Pages

Wednesday, March 05, 2008

Misc. Sewer News

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 4th, 2008


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

--------San Luis Obispo Ca.

Will The "Los Osos 50" Get Their Day in Court?

Regional Water Board Fights California Citizen’s who question individual enforcement and the conduct of the Regional Water Board.

The Los Osos 50, singled out for enforcement by Water Board prosecution staff, simply want their day in Court. -----Judge La Barbara to Hear Arguments Wednesday March 5, 2008 in San Luis Obispo Superior Court Division 2.

In a series of legal maneuvers State has filed several actions to try to stop the Los Osos Citizen’s appeal from being heard. Shaunna Sullivan, the attorney representing the community, will defend the need for the Court to hear the appeal. The citizens’ appeal was filed in Superior Court following a refusal by the State Water Board to review the actions by the Regional Water Board over a year ago.

In 2006 the Regional Board launched random enforcement against a handful of homeowners. Los Osos Citizens’ filed a defensive lawsuit in May 2007. Appealing the actions and conduct of the Regional Board, they claim abused regulatory authority, and did not comply with basic due process and constitutional protections. The Water Board wranglings insist the Central Coast Regional Water Board doesn’t have to follow their adopted hearing requirements, or those set forth in the Administrative Procedures Act. The confusing and protracted 18 month enforcement hearing process saw numerous changes to the rules, and hearings canceled to allow the prosecution to restart their case because of claims of bias by the hearing panel.

[the current] civil rights lawsuit simply requests that the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board vacate the orders they issued last year. The orders threaten to move 15,000 residents from their homes based on several requirements spelled out in the orders. These include fines, up to $5000 per day if homeowners do not connect to a sewer by 2011. However, the County schedule for the sewer won't be available to connect to in the required timeframe. The Water Board Chairman further threatened all properties in Los Osos at the May 2007 water board meeting. All properties are subject to retroactive fines of up to $5000 per day (each) all the way back to 1988, saying such enforcement was the board’s discretion.

“The punitive and abusive actions by the Regional Water Board is completely out of control, and we believe these orders and their conduct is illegal,” said the spokesperson for Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF, the non profit group representing the community.
END
More Information: www.pzldf.org

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

Other Contacts:
Sullivan & Associates
Shaunna Sullivan, www.Sullivan.law.com
805- 528-3355
Central Coast RWQCB
Michael Thomas
805-788-3571
mthomas@waterboards.ca.gov

Meanwhile:



ATTENTION!!
ALL PROPERTY AND BUSINESS OWNERS
YOU ARE CURRENTLY SUBJECT TO WATER BOARD ENFORCEMENT
(PASS ALONG TO BUSINESSES AND RESIDENTS PLEASE)

There are (3) three categories of enforcement actions in Los Osos. You fall into one of them.
Orders for randomly selected homeowners=(1)Cease and Desist (CDO's) (2) Clean up and Abatement Orders (CAO-'settlements') (3) Notice of Violation (NOV) whatever your status, benefits may accrue from the current filed appeal of water board enforcement. (Case No CV070472)

Status of Beneficially Interested Party: The 'parties' to the appeal, including the individuals, the Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD), and Citizens for Clean Water (aka) PZLDF provide important benefits that could be made available to you. The appeal requests relief from the individual enforcement.The lifting of all enforcement orders from individuals properties is a primary goal of the enforcement appeal filed by Sullivan and Associates in behalf of the community.

The appeal requests the Cease and desist orders (CDO's) and Settlement (Clean up and Abatement orders) are vacated, along with the blanket NOV's. As a beneficially interested party this would apply to you under the LOCSD or PZLDF parties to the appeal.

If you would like to be considered as a 'beneficially interested party' please Call l 534-1913 or 459-4535 for more information.

[The appeal ] is not connected to the sewer project, and in no way to interferes with the County sewer project, assessments, or agreements. It seeks to protect due process and property rights) www.pzldf.org


Meanwhile, Part Duh:

As Sewerville fans know, the Tribune featured a front page Part B story, complete with photo, of Tom Murphy installing a Reclamator in the yard of his home. This, of course, will have absolutely NO EFFECT on anything or anyone in any way shape or form. Harvey Packard, nay! not even Roger Briggs of the RWQCB will say a thing. No NOVs or CAOs, zip, nada. Mr. Murphy may or may not submit paperwork asking for a waiver, and if he does, what will come back is bland gobbledygook about having to connect to the sewer in 2011 or face prosecution for being a “discharger.” Translation? “Waltz me around again, Willy.”

Unless Mr. Murphy has or will shortly file a legal case in a “real” court, which, judging from the PZLDF case (above) will be dragged out for YEARS and YEARS to turn into another version of Dicken’s “Bleak House.”

The stupidity of all of this is astounding. All that nice money being spent by the RWQCB and not so much as one drop of water has been cleaned up. Think about what could have been accomplished if, on day one, the RWQCB had helped the CSD and citizens form a Septic Management District (as they were begged to do by citizens and the CSD) and start a coherent program of Pump, Inspect, Repair. How many septics and/or poorly functioning leach fields would have been discovered and ”repaired” by now, thereby actually affecting WATER?

Instead, The Two Suit Boys from Sacramento, Jerry Brown’s Boys, do get to fly down to SLOTown for some R & R, nice trip on a nice day, and if there’s delays in the court proceedings and they have to fly back again and again, which is what happened last time since Judge La Barbara didn't have time to read the various pleadings and asked everyone to come back a few weeks later, well, it’s not on their nickel, it’s YOURS, and if it doesn’t clean up so much as one drop of water, well, who cares? It’s just tax money being spent by a broke state to support a horribly misguided and bungled CYA “prosecution” that was originally the result of government bungling, lies and failure in the first place. Jeesh!

21 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

There are (3) three categories of enforcement actions in Los Osos. You fall into one of them.
Orders for randomly selected homeowners=(1)Cease and Desist (CDO's) (2) Clean up and Abatement Orders (CAO-'settlements') (3) Notice of Violation (NOV) whatever your status, benefits may accrue from the current filed appeal of water board enforcement. (Case No CV070472)

Don't forget these CDO's dated November 19, 1999:
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER NO 99-53

Waste Discharger Identification No. 3-401027001

ORDER REQUIRING

LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

BAYRIDGE ESTATES,

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY,

TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCHARGING WASTES IN

VIOLATION OF A PROHIBITION OF DISCHARGE PRESCRIBED BY THE

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD,

CENTRAL COAST REGION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CENTRAL COAST REGION

81 Higuera Street, Suite 200

San Luis Obispo, California 93401

CEASE AND DESIST ORDER NO 99-54

Waste Discharger Identification No. 3-40000N08

ORDER REQUIRING

LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

BAYWOOD PARK WATER DIVISION

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCHARGING WASTES IN

VIOLATION OF A PROHIBITION OF DISCHARGE PRESCRIBED BY THE

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD,

CENTRAL COAST REGION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CENTRAL COAST REGION

81 Higuera Street, Suite 200

San Luis Obispo, California 93401

CEASE AND DESIST ORDER NO 99-55

Waste Discharger Identification No. 3-40000N07

ORDER REQUIRING

LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

BAYWOOD PARK/LOS OSOS FIRE DISTRICT

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCHARGING WASTES IN

VIOLATION OF A PROHIBITION OF DISCHARGE PRESCRIBED BY THE

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD,

CENTRAL COAST REGION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

CENTRAL COAST REGION

81 Higuera Street, Suite 200

San Luis Obispo, California 93401

CEASE AND DESIST ORDER NO 99-56

Waste Discharger Identification No. 3-401024001

ORDER REQUIRING

LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT

VISTA DE ORO SUBDIVISION

SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY

TO CEASE AND DESIST FROM DISCHARGING WASTES IN

VIOLATION OF A PROHIBITION OF DISCHARGE PRESCRIBED BY THE

CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD,

CENTRAL COAST REGION



Shauna should be interested in knowing that these CDO recipients are being treated very differently....under the law. They appear to be in a different "class", all together. Or at least being treated/handled that way. 220 dischargers with CDO's since 1999 and no similar enforcement action by the CCRWQCB. What's up with that?

Ann,
forget about that tired old walz stuff.

Think Randy Newman..I love L.O....WE LOVE IT!

Hate New York City
It's cold and it's damp
And all the people dressed like monkeys
Let's leave Chicago to the Eskimos
That town's a little bit too rugged
For you and me, babe

Rollin' down Imperial Highway
With a big nasty redhead at my side
Santa Ana winds blowin' hot from the north
And we was born to ride
Roll down the window, put down the top
Crank up the Beach Boys, baby
Don't let the music stop
We're gonna ride it 'til we just can't ride it no more
From the South Bay to the Valley
From the West Side to the East Side
Everybody's very happy
'Cause the sun is shining all the time
Looks like another perfect day
I love L.A. (We love it)
I love L.A. (We love it)
We love it

Look at that mountain
Look at those trees
Look at that bum over there, man
He's down on his knees
Look at these women
There ain't nothin' like em nowhere
Century Boulevard (We love it)
Victory Boulevard (We love it)
Santa Monica Boulevard (We love it)
Sixth Street (We love it, we love it, we love it)
We love L.A.

I love L.A. (We love it)
I Love L.A. (We love it)
I Love L.A. (We love it)

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Randy-Newman-lyrics/959C7DBB91E2046C48256A37004E8CE1

Ron said...

"The punitive and abusive actions by the Regional Water Board is completely out of control, and we believe these orders and their conduct is illegal"

For me, the worst part about Paavo Ogren and Bruce Gibson using the 45 CDO households to officially play the blame game (because they favor people like Roger Briggs and Pandora Nash-Karner over the citizens of Los Osos) when they popped out that terribly worded Resolution a few weeks back, that was intended to support those 45 households, is that now, BECAUSE they tried to play the blame game with that Resolution, those 45 households don't get the official backing of the County.

See what I mean there?

If Bruce and Paavo had NOT tried to play the blame game with that Resolution, then it would have passed, but since they used those 45 households to try and officially blame the post-recall board for the train wreck by calling them a "failure," now those 45 households don't have the County's official support.

Dis-gust-ing.

If anyone in Los Osos is interested in launching a recall campaign against Gibson, you'll have the official support of SewerWatch.

Mark wrote:

"220 dischargers with CDO's since 1999 and no similar enforcement action by the CCRWQCB. What's up with that?"

What a great question. Roger? Answer?

"Look at these women
There ain't nothin' like em nowhere"


As someone born and raised in above mentioned "South Bay," boy, can I attest to that.

Watershed Mark said...

Wednesday, March 5, 2008
PZ RECLAMATOR "Permitsion"
Permit+Permission= "Permitsion"

A recent reversal by local and state government has cleared the way for RECLAMATOR Solution in the Prohibition Zone.

USC Title 33 Chapter 26 underpins everything Porter-Cologne/WaterBoard and County "permitsion".

Looks like another perfect day...
I Love L.O. WE LOVE IT!

TCG said...

The CDO receipients have had a very unfortunate and unjustified plight since day one. However, I believe that the County process, not litigation or resolutions from non-jurisdictional agencies, will provide the ultimate solution for them.

By now, we should have all learned that, right or wrong, continuing to get in the faces of the bumbling RWQCB will not expedite the elimination of those orders.

In my opinion, the receipients--even moreso than the others in the prohibition zone--should embrace and support what the County is doing to develope a project (and what some 80% of the vote of property owners has already endorsed).

It makes no sense to me when I see CDO receipients protesting steps that the County is taking to move forward with the project in the manner that they said they would before the vote.

Ron said...

My previous post got me a-thinkin'... so, I just analyzed Gibson's job performance, SewerWatch style.

Check it: sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Mark wrote:

"A recent reversal by local and state government has cleared the way for RECLAMATOR Solution in the Prohibition Zone."

You need to supply a link, like *PG-13 taught ya.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann says:
"Think about what could have been accomplished if, on day one, the RWQCB had helped the CSD and citizens form a Septic Management District (as they were begged to do by citizens and the CSD) and start a coherent program of Pump, Inspect, Repair."

State Senator Abel Moldonado was helping the CSD and was willing to broker the necessary legislation to do just that. (It would/will take legislation to create a Septic Management District.) He asked the CSD Board to vote on going ahead. 4 voted yes and Julie Tacker voted no. He was unable to proceed without the Board's unanimous approval - so if you are casting blame here Ms. Calhoun…

Shark Inlet said...

Toons,

I remember that as well, but with some differences ... I remember both Lisa and Julie voting against the LOCSD forming a septic management district.

Hmmm....

I also remember some bluster here trying to explain such a no vote. Something like "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." Presumably septic management would be a good thing, even if the LOCSD was to run the district and even if they would ultimately process the septage at a LOCSD plant.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

You are probably right shark. The bluster came after the blunder.

There are regs coming down that those not on a sewer will need to be held to higher standards than are present now. The question now on septic management is the cost to do so. One the PZ is taken care of with a sewer, there will be only 15% or less of the community not hooked up. Can a plan be managed with so few properties bringing in revenue? Can a bankrupt CSD handle it?

Watershed Mark said...

Toons wrote:There are regs coming down that those not on a sewer will need to be held to higher standards than are present now.

Got ink?

Also how can a leaky sewer be installed in the PZ where "discharges" are prohibited?

Remember SLOCO PIS...500 gpd/per mile/per diameter inch ~P~I~P~E~?

Interesting that toons is the source of "regs coming down" interesting indeed...

Any "proposed" regulations will be under stringent scrutiny by me and mine. In God we Trust. God Bless America.

Think leaky polluting pipe here...

Churadogs said...

Watershed mark sez:"Shauna should be interested in knowing that these CDO recipients are being treated very differently....under the law. They appear to be in a different "class", all together. Or at least being treated/handled that way. 220 dischargers with CDO's since 1999 and no similar enforcement action by the CCRWQCB. What's up with that?"

sitting through the ACL/CDO hearings, it became immediately clear that the RWQCB operates under the Humpty DUmpty Rules: "When I use a word I say waht it shall mean, neither more nor less." In short, they just make stuff up as they go along and there is, apparently, absolutely NO connection between any cases; spilling tons of percholate into the groundwater get's you "extensions" for clean up while accusations of "polluting" the groundwater with nitrates with NO EVIDENCE gets a homeowner a CDO. CMC dumps X into the National Estuary and gets a, what? $40,000 fine. The CSD dumps, what? Zero into the estuary and gets a $6 million fine? Go figure.

tcg sez:"In my opinion, the receipients--even moreso than the others in the prohibition zone--should embrace and support what the County is doing to develope a project (and what some 80% of the vote of property owners has already endorsed)."

What evidence do you have as to how the CDO recipients voted on the assessment vote, for example, that would allow you to imply that the CDO recipients DON'T support the county project?

Sewertoons sez:"He asked the CSD Board to vote on going ahead. 4 voted yes and Julie Tacker voted no. He was unable to proceed without the Board's unanimous approval - so if you are casting blame here Ms. Calhoun…"

Why would a unaninomous vote be required? By LAW a unanimous vote is required or did Maldanado just want political cover before moving forward? and was that post-recall or pre-recall (There was legislation being proposed on just such a change (and to, if memory serves, expand the Sanitation District to include people outside the PZ) well before the recall. It was shot down because, if memory serves, it involved an "end run" around some key elements in the whole Basin plan that many in the community didn't trust (the old, I smell a rat deal) and Maldanodo got wind of the claims of sniffs of the potential "rattiness" of it and that a battle was brewing and some beans might be spilled and dropped the whole thing forthwith and scampered. Is THAT the resolution you're refering to? (If memory serves, the CSD held a meeting on that in the bay of the Firehouse.It was well before the recall.)

Toons wrote:"There are regs coming down that those not on a sewer will need to be held to higher standards than are present now."

Heard that AB885 has been stalled. Ahs anybody heard different? Thought the draft report was supposed to be finalazed soon. Did it get stuck in some Committee so it can be hacked and gutted to death, out of sight, out of mind? So, dunno anything about regs coming down now. anybody?

Watershed Mark said...

The RECLAMATOR IS ultra compliant with AB 885. Technology and the law which supports its promulgation and use will factor into any further regulatory "efforts".

Watershed Mark said...

political cover will be taking on a whole new meaning when it comes to water. Who will stand against the elimination of pollutants in water while conserving time, energy, money and water?
I can hardly wait to find out.

All the king's horses and all the king's men could not put Humty Dumpty back together again.

As we live in a Constitutional Republic,we are therefore a government of,by and for the people, we/me/you/everyone are essentislly "king". God gaves us rights and the Contitution guarantees them. 'Nuff said.

Watershed Mark said...

Any "proposed" regulations will be under stringent scrutiny by me and mine. In God we Trust. God Bless America.

Think Grizzy Bear UNCHAINED, inside the ring, waiting for the last "bull".

"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."

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Who cares why Moldonado needed a unanimous vote - probably as shark recall, two voted no which really would make him wonder if the board really wanted that plan or not.

Which part of the plan looked like an end run? - if you can recall? Which part of the community objected?

What would have been different if this septic management plan was pursued at a different time or even now for example? Legislation is still required and there will be conditions. There is no point for you to even moan about not having it, as what would be different?

With reduced numbers needing a plan in LO and income needed for LO from any possible source right now, casting a wider net would make sense.

You might want to check out the staff report for the RWQCB's May 9 meeting regarding onsite systems. I wasn't referring to AB-885.

Watershed Mark said...

income needed for LO from any possible source right now, casting a wider net would make sense.

Check out page 39 and page 80 @ http://www.nowastewater.com/documents/section15_miscellaneous.pdf

Then see you local LOCSD Representative and ask some hard questions.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I didn't mean a possibly illegal source, mark - one with unproven technology - you know, the one with the NSF Report pages 2-51 that you won't release?

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Could you please explain why a septic management district was a good idea when the RWQCB should have forced us into one but a bad idea back when Julie and Lisa voted against it but a good idea now. Sure, the basin plan is important, but certainly providing septic management wouldn't hurt the basin.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Maybe it seems like a good idea when having one might mean we wouldn't have to have a sewer - the management plan could replace it. When it was clear that the management plan would not replace the sewer, then why bother?

Watershed Mark said...

I didn't mean a possibly illegal source, mark - one with unproven technology -.........Careful toons, defamation is a very expensive proposition.

As 13 likes to say: there are no anonymous bloggers.

Watershed Mark said...

Septic tanks create more Nitrates than is fed into them vis primary treatment. So replacing them with RECLAMATORS is BADCT, whicj is required by federal statute.

Like replacing an incandescent light buld with a compact florecsent lamp. Which now is also a federal statute.

Watershed Mark said...

13, Toons, Shark, MIKE,

Have you read 83-13 lately?
Have you read 13301,13301.1 and 13360?
Have you read(or even looked at USC 33/26?

Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is:

How is a request/unfunded mandate for sewerage in 83-13 inconsistent with 13360?

How is 13360 inconsistent with C26?

How is the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution compliant with C26 and 13360?

This oppourtunity will self destruct the moment you decide "not to accept" the law as fact.

You can always stick with the county's study of sewerage. If they get one built we will be very happy to sell them 13050 water, should we be "required" to get hooked on the ~P~I~P~E~.

I still wonder how/who will be paying for it as government beaucrates and your elected officials never pay their fair share for the decisions or mistakes they make.
No accountabilty means the citizens pay and pay again.

I practice: Holding those who want to serve the public, accountable, in a lawful and fiduciary manner using the power of internet technology. Pursuit of happiness while thinking of those who will come after me first.

Excellence is an art won by training and habituation. We do not act rightly because we have virtue or excellence, but we rather have those because we have acted rightly. We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
Aristotle Year of Birth: 384 BC Year of Death: 322 BC

Looks like another perfect day.
I Love L.O. WE LOVE IT!