Here We Go Again, or Los Ososology, Redux
As mentioned here previously, the RWQCB is working on a “Stealth” onsite wastewater systems basin plan amendment (0005 & 0006) and, surprise! public comment ends April 7th. (I know, betcha didn’t know anything about it, did you? That's why I call it "stealth." Clueless public. So if you lived outside the Los Osos PZ, or lived in Shandon or Santa Margarita (poor Ron Crawford over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com is having nighmares now) and will wake up a few years down the road to find all kinds of Los Ososological (Ron's term that I'm happily filtching) things coming at you and you say, “What the. . . .????” but it will be too late --- hahahahahahah – so you’ll have to call your lawyer and then it’ll be more Mad Hatter Tea Parties & Torquemada’s Auto de Fes all over again. Sigh.)
By the way, the County WRAC (Water Resources Advisory Committee) will be meeting Wednesday, April 2, 2008, 1:30 pm – 3 pm. in the city/county Library Community Room on 995 Palm St., SLOTown if you want to comment to them on item #4, Proposed Changes to the Basin Plan.
You can also send comments to the RWQCB before April 7th. And attend the May 9th meeting on Aerovista Pl., SLOTown. Not that it will do a lick of good.
The following is my Public Comment on this new Stealth Amendment:
Regional Water quality Control Board
Central Coast Region
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93402
Chairman Young & Board
&Staff
Re: Public Comment on R-3-2008-0005 & 0006 Onsite Wastewater Systems Basin Plan Amendment
Dear Sirs:
The proposed revision to the Basin Plan criteria and waiver for onsite systems appears to include citizens living in Shandon, Tempelton, Santa Margarita, Arroyo Grande, Nipomo as well as Los Osos. To my knowledge, these citizens have no clue this Resolution is under consideration, even though they and their property will be directly affected by its laws.
While this revision has been quietly circulating among various governmental agencies, to my knowledge, no individual citizens whose property will be affected by this has even received so much as a postcard of any hearings, or town hall informational meetings as to just what this proposal entails, or ways to access the revision or when and how to properly submit public input.
(This public media silence is especially puzzling considering the skillful and close way the RWQCB has always worked with the Tribune to get their “facts” and point of view out. In this case, there’s been dead silence in the media. Why?)
That’s another reason that what I see going on here is another "Stealth Resolution," one that quietly skates by on fulfilling the technical letter of the law while missing its spirit entirely. Public comment is supposed to actually include the PUBLIC, not just a quick, cursory run-by past a few governmental agencies and some buried public notices. A brief informal quizzing of a few members of the Los Osos "public" -- a "public" that is far more informed about all things "onsite" than anyone living in Shandon, for example, -- tells me that folks living outsize the PZ out here, who will also be directly impacted by this resolution, don't know anything about it at all.
Therefore, I have to protest this process and request that you hold off on voting on this draft until you can set up a procedure to at least send out postcards to all "the public" that will be impacted by this (i.e. all the septic tank permit holders throughout the county) so they actually are given an opportunity to get informed and make their public comments. After all, it’s their property and their lives that will be impacted the most.
Apparently, you folks learned nothing from your costly Los Osos fiasco. An informed, educated "public" is your ally, not your enemy, to be skirted around with stealth proposals. Yes, a lot of public comment is silly and wastes time, but a lot is -- again -- actually valuable and can often prevent costly blunders later down the line. And spending time on the front end of public policy always saves a whole lot of time -- and lawsuits -- on the back end.
Sincerely,
Ann Calhoun
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(205)
-
▼
March
(17)
- Here We Go Again, or Los Ososology, ReduxAs mentio...
- Los Ososology? Bwa-hahahahRon Crawford, over at ht...
- Reclamator’s Up And Running!The following email ex...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, S...
- Morro Valley Farmers Fined Out of Existence by RWQ...
- Basin Plan Update? The Basin Plan's up for review ...
- THWOK! Mr. Murphy Replies:
- Poor Los Osos...Now In Closed Session
- Guess Who's At The Back Door...With A CDO And A Gun?
- Is That A Registered Sex Offender You're Driving A...
- Permit Me, Please
- Crunch Time
- Stuck At The Corner of Then and Now
- Duh, Duh, Part DuhThe following excerpt is from Th...
- PZLDF's Day In Court, AgainYesterday, Judge LaBarb...
- Misc. Sewer NewsIMMEDIATE RELEASEMarch 4th, 2008CO...
- Yep, It's Official, We're Now A Third World Countr...
-
▼
March
(17)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
96 comments:
When Schwarzenegger signed Blakeslee’s bill into law, his signing message instructed the state not to lend money for the project until the millions borrowed are paid back, or a payment plan is set up.
If the county could not use the revolving-fund loan program, it would have to find money another way, such as through a bond issue, in commercial markets, or through other state and federal grant funding programs.
Notice there that bills are signed into law by legislators and in this case the Governor, unless and until the Legislators and Governor are involved the QCB can't make a law.
If anyone disagrees please cite the law upon which will support your contention.
Looks like things are beginning to get interesting again.
Ann wrote:
"... Los Ososological (Ron's term that I'm happily filtching)..."
No problemo. After all, I filtched "ginormous" from you.
and;
"... will wake up a few years down the road to find all kinds of Los Ososological... "
A few years? The way I see it, by the before the final "ye" comes flying out of the mouth of the final CCWQCB member voting "Aye" to pass those resolutions, Briggs will have determined Garden Farms to have "very poor site conditions."
Bottom line: If you live in SLO County, and your septic tank is anywhere near the groundwater (or "watercourse" as they now term it, for confusion sake), then you can expect ol' Roger to soon be jumping out from behind a bush near you and shouting, "Ahhhhhh, you've been Briggsed!"
"Not that it will do a lick of good. "
That's the sickening part about that whole "untrustworthy, incompetent, ethically unreliable" thing, is that it has such a chilling effect on public input.
If they can just pick up the goalposts anytime they want and move them anywhere they want, and change the meaning of terms AFTER they've already published them in documents, then what's the point of even trying to add public comment? What a complete waste of time.
CCWQCB? Braavo, you've figured out a way to circumvent Democracy, entirely. You win, I guess... if you can call that a victory.
By the way, did anyone else but me notice yesterday that Paavo said that the county is back on the SRF Loan priority list for the LO sewer project?
Hey, Ann, how many times did we say something like, "Look, there's a reason they call it a 'revolving loan.' "?
And how many times did the ones of people responsible for the Tri-W embarrassment, during their anti-recall campaign, say something like, "If we're recalled, we're going to lose the SRF loan and never get it back!"
Two years later, it's back, and THIS TIME, it won't be illegally funding an elaborate public park for Los Osos.
Sucks being right all the time.
"WE" (the post recall LOCSD) did NOT get back the SRF Loan AND "WE"(the post recall LOCSD)LOST the project that "WE"(the post recall LOCSD) NEVER HAD ANY PLAN to produce!!!
"WE"(the post recalled LOCSD) only LIED to the community to get elected and to stop any sewer project, anywhere, at all costs!!!
Ron, dontcha think that the County might have just a tad more clout with the SRF regulators than a dinky town that has a well-documented history of obstructionism? Since the project was handed to them by the state of California, don't you think refusing the SRF loan might look a little bad? Completely different set of circumstances for the old board.
We still have to figure out how to repay the lost money before we get that loan anyway, we are not exactly home free yet.
Ron sez:"No problemo. After all, I filtched "ginormous" from you."
No problemo. I filtched "ginormous" from Bill Benica who likely filched it from Gary Owens?
Ron sez:"Hey, Ann, how many times did we say something like, "Look, there's a reason they call it a 'revolving loan.' "?"
It always was and is a REVOLVING loan. With the bankruptcy judge freeing up the balance of that partial loan, the arbitration can go forward (as it was SUPPOSED to when the contractors walked off the job a couple of years ago)and maybe it can be decided just who breached the contract. That might get interesting. Would love to be a fly on the wall during that phase of the arbitration, if that's included?
Sewertoons sez:"well-documented history of obstructionism"
O.K. Ron, there's that tell-tale phrase and word. Is Toons one of the Pod People? Oh, Noooooooo
"From obstructionists to world visionaries"...From a very thoughtful LO/BP citizen written in September 2007.
Ann wrote:
"No problemo. I filtched "ginormous" from Bill Benica who likely filched it from Gary Owens? "
Bill Benica is a "consultant" at Pandora & Co.. Before the recall, he took phone calls on, and discussed the LO sewer subject during his daily radio talk show, while the entire time he was pulling checks from Nash-Karner as part of her "team."
I first reported on that at this link:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/she-is-los-osos.html
'toons wrote:
"... a dinky town that has a well-documented history of obstructionism?"
Well-documented obstructionism like this?
Ann wrote:
"when the contractors walked off the job"
Did you see some of those numbers associated with that arbitration in the Trib the other day? Oh, my lord.
Look at some of these lumps we're talking about... they blow me away:
The $6 million of county money that the Solution Group made evaporate when they dumped the county's project in 1999.
The $2 million, or whatever, they wasted from 1999 - 2000, chasing their dead-on-arrival ponding project, and that cash came from fire/water funds, according to Coast and Ocean.
Then, from late 2000 to 2005, there was the over $20 million spent on developing the Tri-W embarrassment.
AND THEN, the some $30 million in contracts, that they locked in to build the Tri-W embarrassment.
AND THEN , the $6.5 million "gambling debt" (I filtched that from Bruce Payne (sp?) last week at the BOS. What a great way of putting that! That made me laugh) when they collected and cashed the first SRF check while they were facing a recall, and then were recalled..... one month later. Uuuhhhggg....
And now the Trib is reporting that the entire bankruptcy mess is somewhere around $45 million, and that doesn't even include the $30+ mil spent on development (can't forget about the cost for the county's development)?
I want to filtch another phrase that I've always loved:
A few million dollars here, and a few million dollars there, and pretty soon, it starts to add up to real money.
I mean it, these number blow me away. They're ginormous.
Gee, I think of myself as non-podlike because I can see there was blame enough for ALL "sides," and compassion needed FOR ALL sides, unlike certain bloggers here who see it all in brilliant black and white, with blame only going to one "side."
My well-documented history referred to the 15+ stop-the-sewer/delay-the-sewer lawsuits/appeals between 1983 and 2005. Sorry, I should have specified that.
Ron and Ann,
I continue to be amazed at the way that both of you seems so resilient to explanations.
Take the word "revolving" in the SRF. The word only means that the funds paid back into the program will be used later to finance another project. There is no implication in that word that money will be given to Los Osos at all.
To suggest otherwise (as both of you have regularly done even though it has been explained again and again) is simply dishonest.
Now, I believe that a project for Los Osos should be given SRF consideration and one will likely get at least some money if the County can negotiate the mess.
I don't think, however, that the LOCSD would have been able to stiff the SWRCB on the first SRF and then turn around and expect to get another SRF.
Toons:Don't forget to include the citizens in ALL "sides"...
Shark: Think BADCT, LAW, FACTS and PRETREATMENT when you think financing, any financing...
My well-documented history referred to the 15+ stop-the-sewer/delay-the-sewer lawsuits/appeals between 1983 and 2005. Sorry, I should have specified that.
Toons: What's one more as long as it's the last one...
When Schwarzenegger signed Blakeslee’s bill into law, his signing message instructed the state not to lend money for the project until the millions borrowed are paid back, or a payment plan is set up.
Think BADCT, LAW, FACTS and PRETREATMENT when you think financing, any financing...
Toons: This from the Flows and Loads Feb 21, 2008 http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/TAC/Flow+and+Loadings.pdf
No mention of leakage..Hummm...
The ADWWF expected for the wastewater treatment plant with a
gravity collection system is 1.4 mgd (1.1 mgd ADDWF, plus 0.3 mgd average I/I).
The project team used its experience with sewer master planning in other California cities to
project a PHWWF for Los Osos (Table 5). None of these cities is directly comparable to Los
Osos, since while many of their sewers have sections constructed with modern materials
and construction techniques, they are generally a mix of older and newer construction. Most
collection systems include areas that range from less than 5 years to 50 years or more.
Additionally, each city has some storm drain connections directly to the sewer system. A
peak I/I value of 0.5 mgd was estimated, corresponding to 1.6 (the I/I peaking factor) times
the average I/I value, or 840 gpd/acre. This area-based calculation for peak I/I value is
comparable to the cities with moderate I/I. This estimate would be conservative for Los
Osos, since a new sewer is expected to have low I/I for many years. Therefore the
PHWWF expected for the wastewater treatment plant with a gravity collection system
is 2.5 mgd (2.0 mgd PHDWF plus 0.5 peak I/I.
SLOCO PIS http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/AssetFactory.aspx?did=9362
7. Wastewater disposal
7.2.4 Testing
4. The allowable leakage in the test section shall not exceed 500 gallons
per mile, per 24 hours, per inch diameter of pipe tested at the fivefoot
test head.
5. If it is necessary or desirable to increase the test head above five feet,
the allowable leakage will be increased at the rate of 80 gallons for
each foot of increase in head.
6. Test sections showing leakage in excess of that allowed shall be
repaired or reconstructed as necessary to reduce the leakage to that
specified above, and the line retested, after a minimum period of 24
hours during which no additional water shall be introduced into the
line.
Where is the parity, why isn't exfiltration being discussed by the county'sconsulting engineer or the county TAC? Toons, MIKE?Bear, got your tougne?
This bears repeating;
If you or anyone wants to pay a government entity for a 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.
Mark,
Perhaps you were confused. People haven't been asking you to quote reports about other people's systems but instead have been asking you to provide data on your own system.
Let's make sure you understand the question. Has your device been installed in one location and operational over many years with monthly data on nitrate removal?
Show us the law that requires it.
Where is the county's consulting engineer's "data? There is no law...
I know you love a big leaky polluting `P~I~P~E~...
Hi SharkInlet and Mike,
Why bother to respopnd to Mark. You know that he and his reclamator only produce hogwash. Why not just let the man be? As I blogged before, Mark is not convincing the decision makers, qualified engineers or the lawyers.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Thanks Richard. You are correct.
There will be no meaningful data and statistical analysis from the experimental reclamator installation.
Richard,
From my point of view, Mark should be given repeated opportunities to convince us. Presumably he'll use those opportunities to convince us that he has a workable solution or that he refuses to provide evidence to back up his claims.
So far he's rather convincingly shown us that he's got little evidence to back up his method.
Even if the County has a less than perfect solution, Mark's solution has even less credibility. Every time he points out the deficiencies in the County's plan and in their technical reports I am reminded that he's offered us even less.
Hope that explains my motivation...
Hi SharkInlet,
As usual, your insistance that Mark produce data to support his device is spot on. Mark has asked us to just wait....and wait...and wait for 'results'. Like you, I'll wait too...but I see no need to respond to his postings until the 'wait' is over.
Best Regards, Richard LeGros
You guys are so polite, I envy your patience. Do we really have the time/will to wait for 5 or 10 years until he gets a credible body of data - if indeed he can! He should have been collecting data all along instead of starting now when he is trying to sell us something.
Maybe he was too cheap or too broke to do it, so he didn't; maybe that still applies and he is trying to get community members to pay for that data collection. Or maybe he just didn't think up this great "plan" years and years ago when the data collection should have taken place. The story might be found somewhere if he tried this in other areas of the country - but he refuses to talk about that.
In the sprit of Bwa-hahahaha:
MIKE, Tunes and Shark three blind anonymous mice and a recalled Director...:-)
The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues on step.
Mark,
Don't you get it?
Every time someone asks you for evidence and you reply with name calling and an assurance that your system is works and that we should just wait ... you are proving the point that you're not really engaged in a discussion here and you're turning people off.
I would love it if your devices worked. You've not shown them to work.
I would love the opportunity to water my yard with reclaimed wastewater. You've not yet gotten permission for anyone to do this.
I would love to pay the amount you've claimed they will cost but because your devices aren't yet approved of by the RWQCB as allowable, I can't be sure that your "option" is a really any option at all.
Face it ... until you get your ducks in a row ... you're asking us to trust you and little else ... and you've not yet given us a reason to trust you at all.
We've asked for information and you've called us names. We've asked for data and you've said that we should be patient. We've pointed out that your device has output and you've said that it isn't a "discharge" and so we aren't required to follow state laws.
You've offered us no reason for hope. Again, this is somewhat cult-like. You expect us to treat your pronouncements as if coming from our guru. You don't want to answer questions. You don't seem well suited for business, science or engineering based on your attitude. I'm now wondering whether you're even good at sales because your "work" here has, I'm sure, driven people away from your company far more than it has attracted people to your product.
Sheesh!
Shark wrote: you've said that it isn't a "discharge" and so we aren't required to follow state laws.
Shark, I double dog dare you to cut and paste my words you use in support of your staement above.
I didn't think so...
I would love it if your devices worked. You've not shown them to work....Bla-hahahah. I see you don't Bla-hahahahh understand process.
Now here is a great question: because your devices aren't yet approved of by the RWQCB as allowable...Why is that Shark?
You can trust the government, I prefer to verify and follow the law.
Right is right even if no one else does it-
Juliette Gordon Low
Founder of the Girl Scouts of America
Fine. When the Water Board says your device is compliant with the LAW, then we'll talk.
You haven't been on this blog long enough to realize that Shark DOES understand the process. You're apparently NOT understanding what it is he and the rest of us are wanting to see from you.
PS - how can you ask someone to cut and paste words to support a "staement" and then in the same sentence say "I didn't think so…" This doesn't make sense. You have done it twice now.
Toons:
When I write "I didn't think so..." My point is that it will be impossible for someone to cut and paste my words that support "their statement". I also write "I didn't think so" to conserve time as few on this list answer questions, like "Where is all the leaky polluting big pipe data, that belongs to and is paid for the people?"
The fact that you all do not want to accept the RECLAMATOR Engineering Report means that you do not understand how projects get done.
You seem to be expecting something from me that you do not from the perveyors of leaky sewerage.
Where is the data that supports the sewerage the county's consulting engineer is studying?
Why aren't you asking for it? Think 14th. Amendment here.
If "Shark" is so qualified, why is he ashamed to show his face in public? Why are you?"
Mark,
I dare you to cut-n-paste a quote here that convinces us that you believe your product to produce a discharge.
I double dare you to cut-n-paste a quote of yours where you said that the state law, not just federal law and that you are obliged to follow all state discharge laws.
I double dog dare you to cut-n-paste a quote of yours where you give us evidence that output of your device has been shown to reduce nitrates to an acceptable level.
We take your words at face value, Mark. Do you want that?
Earlier this year you told us your device didn't discharge. Those of who understand conservation of matter immediately knew you were redefining discharge from the commonly accepted definition to something else. I don't know, however, that your definition is the one which would be accepted by those with the authority to interpret state and federal laws would choose to adopt. Even so, you've assured us that because you don't discharge, you are not obligated to get your device approved of by the RWQCB. Presumably there is ... or could be ... a lawsuit over this matter. To tell us you didn't write these things is just plain silly.
We're real people here in Los Osos, so don't try some sort of weasel-word lawyer trick to avoid taking responsibility for what you wrote. Not that you've ever listened to my advice, but I would suggest that you mean what you say and say what you mean.
For all your comments about whether I understand the process or not, you've not yet told us that the RWQCB has approved of your device as a sole treatment method. Why is that? Is it because it doesn't work, because you can't show that it works or because of some vast left-wing conspiracy to keep you from fleecing us?
As for whether I am willing to accept your engineering report or not ... um ... don't you think it is the RWQCB and County who get to make that decision and not me? Even so, I would like to point out that in your engineering report it doesn't show that your device has a long running track record of nitrate removal, something that I would like to see before adopting your device. Why would I want a device which works for one year and then fails repeatedly?
Shark:
I see you couldn't back up your assertion:)
It is impossible to convince someone of something when that person has his mind made up.
Fortunately we have the law to keep things straight.
(This is getting fun) Please cut and paste where I stated " where you said that the state law, not just federal law and that you are obliged to follow all state discharge laws."
I have directed everyone one to the NSF test results to spend time to look for it would be a waste. Can we agree on that?
I write what I mean to say, so of course I expect to be taken seriously and at face value, don't you?
When using the word discharge in the wastewater industry the RECLAMATOR does not "discharge".
I think you may have hit on a potential pertinent point. "Civilians" may not be equipped to handle "the discussion" as evidenced by your attempt to define "discharge" as something other than "waste discharge" or "discharge of waste" etc. So if you cross contaminate general meaning with specific industry related terminology, you'll get into trouble.
I am talking about septic tank discharges that are full of Nitrates, aren't you?
I suggested a while back that you search through the California Water Code for "discharge" to learn how that word is always associated with the word "waste". If you had taken my advice you might not be "discharging" such _____ now...
If you are a real person, why don't you just tell us who you are, why are you hiding, you aren't a weasel, are you??
I am a real person, with a picture on my website, an email address/phone number and a residence in L.O....Do you even live in L.O.?
If only you could question authority with as much vigor as you discharge towards me...Your world would be a better place, pronto Tonto.
As I have stated we are working with QCB3. Stay tuned, or you can just "kick back" and stick with the county's consulting engineer's study of leaky/ polluting and failing treatment plant process. The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues on step.
I thought you were "qualified" discharge your opinion regarding the report???
Shark wrote: Why would I want a device which works for one year and then fails repeatedly?
Precisely my point Shark! Why do you want a big leaky polluting ~P~I~P~E~ and failing Centralized Treatment Facility.
If Sewerage is so great, SHOW ME THE DATA!
I Love L.O.!
Fine mark, sewer pipe - particularly old pipe - can leak - there is I am, sure data to verify this. So what? Show us your device removes nitrates for more than a 6 month period - show us the data to verify that. Show us it is any better. Richard got it right - you are just doing legal maneuvers to try to qualify a product that has no data of its own.
You only show us the last page of the NSF report. How do we know what the parameters of the test were, or if there weren't wild fluctuations in the data under different circumstances just to average what you show us on page 52. How can we know?
Let's just see what the Water Board has to say about what comes out of the Wrecklamator. The Water Board is not the "wastewater industry."
What difference does it make who we are? We don't decide what is "discharge." You are arguing to the wrong crowd.
Hey, I heard Tom state he was "above the law." That sort of talk doesn't exactly win over the hearts and minds of the Water Board types.
If the Water Board says your device DOES in fact DISCHARGE, will you still love L.O. or move on to greener pastures?
Mark,
First, because I chose not to take the time to cut-n-paste something really easy to find doesn't mean that I couldn't do it. You are confused.
Second, your insistence that I want a leaky sewer pipe is just plain wrong. To continue to make this charge shows you are not ready for prime time and should perhaps go back to the minors until you can grow up. Same for your weasel comment.
Third, considering you are the one trying to sell us on your product it is pretty lame for you to continually insult folks asking reasonable questions and then tell us to be patient and to trust you.
However, because our buddy wants a quote ... he wrote: In regards to “permits”, we received a “building permit” to install the RECLAMATOR. The RECLAMATOR doesn’t require a “discharge permit” as the RECLAMATOR doesn’t “discharge” as it is demonstrated to produce “reclaimed water” which contains “nitrates” of less than 7 mg/l (the established “effluent limitation” for the prohibition zone). This means anything over “7” is “effluent” (which is “wastewater”) or a “discharge of waste” and would be subject to “discharge permit” requirements because anything over “7” is considered a “pollutant”. Because my water quality is far less than “7”, there is no “discharge”
I know Gail McPherson has totally confused everyone in LO telling them “discharge” means ANY discharges (most people believing this to also include potable water…, not true). She was wrong, probably because she listened to Briggs or Packard who don’t know what they are talking about and are totally out of bounds of the law with their authoritative actions and statements.
The term “discharge” when used without qualification, means discharge of a pollutant or discharge of pollutants. (USC 33/26 Sec. 1362) When I claim the RECLAMATOR doesn’t discharge and therefore needs NO discharge permit, this means (in the wastewater industry) doesn’t produce pollutants which are of a level which is considered to be “pollutant”. This limit is defined in the US EPA Standard for drinking water. The MCLG states these are non-enforceable public health goals. The RECLAMATOR achieves this goal.
So, it does appear that you've been telling us that you don't need to get a permit because you think that nitrates of 7 or less are allowed. Funny thing ... the RWQCB has, in the past, required discharge permits for nitrate levels below this. Presumably you're gonna tell us that the RWQCB wasn't following the law, but I get the feeling that at best you can argue that the issue is one for the courts. Certainly you don't have a legal precedent on your side which is so strong that the RWQCB has already caved to your demands. Presumably you should also clarify your qualifications to offer legal interpretations of the various laws relevant. Law degree? Didn't think so.
Let me ask you again ... because I note that you didn't answer ... why hasn't your device been approved already by the RWQCB as a sole method for wastewater treatment? Is it because your device doesn't work, because you can't prove it works or because of some grand left-wing conspiracy where you aren't being allowed to fleece us?
Parting comment ... I find it odd that Mark continually refuses to understand that his device is not yet permitted for use by Los Osos residents in lieu of tying in to a community sewer. If he had a RWQCB permit to approve his devices, some of what he writes would make sense, but until then, he seems to simply not understand that folks here in the PZ are reluctant to believe him. After all, if the document he keeps referring us to has many pages but only a few have been provides, we ought to worry. I hope (for the sake of his company and investors) that he has the ability to show the RWQCB the missing pages he doesn't make available to others who ask.
No matter ... as Mark says, we'll find out eventually whether his device is approved by the RWQCB or not like sewers have been in the past and will continue to be. Even if sewers are flawed (and there is no system which is flawless), one does have to admit they are what the County is aiming for because there is not a proven better option available. And if Mark is gonna tell us that his device is proven, I would ask yet again that he show us the proof that his device does remove nitrates and that hundreds of these devices will function for a 10+ year period with only limited failures as sewers do quite well.
To compare a new reclamator to a considerably older pipe as a way of saying reclamators perform better is like comparing the half-mile times of a high-school age runner to one in her 60s. We don't know what will happen to that high-school runner over the next 40 years. Similarly, if reclamators were to have a lifespan of approximately 10 years before they would need an expensive overhaul (perhaps due to unforseen desgign flaws), AES will be around for 12 years at most before they file for bankruptcy protection. Then where would we be?
As I said before, I would love it if these devices worked, worked well, worked cheaply ($50/month is cheap) and if they were approved ... but until they are approved for usage in place of a sewer, we are pretty much locked into the County sewer plan. Mark spending time trying to argue with me (by name calling and saying that is definition of "discharge" is the only one which matters) is wasted time on his part. He ought to be spending time convincing the RWQCB and County that his device is a good choice. He should stop cluttering up Ann's blog with the same old claims (without proof) over and over and over and over when he could make those claims once and them provide proof.
So Mark ... where is your complete report showing the amount if nitrate reduction over the long haul? I would be very happy to offer comments in my area of expertise once the whole report is provided.
Think hope. Think snake oil. Think proof. Think Donkey Kong. Think Obama. Think Libertarian. Think Indian burial ground. Think Stephen King. Think Bull Durham.
Shark:
Presumably, you are very confused.
The QCB received a copy of the 1994 NSF report in early 1995. I have written this at least once before, but you did not "get it".
We are working with the QCB regarding the RECLAMATOR. So stay tuned or not.
Careful Shark, I see again that you make statements/assertions about what I write then cannot back them up, which is putting your reputation for factual discussion at risk.
So, are you a high school science teacher/track coach? The RECLAMATOR is BADCT. It's probably time to get over it.
Remember I can't convince anyone of anything that's one good reason we have "laws".
The law is clear. We are working to illuminate it and the technology called for by it.
Think BADCT SOLUTION here.
Regarding your statement: "I would ask yet again that he show us the proof that his device does remove nitrates and that hundreds of these devices will function for a 10+ year period with only limited failures as sewers do quite well."
Show us the law regarding "the 10+ year period" and the data supporting "sewers do quite well".
Given your propensity to misread and misquote I will need to see your proof. I have already provided mine.
Your "logic" regarding sewerage is truly municipal and speaks volumes to the rut/box you find yourself in:
"There will never be anything permitted unless and until it has been operational in my "permittable territory" for at leas ten years."
Fortunately we have illuminated the laws which make that mindset "failed".
We will be happy to supply RECLAMATED water to any sewerage we may be required to hook up to.
Think "PRETREATMENT".
Hello SharkInlet,
I admire (and support) your sensible insistance that Mark follow the scientific method to demonstrate his device works; however, your attempt to reason with Mark is an impossible task. Mark is a fanatic akin to a cult member; reason has no place in his world view....only belief and trust in his 'regligion'. Just let him stew in his own reclaimate; he has already failed to persuade the decison makers.
Respectfully, Richard LeGros
Toons writes: "Fine mark, sewer pipe - particularly old pipe - can leak - there is I am, sure data to verify this. So what?"
WM says: That data belongs to the people, let's see it.
Toons writes: "Show us your device removes nitrates for more than a 6 month period - show us the data to verify that. Show us it is any better."
WM says: "Show us the law that supports your request.
Toons writes: "You only show us the last page of the NSF report. How do we know what the parameters of the test were, or if there weren't wild fluctuations in the data under different circumstances just to average what you show us on page 52. How can we know?
WM says: QCB has a copy of the NSF report. Show me a system that did better, any system. Where is that L/P sewerage/WWTP data? I know what it shows, so do the "authorities" and so do consulting engineers.
Toons writes: "Let's just see what the Water Board has to say about what comes out of the Wrecklamator. The Water Board is not the "wastewater industry."
WM Says: The QCB is a Quality Control agency. The RECLAMATOR does a GREAT job. What comes out of the RECLAMATOR is "permeate" not "discharge".
Toons writes: "What difference does it make who we are?"
WM says: Toons, You as a citizen are the reason for government, You as a point source of pollutants are the reason for the law that requires you to prevent/eliminate the discharge of pollutants.
Toons writes: "We don't decide what is "discharge."
WM says: The law determines what is a "discharge" is or is not.
Toons writes: "You are arguing to the wrong crowd. "
WM says: I am illuminating what is and therefore what is not, for you, for others and for posterity. Technology in this case, is a beautiful thing.
Toons writes: "Hey, I heard Tom state he was "above the law."
WM says: No man is above he law.
Toons writes: "That sort of talk doesn't exactly win over the hearts and minds of the Water Board types."
WM says: How about this kind of "talk"?:
§ 13263.3. Legislative findings; definitions
(a) The Legislature finds and declares that pollution prevention should be the first step in a hierarchy for reducing pollution and managing wastes, and to achieve environmental stewardship for society. The Legislature also finds and declares that pollution prevention is necessary to support the federal goal of zero discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. (b)(1) For the purposes of this section, “pollution prevention” means any action that causes a net reduction in the use or generation of a hazardous substance or other pollutant that is discharged into water and includes any of the following:
(A) “Input change,” which means a change in raw materials or feedstocks used in a production process or operation so as to reduce, avoid, or eliminate the generation of pollutants discharged in wastewater.
(B) “Operational improvement,” which means improved site management so as to reduce, avoid, or eliminate the generation of pollutants discharged in wastewater.
(C) “Production process change,” which means a change in a process, method, or technique that is used to produce a product or a desired result, including the return of materials or their components for reuse within the existing processes or operations, so as to reduce, avoid, or eliminate the generation of pollutants discharged in wastewater.
(D) “Product reformulation,” which means changes in design, composition, or specifications of end products, including product substitution, so as to reduce, avoid, or eliminate the generation of problem pollutants discharged in wastewater.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “pollution prevention” does not include actions that merely shift a pollutant in wastewater from one environmental medium to another environmental medium, unless clear environmental benefits of such an approach are identified to the satisfaction of the state board, the regional board, or POTW.
Again, think "PRETREATMENT" here. I sure do wish you would download a copy of the California Water Code .... http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf and spend some time and energy to read it as it would make our discussions so much more fruitful.
Toons writes: "If the Water Board says your device DOES in fact DISCHARGE, will you still love L.O. or move on to greener pastures?"
WM says: No need to move on as this is ground zero for the technology that eliminates the discharge of pollutants, reducing the flow of sewage and provides the opportunity for water conservation via the shortest length of purple pipe possible. We will continue to illuminate the law as written. The law is the basis for the QCB. I Love L.O.! WE LOVE IT!!
Mark,
If you gave the RWQCB a copy of this NSF report which proves your device is awesome at removing nitrates, why haven't you made copies of this report available to the public?
Seriously.
If your device is so darn good and if the science supports your position, why not make the entire report public.
Until you do so it is really tough to have a conversation with you.
As for your assertion that your device doesn't discharge because the nitrates are below 7, I don't see any law anywhere that justifies your position. Presumably when you look that law up, you'll find the one that says 10+ years.
Even if the RWQCB is not justified in requesting proof before permitting devices (and if they can't require proof, what role should they have?), I think that folks in our town would not choose your device unless you demonstrate it works for the long haul. The law? The law of common sense.
One more question ... if you got proof that your device is so awesome to the RWQCB in 1996, why have they not yet approved of it's use? Is it because your device doesn't actually work, that you can't prove it works or because of some vast left-wing conspiracy to keep you from fleecing the people of Los Osos?
Think nitrates. Think "Zorro, the Gay Blade". Think weasels on a skewer.
On a 100% related topic, Richard has a really good point. One key aspect of cultlike groups is that they have a guru and questioning any of the guru's pronouncements is considered a proof that one doesn't "get it". Well, I am questioning the Cult of the Reclamator. Like other cult-like groups, there is great hope being offered by this group. However, they've not offered proof here that their device works at all, let alone for a reasonable time frame for our community's needs, we should reject their claims as unfounded. I am sure that if the science is on Mark's side he'll produce it and that a court of law would force the RWQCB to approve Mark's device.
RL:
Please show us the scientific methodology that you used in your support of that failed sewer park project that resulted in your removal from office.
Please provide the "evidence" that supports your claim "he has already failed to persuade the decision makers." I didn't think so.
Have you ever read the California Water Law?
Best,
Mark
Shark:
I think your interest is awesome! However without the requisite knowledge of process, law and politics regarding water and wastewater you are left "presuming".
You seem intent upon assigning me a position which supports yours. Too bad, so sad.
I wrote: The QCB received a copy of the 1994 NSF report in early 1995. I have never stated that I gave them a copy. See what I mean...
We have discussed that the RECLAMATE meets or exceeds MCLG, but it seems you were absent that day.
Like Football, the water biz is a game of inches or rather a business of laws and limits. RECLAMATE easily meets both.
If you'll get a copy of the 1972 Amendment to the 1948 Federal Water Pollution Control Act (an annotated downloadable copy is located on www.NOwastewater.com under the facts tab- "C26") commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (which formed the USEPA) and a copy of the California Water Law located at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf you cwill be in a position to learn that there is no legal basis for your presumption that: Presumably when you look that law up, you'll find the one that says 10+ years.
The technology will allow you to search both documents for your beloved and incorrect, "presumptions" and my vetted positions.
The QCB requires a registered professional engineer's stamp in order to approve a project. Think RECLAMATOR Engineer's report on our homepage.
This fact illusrates part of your problem as you seek to "debate" in an arena you have little knowledge, experience or expertise. I'm not putting you down, Shark just stating facts. You are a citizen who might want to consider directing your energy and effort towards geting more from your government. Demand integrity.
I wonder what "folks" would think about sewerage if they knew the facts. Where is that data? Why won't the government post it? The people paid for it. Think Freedom of Information Act.
Regarding the QCB and the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. Stay tuned.
The RECLAMATOR is the solution to Nitrates, leaky polluting sewerage and failing treatment facilities are not.
I've never tried "Weasel" so I can't comment how it would be on a skewer. Have a look at http://www.broadleafgame.com/presenter/presindex.htm for some good game facts. I think we should let some comments "slide", don't you?
Richard, might want to keep his powder dry or show his science and of course any law he used when he was a director who made his decision to back a sewer park.
I hope it does not get down to a court of law but if that's what it will take, we are fully prepared.
Who will stand against correcting water pollution while conserving time, energy, money and water through the use of BADCT?
mark says:
"I hope it does not get down to a court of law but if that's what it will take, we are fully prepared."
Who will be paying for it? You?
RL:
I guess you have inadvertantly answered that "pending" question: Have you read the Law?
If you are too busy thisafternoon at 2 pm you might want to tune into the SLOCO BOS meeting, open mike period.
Mark,
To answer your questions about the science, law, financing and the governmental permitting process that resulted in the State-approved and financed Tri-W project, I suggest that you:
Please take the time to review the agendas and minutes of CSD Waste Water Committee I served on(for two years), agendas and minutes of CSD Finance Committee I served on and chaired(for two years),the agendas, minutes, staff / engineering consultant reports, and recordings of the CSD board meetings on which I served (for three years), the agendas, staff reports, minutes, and recordings on the County of SLO Planning Commission and BOD meetings addressing and approving the Tri-W project, the adgendas, staff reports, minutes and recordings of the CCC conducted on and approving the Tri-W project, the agendas, staff reports, minutes, and recordings of the RWQCB / SWRCB meetings held regarding and approving the Tri-W project, the many letters reviewing and supporting the Tri-W project by the EPA, the RWQCB, the SWRCB, US fish and Wildlife, Cal Fish and Game, The Council of Native American, and (finally)the engineering peer review of Tri-W in 2003.
The answers are all there for all to read. While I know this is a lot of data to review (you will need, oh, about 4500 hours for review), the quality of the science supporting the Tri-W project is superlative.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Toons:
The citizens of California will pay to defend the inappropriate acions or inactions of is employees.
Were I you I would concern myself with the actions or inactions of government, in other words...DEMAND INTEGRITY.
Spoken like a recalled director.
Sorry, I'm busy and involved in "actually" eliminating pollutants, not transferring then into a leaky polluting collection and failure prone treatment facility.
I could use your recollection of what the cost of the 40 miles of collection system was estimaed o be for the "permitted" sewer park, if you remember and feel like sharing it.
Mark,
First, I find it very sad and very telling the when you ask Richard for the reasons why TriW was selected, he gave you an answer that involved you spending your time and you blew him off, suggesting your method was better. This is all while you castigate others for not having done the research you want them to do.
Second, please remember here that you are in the job of trying to convince ... not us, not the County and not the RWQCB. Please don't suggest that your position ought to be accepted as fact until it is proven wrong. Act like a scientist and prove you are right.
Third ... I notice that (yet again) when I ask you to provide the whole report where you claim your device is proven to work, you neglect to offer that data. I don't care if you gave the RWQCB the copy or whether it was someone else ... I care whether the report shows what you claim it does. Here's a question ... do you even have a copy of the report?
As for engineering reports being "proof" ... I find it interesting that often two engineers disagree. Having found one to put his stamp on your report doesn't mean your device works as advertised. We need long term data to see if the device works the way you want us to believe it will. As for a debate with you ... I don't want one. I would like it if you would be willing to put your data on the table. After all, there some who are qualified to read the report and many who can render an opinion on portions of the analysis. Here's my question ... are you an engineer? A lawyer? A statistician? Do you have a PhD, JD or just an MBA? What are your qualifications to render an opinion?
Think engineering report. Think monkeys flying out of my butt. Think pasta popsicles.
Mark,
Your comments belie your false impressions regarding the Tri-W project. Please take the time to review the documents I suggested; you'll be better informed when you do.
While it has been a great pleasure blogging with you, we have pretty much said all that needs to be said to each other. Good luck with your endeavors. Goodbye.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Richard:
Tri-W would never pass muster now because hindsight is crystal clear. Studying a failed sewerage project is not helpful.
"A great pleasure". Ditto, buddy.
You'll be back...your additcted to the ~P~I~P~E~ and all she represents...
Aren't you going to court soon?
Shark:
Or should I call you "monkey butt"? Popsicles so close to your butt? What are you suggesting?
Like Einstein, I had a hard time in grade school...However, I can read, write and can add 2+2. But what I'm really good at is illuminating stupidity.
Also, I never stopped learning. Engineers, Lawyers and Doctors "practice" their disciplines. The really good ones never point to their credentials but to the problems they are working to solve, at least that has been my "experience".
Sorry Shark, I'm just a simple, yet strong American citizen with a laptop who read and understands the United States Constitution, Federal and State Water Laws.
Oh well, I guess I should give up my efforts to bring forward a technology which revolutionizes the water industry and the way water will be regulated because an anonymous blogging person has asked me for a diploma...just kidding;-)
You won't read the law but chastise me for not studying a failed sewerage project?
Yes I have a copy of the report.
Did you get a chance to see the SLOCO BOS Meeting @ 2 pm today?
The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues on step.
BTW, Harvey Packard and QCB3 Scientist David Lacaro visited RECLAMATOR House this afternoon.
- Harvey Packard during his tour of the RECLAMATOR today stated "I never said it discharges pollutants".
mark says
"Were I you I would concern myself with the actions or inactions of government, in other words...DEMAND INTEGRITY."
OK mark, while I'm demanding integrity, I'll demand some integrity from you. Did you or did you not try this sort of plan in some other states?
Toons,
For the very last time: I will not discuss our efforts in other parts of the world.
I don't work for you, yet.The government andcivil servants do work for the citizens. DEMAND INTEGRITY.
Did you get a chance to see the SLOCO BOS Meeting today?
Mark,
You have a report that you say proves your device works great. Yet you, having been asked repeatedly to show others, haven't done so. Why is that? Scanners aren't hard to operate.
I also find it interesting that you now don't care about credentials but just a few hours ago seemed to care quite a bit. 'Sup with that? Why should credentials matter for others but not for you?
Stop being so coy and tell us what happened at the County BOS meeting. Some of us were unable to attend, watch or listen.
Oh yeah ... Einstein didn't have a hard time in grade school, that's a myth.
We have: - Harvey Packard during his tour of the RECLAMATOR today stated "I never said it discharges pollutants". Doesn't that mean anything to you?!
OK, I'm curious...If you had the entire 1994 NSF report what would you do then? I know what you would do if you thought it terrible, your doing that already.
I want to know what would you do if you found it to be the most compelling document on wastewater treatment you ever read, How would you proceed?
Regarding credentials: Watershed Mark said...
Shark writes: hahahahaha. If you only knew ...
WM says: Shark what or why are you hiding?
More tea?
9:12 PM, April 06, 2008 Shark, I think if you "fairly" review the record, I will give as good as I get. I don't start it...Also this from an off blog Los Ososan: "Somewhere along the line people forgot that the citizens of our country acted in civil disobediance to a tyrannical government."
You can watch the SLOCO BOS meeting(s) here.. http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/clerk/BoardofSupervisors/Live_and_archived_meetings_online.htm
Once you locate the meeting you want click on it then use the "pull down" tab underneath the viewing screen and go to the appropriate time of the meeting. For some reason today's meeting isn't up yet, try tomorrow.
OK, Did the Wright Brothers have pilot's licenses?
Okay Mark ... one by one ...
1 - Harvey Packard's comment ... he will not say that it discharges pollutants. Did he say that there were no pollutants? Did he say that the water was clean, fresh or pure? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, you know.
As to your (very confusing) comments on the NSF report. First off, take a college level writing class or pay attention to what you write. Think "clarity".
If you were asking me what I would do if I owned a copy of some report another person wanted to see ... I would make a copy and give it to them. I think that information is to be shared with all who are curious. Don't you feel the same way? I would hope so and that you would make this report available to others via your scanner. If you don't agree that information should be shared, presumably you will explain why you want us to believe you when you are unwilling to make the material available.
Your confusing comments about credentials and the like ... it is hard to tell what you are cut-n-pasting from your own words, what you are cut-n-pasting from others' comemnts and your own new comments. Perhaps reviewing your Strunk and White or at least using italics, quotes and care will allow you to make your points more clear.
Thanks for the link to the BOS meeting archives. So ... what happened that you want us to see?
As for the Wright Brothers ... they had proof that their device worked. They had folks who saw the thing actually fly. Here's a perhaps much more relevant question ... did Pons and Fleischmann share a Nobel prize in Physics?
Mark,
The link is live now. For others who may have bothered taking the time to follow the link, look for the content in question and evaluate ... I'll summarize and you can figure out whether you wannna spend the time.
Mark's Lawyer guy speaks about 1:49 into the program ... says nothing we haven't heard here before from Mark.
About 2:07 into the show Tom Murphy speaks saying nothing we haven't heard here before other than Murphy claimed that some County guy had seen a Reclamator and that in this one instance the County guy saw that the nitrates were at about 2. Murphy seemed frustrated that the County guy hadn't signed any statement to that effect and that he wanted the County counsel to review the situation.
Presumably if you get that guy out there every month for years and if you show that the device works well without lots of time consuming fussy maintenance, you will have a good case that the Reclamator will be a good alternative to the sewer.
Let us know ...
Shark:
I guess you answered my question, by not answering it. So I'll move on.
I will not be scanning the NSF Report, but be my guest and feel free to keep asking.
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Albert Einstein
You seem to be having trouble tracking the blog...
Given your misconstruing of my question about "how would you proceed" I can understand you situation.
Fortunately everyone can see the movie and come to their own conclusion.
With approximately 500 lbs. of Nitrosamine source per day entering the upper aquifer in LO/BP each day, do you really think it prudent to wait " for years" to correct the problem?
Fortunately the law says different...
mark, you are one of the most evasive and confusing "writers" (cut 'n pasters) I have ever read.
Hey, we'll be waiting for years even if the Wrecklamator is approved.
You could Xerox copies and pass them out, heck, I'd even pay for the costs of Xeroxing a copy for me if you don't want to pay for it. Will you do that?
Harvey Packard said it discharges though, right?
The following excerpts are from the August 14, 2007 San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Meeting
3:07:33 Paavo Ogren- "affordability is more dependent on getting good financing and getting grants than it is on the technologies".
3:07:58 Paavo Ogren-"If there is a technology that clearly beats other technologies because it is by far less expensive, then that technology becomes the new standard"
AES IDEA MBR RECLAMATOR is not only less costly it is superior technology
5:24 Paavo Ogren "when private industry is engaged good things can happen"
I have posted a link to the meeting along with several other "quotes" on www.NOwastewater.blogspot.com
Pollutants are stopped imediately upon installation of the RECLAMATOR.
Sewer leak as long as they last...
I love the way some you are so hung up about the report. It's cute.
You could file a FOA request, that way if and when you got a copy you would really appreciate it.
Toons, I don't put words in people's mouths.
Mark,
In your 7:16pm message tonite, what question do you ask that I did not address in my 7:55 reply?
As for your unwillingness to scan this report and make it available to us ... why the heck not? There is no legitimate reason I can think of for your refusal.
One more question ... would you suggest using leaches as a cure for cancer because it will take too long to find out whether chemotherapy works? I am not saying that your method won't work ... just that you've not shown it to work (but, if your report does prove this, you could clear up all doubt by simply making a copy and letting us all know). Presumably a sewer and WWTF will solve the problem as well. This is somewhat like the choice that would need to be made by someone with Cancer might need to make ... do you go with the tried-n-true method which has some drawbacks ... or do you go with an experimental method which may work but hasn't been proven effective? Both are reasonable choices.
Your insistence that Reclamators are better than a sewer for our town is based in faith and hope and not in science. After all, your method will only help our town if it works longterm ... and you are unwilling to provide evidence to us that it works at all, let alone long term.
Mark, is there any legal reason you are not allowed to make the NSF report public? Please explain if so because unless there is, I'm going to call you out in 2 days if you don't. Cute or not, you've made the claim that this document is what shows your device to be super awesome, so I would like to see it.
FOIA Freedom of information act.
You might get that leaky polluting sewerage and failure prone POTW data, while your at it.
OK, I'm curious...If you had the entire 1994 NSF report what would you do then? I know what you would do if you thought it terrible, your doing that already.
I want to know what would you do if you found it to be the most compelling document on wastewater treatment you ever read, How would you proceed?
Shark writes:what question do you ask that I did not address in my 7:55 reply?
WM says:How would you proceed?
I'm interested what you "Shark Inlet or whoever you are" do with the report if it was the most compelling....
Shark:
LO/BP has a "Nirate" problem.
The NSF report "Nitrogen Series" posted in plain sight on our website demonstrates/proves in the RECLAMATOR as the solution to the LO/BP problem.
NSF did not do nitrogen series testing as part of their normal testing in 1994. That testing protocol was special ordered and paid for by a very forward thinking inventor, Tom Murphy.
The fact the NSF did the testing is the reason we offer it as undeniable proof that the technology works. It did so during the coldest winter on record in Michigan. Cold is hard on the bugs.
Your concern that a biological process design will fail over time is unfounded and demonstrates/proves your lack of understanding.
As harsh as that sounds, facts are stubborn things.
See you in two days...
Mark,
This message will have two parts ... the first part is a response to your 10:24pm comment... the second is a response to your 11:13pm comment.
I wrote the first part after your earlier comment but before reading the second one. I am now going to add some additional comments to reply to your 11:13 addition.
_______________________
Part I (a reply to Mark's 10:24pm comment):
I still don't get your now somewhat revised question, but if you are asking me what I will do after you release the report ... I will attempt to read it and assess how well the report proves that your device will be a longterm solution for Los Osos. If you have a convincing report and if it is clear that the cost will be lower than the cost of any County project, I would hope the County and RWQCB would work with you to allow your solution for our community. After all, the re-use of household wastewater for irrigation purposes could dramatically reduce the amount we pump out of our aquifer during at least three seasons of the year. Presumably if nitrates were also removed by your device as efficiently as, say, the TriW sewer, between your nitrate reduction and then additional nitrate removal in the soil before the water hits the aquifer, we'll clean up the aquifer quite a bit faster.
What would I do with the report? Read it and see how well it matches your story, see how compelling it is and if compelling, ask that the County and RWQCB pursue your option. I would also try to encourage folks I know who are professionals in this area to also read the report and disseminate their conclusions about it.
I do want to add one additional thing. Whether you like my answer or not you should make the report public. You shouldn't even ask me the question about what I would do with the report before releasing it. If you are citing this document as evidence that your device is awesome, it should be something that you would be proud to share ... in its entirety ... with others who ask to see it. Even if you think they'll attempt to pick it apart, the free flow of information is what makes the scientific community great.
_______________________
Part II (a reply to Mark's 11:13pm comment):
Thanks for clarifying what is in this magic report which it sounds like you don't intend to make available to others. Simply put, releasing some but not all of a document doesn't help us determine whether the document does demonstrate your claim. If an unscrupulous inventor (for example) wanted to make their device look far better than it was, they could release tables and selected conclusions from a larger document and neglect to release a full set of conclusions and the associated data. Any refusal by you at this point in time would appear to only damage your ability to convince folks in our town that your method is, indeed, a scientifically sound approach to our problem. After all, science is all about making available all the data and having an open discussion.
Once you provide the report we can look over how well the nitrogen testing demonstrates your claim about your device. Please do so.
As for any concern I may have about whether your device will fail or not and whether that demonstrates my lack of understanding ... systems fail all the time. All systems fail at some one time or another. The question isn't whether your system will fail, but under what circumstances it might. Presumably data that demonstrates these devices do reduce nitrates and will continue to do so for a considerable amount of time when left largely unattended would be required by any reasonable person before having one installed in her yard. You have to sell your device to all sorts of people ... including ones without a solid understanding of all the biological processes involved. Don't insult them by saying that they can't see data just because they aren't experts just like Murphy. After all, you are not an expert ... but you have the information.
Shark, if you would like the contact person's number/E-mail at NSF that assured me that all mark/tom has to do to release the report is to send her an E-mail asking for permission (which is then granted) the information is:
Sharon Steiner
Business Unit Manager
Wastewater Treatment Program
734 827-6846
steiner@nsf.org
You guys & gals crack me up.
Still trying to get data from Mark?
Still trying to communicate with Mark?
Still trying to ...... uh, make sense of anything with Mark?
I once watched a puppy chase his tail for an entire day.
That silly puppy made more progress than any of us have with The Marklemator.
And watching that puppy was far more entertaining.
I've pretty much given up trying to make sense of anything ShedHead might say.
And, I've gotta admit, the quality of my life has improved.
Mark is like bad dope. Why would anybody want to smoke it?
If The Reclamator is half as good at recycling s*** as Mark is we haven't a worry in the world. Just hook him up, stand back, and watch it all go round and round. The more we dump in the rounder it goes. Kinda breaks some basic laws of physics but, hey, this isn't about science. This is The Reclamator!
Lastly, I know I shouldn't. But I can't help myself. And I need a good giggle:
ShedHead said > Like Einstein,... I can read, write and can add 2+2. But what I'm really good at is illuminating stupidity.
Chortle, snicker, Bwa-hahahahahahahah. Oh thank you, thank you. I needed that!
PG,
My reason is simple ... if we give Mark enough rope he'll either use it productively or he'll accidentally hang himself with it.
As far as I can tell from 'Toons recent comment, the ball is entirely in Mark's court and he still has about 2 days to make the report available.
If he doesn't do this, I will view him as a distraction and not a part of the solution until he gets RWQCB approval for his devices to be a sole source of treatment (not pre-treatment as he is now promoting them). Frankly, we don't need reclamators AND a sewer.
Does Mark want to be a distraction or part of the solution. History will ultimately decide that, but he can tell us now that he wants to work with the community by providing information to those who have asked for additional info.
Toons, Shark:
You can tour the RECLAMATOR today 1408 Las Encinas, Bayridge Estates at 1:00pm.
Bonus: Tom will have a copy of the report for you to look at.
Fun, fun, fun, happy, happy, happy...
Shark writes: Frankly, we don't need reclamators AND a sewer.
Actually, by law all points of discharge "your house included" requires prfetreatment prior to discharge into a POTW.
The "Pretreatment" the RECLAMATOR provides is such that sewerage is no longer required.
Mark,
Thanks for making the report available for folks to read. I would be great if you would do that in a way that it isn't time and location restricted. Maybe make a copy and give it to someone who could put it on the internet for you.
That being said, I've got an obligation today at 1pm. When should we expect you to make the report available to all and not just those who take your tour.
If PREtreatment is sufficient to eliminate the need for any treatment ... it would seem that the use of this word may be causing unnecessary confusion. Do you mean to say that the reclamator is intended to be in lieu of a sewer? If so, please let us know when it gets approval for that use.
Sorry Shark perhaps another time.
Shark writes: Do you mean to say that the reclamator is intended to be in lieu of a sewer?
WM says: Wow, why didn't I think of that...;-)
Shark writes: If so, please let us know when it gets approval for that use.
WM says: We will let you know.
Your offer to have "someone" to make copies and pu it on the internet is sweet. Thanks, but we already have a good handle on IT.
13 writes: I once watched a puppy chase his tail for an entire day.
WM says: That must have been some "good stuff" you were smoking that day...
The "reminents of that day" speaks volumes about your point of view this day.
Your funny thoyteen.
Toons:
How about giving us your email address and phone number?
Ahhh, stealing away from my reverie just long enough to add this ....
Shark Inlet said > My reason is simple ... if we give Mark enough rope he'll either use it productively or he'll accidentally hang himself with it.
Silly poster. Look what you just did. You used productive and Mark in the same sentence. So, uh, how many miles of rope does it take before you consider him hung? Accidently or purposefully by his own hand. Good for you. You have waaaaaay more patience than I.
Inlet added > Does Mark want to be a distraction or part of the solution. History will ultimately decide that, but he can tell us now that he wants to work with the community by providing information to those who have asked for additional info.
Egads, how many times must he tell you? Seems he just told you - yet again. Go fish. Over and over and over - waaaaay beyond distraction - Mark says the exact same thing. Never a direct answer. Always an evasion. As if if he offers up the same denials, the same lack of information, the same accusations of ignorance often enough those of us too ignorant to catch their meaning the first time will grok their wisdom on the 20th or 50th or 100th repetition. Talking to a brick wall is more edifying. And more productive. I'm clearly not the only one to expereince this so it must be a contact high ;-)
I do wish him well. And I sincerely hope The Reclamator is everything he says it is. As I mentioned once before, sitting on a Reclamator would offer relief and joy on many different levels. Just thinking about it puts a smile on my face. But I shan't hold my breath. Nor waste any more time. Lovin' Spoonful got it right:
> And even if time ain't really on my side
> It's one of those days for taking a walk outside
> I'm blowing the day to take a walk in the sun
> And fall on my face on somebody's new-mown lawn
Thoyteen:
Pandora's Dream is over.
Reality is a RECLAMATOR.
You know it "works";-)
I know you are "hooked" on the only thing keeping a pipe from injuring LO/BP so perhaps Frank says it better for you about the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution:
I've got you under my skin
I've got you deep in the heart of me
So deep in my heart, that you're really a part of me
I've got you under my skin.
I tried so not to give in I said to myself this affair never will go so well
About you why should I try to resist, when baby I know damn well
I've got you under my skin.
I'd sacrifice anything come what might
For the sake of having you near
In spite of a warning voice that comes in the night
And repeats, repeats in my ear
Don't you know you fool, you never can win
Use your mentality, wake up to reality,
But each time that I do, just the thought of you
Makes me stop before I begin,
Because I've got you under my skin
I would sacrifice anything come what might
for the sake of having you near
in spite of a warning voice
That comes in the night and repeats,
how it yells in my ear
Don't you know you fool, ain't no chance to win
Why not use your mentality,get up wake up to reality
and each time I do, just the thought of you
Makes me stop just before I begin
'Cause I've got you under my skin
and I like You under my skin..
Mark,
Are you saying that you're not going to make a copy of the report available to all who want to read it?
That would be really sad.
You are correct. The rest of the report is irrelavent.
California received a copy of the report from NSF in February 1995.
Anytime a process produces a tertiary quality nitrogen result as demonstrated/proven all other components of treatment have been met.
Don't take my word for it, talk to someone who knows process.
You'll be glad you did.
Get off blog and Giter dun!
So Mark ... yet again you refuse to provide the full details. A casual reader would wonder what you are hiding. Like I've said before, there is no reason you should hide the details from us.
Speaking of "giter dun", why don't you stop blogging so darn much, fire up the scanner and demonstrate your new claim that the remaining portions of the report are irrelevant.
Well ... even if what you say about your report is true ... even if your box is awesome at some point in time, why should we believe it is a great long-term solution?
Your claim that it will work forever just doesn't match my experience with any other product or service. Systems fail. Even if you pay the bill, I would rather not have my yard dug up every two years just because the box needs to be replaced.
How soon, Mark, can we expect the RWQCB to approve your device as a sole source of treatment for homes in the PZ? If it's not awfully darn soon, the County won't have the option of going with your devices. With that in mind, I trust that because you love Los Osos, you won't threaten to derail the County project just because you can't get your ducks in a row quickly enough.
Oh yeah ... one more day to provide the full report to us or else I'm calling you out as a liar. After all, if what you say about the report is true, you should have no hesitance to provide it.
Shark:
A casual reader would be unbiased and would not carry the fear and loathing some have demonstrated. I understand your frustration and suspicions because you obviously do not understand the engineering report and the data in it which supports the RECLAMATOR in the ground in Los Osos pumping out Harvest Water. I know it's allot to digest.
Try to hold your horses until early September 2008 as that is when the county's study process might yield a decision about whether it may or may not "take" responsibilty for your septic tank discharge. Meanwhile the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues on step.
The RECLAMATOR is provided like a water or gas meter as part of the "service". The service provider is responsible for its operation and maintenance. The tank has a very long lifespan. Should any internal components require service or replacement it would be accomplished through the service portals, with no disurbance to your yard and at no cost to you.
You will have a better idea of what a RECLAMATOR is and how it works when you see one in operation. Kind of like seeing the Wright Brothers' device actually fly.
Too bad you missed the opportunity to see one and view the report today. We can try again in the future.
Careful Shark, were you to call me a liar you would not be telling the truth. I have proven everything I have written. Talk it over with someone who knows process, you'll be glad you did.
If the 1994 NSF Report is so important to you, I will suggest, again, that you file a Freedom of Information/Public Records Request with the California EPA/RWQCB as they received a copy of that report in February 1995. Can't you see where we are going here Shark?
I hope you aren't suggesting that we take our legal advice from an anonymous blogger?
Any aggrieved party can litigate at any time, as long as the statute of limitations has not expired.
I Love L.O.
mark, you are very, very evasive. You CAN make that report available to us, yet you won't.
You won't tell us if you have attempted to do business in other states.
You've had this thing since 1994, yet you won't point us to where it is working and the regulators have approved its use for what you intend. Guess the report was so "irrelavant" even you couldn't do anything with it.
Some salesman you are all right.
Liar?
Certainly.
You claim to have proven everything you've written. However, the data on page 52 of the NSF report ... without the context in which they were gathered ... proves nothing. You would thus be a liar.
If you think you've proven something, you're both a liar and confused about what constitutes proof.
If you know that you've not proven your case but make the claim anyways, you're a liar and know that you are.
Could you clear this up? Perhaps releasing the rest of the NSF report (which you have and could release) would help. If you are right that the NSF report does prove the device works, releasing the info would be a good move.
In particular, I want to know the experimental protocol. I would like to know whether the machine was treated like a regular homeowner would treat it? Was any bleach used? Did a real family with kids live in a home attached to the device?
Furthermore, to constitute proof of reclamators, we would need to see data on more than one reclamator and to see if these devices would work for Los Osos we would need to see how well they work over time and what the actual maintenance costs are.
All you've got is a sample of size one ... we have no idea if the one reclamator tested in this report was ... by some luck ... the best one ever or whether it was typical
Biological processes are variable. I would not expect one reclamator to behave exactly the same all the time and I would not expect one to behave exactly the same as another. What sort of variability between reclamators and over time is to be expected?
You still have one day to show us the report and show you are (maybe) not a liar.
The problem here, Mark, is that you've painted yourself into a corner by your strident rhetoric. Had you simply offered up the report some time ago as requested by Sewertoons you would be far better off. Had you not insulted folks here who are carefully evaluating all options, you would be more likely to sell this town on your ideas. Had you even taken the opportunity some 13 years ago to start the process of long term data collection, you would already have some of the data you need to convince.
Your uncomfortable position (having to either offer up the report when you've already told us that you won't or having to essentially admit being a liar) is not our problem. I understand your frustrations and can see that you are suspicious because you don't understand the nature of data and proof (perhaps a statistics class would be helpful ... they are taught at Cuesta). However, you made your own bed here, buddy. So, are you gonna do the right thing and offer up the report? You'll be glad you did.
Shark:
Sticks and stones "may" break my bones but Slander and libel are false or malicious claims that may harm someone's reputation.
In law a legal liability is a situation in which a person is liable, such in situations of tort concerning property or reputation and is therefore responsible to pay compensation for any damage incurred; liability may be civil or criminal.
Knock yourself out. I'll be happy to use the record generated here to support any future efforts, if necessary.
Is anyone really anonymous? Are you sure?
Tick Tock. Call me what you will it won't make it so.
That said, perhaps you can spend a little time and energy to familiarize yourself with the NSF protocol. Toons has provided you with a link.
When you understand wastewater treatment process you'll be much better equipped to handle the information/data/proof that we have provided.
As I have written before, what is located in the engineering report is what is required and is what the county's consulting engineer is spending millions of the county taxpayer dollars to produce. We have our design operational they don't. They seek to use a leaky pipe, we don't. They would need to do "another" study to build a recycled water return line to your home, we don't. They will charge you for that water, we don't. They do not know what the final capital cost or operational cost will be, we do. Their study of sewerage requires pretreatment which at this time appears they are not considering (big mistake). The RECLAMATOR provides pretreatment to beyond tertiary in one tank which is best/BADCT.
Have a look at this list http://www.nowastewater.com/documents/section13_aes_technology_list.pdf
Of course we have a phone list available to "decision makers". We wouldn't want unqualified anonymous bloggers swamping busy people with unqualified questions.
Your interest is admirable, keep up the good work!
Toons' "missing pages" request is a "Red Herring"...
(Red herring (plot device), a technique used in literature to mislead the audience.
I will be extending another opportunity for you and toons to tour the RECLAMATOR soon and will give you a little more advance notice.
Perhaps you could drop me an email or a phone call mark@NOwasewater.com 480.363.1154. I could get you onto my blind copy list so you can learn more.
Or you could reach out to Maria Kelly as she is in the "blind" and has been receiving that information which I want made known.
Not every exchange goes out to the "blind". Mike Green, shoot me an email when you want to tour the RECLAMATOR, anytime brother.
Remember we have a well thought out process, making it known on a blog isn't part of it.
The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues on step.
To Shark, Toons, 13, Mike and Richard:
I am not evasive. Here are the answers to your questions:
> No, no, no, no, not available;
> No, not now;
> Data isn't necessary;
> Proof isn't necessary;
> No, be patient;
> You don't need to see it;
> You wouldn't understand it, I am an expert and you're not;
> What about no don't you understand?:
> You can view selected parts of the report here;
> No thanks, we have all the IT we need;
> I'll show you that page if you visit The Reclamator site for a short, two hour, no-pressure sales presentation on the second Wednesday of every third month at 2:35 PM;
> If I've told you once I've told you a thousand times there is NO DISCHARGE!;
> It's an appliance stupid!;
> No;
And lastly,
> I am not a liar. I am not a liar. I am not a liar. Everything I say is totally true and can be proven;
> No, just believe me.
Pandora:
I see you've got me, under your skin:)
You are free to stick with the pipe.
We want a buyer for our valuable resource should it be built and our customers are forced to "hook up".
...Don't you know you fool, ain't no chance to win
Why not use your mentality,get up wake up to reality
under your skin...:0
Mark,
Only a real *ssh*l* would sue someone over a difference of opinion about the scientific merits of a particular device ... especially when the *ssh*l* refused to provide evidence that would justify his earlier claims and settle the issue once and for all ... you've still got half a day to avoid the problem you've created.
As for your suggestion that I spend time learning the NSF protocol ... didn't you just tell us that you used a different procedure than NSF normally used at the time? Even so, if it is your job to try to convince us that your product is a good idea, you should be the one bending over backwards to explain the protocol and how the protocol should address our concerns.
Certainly, you've made no claim that you've tested multiple devices over multiple years and I would think that that sort of data would be a minimum for proof that reclamators work for Los Osos.
Remember the scientific method? The person making a claim should demonstrate that the claim is supported by data. Your suggestion that you've already proven your case is silly when you've not presented data showing multiple reclamators over multiple years and explained how your measurements would be reflective of what we should expect in Los Osos.
Shark:
Your cute.
Mark,
My cute what?
If you finish your sentences it is a whole lot easier to figure out what you mean!
Oh yeah ... would you either provide your data (in context) or explain why you don't believe in the scientific method or why you believe that we should simply trust you even though you've given us no reason to do so?
Shark:
Why don't you stick with the county's study of leaky polluting and failure prone treatment facility "process".
We want a paying customer for our Harvest Water.
You said you would pay more...:)
When mark doesn't have an answer, he changes the subject! Which is in just about every post. Great salesmanship, mark!
mark said about the County and their sewer system's recycled water,
"They will charge you for that water, we don't."
Wait a minute - you were DEMANDING that the CSD PAY YOU for your Wreclamated water that you were putting into the collection system at Bayview - at 5 or 6 times what you paid to get it from Golden State. Explain that.
You claim to "love" Los Osos and you are tying to shaft the CSD. Most salesmen give out samples - mark charges for them. Good move mark.
AES DES customers get unlimited use of their own water, over and over and over again, they will not pay for their more than once.
A forced hook up would be a "taking" and an oppourtunity to sell the resource of value for fair and just compensation.
The Constitution of the United Ststes provides protection...pretty neat huh?
The LOCSD needs to to the correct and lawful thing.
Mrs. Biggs is a pretty tough cookie mark. Don't count on her agreeing with your definition of "correct and lawful." As a rate-payer of LOCSD water which funds these litigations, I resent you imposing your view on a bankrupt CSD. You don't "love" Los Osos enough to generously back off, do you? No, you'd rather try to make a buck. I can see what a great "service" provider your company would be from this little demonstration..
Don't bother to come back next post with your "plan to save Los Osos" until the Water Board approves your device. We've heard it all ad nauseam.
AES DES customers get unlimited use of their own water, over and over and over again, they will not pay for their water more than once.
Uh, mark, how does that answer my statement about your costing the District money?
The "District" has been offered "Membership" in AES DES LLC, which could make it solvent and secure.
Post a Comment