Steve Paige Checks In On The Stealth Onsite Update
Below, printed with permission, is Steve Paige’s “public comment” on the RWQCB’s stealth basin plan update. Followed by a response by Julie Tacker to my 4/17 posting on the April 22 BOS item regarding Los Osos retrofit program. Apparently Julie takes exception to my comment that you can’t get MORE water out of NO water, which I noted, “becomes especially acute if you keep allowing development outside the PZ” In short, you can retrofit all you want but at some point, if you keep adding people, you simply run out of water. Unless you mean to import more, from somewhere? Julie’s partner is Jeff Edwards, a developer who’s a strong supporter of retrofitting, which thereby allows for. . . . . more. development. As for the retrofit program itself, I say, should have been done years ago, like all things Los Ososian. But if I’m not mistaken, didn’t LOCAC advise the county to stop issuing building permits outside the PZ until such time as an accurate evaluation of what water’s actually here and can be used can be determined? Let’s hope someone from LOCAC is there on the 22nd to raise that issue?
Well, lots to read here. Keep the Sewerites busy over the weekend. Fire up your computers!
Mr. Paige’s comments:
Jerry Brown, Attorney General
Attorney General's Office California
P.O. Box 944255 Sacramento,
Department of Justice Attn: CEQA EXEMPTION COMPLAINT
Summary: Preemptory complaint to Attorney General to insure oversight of actions by the RWQCB3 to comply with GHG mitigation and Environmental Justice narrative guidelines in their environmental analysis for CEQA exemption in Proposed Amendment to the Water Quality Control Plan, Central Coast Basin, Resolution No. R3-2008-00005, Revising Criteria for Onsite Wastewater Systems. (See 22 page personal declaration.)
Dear Attorney General Brown and Staff,
Please read my complaint filed with the RWQCB3 for advanced energy and greenhouse gas mitigation that has been ignored by them. I have proposed the use of advanced methods of source separation of urine and feces using Swedish sequestering toilets and recycling the urine nitrogen into carbon sink forests. I received permitting for source separation as a voluntary mitigation on my property but was ignored when I asked for a Porter Cologne 13269 waiver and cooperation to start a SEP (EXHIBIT 4) program to remove the stigma of CDO’s and potential fines from my property and others in the same financial predicament in the Los Osos prohibition zone.
I surely could use your help. As you are aware under CEQA law the Water Board is supposed to inform the State Secretary, and OPR of any generic substantial form of alternative mitigation. The mitigations I have proposed to your office with this certified mailing early in the CEQA process will surely benefit the residents of the State of California especially farmers and families on septic systems. If your office could assume the role of third party mediator to ripen my claim for Declaratory Relief, your presence would assure advocacy for energy conserving, N recycling source separation and give this infant industry a leg up, if you pardon the pun. Source separation is already well advanced in Europe (EXHIBIT 6). My personal declaration will outline what my beef is and give you insight into the EJ issues associated with Los Osos. I will keep your office up to date as to my CEQA challenge.
I am senior, and sustainability advocate, I have been building passive Solar homes since 1976 in San Luis Obispo County. I am on the Los Osos Community Advisory Council-Land Use Committee and a member of the SLO GreenBuild Alternative Technology Technical Committee. I feel without balanced Porter Cologne enforcement and inclusion of all Nitrogen mitigation options, there can be no realistic critical path energy modeling for the Los Osos Nitrogen mitigation. The State will be stuck with the energy and water impacts of a stacked deck enforcement policy that ignores energy consumption and unnecessary resource expenditures.
Steve Paige General Contractor
Los Osos California 93402
[email, phone address etc. redacted by Ann]l
And Steve’s more complete comments:
CEQA Complaint, Steven Paige
I make the following statements related to my personal experience with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board related to my home at [redacted by Ann] My statements and claims are meant to rectify the RWQCB’s EIR exemption flaws regarding on site wastewater systems addressed in Resolution R3-2008-0005 in general and specifically Attachment D. My statements and claims also affect DOES, like kind low income homeowners, and septic system owners in the County of San Luis Obispo, and owners of septic systems in the “Prohibition Zone” of the Los Osos water basin.
I complain that the Regional Water Quality Control Board Zone Three Staff DOES X through XX hereafter called the RWQCB3 have made errors and omissions in attachment D and omitted information from the State Secretary and Office of Public Records of the State of California. It is vital information relating to Nitrogen mitigation for septic systems based on a generic process of energy efficient, low energy footprint, low GHG, source separation of urine and
feces as an improved mitigation to satisfying order 83-13 relating to nitrogen
removal from wastewater in the Los Osos Prohibition Zone. This also relates to septics outside the Prohibition Zone but in the Los Osos groundwater basin, and area within the groundwater basin circling the prohibition zone where no mitigation is required. Any claims I make towards advancing the generic mitigation of source separation would apply to any septic system in the County of San Luis Obispo as it directly relates to the RWQCB3 basin plan changes for septic systems proposed by them in R3-2008-0005 also.
CEQA- ENVIORMENTAL JUSTICE ISSUES
I complain that the California Environmental Quality Act Substitute Environmental Document Report for Basin Plan Amendment Regarding On site Wastewater Systems (Resolution No. R3-2008-0005) does not meet CEQA requirements for Environmental Justice documentation. The RWQCB3 is responsible for proving to the State Secretary evidence of compliance to Public Resources Code sections 71110, 71111, 71112, and 71113, etc. It has not included Environmental Justice mitigations in its CEQA substitute environmental document “R3-2008-0005 Attachment D” related to the Prohibition zone.
I and others of my like predicament are suffering financial discrimination which is to be avoided as described in above PRC Code where the RWQCB3 is directed by State EPA to:
1) “Conduct our programs, policies, and activities that substantially affect
human health or the environment in a manner that ensures the fair
treatment of people of all races, cultures, and income levels, including
minority populations and low-income populations of the state.”
When I purchased my home in Los Osos in 2003 I was given in my packet of purchasing materials a copy of the “Los Osos Building Moratorium” EXHIBIT 1, a general prohibition from discharging more pollutants controlled by my not being able to add bedrooms or plumbing fixtures on to my house. I am a low income homeowner as evidenced by my historic social security records EXHIBIT 2. I considered this limitation EXHIBIT 1 fair to me and not too excessive a financial burden as a new homeowner in the prohibition zone as the economic impact was known to me and I could live with my house the way it was. I wanted to further contribute to bettering the groundwater quality and voluntarily submitted a plan to the San Luis Obisbo County planning dept to remove nitrogen contamination form my waste stream by 75% to 85% by sequestering urine in a tank and installing a urine toilet to remove the pollutant mentioned in RWQCB3 Order 83-13. I did so by County Permit and Waterboard approval of plans for source separation of urine from feces construction project on my small 25 by 125 foot lot as (seen in plans and all related documents: EXHIBIT 3). After six months of use, on February 25, 2007, I showed the RWQCB3 my pumping and haulage tickets and septic system pumping proof, I requested a Porter Cologne.13269 waiver by certified letter and modified Settlement Agreement EXHIBIT 4. This was before receiving my notice of violation letter EXHIBIT 5 March 21, 2007. I was sent the March 21,2007 letter totally ignoring my environmental mitigation request requiring that my property have ‘zero discharge’ in 2011 or even earlier in 2008. It was as if I had done nothing at all. I did not receive the “fair treatment” mentioned in public resources code for my source separation request that involved PC13269 waiver. My request for financial assistance was also ignored twice. Not only did I receive any cooperation, I received no communication at all justifying my above claim for complete approval of my agreement sent as a condition of the resource handling project.
My urine separation documentation was reviewed by, County Health, County planning, and Harvey Packard RWQCB3 staff and all parties approved the system. I Claim the RWQCB3 does not qualify for exemption from the CEQA process until it presents the full environmental mitigation of source separation of urine and its social and financial impacts for low income homeowners in the prohibition zone, outside the Prohibition Zone but in the Los Osos Groundwater basin, and in the County of San Luis Obispo entirely. By ignoring my request for waiver and SEP program request for paperwork, the RWQCB3 staff hindered the Prohibition Zone community from removing 75 to 80 percent of the Nitrogen in their waste stream per site voluntarily purely for the peace of mind of not facing a CDO. By not presenting to the OPR the inherent energy efficiency and advanced resource management that ‘Source Separation’ of Urine represents, the RWQCB3 has misrepresented its claim for CEQA exemption.
It is an entirely new method of compliance in this County but has been studied in Europe for many years. The ’State of the Art’ of Source Separation in Europe is well advanced as is shown in EXHIBIT 6. The most important study in the group of documents in EXHIBIT 6 is the 78% acceptability of human waste source separation using dual bowl toilets in Europe. Because of the advanced beneficial aspects of source separation relating to water conservation, energy conservation, urine to fertilizer economic regionalism, ESHA impacts, CEQA impacts, and social sustainability, I have sent this complaint to the State Secretary of the EPA, Attorney General Jerry Brown, and OPR preemptively to make them aware of the RWQCB3 staff’s oversight. The County of San Luis Obispo has already agreed to review source separation in the LOWWP EIR and to compare it to other methods of basin nitrogen removal. And San Luis Obisbo GreenBuild Alternative Technology Technical Committee with help and input from Surfrider Foundation and the Sierra Club has agreed to evaluate it energetically with peer review.
PROHIBITION ZONE MODEL CEQA-EJ REVIEW
But before a basin wide source separation program can even be evaluated stakeholders must re-evaluate the prohibition zone model of enforcement because it does not meet Environmental Justice narrative standards. The prohibition zone enforcement model stymies modeling efficient energy solutions with low CO2 footprints for the total groundwater basin. The Prohibition Zone delineation is inherently discriminatory and stands out as a test case for environmental justice narrative Law. It divides equal residential polluters in two classes, lesser property owners and larger property owners where economic discrimination and racial discrimination directly relate to property size as is noted in the LOCSD study and US census data attached EXHIBIT 7. The present basin plan update continues to allow unmitigated pollution outside the prohibition zone. Buried within the proposed basin plan changes are assumed prohibition zone requirements for a continued unscientific ‘zero discharge order’ within the economically disadvantaged prohibition zone area. I claim as fact that it is unfair treatment of the prohibition zone population relating to economic and racial data where the RWQCB3 is required by public resources code environmental justice law to:
2) “ Promote enforcement of all health and environmental statutes within our
jurisdiction in a manner that ensures the fair treatment of people of all
races, cultures, and income levels, including minority populations and
low-income populations of the state.”
The RWQCB staff has not included a discussion and mitigation of this oversight of environmental law in the present CEQA exemption and the exemption is incomplete without mitigation of this issue. Further it is necessary to prevent skewing of the energetic analysis of least GHG impact solutions. Skewed enforcement of a select population condemns the State to over budgeting energy consumption to remove nitrogen when solutions like source separation, STEG cluster systems, and on site secondary treatment can do so with an energy footprint far less than a community sewer. All residential polluters in the Los Osos groundwater basin are identical polluters as described by the RWQCB3, all discharging 375 gallons a day with a nitrogen content of waste being approx. 45mg/l. Regardless of property size this is a fact.
Looking at the level of Nitrogen discharge from homes outside the prohibition zone but in the groundwater basin you would empirically multiply 375 gal./day X 1700 Homes X .045 grams/liter X 4 Liters/gallon = 114,750 grams of nitrogen per day. This discharge is exempted, untreated and unmitigated. For the discharge of pollutants from 5000 properties inside the prohibition zone after the sewer is built, you multiply 1.2 Million gallons per day X .007 Grams/liter (Tri-W discharge permit) X 4 liters/gallon = 33,600 grams/day of remaining pollution going into the water basin at a cost of $2400.00 to $3000.00 a year per parcel. The dotted line on the map prepared by a previous scientific study on the basin boundaries in EXHIBIT 8 shows the water basin edge. Many properties are outside the Prohibition zone but inside the groundwater basin?
Extrapolating from the two above calculations, after the sewer is built, 20 percent of the homes in the water basin will be discharging 70 percent of the Nitrogen pollution and paying nothing for mitigation. The homeowner’s outside the Prohibition zone only requirement for exemption was that owners had more money or credit to by a larger piece of land to begin with, they pollute identically. The RWQCB3 staff has ignored any substantive discussion, or use of “precautionary procedures” required by the State in its narrative of Environmental Justice compliance in their CEQA exemption request. The prohibition zone enforcement edicts should have been reviewed long before now for Environmental Justice compliance and adherence to the “precautionary principal” mandated by State EPA. EXHIBIT 9. Now it is critical time that they do so because the present pattern of enforcement by the RWQCB staff in keeping intact the Prohibition Zone model and narrative “zero discharge” moratorium severely limits Greenhouse Gas mitigation and related energy consumption mitigation by limiting proper energetic modeling of all potential methods of pollutant removal throughout the whole groundwater basin. The RWQCB3 staff negligence of Environmental Justice skews any honest scientific environmental modeling to choose the least energetic solution that will meet AB32 GHG mandates. Even though there are presently over six large discharge permits in the basin with varying amounts of Nitrogen allowed, the RWQCB continues with the environmentally suspect “zero discharge order “ in the PZ against a ethnically mixed poorer population. Added to the Environmental Justice litmus test is AB 32 Global warming 31662 Section(B) (2) & (6) mandates that the RWQCB3 consider a parallel precaution in the implementation of the Porter Cologne Act and its impacts on GHG mitigation. AB32 admonishes that the RWQCB3 to:
“ Ensure that activities undertaken to comply with the (GHG) regulations do not disproportionately impact low-income communities.”
“(6) Consider overall societal benefits, including reductions in other air pollutants, diversification of energy sources, and other benefits to the economy, environment, and public health”.
By mandating the prohibition zone and narrative “zero discharge” order the RWQCB3 staff has limited mitigation of the energy component of the nitrogen removal solution for the LO groundwater basin. The County FSR states in their variety of plans for N removal that energy consumption will not be less than 1 million KWH per year causing 700 Tons of CO2 a year to operate. There are more elegant energy solutions but the narrative and impressionistic prohibition zone orders prevent their discussion. The RWQCB3 is further adding to the economic burden of an already discriminated against population by not adhering to the above AB32 sections. Continuing with the existing enforcement orders will economically “impact low-income communities” by causing excessive energy use not necessary to remove the nitrogen directly in conflict with AB 32 Global warming 31662 Section(B) (2) & (6) mandates. The RWQCB3 by its present enforcement policy, adds the further avoidable impacts of groundwater draws and archeological impacts both of which are unstudied and unmitigated. Any claim that there is no other legitimate way to clean up the water basin other than a typical community sewer is the RWQCB3 self fulfilling prophecy out of step with contemporary environmental law. It is out of step with future energy realities that are even recognized by the State Water Resources Control Board and Federal EPA. Many nitrogen reducing solutions are being left off the table by the RWQCB3’s environmentally outdated enforcement policies. For example, source separation represented and approved on my property by the RWQCB3 is related to European advancements in component recycling of waste. If you looked at the energetic and nitrogen removing potential of source separation applied to all basin residential waste dischargers equally (which you can’t because of the prohibition zone model) utilizing a SS/STMP/Retrofit program you would remove an identical amount or more nitrogen from the basin wide residential waste stream than when compared to the 700 ton GHG/Yr. footprint of the LOWWP Community sewer. Source separation offers the same basin protection but with the added benefit of conserving ground water in the amount of 102,000 gallons a day basin wide and having no ESHA and few CEQA impacts because there is no in ground waste handling infrastructure off site. If well designed, a source separation maintenance plan could have a near zero net energy balance and have only positive impacts on basin groundwater balance. Sources of energy consumption like twice a year urine harvesting and basin wide composting from septics would be offset by carbon sequestering biomass development, like the attached proposed carbon sink forests EXHIBIT 10 utilizing the urine-to-fertilizer environmental loop to grow marketable timber.
The urea polishing takes 1/50 the energy of Natural Gas intensive N fertilizer production. The IEA claims that Nitrogen fertilizer uses 475 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas a year to produce crop fertilizer in the USA. All heat related food processing Nationwide uses 575 quadrillion cubic feet per year. Urine decontamination and constituent recycling would create natural gas energy savings by closing the resource loop from urine to N fertilizer. Source separation has been studied in Europe for over 25 years and is presently being implemented in areas of Sweden. The energy footprint of source separation, STMP, retrofit program would be less than 20% what the Counties estimate for energy consumption in their proposed projects for N removal and water reclamation in the FSR.
Calculating the remaining nitrogen balance in the basin using a combination of source sequestering, Septic tank Management, and a coupled retrofit program, the remaining basin Nitrogen discharge for such a program is almost identical to the Community gravity sewer in the PZ with minimal environmental risks and no economic dislocation of property owners.
Calculating for the whole basin, 375 gpd X 6700 Homes basin wide X 0.25 N remaining in functioning septics (the rest is in the urine) X .045 grams/liter X 4 liters/gallon = 113,062 grams/day. This figure is even less than the allowed discharges for unmitigated septic systems outside the PZ but within the basin? As a blended retrofit program, source separation ‘creates’ 102,000 gallons a day of banked deep aquifer groundwater by one cup per flush urine bowl toilet flushing in dual flush dual bowl toilets EXHIBIT 6. Present groundwater recharge would be through existing septics after 80% of the Nitrogen had been removed from the household discharge by front end behavioral modification. Validating source separation would enhance regional agricultural economies and omit the stigma to farmers of piping treated reclaimed water to their properties as a long term commitment. Recycled urea fertilizer use would mimic the present system of liquid fertilizer application without any contracts or property binding commitments. The collapse of natural gas supplies from Canada and Mexico eminent over the next twenty five years as shown in EIA graph enclosed in EXHIBIT 11. , will increase spot shortages of nitrogen fertilizer. Regional fertilizer from source separation may be the only fertilizer available for Los Osos Valley farmers at an acceptable cost. Source separation could have a 60 to 100 year life cycle if designed properly.
So if source separation is shown on a community and regional scale to be more environmentally compliant and cost efficient, the present changes to the basin plan must include the generic process. Source separation out performs many alternative systems and can also be used in conjunction with them for an added environmental advantage. Source separation should not languish as an alternative system waiting for approval in a planning document years away that the County will create as outlined in the Basin Plan update. It should be legitimized immediately, by waivers and RWQCB3 SEP programs. It is a behavioral method of removing nitrogen and then not discharging it to the impacted basin through the existing septic systems. It is the front end removal of Nitrogen before it enters the septic system that represents advanced Nitrogen mitigation for San Luis Obispo County that the county could use as a resource. Support of the infant source separation recycle industry is a potential long term sustainability commitment by Cal EPA.
AB32 COMPLIANCE VS. ZERO DISCHARGE ORDER
The parallel mandates of the zero discharge order in 2011 and AB32 GHG timeline for mitigation are entirely incompatible environmentally. How do you ship 1.5 million gallons out of the water basin a day and still meet APCD GHG requirements and smog rules in 2011? The RWQCB3 staff has not even contacted the APCD about the issue. Further there has been no analysis of the impacts of drastically overdrafting the basin if the zero discharge order is implemented. The Waterboard has failed to promulgate other realistic solutions. Residential holding tanks only simply cannot be done without massive drafts to the groundwater basin. And that is why I consider the zero discharge order out of step with ongoing validation of changing CEQA requirements that are more holistic and sustainable.
In the least, to eliminate the Prohibition Zone boundaries, homeowners should be allowed proportional discharge on smaller lots related to one acre so the whole basin would have the equivalent discharge of one acre homes that the basin plan allows. I claim that proportional discharge related to lot area on my small lot is consistent with the revised basin plan update as outlined in my Waiver agreement and Community plan letter to the RWQCB3 relating to voluntary nitrogen reduction. Since the RWQCB3 never reviewed my certified mail request, or they did and chose to ignore it, then they have not met Environmental Justice Public Resources code to:
“3) Ensure greater public participation in the agency’s development,
adoption, and implementation of environmental regulations and policies.”
In all, I consider the present environmental justice implementation in the Los Osos water basin out of balance, based on isolated enforcement by the RWQCB3 to dictate specific solutions for nitrogen removal in the Los Osos groundwater basin without any regard to Environmental Justice mandates, energy consumption, GHG production, ESHA impacts, or archeological impacts.
CEQA REGULATORY COMPLIANCE
It is a fact that the RWQCB3 has not met California Environmental Quality Act California Public Resources Code 21003.1. The RWQCB3 has omitted from its documentation adverse environmental effects of substantive changes in enforcement of Order 83-13. The change in enforcement mentioned is the change between a general building moratorium EXHIBIT 1 covered and validated by historic MOU’s with the County of San Luis Obispo EXHIBIT 12 and the zero discharge order which has no MOU’s or enforcement policy because it is environmentally unsound, discriminatory, and impossible to administrate. The environmental impacts of this change in enforcement have never been addressed to the State Secretary or OPR yet the RWQCB3 staff continues to claim exemption. Nor has the environmental mitigation of source separation been compared to the environmental impacts of the zero discharge order. The ZDO could be enforced this year if the County votes not to assume the sewer project which further opens the State to substantive legal challenges related to CEQA exemptions and AB32 compliance all of which are avoidable.
SOURCE SEPERATION -SWEPT UNDER THE
ENFORCMENT RUG BY THE RWQCB3 STAFF
The RWQCB3 has failed to inform the State Secretary and Office of Planning and Research of mitigation measures I have applied for relating to my property with the RWQCB3’s approval that substantially mitigates the environmental impacts of the zero discharge order. California Public Resources Code 21003.1. States that the RWQCB3 shall supply the State Secretary and OPR with:
“(b) Information relevant to the significant effects of a project, alternatives,
and mitigation measures which substantially reduce the effects shall be made
available as soon as possible by lead agencies, other public agencies,”
The RWQCB3 staff has limited discussion of CEQA compliance by not supplying the State Secretary and OPR with my documentation which I submitted. In addition, the RWQCB3 staff also required a deed restriction, and tracking system for urine removal from the water basin EXHIBIT 3. Instead of receiving any credit for my 2500 dollar investment or any acknowledgment of what I needed to do the receive my PC13269 Waiver, I received the same form letter as everyone else in the Prohibition Zone did. EXHIBIT 5.
The RWQCB3 Staff showed no contractual good faith as outlined in their Supplemental agreement contract EXHIBIT 13 that was proposed by the RWQCB staff for the PZ community in its entirety and posted on their web sight. Their contractual agreement was written to accommodate alterations in the agreement like my PC 13269 TEMPORARY 5 YEAR WAIVER for source separation. EXHIBIT 3 as well as other solutions.
By not acknowledging in any form or way my submission for my P.C. 13269 waiver and by not creating a M.O.U. between agencies for urine sequestration, the RWQCB3 robbed me and all septic system utilizing landowners at large, of peace of mind, and reduced jointly in Los Osos our property evaluation EXHIBIT 14. The RWQCB3 staff has caused my property devaluation by allowing threat of fines against my property without following due process under California Government Code Section 65941.5. The Code so states:
“Not later than 30 days after a land use or land division application is received, the Agency must notify the project applicant or designated representative in writing either that the application is complete, or that items are necessary to complete the application. If you are not notified in writing, the application is considered complete.”
Harvey Packard RWQCB Prosecution team claimed in a written correspondence to me that the RWQCB3 was subject to Section 65941.5 of Government Code EXHIBIT 15. Had the RWQCB3 followed the letter of the law they would have avoided continuing nitrogen contamination from properties that desired to cooperate and source separate urine. I consider source separation a right of all homeowners in the Los Osos Prohibition zone as a method of temporary or long term compliance to Nitrogen contamination. I warned the RWQCB3 of problems related to a class action suit in the narrative and illogical zero discharge order in my cover letter to them that accompanied my Waiver agreement. I pointed out how giving me a waiver it would help overcome the RWQCB3’s administration error by allowing ‘proportional discharge’ for source separator’s within the prohibition zone which would remove the issue of regulatory takings and which would help equivocate economic impacts related to compliance and come nearer to EJ guidelines. Instead my actions were met with administrative silence.
In my mind the largest CEQA issue rests with ignoring the energy component of source sequestering. Source separation is the most energy efficient method to eliminate Nitrogen from the water basin that I have found as I have outlined in “MAKING LOS OSOS A POST CARBON CITY” EXHIBIT 16 submitted to the County of San Luis Obispo EIR process for the LOWWP where I outlined the benefits of Community wide voluntary source separation coupled with a Septic Tank Management Plan and retrofit program. The Environmental mitigation using community source separation is way too large to be ignored. The benefits would include:
75% to 80% Nitrogen removal of all basin discharges.
Total per day waste handling lowers to 20,000 Gallons instead of 1.3 million gallons using 5% or less energy to handle the waste stream.
Emerging micro-contaminants and endocrine inhibitors are more removable using less energy being concentrated in urine and not mixed with millions of gallons of raw waste.
Local plumbers and contractors keep implementation money in the local economy, stimulating the local economy. Supports economic and environmental regionalism with farmers and local contractors.
Potential for zero net Green House CO2 production compared to 750 tons CO2 for the County LOWWP.
Protects sacred Indian burial grounds from decimation by pipeline trenching. All digging can be done by hand onsite limiting landscaping impacts, 95% reduced Archeological impacts.
No ESHA impacts for infrastructure construction, spillage or exfiltration.
No potential for power failure induced spills like the recent CMC spill.
No on site energy consumption.
No I & I leakage or pipe failures due to earthquakes or liquefaction.
Water handling reduced by a scale of 1000 percent.
Proven continuation of the existing Los Osos groundwater balance using zero energy septic discharge with 80% of the Nitrogen removed.
No streets torn up, dewatering, air pollution or resources used to build or repair infrastructure.
Energy consumption of the Urea handling truck fleet (3 to 4) is equal to a gravity sewer maintenance fleet in CO2 emissions. Trucks are smaller and could be LPG or methane powered to reduce air pollution. No standby motor idling and small electric pumps could be used to reduce air pollution when on site for urine pumping only. Urine is picked up every six months or by electronic signal from the holding tank.
Local farmers avoid Nitrogen fertilizer shortages that are expected to expand byproduct acceptability.
Meets AB32 GHG 2020 standards in 2012 because system uses existing 1990 primary onsite septic treatment.
Biomass CO2 fed by decontaminated urine creates wealth in terms of carbon credits and marketable raw materials.
The program has a 100 year + extensive life cycle hardened from energy depletion. Wastewater energy failure standby time: STEP- 1day, Gravity -20 min., Sequestering - ½ year
SEQ./STMP/RETROFIT system engages small scale low CO2 footprint human labor in the treatment process limiting energy sinks.
Ultra conservation of remaining groundwater does not negatively impact the recovery system in any way.
102,000 gallons a day basin wide water savings from sequestering toilets. Helps eliminate the present basin overdraft at zero energy cost.
Retrofit conservation, pollution abatement, and septic tank monitoring are simplified into the same simple energy efficient program.
By officially ignoring generic groundbreaking solutions on an individual level, the RWQCB3 has caused me and others on septics economic hardship, and in my case, raised the scepter of potential personal injury by ignoring contractual and legal obligations that I have raised to legitimize source separation.
On a community level, the RWQCB3 staff actions towards source separation have harmed all residents of the State by not promulgating energy efficiency, social sustainability, financial sustainability, environmental justice narrative compliance and energy conservation inherent in urine sequestration and its potential reprocessing and recycling urine components. RWQCB3 staff has also withheld from the State Secretary this vital environmental information thus negating their claim for CEQA exemption. RWQCB3 staff was given many European studies and validations of the nitrogen recycling systems. EXHIBIT 6
COMMUNICATION IS MISSING
The present Environmental Checklist EXHIBIT 17 prepared by the RWQCB3 staff submitted to the public perpetuate the same historic lack of environmental review. The RWQCB3’s non-communication with other agencies, like the APCD burdens the State with further environmental impacts in meeting requirements of State environmental law like the APCD and Cal EPA’s required mitigation for AB32 GHG reduction. If the State Secretary and OPR allow this level of environmental evaluation to continue then low income, middle income, and minority homeowners in the prohibition zone will be further burdened with unfair excessive costs and further environmental impacts that are omitted from the basin plan changes in the Substitute Environmental Document Report for Basin Plan Amendment Regarding On site Wastewater Systems (Resolution No. R3-2008-0005) that is now up for review.
A LINGERING CONTRACTUAL DISPUTE
My grievances arise out of a contractual dispute, a Porter Cologne Waiver as described in Section 13269 of the Porter-Cologne Act. No mention is made of facility size or financial threshold in Porter-Cologne. The RWQCB3 staff is irrational, they treat my discharge the same as a larger facility while ignoring my legal requests for treatment alternatives that larger facilities enjoy. The RWQCB3 2007 Settlement Agreement document is a standing contractual agreement presented to all residence of the prohibition zone and specifically the 45 CDO recipients by the RWQCB3. I have offered an environmentally friendly way to bring the 45 recipients into 80% compliance that was verifiable and comparable in nitrogen reduction in the approved discharge order of the defunct Tri-W sewer project EXHIBIT 18. That if these contractual issues are not resolved between prohibition zone owners like myself and the RWQCB staff, then their actions would continue to represent financial discrimination that has resulted in financially defrauding me and others like me willing to source separate. We have been deprived of real estate equity by increased taxation and had our property values decreased when compared to neighboring costal communities by 100,000 dollars EXHIBIT 19. Our titles are further clouded by the RWQCB3 staff making claims about retroactive fines against our properties that are based upon orders containing historical oversights of CEQA requirements and maintenance for septics timelines mentioned in Order 83-12 that are only now being addressed twenty years later.
With over 20 existing home foreclosures in Los Osos and 75 standing tax liens EXHIBIT 20 environmental, economic, and social impacts commingle and become an important part of CEQA analysis. Federal EPA calls addressing this triad, triple bottom line analysis or sustainability triad analysis. Real estate mortgage defaults have been to a degree caused by unfunded environmental mandates as seen in EXHIBIT 21. Narrative, environmentally unsound and uneconomic discharge orders inflicted on the overburdened urban poor reflect poorly on the State Board. All basin polluters should be treated the same relative to economic impacts of basin cleanup regardless of property size. The Proportional Discharge Model of enforcement was offered as a social mitigation with positive environmental and economic consequences when applied to emerging energy efficient groundwater solutions. It was a triple bottom line mitigation that to me was a victim of some people looking backwards for a solution. Do we really have that luxury?
Ms. Tacker’s email comment:
“so here's an email directly to you, feel free to post it.
You say; "One of the key arguments there is the problem that no matter HOW you rearrange the deck chairs, you still can't get MORE water out of NO water. And this becomes especially acute if you keep allowing development outside the PZ."
That is simply not the case, there are 1.6, 3, 5 and 7 gallon per flush (gpf) toilets out there all over Los Osos, flushing water away every day. Requiring new development (anywhere, inside and outside the PZ and anywhere else within our basin including those in the Los Osos Valley/Clark Valley) to replace those oversized flush toilets with either the 1.1 or the 1.28 gpf at a 2:1 ratio means considerable savings! To do nothing wastes water i.e. moratorium.
These programs have been implemented throughout the state, country and in Canada and Australia. The program the County is proposing Tuesday is better late than never. The County didn't do it in 1992 when they considered Level III Severity for Los Osos and when the LOCSD was formed they didn't do it either. The LOCSD was depending on a silly sewer project to get grants to do it (they received approval for $500K, not nearly enough, and it was not going to pay for toilets that had already been retrofitted as stated by Rose Bowker "save your receipt".
Development will have to go door to door (or use a service like 528-FLOW) and replace toilets -- gathering enough savings to doubly offset the a homes use.
In fact, the County's proposal will require closer to 3 times the average households water use be saved in order to build one home. Currently Los Osos homes use on average 303 gallons per day (gpd) (.34 acre feet per year (afy)) each, which is below the state wide average due to few lawns, parks or ornimental landscapes. To be conservative the County's formula assumes each Los Osos homes uses 450 gpd (.5 afy), so one new home will have to save twice that amount 900 gpd (1afy). These savings will have to be verified by a licensed plumber who is putting his license on the line as part of the ordinance.
This is a good thing for Los Osos, it will allow new development to start saving water before there is a sewer (which, by the way, is the largest single component of optimum basin management).Julie”