I recently posted an exchange of emails between Mr. Murphy (Reclamator) and myself. Additionally, various people posted comments on the blog entry. The following was an email response cc'd to me from Mr. Murphy that included (following) a copy of Mr. Le Gros' previously posted comments on this website. I have redacted an unnecessary "rudeness" in Mr. Murphy’s intro email to me without altering the sense of it.
I hope your weekend was good.
I was wondering if you would be so kind to post this communication on “Ann’s Land”? This guy [Mr. Le Gros] brings up some really good comments which come from his really [ . . . ] mindset that obviously is based upon agenda driven ignorance. The intelligent ones will enjoy the exchange.
The RECLAMATOR “is not” a “septic system” and DOES NOT “DISCHARGE,” therefore NO “DISCHARGE PERMIT” is required and thus the reason a “building permit” was issued WITHOUT a “DISCHARGE PERMIT.” It is just that simple.
The LOCSD instructed the County to issue the permit. As I have been telling you for the past 7 months, the RECLAMATOR does not require a “DISCHARGE PERMIT.” Now I have just proved it and we still have roadside authorities who continue to suggest it isn’t true…when it is in “red-n-black” ink. Just go to nowastewater.com, it is there for your viewing pleasure.
The “point of my device” is: Me being “connected” to the LOCSD’s collection system and them NOT issuing me an “Exemption from Required Connection” so I can reuse my own water for such things as indirect potable reuse, subsurface irrigation and even toilet flushing, I have a “money tree” as the RECLAMATOR produces “HARVEST WATER”, a BEYOND “recycled water” resource, the such which is defined as water which is a “valuable resource”, my property and subject to purchase under the United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment which requires a government agency to fairly and justly compensate a private citizen at fair market value should the private citizen be obligated to give up his personal property to such government entity. The LOCSD is obligated to pay for all RECLAMATOR harvest water they take just like the County will be obligated to pay for all the RECLAMATOR harvest water if they so stupidly chose to continue with a “dead” publicly owned sewer project that can't be paid for, just go figure, again, it is just that simple…it is “WATER,” not “DISCHARGE.”
The “fair market value” of 5Xs (five times) the Golden State water rate coming into same property is based on Lake Havasu’s latest sewer service rates. He, who owns the facility, owns the reclaimed water (state law). He who owns the water is entitled to be paid provided anyone takes it. This month the water bill was $66 dollars with irrigation turned off. That means the LOCSD would have been owing me approximately $300.00 for my reclaimed “harvest water” this month. Just think feeding solar power back into the “power grid” and associate that model to feeding harvest water back into the POTW “sewer grid”.
In regards to “monitoring” the device, it is monitored by a “ultra-filtration” membrane which is a physical filtration and is not subject to allow non-effluent limitation meeting “discharge” through it. The membrane takes out the “unknown failure possibility” out of the equation. If it fails, it asks for service, again, it is just that simple…it is “fool and foul proof” in regards to permeate quality. When the biological process is functioning, the RECLAMATOR is denitrifying. When the biological process equipment fails, the process is affected and the membrane won’t allow passage thus causing a service signal to go out. No thousands of gallons of untreated sewage and pollutants flow into the bay…ever!
Obviously, Mr. LeGros doesn’t know a RECLAMATOR is required to be installed at each home prior to discharging into a POTW to comply with the “pretreatment requirements” of USC 33/26. Maybe he should read “Facts” then he will have a few of his own as he is running real short on them at present…….Again, with either an “Exemption” or “Payment”, which one or the other must apply, the sewer can’t be funded, thus will NEVER happen. If Mr. LeGros doesn’t get it, then maybe he just needs to ask Mr. Ogren to explain it to him.
The BESTEP 10 was tested by NSF International in 1994 and demonstrated to provide consistent denitrification. No other technology has been successfully able to accomplish this to this day. I am going to provide a computer to the regulatory authorities so they can monitor them all right from their office along with NSF International as NSF is the entity who has agreed to provide daily monitoring of all the systems via wireless technology and internet. Just to show what a really nice guy I am, I’m not even going to charge them for the computers…J
Tom Murphy, Los Osos, CA.
[Mr LeGros had posted] I have some experience regarding the 'permit' issue on the installation of a private septic system on private property; so I'll chime in.I used to own a vacant lot on Bay Vista Lane here in Los Osos. While the property is in the PZ (same as Bayridge Estates), the RWQCB allows building on said vacant lot (Averaged lot size up in that area over 1 acre). When I applied for a building permit from the County Building Department; the ONLY way a building permit could be issued (allowing the private septic system to be installed) was with a DISCHARGE PERMIT from the RWQCB; with the caveat that I provide reports to the RWQCB on the performance of the septic system EACH YEAR OF OPERATION; and pay a $900 processing fee to the RWQCB each year as well.IF Mr. Murphy intends to solely use his reclaimator (not attached to the Bayridge Community septic system), he will be required to get a DISCHARGE PERMIT from the RWQCB.IF Mr Murphy connects his reclaimator to the community systeic system (as he has) he will not be required to get a discharge permit form the RWQCB. But then again, the discharge from his devices is now going into the community septic system....so what is the point of his device at all? He could forgo the device by just having a pipe from hs house to the community sewer.I would be interested if Murphy plans to monitor the discharge from the device as it enteres the community septic system. If he plans to monitor, it would be helpful to know what the loading will be on the device, what tests are to be perfomed; who will do the testing; which labratory will perform the tests; and for how long a time period the monitoring will occur.Regards, Richard LeGros
And Another Murphy Clarification Reply:
In addition to the above exchange, the following email was also in reply to my recent posting of emails between Mr. Murphy of AES (Reclamator) and myself concerning “discharge permits.” If Mr. Murphy lets me know when he has filed his lawsuit, I’ll post that info as well. If nothing is settled in court before 2011, the question will be: Will the RWQCB then issue a CAO and/or CDO to Mr. Murphy? If so, that hearing will be very, very interesting. If they don’t, then that will get even more interesting! Stay tuned.
[Mr. Murphy writes:]
Ann, I just want to clear up one thing. I don’t want a “discharge permit”. I have refused to be issued a “discharge permit”. I am not ever going to accept a “discharge permit”. Furthermore, soon, I will soon be filing a federal injunction against any “discharge permit” being issued in the State of California with all other states to follow…..
The law required best available technology which will eliminate the discharge of pollutants. The RECLAMATOR does this and therefore is the technology which achieves this requirements and as such shall be implemented nationally. They already owe me damages for not specifying it since 1994 (NSF Report showing nitrate reduction) nationally. Now, it is “knowingly” violating the federal law to not require and assist in the application of the RECLAMATOR nationally.
Now, there is no need for the Water Board as they only rule over “discharges” and there will be no more “discharges” allowed…“Disband the Water Board”!!! It is the solution for the State’s deficit.
[ my previous posting] Well, there it is, for now. And so, THWOK! The ball is now in the RWQCB and/or the CSD’s hands. Will they issue an “exemption” from hook up; will they issue a “discharge” permit and if so, what “discharges” will be permitted, ie. So many mgls of this and that, what will it cost per year and require, vis a vis testing & etc.? Will they issue an exemption or discharge permit before or after the sewer’s built, i.e. stall and delay and ignore Mr. Murphy – hey, they’re busy with Morro Bay’s nitrate levels, we’ll get back to you after 2011 or so – and pretend not to notice until after the whole town’s sewered THEN either issue Mr. Murphy a CAO or, heh-heh, decide that, sure, heck, we’ll give him a “discharge” permit, heh-heh, we were just kidding about “discharges” and not permitting any onsites in the PZ? This is a political football that can stay in the air for years! So, stay tuned.