of great thinkers and a pat on the head and "don't worry yourself about that...see what I have going over here..." type of responses.

You've got law? -of course Then show it. -done You're above the law? NEVER SAID OR WROTE that statement, Prove it.- not necessary.
Your product means no need for collection,treatment, disposal/recharge for Los Osos - prove it.
Prove how your product can support a sustainable water supply in Los Osos. -water conservation through on-site beneficial reuse such as toilet flushing and other non potable domestic uses. toilet flushing can account for at least a 25% reduction on potable water supplies. The harvest water that continues to the aquifer would remediate it thereby providing for a continuing of the hydraulic cycle that has sustained Los Osos-Baywood Park since it was established. There has to be more to convince me, a community member and property owner in Los Osos. -There is plenty more that should be studied,by law, only the county's consulting engineer has ruled it out without studying it. See County's "Stamped" On-site Final 1-25-08(a big problem...)

Prefix - check the site and click on the right hand side down toward the bottom of the page with the AES Reclamator "Certified" Engineering Report section .09. It is only 3 pages long but page 2 most definitely states that permission is required when publishing.

Thanks Ann as usual and again, I apologize to you but I jumped in late and will take the discussion elsewhere.

Watershed Mark said...

Storm water is managed at the city and county level. -then why was federal law required to institue the local "activity"?

Their plans have to be approved by the RWQCB not the Federal Government. -based of federal guidelines

It is becoming clear that you may not understand agency relationships and the responsibilities they have to the communities they serve.-you may want to rethink this statement

I suspect that many of us "get" more than you think we do and ultimately if you are going to sell us a service, we better understand it. -$15.000.00 to intiate and $45.75/month and we assume resposibilty for your discharge(75% Federal Grant assistance available).
Why are you not answering all the other questions I've posted?- bring them over to NOwastewater...

How am I supposed to understand if you aren't giving the information that the community is asking for? -NOwastewater...

When will the community have the answers they need? -they do.

Has your business registered with the Secretary of State yet?-yes

When are you going to file a business name with SLO County and be able to provide a local DBA? The operating territory is the same as the CCRWQB territory

Are you going to join the Chamber of Commerce? yes

What sort of insurance will your business be required to carry? typical business insurance/similar to any utility

Will your employees be licensed waste water operators? They will be certified

Will you contract out to the local purveyors? Yes

Do you have a business plan for the investors? Yes

Have you sold enough contracts to develop a nice nest egg for start up capital costs? Yes

Have you looked in the phasing of the construction and can you produce a time line for the community? Yes

Every response just leaves me with more and more questions. -let me know...

Watershed Mark said...

There is absolutely no way that my family will support the Reclamator installation within Los Osos.-GO County study "process"!

You're all screwed(saved)

Shark Inlet said...

Anytime someone asks me to trust him and his research but then says anything like I would show you the report but I don't thin you need to read it immediately loses my respect.

Anyone who thinks that pulling this sort of crap when attempting to convince others is not much different than a cult leader who wants followers but no scrutiny.

If Murphy doesn't produce the report he has the rights to distribute, he is not trying to help Los Osos. Any reasonable person with a technological breakthrough would be proud of the reports which verify their product does wonders.

I would also suggest to our good friend Mark that asking questions like "Got law? (hint it's federal...)" is not an appropriate response to a very reasonable question on the part of a well-studied community member. Even if Maria were off-base in her question, you could address the issue in a more reasonable way than some sort of "I know more than you so don't you dare question me" tone.

Mark, it will take time and effort to convince people in town that you are right. You don't seem willing to put in the time and effort necessary and it seems that you would rather just make claims that you later won't justify other than by referring to documents and research that you won't provide.

If you're not going to engage in actual dialog when asked, why don't you just stop wasting our time as well as your own.

Again, if you would provide answers to the questions asked, you've got a willing audience who is naturally skeptical because of having been burnt a few times already.

Hopefully this won't fall on deaf ears...

Watershed Mark said...

Shark:
You have not been informed as completely as has Ms. Kelly.
She has been receiving plenty of information via email which when taken together will provide the basis on which to form a competent decision.

I have presented information on our website and on blog. People who aren't convinced can go with the non-compliant county pipe study/project. It is a free country.

We offer technology and the law which supports its promulgation and use. I have provided a website and other material for your study. I hope you will choose to use it.

Skeptical is good, ignorance isn't.

Blogging to aynonmous persons is really not the proper venue to exchange information. But it may have some benefit.

The Certified Engineering Report on our website provides everything that the county process will provide only without the pipe and all the regulatory permitting that is required with building in the municipal right of way.

Our technology provides for on-site water repurification with the environmental impact of a septic tank installation, where no EIR is needed to discharge vtoxic levels of nitrogen, viruses and pathogens into the soil.

Without waste discharge there is no "violation". Again, Ms. Kelly has been the recipient of many pieces of information not including what is written on blog. There is much work going on which you might want to learn about and could if you want to be added to my email blind copy list, or not.

Hopefully you will weigh in with a real name/identity.

I'm listening. Mark@NOwastewater.com

Spectator said...

Why does not everyone go over to Mark Lowe's blog and hack the reclamator over there. Until he puts one in the ground, feeds it with a family of four, and has an independent testing agency monitor the system, this is much ado about nothing. Until he wins his cases against whomever regulating authorities, again this is much ado about nothing.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Your suggestion that I need a "real name" to weigh in is waaaaaay of mark. The suggestion that my opinions don't matter because I am unwilling to put my name out there in public shows you don't really care about convincing people that your system is technologically and legally sound for Los Osos.

As spectator points out, you claim that your system is both legal and better ... but until you've convinced people of this, you will be ignored. This is as it should be and as you should expect.

As far as whether you are wasting your time blogging ... you might want to think of my comments as suggestions to improve the quality of your attempt to convince Los Osos rather than as someone who is arguing with you. Again, I remain open minded about your product, but when you take comments as attacks it is really hard to see them as they should be seen ... as requests for information.

I'll repeat Spectator's thoughts ... but in the form of a question ... do you actually have one in the ground in Los Osos? Do you have anyone who has verified that the output (whether you call it discharge or not) is nitrate and pollutant fee? Have you already made an agreement with the RWQCB that guarantees that they are willing to let Los Osos residents sign up for your services?

Until you answer these three questions successfully ... perhaps your participating in blogs here is little more than a waste of your and our time.

Mike said...

Mark seems to think he can ram the Reclamator down LO throat whether we like it or not, or maybe he is saying even if the County produces a different system for LO, then individuals could opt out and invest in his Reclamator system.

and I love his response that if we don't want his system, then we're screwed.

I would hope that the County is reading Marks assinine responses while selecting the best soluton for Los Osos. I don't care "if" the Reclamator is the so called "best" solution, Mark's arrogant attitude comes through loud and clear, hasn't Los Osos put up with enough of these hystronics for too long? The calm, professional approach of the County is much preferred to the pitch of a snakeoil salesman. This has been a circus way too long, we don't need another sideshow!!!!

Spectator said...

And to a more serious subject. The Canadian Health Care System.

I have been fishing for many years on the Salmon Seeker, in the Queen Charlotte Islands. It is part of the Oak Bay Marine Group. I recommend this highly.

Those on the boat (clients) are an overwhelming majority of Canadians. The guides are all Canadians. Always the question of Canadian health care comes up. Usually the comment is that it is better than nothing. Everyone gripes.

Last Sunday here in Boquete, Panama for brunch was a Canadian General Practioner and his wife, a nurse, and two other Canadian friends. I discussed the article that Ann published ( not her work ), and they said it was pure rubbish, looking at the system from the inside and the outside.

I have heard this before many times and from many people. The major complaint seems not to be of the quality of care, but the timing needed to schedule doctors, access to doctors of choice, and the problem of getting care approved by the insurer (government). Seems to be massive red tape. The government at all times wishes not to pay and hopes to stall so the problem will go away. Sometimes it does. The clients go elsewhere, like to the US, Mexico, or here to Panama.

All Canadians complain of the high cost in TAXES of the system and wish they were getting their money's worth. Of course this is universal everywhere. All taxpayers complain, and those who do not pay always want more.

Here in Panama I am getting 4 crowns, and a root plane job, for $1640 American dollars by an American trained dental surgeon, using modern equipment. Dental x-rays cost $10. Teeth whitening, the same system as used by the best in the US costs $250. My wife was quoted $2000 in Atascadero.

In my estimation, a vacation here to get dental work or a medical procedure would produce significant savings, like 75% from American costs.

Panamanian citizens get medical and dental services subsidized by the government with a very small co-pay. Propane is subsidized in 20 lb. tanks. ( five gallons ) $5.00. Taxes are very low, most of the financing comes from a 7.5% sales tax. The balance comes from canal revenue and a corporate fee of $500a year on each corporation. There are more corporations here than citizens. One can ride 400 miles in a modern bus for $9.00. Taxis are $1.50 within a district of five square miles. We have a housekeeper here that does everything for $2.00 an hour, is happy, does not complain, works six days a week, is a single mom with 2 young children, and gets along well in English. I tip her in fresh fish, and she is very grateful, as am I, because I catch far more fish that any three families can consume. It is against the law for me to sell it.

Churadogs said...

Maria sez:"Thanks Ann as usual and again, I apologize to you but I jumped in late and will take the discussion elsewhere.

5:24 PM, February 20, 2008"

No apologies necessary, this thread/discussion was very interesting and certainly better than the usual silly name calling that had been going on from various "anonymice." Thanks for referencing the reports over at the AES website, folks can go over there for more info as well.

Mike sez:"Mark seems to think he can ram the Reclamator down LO throat whether we like it or not, or maybe he is saying even if the County produces a different system for LO, then individuals could opt out and invest in his Reclamator system."

Actually, you touch on a HUGE problem. If the Reclamator doesn't "discharge" (definitions again) then people in the PZ would be free to buy one and wouldn't have to hook up to the sewer because they're not violating 83-13. That would mean no community collection system would or could be built. (to be economical it's all or nothing.) so if it's isn't "legally" required i.e. no discharge, you wouldn'g have to hook up to anything. But it all goes back to somebody somewhere deciding what the word "discharge" means. so we're back on square one.

Watershed Mark said...

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

*PG-13 said...

ShedHead said > You have not been informed as completely as has Ms. Kelly.
She has been receiving plenty of information via email which when taken together will provide the basis on which to form a competent decision. I have presented information on our website and on blog.


Mark has made multiple references to his email distributions implying that they contain more information than is available elsewhere. And that if you had been receiving them you would know much more and wouldn't be asking such asinine questions. I have read those emails and the truth is they are no more edifying or forthcoming than anything else he publishes in these comments. They're all just more of the same.

And his blog? He refers to his blog as if it is a source of content. Check it out. As I write this there are only three blog entries: two of them consisting of short quotes (one Aristotle and one Margaret Mead) and the other a screed list of questionable and unsubstantiated claims presented as 'Facts'. Visitor comments help to make up for the lack of content in his blogs. But, much like here, there are a lot of questions and no logically connected fact-based responses. Just more of the same. He just doesn't get it.

Mark, we want to believe. Most of us - at least I think most of us - would love a technically advanced, cheap, on-site system to be the final solution. What's not to like about that? But, assuming public buy-in is an important factor in the process, you are becoming your own worst enemy. The way in which you communicate, the arrogance, the with-holding of facts (assuming there are facts), the unwillingness to give a straightforward answer to legitimate questions, it all adds up to 'Snake Oil Salesman'. Don't you see that? How many times do you need to hear this from how many people before it sinks in?

Of course, as you have previously pointed out, none of this is important. Your campaign is based on legal technicality and not on performance or public buy-in. In which case I wonder why you bother to blog at all? The less the public knows about the Wrecklamator and the less their involvement in the process the easier your path to success.

ShedHead says > Blogging to aynonmous persons is really not the proper venue to exchange information. But it may have some benefit.

For somebody who only began commenting on blogs fairly recently and who only started publishing his own blog 10 days ago you still have a lot to learn about blogging. This is the way most blogs work. If you don't like it you can change your blog to work differently. (See Settings/Permissions in your blog dashboard. You can make commentors identify themselves in order to play on your blog.) Please quit suggesting that the blogosphere is wrong because it doesn't work the way you want it to work. Grow up, learn about blogs and quit whining.

Sewertoons said...

Off the NSF website:

http://www.nsf.org/Certified/Common/Company.asp?Program=WSTWTR

All listings for NSF certified residential wastewater treatment systems are found here. Why isn't the Wrecklamator listed? Maybe it didn't qualify?

Watershed Mark said...

Shark, 13, MIKE and to All:

Minds like parachutes, only work when they are open.

The Certified Engineering Report is "equivalent" to any other "engineered" system that will be proposed to the CCRWQCB, sans all reports/studies/consulting fees and homeowner paid on-site unfunded mandate "connection" costs required to "permit" the digging and installation of leaking (exfiltration of infiltration) pipes through the public right of way to a centralized "virgin"/new permitable waste treatment and effluent disposal site.

The WaterBoard and County know this and if you had industry or regulatory experience, you would too.
If this seems arrogant, sorry, facts are facts. Don't shoot the messenger.

Those of you who think you are not getting the information or demonstration you need to make a decision to have AES DES LLC assume the responsibility for your discharge and do not want to initiate service (at this time) are free to continue with the County's current study process as to whether it will "take" the LOSTDEP.

Fortunately those who don't want to go with the leaky and costly County collection conveyance agenda, do have a choice to hire AES DES LLC to assume the liability for their discharge.

Details on the installation of the first installation will be posted before the end of February 2008.

If someone has been convinced to continue with the sewerage and the "on-site" cost estimates (no actual contractual arrangement) the current County's consulting engineer is mandating you will need wait well past the 2011 WaterBoard deadline to cease your discharge.

We continue to work with the WaterBoard as we have the only technology that by law eliminates waste discharges at the source which satisfies the "pre-treatment" requirements mandated in US Code 33/26 while providing tertiary treatment to MCLG standards on-site/at the source and qualifies for 75% federal grant assistance.

I understand they should have a "reply within a week or two."

Sewertoons said...
Off the NSF website:

http://www.nsf.org/Certified/Common/Company.asp?Program=WSTWTR

All listings for NSF certified residential wastewater treatment systems are found here. Why isn't the Wrecklamator listed? Maybe it didn't qualify?

WSM Says-Because it isn't a "residential wastewater treatment system(s)" and it isn't for sale.

The company who will use it to eliminate the discharge of pollutants already knows what it can do...The founder invented it.

I understand that in California there is no requirement for NSF Certification. (how about those one million and counting, legally permitted polluting septic systems?)

Shark Inlet said...

Nice slogan Mark ...

Too bad that ... yet again ... you don't bother actually providing the details that several here have asked for.

Please don't waste our time by saying ... yet again ... that we need simply have faith and trust in you and your system and your reading of the laws.

We already know that you think you are the savior of our town. If you want us to believe, you should provide a reason for hope. At least Jesus offered miracles as proof of his divinity. What can you offer as evidence that you are anything more than someone offering false hope?

I would note that saying "hey, I e-mailed the evidence to some" isn't proof. Proof is proof and claims of authority are not.

Hopefully you'll take this message in the spirit it was intended and ... rather than arguing with me ... you can offer us the evidence you say that you have yet you have never provided us.

Watershed Mark said...

Shark,
You are being very gentlemanly or lady-like Sharks go both ways and I appreciate you interest and your suggestions.

I guess if you are not happy or satisfied with what has been provided so far you can simply ait to see if the county will agree to eliminate your discharge by 2011.

Meanwhile the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution on step as planned.

Perhaps we can get together and test the waters at the upcoming opening/ribbon cutting of the first installation.
Be certain to bring your Nitrogen test kit, I'll have mine.

I'm thinking coffee and bran muffins, what do you say?

*PG-13 said...

ShedHead said > Details on the installation of the first installation will be posted before the end of February 2008.

Cool. Looking forward to it. Meanwhile, how are the Reclamators working at the Semonsen Residence and Von's? These are two local installations noted in the AES engineering report, section 13. Why aren't these installations being discussed? Surely they're being closely monitored. Can't we learn anything from them? I'm presuming they're not exactly the same product being 'promulgated' but can't we learn anything from them?

> Perhaps we can get together and test the waters at the upcoming opening/ribbon cutting of the first installation. Be certain to bring your Nitrogen test kit, I'll have mine.

Dang. I was gonna bring a bottle and sip some Scotch & discharge's. < sigh >

> I'm thinking coffee and bran muffins, what do you say?

Bran muffins? OMG! Here's the Big Event. Cutting the ribbon on new sewer technology and you're pushing bran muffins? I think you guys really need a marketing department.

Watershed Mark said...

Blogketing by Mark.

Sewertoons said...

mark says in reply to my question about the wrecklamator not having a cert by the NSF:

"WSM Says-Because it isn't a "residential wastewater treatment system(s)" and it isn't for sale."

It isn't a residential wastewater treatment system? So it will NOT treat wastewater coming out of my drains and it is not for people's homes?

I was just thinking some institution of note would have some validation or verification of what you offer us residents. Guess not.

Watershed Mark said...

how are the Reclamators working at the Semonsen Residence -15 years ago sold Bob the equipment he installed it, no permit was issued for its installation, it was an upgrade to an existing system. Think Porter-Cologne 13360 here. We don't operate that system and have never been called for any parts, service or problems. We stand behind the technology and don't even know where he lives. The technology is the retro fit of the BESTEP 10 (the RECLAMATOR predecessor) into his existing septic system".

and Von's? Store# 312..Los Osos sewage treatment project AES achieving exemption status from the basin plan septic tank prohibition by demonstration of an engineered system that allows no net increase in waste stream nutrients that would affect water quality...presented to CCRWQB by the Vons companies and the Sewage problems solvers on December 8th. 1996

We hear it still there. This "permitted" CCRWQB demonstration project was built/installed on March 21-25 1996. The test commenced in May of 1996 and ended August 20th. 1996. Influent characteristics BOD 750 mg/l , 800 gpd, TSS 350, TN 64 mg/l Effluent Goal was Tertiary Quality

These are two local installations noted in the AES engineering report, section 13. -I love your hot links!

Why aren't these installations being discussed? -They are now...

Surely they're being closely monitored. -Not by us.

Can't we learn anything from them? -The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution ...

I'm presuming they're not exactly the same product being 'promulgated' but can't we learn anything from them? -You are CORRECT!

Watershed Mark said...

Toons wrote; It isn't a residential wastewater treatment system? So it will NOT treat wastewater coming out of my drains and it is not for people's homes?

WSM says- Treated water is for disposal, We purify for beneficial reuse.
The RECLAMATOR is a brand of Water Harvester, the latest household appliance... Think water softner, dishwasher, refrigerator, freezer/ice maker, here.

CHAPTER 4.5. ONSITE SEWAGE TREATMENT SYSTEMS

§ 13290. Definitions

For the purposes of this chapter: (b) “Onsite sewage treatment systems” includes individual disposal systems, community collection and disposal systems, and alternative collection and disposal systems that use subsurface disposal.

CHAPTER 4.6. ONSITE WATER HARVESTER SYSTEM(S) ......................Coming soon...;-)

CHAPTER 4.7. FAIRNESS AND DUE PROCESS

*PG-13 said...

ShedHead says The Reclamator is not a residential wastewater treatment system but is instead an appliance, a residential Water Harvester. The RWH purifies household sewage for beneficial reuse. It does not discharge effluent but rather produces harvest water. But the harvested water can't be reused right out of the spigot. It requires additional treatment to be safe for household reuse. However the harvest water it produces is clean enough to be considered a commodity. So we pay an up-front fee to lease the appliance from AES (with the help of subsidized government funds) and AES sells the harvested water back to the water companies when they pump it out of the ground.

I gotta say. It's a brilliant business model. All the parsing of language aside, on paper it looks good. But, as usual, the devil is in the details. And the list of details in this one is huge. If we started now and worked straight through we might have a fairly comprehensive list of items needing resolution by this time next week. Not the least of which is the parties involved aren't even talking the same language. Paradigm shifts often spawn new language in order to describe the new paradigm. Old lingo just doesn't work anymore and new terminology is needed. Add to this the glacial speed of legal process. And the apparent lack of quantified data to prove the effectiveness and durability of the new technology. And, .... and, .... and, ...

I'm reminded of Professor Harold Hill in the Music Man. Remember how he sold his goods? (Video here.) Does anybody else see a resemblance between Professor Hill and Watershed Mark? Mark, can you sing?

Fact: I personally believe something like the Reclamator is the effluent technology of the future. But it's technology. Technology has to show that it works. Proof is important. Indeed, its everything. Unproven technology as often than not leads to disaster. We've got a bad situation here. So, how can we make it worse? I know let's commit to some unproven technology. The Wrecklamator team can parse the legal lingo however they wish but in the end they have to prove their product works and works over time. I want to believe. But I'm from Missouri.

Watershed Mark said...

prove their product works and works over time- Like leaky polluting sewerage and septic tanks?

13- The technology is proven beyond doubt, but I realize tht peeking through the key hole of you closet you don't have the requiste knowledge, training or certification to really know how the device andthe process works.

Sit back and watch the county's process and compare that with the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution, then "you make the call" when youare ready.

If a county ~P~I~P~E~ isever built you can always disconnect at some point in the future after you have enough "time" to make your evaluation.

Oh yes there is TROUBLE. Technology and the law that supports its promulgation and use will solve that trouble...

I know "this isn't what you are looking for, want, need etc...

You will just have to be patient a little longer...

BTW Did you just receive an email in the blind from me to Supervisor Gibson, titled; LOSTDEP on the County's Budget?/Face the Facts?
You have said you have seen all my stuff...

Do you get it directly from me are is it re-e'd to you? I love technology! to the tune of Randy Newman's "I Love L.A."...

Check out www.sing365.com Usethe first nane of the artist to find their lyrics... I Love L.A.:-)

Sewertoons said...

Thank you to all of the logical minds above in this thread: maria, shark, spectator, mike, *pg-13!

WSM says- "Treated water is for disposal, We purify for beneficial reuse.
The RECLAMATOR is a brand of Water Harvester, the latest household appliance... Think water softner, dishwasher, refrigerator, freezer/ice maker, here."

My "water softner, dishwasher, refrigerator, freezer/ice maker" do not PURIFY water. What point are you trying to make?

Water softeners ADD something to the water and unless you have the enclosed tank kind, they USE water in the process; dishwashers USE water and make it contaminated with food and soap; refrigerators - ? OK, they CHILL water -- so???; freezers change water into another state (SAME water tho, nothing added or taken away) which changes back to the liquid state if removed from the freezer; ice makers are a mechanical way to form frozen cubes out of water, but need the freezer part to work unless they are free standing (again, the water is only changed temporarily).

No how exactly do any of these relate to a Wrecklamator??? The end use of "beneficial re-use" can also be defined as a TYPE of "disposal." That doesn't change the process into a whole new meaning of "harvested water" except in YOUR head, mark. So - where is the proof OUTSIDE OF YOUR HEAD that this thing works?

Sewertoons said...

mark, you reply to *pg-13,

"13- The technology is proven beyond doubt, but I realize tht peeking through the key hole of you closet you don't have the requiste knowledge, training or certification to really know how the device andthe process works."

Well, mark, why don't you do for us what the County is doing and has done for a year now - write reports with diagrams, footnotes- you know - citing other studies that have been done? As they do, you could write reports in plain English that explain how various technologies work and explain the expected outcomes? THEY seem to be able to do this, why can't you? You really insult your intended market with your talking down to us. What's wrong, can't you see us as intelligent people capable of understanding what you write? How do you ever expect we'd be willing to sign on to your service if you treat us like idiots? Do people like to be treated like they are stupid? Do you?

Tip: Your browser may have a feature you can check (Safari - under edit, spelling and grammar, Firefox - it's an add-on) that will tip you on spelling mistakes.

Mike said...

Very nice! Mark needs a "pat on the head". I doubt he will get it though, we are afterall only a bunch of hicks in the sticks. There might be a high school graduate out here, maybe a school teacher or two. But are we "really" capable of understanding the technobabble, certainly not the laws pertaining to Clean Water Acts or some silly concepts that not even the post recall LOCSD has been able to understand, i.e.; compromise and financial management. We have had a full parade of clowns, trolls and gnomes propose many alternative, even "holistic" waste water treatment technologies, even discussions of our magic sand and the jurassic aged fermenting veggie gas pocket pollution source, or was it the thousands of dairy cows or the Morro Bay Power Plant. But, along comes the Reclamator, the technology of the future! Of course it will cleanse the aquifier, make a fortune for the investor subscribers and for a "little" more, Mark can make us believe the State, County and Fed EPA will bless his little on-site water harvester and by adding a little hepa filter, we'll have as much drinking water as we can pee down the toilet. And never mind the "details", they are way tooooo complex for this mere hamlet to ever understand. Just trust Mark and sign his contract. Go ahead Ann, sign right there on the dotted line, we're all waiting for your endorsement of the RECLAMATOR.

Watershed Mark said...

Tip: will tip you on spelling mistakes. -Thank you young lady for this!!


An appliance is a device, complete and stand alone that is the point. It is not a leaking conveyance system that transports the pollution to a "factory". The water that is produced from this "appiance" is new water/harvest water/ultra filtration permeate and it is a resource of value which can be reused onsite. We use appliance because it best describes what the device is and more imortantly what it is not.


Effluent which is treated for disposal is not the same quality as our appliance end product- The RECLAMATOR water harvester produces a resource of value. While effluent for disposal is not.


If you or anyone wants to pay a government entity fora service to take your polluted water so they can treat it to a standard that is either for disposal or for re-use that they can sell using a leaky collection conveyance system, be my guest. All the studies in the world won't change the fact that you will be over paying for a service which deprives you of your water. Which is a good thing for the government but it is not in your best interest. As water supplies tighten up you will pay more and be subject to using less. Remember the link I provided to the SLO County Public Improvement Standard (SLOCO PIS) published in Nov. 2007 for "sewerage": 500 gallons per day, per mile, per diameter inch of pipe. 40 miles at ten inches is 200,000 gallons per day of raw sewage leaking into the drinking water aquifer. That figure is for vtesting purposes and oncethe pipe is buried and suject to settling and shift there is no way of measuring how much is leaking/polluting. How long do roads last before they need repair? The County's TAC refuses to discuss the matter... GO County study process.


So - where is the proof OUTSIDE OF YOUR HEAD that this thing works?-


The Certified Engineering Report on our website provides everything that the county process will provide only without the pipe and all the studies regulatory permitting that is required with building in the municipal right of way. Think septic tank R&R , a one day event per home. No environmental impact...using about the same or less energy as a refrigerator.


The County has spent upwards of $2 million dollars and just approve another $4 million dollars it doesn't have to pay for a study process it does not need to solve the LOSTDEP legally using BADCT for far less money, energy and time. If there is interest in the citizens of Los Osos or whomever to want to pay for a study, just specify what kind of study you would like and I'll be happy to get you a bid.


A better approach would be to ask the County TAC why they haven't been and aren't more proactive. The TAC is staffed by volunteers who will actually be paying for their decisions. We understand why the County isn't interested and we are working those issues "vigorously" to insure a best available result for the citizens of LO-BP which will save the citizens, time, energy, money and water.


I will continue to address questions and concerns of everyone who is interested as there are very thoughtful concerns and questions being raised and will look forward to those concerns and questions being equally applied to the sewerage the county is studying just to keep it all interesting.

Toons, I consider you and Maria stand up citizens as you have a profile and Maria is solid enough to actually use her own name. If you are who I think you are I say good on you for being open and honest enough to not hide in a closet and throw down smack because you can get away with it without anyone knowing for sure who you are. You and I have had our "go arounds" in the past and you have stood tall. I respect your ideas, thoughts, integrity and commitment to defend them. Your kindness regarding my grammar and spelling along with your thoughtful and helpful suggestions with the browser settings demonstrates your intelligence and ability to rise above the past. Kudos to you. You are a "Mother Bear" in the Battle of Los Osos, in the War of Water. (This is a high compliment) Think "Book/Movie" here...

I would like to use the name you wish to be called, I have used toons as a term of endearment(its cute), if you like I will use "sewertoons" out of respect to you from now on. But if you are who I think you are I would feel badly if I called you "sewertoons to your face, unless you wanted me to. Something about that name just doesn't fit.

I blogged early on under Bear Excrement, but dropped it as it was offensive. Although I have never met Pandora Bash-Karner, I hope to very soon.. Given her history and what is happening with the county's current consulting engineer study process and the RECLAMATOR LOSTDEP Process I think it was she who posed as that very disturbed "Gadfly". Nothing else accounts but the Gibson/Bash Karner connection. I understand they took a picture with the gateway Bears that recently appeared in the Bay News. Maybe Gibson was venting and Gadfly had to try to fly from pie to pie... But who cares, Flies only last a few days anyway...

Please feel free to stop by my blog or we can hammer things out here on Ann's Land as long as she is OK with it. Ann is a Mother Bear and has earned a respected place in "the Battle of Los Osos". She is a true first quality Mother Bear. Being a Bear myself I understand and appreciate fully the nature of thesituation and why you and others want to protect your young/selves...

Watershed Mark said...

Mike:
I hope you will be able to stop by to see the RECLAMATOR when it is on-line.
I working on some ideas of how to best "show and tell"...

Watershed Mark said...

Bull and Bear Fights
Among the popular pastimes of Mexican California were horse races, bull fights, and bull and bear fights. For the latter, fearless vaqueros would capture a California grizzly bear, take him to a bull ring, and tie or chain his hindleg to the foreleg of a long-horned California bull. Spectators would then place their bets, sit back, and wait for the swatting, goring, and biting to begin. Whoever survived the fight was declared the winner.


"The bull began the fight by charging the grizzly with his horns. A blow from the grizzly's paw did not stop the onset. In a moment they were rolling over each other in the dust. But the bear finally, though badly gored, got his teeth fastened into the bull's neck, and bull was pulled to his knees. The bull's tongue hung out. This was what the bear wanted. He got his claw into the bull's mouth, pulled the tongue out still further, and then bit it off. With this the bull gave up the contest, and soon after both animals were dispatched."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bull+and+bear+fighting+in+california&btnG=Google+Search

As cruel as this so called "sport" was, the governments current method of eliminating the bdischarge of pollutants is worse.

The torturing of God's creatures is man worse when it is done by man onto man.

Los Osos-Baywood Parkcitizens are in the ground and chain breaking position to protect itself using technology and law to solve a timeless problem of managing waste and insuring water supply in the bargain.

FACT.

*PG-13 said...

ShedHead said > The water that is produced from this "appiance" is new water/harvest water/ultra filtration permeate and it is a resource of value which can be reused onsite..

Hey! Wait a second. Previously you said it couldn't be re-used on-site. Please clarify.

And then ShedHead said > I would like to use the name you wish to be called, I have used toons as a term of endearment(its cute), if you like I will use "sewertoons" out of respect to you from now on. But if you are who I think you are I would feel badly if I called you "sewertoons to your face, unless you wanted me to. Something about that name just doesn't fit.

And, may I suggest, you hold the mush and terms of endearment for a less public space. The Moma Bear/Baby Bear apologetics is a total turn-off. 'Toons, do you really care how Mark addresses you? On the net or to your face?

Watershed Mark said...

13- why not consider getting out of that stuffy closet.

Accountabilty is where it is going to be...skate to where the puck will be, or not.

Thanks for your opinions...got blog?

Leaching off everyone else is tiresome, even for a newbie like me, especially when you don't answer direct questions.. Got Mail?

Think:BTW Did you just receive an email in the blind from me to Supervisor Gibson, titled; LOSTDEP on the County's Budget?/Face the Facts?
You have said you have seen all my stuff...

Do you get it directly from me are is it re-e'd to you? I love technology! to the tune of Randy Newman's "I Love L.A."..

See what I mean...

Watershed Mark said...

I know I am pushing the envelope Ann.

Because..Time flys, Remember death...


----- Original Message -----
From: Mark Low
To: Harvey Packard ; Piper Reilly
Cc: TAC_Chair@sbcglobal.net ; Roger Briggs ; pogren@co.slo.ca.us ; Mark Hutchinson ; John Waddell ; BGibson@co.slo.ca.us ; Strauss.Alexis@epamail.epa.gov ; tom@aes-usa.com ; Patel, Sona - SLO ; Lisa Schicker ; LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us ; samsperry@orrick.com ; Mark Low
Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2008 7:13 AM
Subject: Re: Drought


Dear Ms. Piper,

Your continuing thoughtful attention to our water crisis and your interest in best available technology solutions is most appreciated and should serve as a prime example to everyone as everybody needs water. Focusing on technology which removes pollutants from water is what United States Code 33/26 and Porter-Cologne are all about.

It is troubling that there are so many who talk the talk but so few who actually walk the walk regarding water conservation and energy consumption as the federal and state law is so clear about what should be happening, specifically in the LOSTDEP.

We will continue our proper public promulgation until all administrative remedies are exhausted, while working to "lay out" the case in the court of public opinion. Today's internet "technology" provides "tools and abilities" never before available to inform and educate the public who will ultimately pay the cost of everything government does or fails to do.

As a mother of four children your work is particularly inspiring, uplifting and very motivating for me and my group. We will work with even more certainty and renewed commitment believing that we are in exactly the right place at precisely the right time with the correct technology and plan to best solve the LOSTDEP issues.

I will look forward with great hope of meeting you and your family at the first installation of the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. Your thoughts and ideals regarding the LOSTDEP and Drought are directly on target. Perhaps you may consider public service at such time as may be appropriate and after you accomplish the day to day portion of your most difficult and world changing task of early years motherhood, the toughest job on the planet, second to being a good father. I will continue to pray that our current elected and unelected work hard to follow the letter and sprit of the law and their job description. The citizens must be willing to hold them accountable and as you are a sterling example, I remain hopeful.

From one bear to another the government is wasting our time, energy, money and water with its consulting engineer leaking and polluting sewerage agenda, which by law, must cease and desist.

There is nothing as powerful as an "Idea" whose time has come.
The continuing lack of any meaningful response from government is "proof".

Rodger Briggs has never addressed himself to the attached Briggs Response document.

If I can be of any assistance to your work, please do not hesitate to ask.
You are most assuredly a tremendous help with mine.

Warm Regards,

Mark
480.363.1154
Bull and Bear Fights
Among the popular pastimes of Mexican California were horse races, bull fights, and bull and bear fights. For the latter, fearless vaqueros would capture a California grizzly bear, take him to a bull ring, and tie or chain his hindleg to the foreleg of a long-horned California bull. Spectators would then place their bets, sit back, and wait for the swatting, goring, and biting to begin. Whoever survived the fight was declared the winner.

"The bull began the fight by charging the grizzly with his horns. A blow from the grizzly's paw did not stop the onset. In a moment they were rolling over each other in the dust. But the bear finally, though badly gored, got his teeth fastened into the bull's neck, and bull was pulled to his knees. The bull's tongue hung out. This was what the bear wanted. He got his claw into the bull's mouth, pulled the tongue out still further, and then bit it off. With this the bull gave up the contest, and soon after both animals were dispatched."

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bull+and+bear+fighting+in+california&btnG=Google+Search

As cruel as this so called "sport" was, the government's current method of eliminating the discharge of pollutants is worse.

The torturing of God's creatures is made worse when it is done by man onto man.

Los Osos-Baywood Park citizens are in the ground and chain breaking position to protect themselves using technology and law to solve a timeless problem of managing waste and insuring water supply in the bargain.

FACT.

----- Original Message -----
From: Piper Reilly
To: Harvey Packard
Cc: Lisa Schicker ; Mark Low
Sent: Friday, February 22, 2008 8:29 AM
Subject: Drought


Dear Mr. Packard

Our global/local problems are not going away.

2008-02-21 Brazil hosts climate change forum
Encouraged that all major U.S. presidential candidates vow to protect the environment, lawmakers from industrialized nations and big emerging economies met Wednesday to craft solutions to global warming and rising deforestation.

U.S. Water Crisis to Unleash Flood of Profits
By Nick Hodge

If any more evidence were needed to substantiate my claims of a looming U.S. water shortage, I think the last two weeks offered plenty.
On Valentine's Eve, a story broke that went viral on the web almost instantly. It's worrisome, however, that there was so much interest in the story for where it was happening, rather than why it was happening or how to solve it.
At issue, in case you're wondering, is a study by two researchers at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California San Diego. The study claims that Lake Mead--Las Vegas's prime source of water--will run dry in 13 years if usage is not reduced.
In case you were wondering, Lake Mead is the largest man-made lake and reservoir in the U.S. And yes, it's the resultant body of water from the construction of the Hoover Dam--one of the stalwart symbols in American iconography.
But if the researchers are right, that may no longer be the case. The study concludes that there's a 10% chance Lake Mead will run dry in six years and a 50% chance it will be gone by 2021.
Of course, that's not the outcome the researchers were looking for. In fact, they "had not expected the problem to be so severe and so up close to us in time."
Ultimately, the problem boils down to taking more out the reservoir than is going in. And that problem will be exacerbated as water levels in the Colorado River, which is fed by annual snowmelt, fluctuate with climate change.
Water Shortages are Becoming Reality.


If I recall correctly, our town and several neighboring towns, have been given a very bleak forecast like Lake Mead's.

It is now crystal clear, that it is imperative, that we utilize the best available technologies immediately, in order to have a future.

Thank You,

Piper Reilly

Watershed Mark said...

13-Did you receive this from me directly or did you get it re-e-d'?

Got truth?

Sewertoons said...

*pg-13, thank you and I sure don't!! (His confusing information leads me to believe he does not know who I am, and is just fishing.)

Watershed Mark said...

ShedHead said > The water that is produced from this "appiance" is new water/harvest water/ultra filtration permeate and it is a resource of value which can be reused onsite..

Hey! Wait a second. Previously you said it couldn't be re-used on-site. Please clarify.

And then ShedHead said > I would like to use the name you wish to be called, I have used toons as a term of endearment(its cute), if you like I will use "sewertoons" out of respect to you from now on. But if you are who I think you are I would feel badly if I called you "sewertoons to your face, unless you wanted me to. Something about that name just doesn't fit.

And, may I suggest,-sure, why not. You seem to be right on top of the spelling, Thirteen! But a bit off on your understanding of what the "end product" of our "appliance" actually is, but it's still early.
Looks like I'll have to give you some more time...Please cut and paste all the relevant discussion you are using on "re-use" then we can talk, or not.

toons: attend meetings with Maria?\

Sorry for the confusion regarding the "picture" of the gateway "Bears", it was the "Sun-Buelletin" not the Bay News. I just received an electronic scan of it today. You all knew it but never corrected me, interesting...
Maybe you just are not reading closely enough?

Watershed Mark said...

Magnitude of the problem
The United States Government has set a goal of upgrading every municipal treatment and collection system such that an overflow event would be expected in any given community no more frequently than every five years. Costs to achieve this goal approximate 88 billion dollars. This cost is in addition to approximately ten billion dollars already invested in the USA. Although the volume of untreated sewage discharged to the environment is less than .01 percent of all treated sewage in the USA, the total volume amounts to several billion US gallons per annum and accounts for thousands of cases of gastrointestinal illness each year.[1] Advanced European countries and Japan have similar or somewhat larger percentages of SSO events.

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

Los Osos/Baywood Park- World Visionaries.(stayed off the ~P~I~P~E~)

*PG-13 said...

ShedHead said > I know I am pushing the envelope Ann.
Followed by two long letters from Mark to ....

Mark, you knew what you were doing. You even apologized in advance. And then you went and did it. Again.

Please see numerous previous hints that this is the kind of stuff best published on your own blog. With a short succinct note and a link to your blog posted here.

I'm curious. What is so difficult to understand about this concept? Do you really think your cloying letter to Ms Piper or your personal correspondence with Mr Packard is so important to the rest of us? Really? The internet exists because of hotlinks. The intention is not to copy every little thing over and over again. The net works best with links. Links are how search engines map the net. You are doing yourself, all of us and the entire net a favor by linking off to your own blog. That's the way it works. What about this is so difficult to grasp?

Watershed Mark said...

13: Did you get the email? As an internent troll you seem to want to be able say you are getting "my stuff" then when I ask you to demonstrate that you "got it" you ignore my inquiry.

I just want to be clear that you are not interested in having all the information. But with no identy, no problems.

Don't worry be happy. We are working hard, even and especially for you.

I am sorry that I do not fit into to that which you think is my place in the world.

Technology makes it possible. It's going to be a beautiful day and a good one to come out of your closet.

Watershed Mark said...

13: But a bit off on your understanding of what the "end product" of our "appliance" actually is, but it's still early.
Looks like I'll have to give you some more time...Please cut and paste all the relevant discussion you are using on "re-use" then we can talk, or not.

Anytime you are ready. This is a standing offer...

*PG-13 said...

No, I don't receive your emails directly. A friend forwards them to me. Nor do I want to receive them. They end up getting posted here anyway.

ShedHead > Please cut and paste all the relevant discussion you are using on "re-use" then we can talk, or not.

Or not. Thanks. Talking to you is like shouting into the wind. Although that's a lot more fun. And way more productive.

Watershed Mark said...

No, I don't receive your emails directly. Thank you for answering...
A friend forwards them to me. "All of them"?
Nor do I want to receive them. "If you don't know, how can you competently comment"?
They end up getting posted here anyway. "No they don't"

ShedHead > Please cut and paste all the relevant discussion you are using on "re-use" then we can talk, or not.

Or not. Thanks. Talking to you is like shouting into the wind. Although that's a lot more fun. And way more productive.

I understand your frustration.
We shall continue to continue the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution...