Saturday, June 28, 2008

Uh, Breaking News From The Rock

Gotta email from Ed Ochs, below:

Re: "Breaking News From The Rock"

LOS OSOS -- For anyone who truly gives a damn about accelerating
change in what Howard Jarvis once called "the most corrupt county in
California," the revolution is now being televised.
The Rock, the only Los Osos-based newspaper, has launched "Breaking

News From The Rock" on Public Access Channel 2. "Breaking News" airs
Mondays at 11:30 p.m., Wednesdays at 10 a.m. and Thursdays at 5 p.m.
The first edition of the show features an in-studio interview with Morro
Bay clean water activists Marla Jo Bruton and Richard Sadowsky on the dire
condition of the Morro Bay/Cayucos wastewater collection system, and
exclusive, dramatic videotape of the serious damage.

"Breaking News" is written by creator Ed Ochs, editor of The Rock,
produced by Cinthea Coleman's Boffo! Productions, and filmed and edited
by Dave Duggan for Charter Communications.

Said Ochs, "Don't try to adjust your expensive TV if you should
stumble on to the opening seconds of 'Breaking News From The Rock' on
Public Access Channel 2 -- your picture isn't broken. True to the
no-holds-barred, fiercely independent voice of The Rock newspaper,
'Breaking News' blazes new media trails that previously did not exist
on the Central Coast.

If you like The Rock, you'll love 'Breaking News.' If
you hate The Rock, you will love to hate 'Breaking News' for all the
reasons you hated it before, but now even more than ever on television.
"Anyone interested in the Los Osos sewer dilemma will want to know
how serious the sewer problem is in Morro Bay and Cayucos and what it
could mean for Los Osos -- and make a real effort to watch the show.
Unless, of course, they just don't want to know how heavy it is. The
show is definitely not for those with low self-esteem, no sense of
humor, inbred biases, or extreme political beliefs."

Just in case viewers didn't get the message the first time, Ochs
said, the next two editions of "Breaking News" are in production and
will air in August.
For more information on "Breaking News" write Ed at

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Conservatives and Their Carnival of Fraud

The following opinion piece appeared in the Wall Street Journal (of all places) on June 25, 2008, written by columnist Thomas Frank,”The Tilting Yard” -- and bears taking the time to type out and post here. When I’ve written about the Devaluation of the Commons, that “conservative wet dream,” this is the end game. The question, of course, is simple: Have enough people finally figured this shell game out? As for his calling for another Grace Commission, who would serve? The majority of Congress, both Demos and Repubs, have their fingerprints all over this little scam.

I wonder if, back in the rosy-fingered dawn of our conservative era, all those Adam Smith-tied evangelists of “limited government” had any idea that they were greasing the skids for a character like 22-year-old arms dealer Efraim Diveroli?

Mr. Diveroli, whose tousled slightly confused visage recalls the perpetually stoned Jeff Spicoli from the 1982 film “Fast Times at Ridgemont High,” was the improbable recipient of a 2007 government contract to supply ammunition to our allies in Afghanistan.

The trouble was the munitions he sold were, like, seriously bogus. Old and partially defective, the stuff apparently originated in China, which is a Pentagon no-no. Mr. Diveroli was indicted by a federal grand jury in Florida on Friday on numerous counts, including allegedly attempting to defraud the government.

How could a kid barely able to buy beer secure a nearly $300 million defense contract? It will be interesting to find out. Maybe Mr. Deveroli’s story will be the one that finally fixes public attention on the carnival of fraud, waste and profiteering that characterizes our system of government-by-contractor. Maybe it will finally persuade us to ask our politicians why it is that they hire Blackwater to do the job of the Marines and pay Kellogg Brown and Root to arrange the logistics for the Army wherever it goes.

And maybe it will finally call into question one of the greatest shibboleths of conservative governance. Although contracting out has been celebrated by the big thinkers from both parties and although it has been practiced in some for or other since the earliest days of the republic, an ideological commitment to outsourcing is one of the signatures of conservative rule.

The ostensible justifications for it, in the early days, were thrift and efficiency. The 1984 “Grace Commission” in which a battalion of corporate executives ransacked the government looking for waste, recommended privatizing federal operations as a way to save money. With the government plunged deep into deficit, government needed to hire out its duties to business in order to save itself.

The ideological assumption was only barely concealed: Whatever “big government” could do, the private sector could do better, cheaper and faster.

There was another unspoken ideological angle: Every federal job privatized was a job pried from the grip of the hated Washington bureaucracy. Every dollar contracted out meant that much less for bureaucrat unions and that much more for friendly companies, well-connected lobbyists and corporate political action committees.

In the Bush era, the idea was pushed to a sort of extreme, with each of our great national initiatives – the Iraq occupation, Katrina reconstruction and the Department of Homeland Security – largely entrusted to private contractors. We now often read abut federal employees quitting to work for private contractors to do the same job as before for twice the pay.

We also read bout efforts to shut down or outsource the agencies charged with scrutinizing outsourcing. Last week, the New York Times reported on the travails endured by one of the Army’s chief contracting officials who says he became suspicious of huge, sketchy expenses being run up by KBR in Iraq. When he threatened to withhold future payments from the company – harsh toke, dude! – he quickly found himself out of the loop; the Army contracted out his job to a company that accepted KBR’s numbers.

One fact about government outsourcing is settled: It sure doesn’t save money. A Washington Post reporter who scrutinized Katrina reconstruction contracts in 2006 found that “the difference between the job’s actual price and the fee charged to taxpayers ranged from 40 percent to as high as 1,700 percent.” To cover damaged roofs with tarps, certain contractors billed the government $1.50 a square foot of roof covered; some of the people who actually did the work got under 10 cents per square foot. Guess who kept the difference.

Privitization also constitutes a fundamental change in the constituency to which government answers. Journalist Tim Weiner estimates that, by 2006, about half of the people working for the CIA in Iraq and the National Counterterrorism Center were contractors, former CIA personnel accountable not to the American public but to their employers. “The spectacle of jumping ship in the middle of a war to make a killing was unremarkable in twenty-first century Washington,” he writes n his book, “Legacy of Ashes.” Among the CIA’s new hires, he reported, the saying is, “Get in, get out, get paid.”

The days when conservatives railed against red tape and shrieked for efficiency in Washington now seem like a lifetime ago. When they finally got the opportunity toput their theory into practice, conservatives contrived instead on of the most wasteful systems ever seen.

It is time for a new Grace Commission, this one examining the sordid history of privatization in all its details. President Barak Obama should launch it on day one.

Monday, June 23, 2008

So, How Hot Was It?

So, when I go to work Friday morning, the GINORMOUS four o'clocks in the back yard are head high, the HUGE mounds of nasturtiums are billowing about in massive piles, the hardy lavender are fluffy and huge and waving their purple blooms about, even the hardy, drought resistant rock roses and mallows were happily facing the day.

When I got home, the backyard (and a lot of the front yard) looked like someone had come through with a flame thrower. The nasturtiums were flattened, a lot of the four o' clocks were bent over and hanging down, the leaves on the mallows were fried to a crist. In short, the place looked like it had been hit by a blast furnace.

The paper the next day noted that Los Osos, my beloved, cool, ocean-breeze-washed Bangladesh by the Bay had been 110'


How did you all fare, dear and gentle readers?

I Do, I Do, You Too, Part Deux

In the June 19th Bay News ( , the pastor of the Los Osos Christian Fellowship, Mr. Randy Nash, had a letter to the editor responding to my previous column, "I do, I Do, You Too, Part II." You can read his letter on the link above, page 8,and my original column June 6 posted below)

What makes Mr. Nash's letter so interesting is that his letter illustrates one of the most difficult aspects of this whole "marriage" discussion -- the near impossibility of many people to put down the scrim they're viewing the world through in order to consider that maybe, just maybe, there might be another reality for other people existing out there.

In my column, I asked the reader to put aside " . . ALL cultural, traditional . . God, Bible . . . references . . ." and ask, "What, really is the purpose/point of marriage." That question goes to the heart of the constitutional initiative people are going to be voting on and to the heart of the recent California Supreme Court ruling on equal rights for gay people vis a vis a "marriage" license.

Sadly, Pastor Nash was either unwilling to do that and instead he chose to "disregard Ann's rule that we "put aside religious references & etc. and so proceeded to outline HIS religious beliefs vis a vis HIS religions definition and purpose for "marriage."

Which is all well and good, but NOT the point of my column or even the point of the Supreme Court's ruling.

Like ALL of us, Pastor Nash views HIS world through HIS personal scrim, as well as viewing HIS world through HIS religious beliefs. What has gone missing from his argument is this: What about people who do not share HIS particular religious beliefs? Suppose they have different religious beliefs? Or no religious beliefs?

Indeed, a few days after Pastor Nash's letter, the L.A. Times ran an interesting article noting that the recent Supreme Court ruling has made clear that even when discussing "Christian" beliefs, (as in, "this is a Christian nation") there is no monolithic system, no unified field. The reality is that different denominations disagree on gay marriage, even within their own general religious traditions. So to say that "christianity" does not approve of gay marriage would be incorrect. Some "christian" and Jewish demoninations bless gay unions, sanctify them and are, even now, conducting wedding ceremonies for members of their congregations who want to get married. Others don't.

So back we go to my original request of the reader: Put aside "religious" and "traditional" and "cultural" reasons and ask -- in a Secular, democratic, civil, pluralistic society, one that prides itself of offering equality under the law to all its citizens, EXACTLY WHAT IS "marriage" supposed to do and be?

Answering that, may allow a clearer dialogue about whether we truly do believe in equal rights for all citizens, or whether we want to set up classes of people based on some mututally agreed-up secular reasoning (best interest of the state, some practical, civil reason, etc.) that would give full rights and benefits and responsibilities to some but not to others, and so forth.

Answerring that also may allow a clearer dialogue and understanding about the role a secular government does and should play in various personal and family arrangements in they way we live our lives nowadays. And maybe a clearer dialogue about the ways a secular government should NOT be involved in personal lives. And just how tangled up with religioun our "separation of church and state" government really is.

In a Christian Theocracy, Pastor Nash's explanation of "marriage" might well be the Official Dogma and the Law Of The Land (or may not be, depending on which Christian denomination held power). But in a secular democracy, where the separation of church and state is designed not only for the best interests of the citizens but also the protection of both church AND citizens, his definition doesn't suffice.

So the dialogue needs to continue and the question -- what IS marrige anyway -- still needs to be asked. And answered somewhere down the line.

Also, it should be noted, a bit of irony in Pastor Nash's letter. He closes with this: "It is in heterosexual married couples that God has entrusted the very running and management of the earth. 'WhatGod has joined together, let no man put asunder.'"

No mention of the . . . what? . . . 50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples in the U.S. Clearly, the definition of "holy matrimony" needs a bit of work here.

Friday, June 20, 2008

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, for June 19,2008

Scott McClellan Nation

Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell

It was as if “What Me Worry” Alfred E. Newman had stepped off the cover of Mad Magazine and started spilling the beans about the publishers. But with Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary and loyal Bush fool, there was one little problem: There were already miles of shelves filled with miles of books, all filled with nothing but carefully researched and documented beans. So the only new revelation Scott had to offer was this: How was it humanly possible for anyone with an I.Q. larger than his shoe size to remain so clueless for so long?

True, the paycheck was nice and that can buy a lot of willful stupidity. And silence. As one wag noted, it’s easy for a man to not know something when his job depends on his not knowing it. And knowing that speaking out would make enemies of your friends can be an intimidating proposition. But whatever made Scott think these people were his friends? They were cronies and he was their useful, willing and then expendable tool, nothing more.

Of course, Scott was not alone in his Kool-Aid-Drinking myopic zeal. The entire Bush administration is remarkable for the sheer number of people who put personal good above the good of the nation. Not for nothing was Colin Powell the one chosen to go to the UN to present the dog and pony show designed to justify the Iraq war. He had always made sure his public credentials were burnished to a fine gleam, so he could be counted on to do nothing to harm his career. If thousands of soldiers had to die to keep that fine public reputation polished, so be it. From Army generals who kept their mouths shut until that pension check was safely in the mail to the Talking Points Republican Congress members who put maintaining their position and political power over the good of nation, to the spineless Democrats who failed to fulfill their oversight responsibilities, to a bought-and-paid-for corporate media willing the be, not watchdogs, but useful handmaids, it was a Scott McClellan government – fingers in the ears, humming a la-la-la-la plainsong, willfully blind, asking no questions.

In normal times, such a government and administration would have outraged a skeptical, informed and watching nation, and been booted out of office. But in this case, the United States had also turned into Scott McClellan Nation – the whole country became the piano player in the whorehouse, pretending to be ignorant of what was going on upstairs. La-la-la-la. The citizens were lied to, bamboozled, conned, spun, manipulated, and fleeced , not once, but again and again and each time they scrunched their eyes shut and returned the wolves to the sheep pens. Until the stench of incompetence and rot and war dead and wasted billions grew so huge they simply couldn’t ignore it any longer. But even then, instead of outrage, impeachment hearings and a full regime change with a demand to hold those responsible to account, they made sure there would be no accountability. Just a brief news cycle jabber about yet another tell-all book that will go on a shelf, unread, while those in charge covered their behinds and scampered for the door scot-free.

It’s too soon to tell whether Scott McClellan Nation has finally had the same epiphany that Scott McClellan the man did, minus the book contract. Or whether we are still a nation of sleepwalkers, easy marks for the same lies, offering all our wedge-issue, hot-buttons to be pushed once again, sheep returning to the shearing pens.

Whether the country has had that epiphany is critical since there are extremely dangerous and complicated times ahead. Global warming, volatile weather shifts promising more Katrinas that will require competent government assistance, the coming battles over scarce resources, famine-driven migrations that will further destabilize an already volatile planet, and economic and environmental hard times that will also offer unique opportunities only to those prepared to seize them. All of these are issues that can only be dealt with by an awake, aware, accurately informed and engaged nation of gimlet-eyed “Show-Me” Missourians, with one hard eye on the Constitution and the other watching the silverware.

Thursday, June 19, 2008

Email to the Tribune

The Tribune finally got around to printing a story on the resignation of the CSD’s lawfirm, Burke-Williams& Sorenson, which firm cited potential conflict of interest in the Taxpayers Watch lawsuit, the suit that’s personally suing the CSD Board members. Naturally, the story was late and apparently a dollar short as the following email forwarded to me indicates:

“Hi Sona,
The article concerning the Taxpayers lawsuit and BWS resignation from the district contained the following statement:
“Before the former Los Osos board was recalled Sept. 27, 2005, it was involved in several lawsuits. The plaintiffs in some of those ended up winning election to the district board after the recall. “
None of the three board members elected in the district recall were EVER plaintiffs in ANY lawsuit.
Steve Senet, Chuck Cesena, or John Fouche never filed ANY lawsuit or was ever a party to any lawsuit against the district. They were not members of CCLO or any organization that filed lawsuits.
Lisa Schicker was elected in 2004, however, she was never a party or a plaintiff in any lawsuit.
Long before being elected she did introduce friends to Keith Swanson of CCLO that were attorneys. This was NOT BWS, but another firm.
She has certainly openly and actively supported CCLO’s mission for an alternative project, but was never a member of CCLO or organization that filed lawsuits against the district.
The article unfortunately is misleading, does harm, because it suggests misconduct ---(such as plaintiffs later elected and then paying their attorneys) This is exactly what has been alleged by Gordon Hensley et al, but exactly what DID NOT HAPPEN.
The Tribune has an obligation to contact the directors to confirm their status concerning the lawsuits, and then to correct the statement to present facts to your readers.
Thank you kindly for your prompt attention to this matter “

Hmmmm, Which brings us back to a question that I hope the “Trial” will answer, because the Tribune didn’t: Somebody please ‘splain just what this lawsuit is really about?

Twenty Eight gay couples get Married In SLOTown

Amazingly, neither the county nor the state fell into the ocean or was struck by lightning. Some of these couple actually got married in the church of their choice, thereby having their marriage sanctified, according to their beliefs.

So, here’s where it’s going to get interesting. If the Change The Constitution Anti-gay Marriage Initiative passes in November, the state will have to require that these folks get unmarried AND they will be told that their holy matrimony wasn’t the right kind of holy.

And what’s truly odd about that is this: The various religious conservative groups who are funneling money into the state to support this initiative would have an absolute cow if someone were circulating an constitutional amendment initiative that declared that the people of the state of California should have the constitutional right to tell THEM what’s holy or unholy and un-sanctify THEIR marriages -- as in, "Oh, Sorry, but YOUR church isn't the RIGHT kind of church and so it's sanctity isn't valid. Only OUR type of churches get to sanctify things."

It would be cowville all ‘round. Apparently they’re working under the notion that our constitution and the bedrock foundation of this country is, “Freedom and equality for ME, but not for THEE.”

GGGAAAGGHHHHH, Better I Shudda Gone To France

Which is what I’ve been saying for a few weeks as I’ve neglected this blog (not a whole lot happening on the Sewer Wars Front, thank God), while my computer got an upgrade, put in DSL, and have been endlessly fussing with both a new email program and having to re-do my email address book. GGAAAGGGHHHHH.

Eventually, it’ll all sort out all right, but in the meantime.

And Finally, Is a Divorce in the Wind?

Been hearing rumors that Mark Low of NOWASTEWATER is getting “divorced,” un-partnered, separated, go-separate-ways, unhooked, departing, buh-bye from Tom Murphy of AES Reclamator Co.. Mark simply confirmed the separation but offered no details. So I’ve asked him if he wanted to send me any info on the split, I’d gladly post it here. So, stay tuned.

Meantime, It’s Another Beautiful Day In Paradise

Our time here is so short, our lives so often taken up with trivia (like updating email address books), that we too often ignore the really important things in life. Like spending time with your family, time to go out to see the flowers bloom. Walk your dog. If you don’t have a dog, heard there’s a really cool greyhound mix neutered 6 mos old pup at DAS looking for a home. My greyhound mix, Archibald McDog, turned out to be an amazing critter. So, go adopt this pup THEN go walk the dog. Weather promises to be gorgeous today.

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

Dear Mr. Briggs: The Reclamator Dialogues Continue

The following email is from Mr. Murphy to Mr. Briggs of the RWQCB. Now, will somebody – a judge? Mr. Briggs? Jerry Brown? Paavo Ogren? -- please come forward and tell us what “discharge” means, what levels of coliform are allowed out of a “wastewater” pipe, what “wastewater” means, what "pollutants" and other good stuff means. OR explain why the RWQCB doesn't have to define these terms and rule on whether the Reclamator does or does not meet whatever standards and definitions are or are not defined. Or something? Somebody? (Interesting note vis a vis fecal coliform. If the surface soil around our homes was tested right now, how much fecal coliform would be found from . . . dogs, cats, gophers, mice, birds, humans? And how much can be found in our drinking water coming out of the faucet? Hmmmm

Dear Mr. Briggs,

Please see attached data of the RECLAMATOR.
Fecal Coliform is “Not Detected”. The spiral wound ultra-filtration membrane is designed to provide a “definite barrier” to fecal coliform in excess of “2” MPN/100ml. (Title 22 requirements is: Fecal/Total Coliform less than 2.2 MPN/100ml, however, Title 22 requirements only applies to public agencies and does not apply to applications on private property, which all RECLAMATOR applications are on.)

Total Coliform has no Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in itself and is:
“Not a health threat in itself; it is used to indicate whether other potentially harmful bacteria may be present5 (“Potential Health Effects from Ingestion of Water”, USEPA Safe Drinking Water Standard, pg. #3)

5 Fecal coliform and E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Disease-causing microbes (pathogens) in these wastes can cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. These pathogens may pose a special health risk for infants, young children, and people with severely compromised immune systems.” (“Sources of Contaminant in Drinking Water”, USEPA Safe Drinking Water Standard, pg. #3)

Additionally, “Coliforms are naturally present in the environment; as well as feces; fecal coliforms and E. coli only come from human and animal fecal waste.” (USEPA Drinking Water Standard)

In typical wastewater industry practices, “definite barrier” means to control Fecal Coliforms are not utilized, but only methods of disinfection of wastewater effluents using typically chlorine and UV. Fecal Coliforms will frequently pass through these types of disinfection methods without detection and presents of Total Coliforms will indicate such possibility of Fecal Coliforms passing. However, in the case of the RECLAMATOR’s physical control technology (a spiral wound back-washable ultra filtration membrane with ultimate integrity) has been employed to guarantee no such possible passage and therefore, a presence of Total Coliforms for non-drinking water applications does not pose a public health risk and therefore is not an issue.

Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.

As “there is no known or expected risk to health” from a presence of Total Coliforms when a “definite barrier” membrane is in place that assures NO Fecal Coliform is present in excess of “2” MPN/100ml, a Total Coliform count represents “no known or expected risk to health” and as such, is a “non-enforceable public health goal”.

Upon your awareness of this information, AES demands the Central Coast Regional Quality Control Board expediently promulgate, as is their fiduciary duty under U.S.C Title 33 Chapter 26, the requirement for the application of the RECLAMATOR, as best available control technology economically achievable as is defined within the U.S.C Title 33 Chapter 26, at each private point source discharge of each source within your jurisdiction to comply with the pretreatment requirements of such U.S.C. as the other than publicly owned treatment works (privately owned) part of a community collection and treatment project (publicly owned treatment works) within Los Osos Prohibition Zone. (U.S.C Title 33 Chapter 26 Sec. 1317 (a)(b)(c))

As the RECLAMATOR eliminates the discharge of pollutants at the source, the Community of Los Osos will not be subject to any unnecessary economic burden for a publicly owned treatment works (collection laterals with centralized treatment facilities) besides the RECLAMATOR alternative.

AES is initiating its campaign to provide discharge elimination services throughout the Los Osos Prohibition Zone this week. Without the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s promulgating the requirement of the RECLAMATOR to comply with the federally mandated pretreatment requirements in the Los Osos Prohibition Zone as per such requirements under the federal water law, AES is sure to incur additional unnecessary hardships in its marketing efforts in providing the federally compliant and county permitted pretreatment alternative RECLAMATOR resulting from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s not performing under their fiduciary duty as is require by state law.
Please promulgate immediately in the interest of the water, the environment and in the best economic interest of the public of Los Osos.

D. Thomas Murphy
The RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Our Water”
(775) 848-8800
Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc.
(775) 425-0911

Monday, June 16, 2008

A Reclamator Dialogue: Is It Just Me Who’s Not Getting This?

The following emails between Mr. Tom Murphy and myself (posted with permission) are as follows: Mr. Murphy sent me and email announcing what AES was going to do. I replied, wishing him good luck (below). Mr. Murphy replied with another email, to which I commented, to which he commented on my comments. My email comments are italicized for ease in reading.

Clearly, Mr. Murphy doesn’t think I “get it.” He likely thinks I have rocks in my head. He’s right. I don’t “get it.”. When I look at the Los Osos Sewer Wars (Lo, these 24 years) all I hear is the theme song to “Chinatown.”

The Reclamator Dialogues, so far:
In a message dated 6/11/2008 9:44:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, writes:[excerpt]
We are going to make RECLAMATOR Service Signups and Installs available this week. Upon a “person/owner” who subscribing to the RECLAMATOR Service they will be “totally” isolated and indemnified from all exposure to any liabilities associated with the Water Board and County.
To which I replied:
Well, then, good luck to all those who sign up. My hope for a judge's ruling sooner rather than later is simple: Until a judge rules on all your assertions of law, that's all they remain: assertions. And if you turn out to be mistaken, all the people who have invested a great deal of money in your service will be out all that money AND will still be under the gun to pay out a whole lot more money to hook up to the county project and/or face thousands in RWQCB fines for "discharges" after 2011. That's the problem, as I see it.
Ann Calhoun
To which Mr. Murphy replied:

Hi Ann,
Respectfully, you still haven’t gotten it.
Everyone has a choice, pay me $20K (for an innovative alternative) or pay the County $120K and the County pays me $20K (for a pretreatment technology (an “other then publicly owned treatment works”, privately owned, consisting of an “innovative alternative” to be applied at each lot PRIOR to discharging into a “publicly owned treatment works” (POTW)), it is just that plain and simple.
Why do you think the County has determined they can’t get a bond? Why do you think the County hasn’t “billed” homeowners for the assessments (as they were suppose to by Dec. 07)? Why do you think I would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars on a defamation suit against the State IF I didn’t “KNOW” what I was talking about (and the law)? Do you realize what an “easement” is? Do you realize how it TOTALLY eliminates ANY option of any Government entity from attacking a homeowner for a discharge which is no longer within their jurisdiction (as it is now in the AES private utility easement and as such, is “solely the responsibility of AES”)? Do you believe the State law (California Water Law § 13050) which says my “recycled water” is a valuable resource and if taken by any entity is subject to being purchased?
A “required hookup” by any regulatory authority would only mean a permanent revenue source for AES resulting from payment for its sustainable alternative water source by such entity which is receiving it, no matter who that might be, which works for AES. However, this will NEVER HAPPEN. Their “required hook-up” scare tactic is just that, a scare tactic intended to scare folks of the community into thinking they will STILL have to “PAY” for the County POTW, which by your comments, has been working. However, please let me attempt to dispel these fears one more time.
You (and ever other residence in Los Osos) have a choice, believe me or believe the County/State. It is only $100,000.00 of YOUR money and “permanent” loss of your water to the County at YOUR expense…forever…if you want to support the County/State “misinformation”, good luck. It really boils down to either 1) pay for the RECLAMATOR Service, or 2) pay for the RECLAMATOR Service AND the (then unnecessary) County POTW.
Their “gig” is up; it is just not going to come out they way they had planned. The project belongs to the AES “pretreatment innovative alternative technology” and we are taking it. They “named it” and AES “claimed it”, thank you very much.
Prepare for the “kick-off” as the AES Alternative Water Source Project is about to begin, with or without the support of the regulatory authorities who are required to promulgate it. This issue will be dealt with at a later date (by the citizens of Los Osos).
Tom Murphy
PS. Please see the federal law which REQUIRES Pretreatment applied at each source prior to discharging into a publicly owned treatment works. They MUST utilize the RECLAMATOR “PRIOR” to discharging into a POTW, “it is the law”. Federal laws are written in such a way that it is easy for lay people to understand, the U.S.C. is the “people’s law”, our law, just take a little time to read it if you are really wanting to understand why I am not just “talking”. Pay especially close attention to Sec. 1317 (a) (USEPA Toxic Pollutant List “nitrosamines” pretreatment requirements) Pretreatment is a requirement for any source of any of the listed toxic pollutants, nitrosamine being #50 on the list.

Ammonia (associated with domestic household waste) is nitrosamine source, therefore requiring pretreatment at the “source”, or “new source” (which means building/private property having a sewer pipe coming from it) prior to discharging into a POTW or into underground excavations (drainfields) and has been a requirement since Dec. 27th 1977. All point sources (sewer pipes) are subject to provide such pretreatment to consisting of the “best available technology economically achievable” (economically achievable means “less cost than POTW”, which in this case is substantially less), which is the RECLAMATOR. Notice in Sec. 1317 (b)(1) clarifies an obligation for pretreatment to “prevent the discharge of any pollutant through any treatment works” (this means both “other than publicly owned treatment works” (which is what the RECLAMATOR is, privately owned)), and Sec. 1317 (c) states the “standards of performance” in Sec. 1316 apply to “equivalent category of new sources” (equivalent categories means “national”, which applies to residential and commercial, and “federal”, which means industrial discharges). Sec. 1316 defines the “national standard of performance” requirements for pretreatment treatment works (privately owned) are subject to achieve an effluent limit of “maximum degree of effluent reduction” and “where possible, achieve a standard which eliminates the discharge of pollutants”. Sec. 1316 (a)(1).
Please see the USEPA Toxic Pollutant List attached below (# 50 specifically). The federal water law requires the County to require the RECLAMATOR at each home prior to discharging into a POTW. Upon this being complied with, the “pretreatment becomes an “innovative alternative” which eliminates the discharge of pollutants, therefore, eliminating any further need for a community collection system associated with a POTW:
TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER I--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--(Continued) PART 401--GENERAL PROVISIONS--Table of Contents Sec. 401.15 Toxic pollutants. The following comprise the list of toxic pollutants designated pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of the Act: 1. Acenaphthene2. Acrolein3. Acrylonitrile4. Aldrin/Dieldrin \1\--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Effluent standard promulgated (40 CFR part 129).--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Antimony and compounds \2\--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The term compounds shall include organic and inorganic compounds.--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Arsenic and compounds7. Asbestos8. Benzene9. Benzidine \1\10. Beryllium and compounds11. Cadmium and compounds12. Carbon tetrachloride13. Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)14. Chlorinated benzenes (other than di-chlorobenzenes)15. Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-di-chloroethane, 1,1,1- trichloroethane, and hexachloroethane)16. Chloroalkyl ethers (chloroethyl and mixed ethers)17. Chlorinated naphthalene18. Chlorinated phenols (other than those listed elsewhere; includes trichlorophenols and chlorinated cresols)19. Chloroform20. 2-chlorophenol21. Chromium and compounds22. Copper and compounds23. Cyanides24. DDT and metabolites \1\25. Dichlorobenzenes (1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-di-chlorobenzenes)26. Dichlorobenzidine27. Dichloroethylenes (1,1-, and 1,2-dichloroethylene)28. 2,4-dichlorophenol29. Dichloropropane and dichloropropene30. 2,4-dimethylphenol31. Dinitrotoluene32. Diphenylhydrazine33. Endosulfan and metabolites34. Endrin and metabolites \1\35. Ethylbenzene36. Fluoranthene37. Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere; includes chlorophenylphenyl ethers, bromophenylphenyl ether, [[Page 9]] bis(dichloroisopropyl) ether, bis-(chloroethoxy) methane and polychlorinated diphenyl ethers)38. Halomethanes (other than those listed elsewhere; includes methylene chloride, methylchloride, methylbromide, bromoform, dichlorobromomethane39. Heptachlor and metabolites40. Hexachlorobutadiene41. Hexachlorocyclohexane42. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene43. Isophorone44. Lead and compounds45. Mercury and compounds46. Naphthalene47. Nickel and compounds48. Nitrobenzene49. Nitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitrophenol, dinitrocresol)50. Nitrosamines51. Pentachlorophenol52. Phenol53. Phthalate esters54. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) \1\55. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzanthracenes, benzopyrenes, benzofluoranthene, chrysenes, dibenz- anthracenes, and indenopyrenes)56. Selenium and compounds57. Silver and compounds58. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)59. Tetrachloroethylene60. Thallium and compounds61. Toluene62. Toxaphene \1\63. Trichloroethylene64. Vinyl chloride65. Zinc and compounds [44 FR 44502, July 30, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 2266, Jan. 8, 1981; 46 FR 10724, Feb. 4, 1981]

To which I replied (italics) and to which Mr. Murphy responded in my text, with his replies. Even after which, I still don’t get it. That “Chinatown” theme music is still playing full blast in my head. Mr. Murphy claims I’m “pessimistic.” Likely. In addition to the “Chinatown” theme, I keep seeing that old Oliver Wendell Holmes quote flashing before my eyes:” Young man, this is a court of law, not a court of justice.”

Ann, please view the following comments in sync.

Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:35 AMTo: tmurphyaes@earthlink.netSubject: Re: FW:
In a message dated 6/13/2008 1:54:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, writes:
Respectfully, you still haven’t gotten it.

Respectfully, here's what I "got" after watching the Sewer Wars for 24 some years.

1. "The State and the Feds and the Regulators" can do anything they want to. No they can’t! Fudge data, lie, ignore laws, ignore evidence, ignore anything they wish to, bend the rules, bury the rules, create loopholes, drive through the loopholes. This was “the past”, not the present. Unless you have pots of money (the Los Osos Project represents approximately $200M of revenue for AES over the next 20 years, not to mention many other projects to come on line of sugnificantly more value to AES than Los Osos. I will commit it all to assure they comply with the law as necessary) to haul them into court and force them to follow the law, (Ann, the Los Osos project is already “permitted” by the County) and even then it's likely you'll get a judge who simply defers to whatever they claim, asks no questions, demands no answers, and goes along with whatever they're up to -- the old "Well, they're the experts so we have to defer to them." routine. This is about “WATER” Ann. No judge is going to rule against a citizen owning the rights to his water when there are numerous laws, federal, state and local, which support citizen’s water rights. We have the federal law (which I personally specialize in and know/understand probably better than any attorney in the US) on our side and the technology (which I developed and hold 9 US patents on) which is required by such federal law (as “best available technology”), and a $100M project to fuel our necessary legal expenses, the Water Board is finished. The people in Los Osos, for the last 24 years, never took the time to understand the very law which the “regulators”(which “doesn’t” deserve to be capitalized) are subject to. If you had, this “sewer dilemma” would have been over 15 years ago when I came to town the first time with the solution required by federal law. You put up a good fight but just didn’t deliver the “knock-out” punches, the federal law and pretreatment technology required by the federal law. The RECLAMATOR is the federally compliant alternative technology under federal law for the Los Osos Project. Remember, we have a “permitted project”, it is done.

2. Few homeowners here in Los Osos have the will to "gamble" on you knowing that they'll likely have to spend years hassling with the RWQCB's CDOs, Jerry Brown's AG Boys, or spend endless time in court (and Federal court means going back and forth to L.A., putting people's jobs in jeopardy). A private utility easement on each property deeded to AES will relieve each homeowner of 100% of ALL liabilities relating to their discharges and fines . It’s possible the homeowner may prevail in the end, but few people are willing to spend that kind of time and money. They WILL prevail ONLY if they ACT. Their only viable option is the AES discharge elimination service. If they don’t act to sign up for the AES service, they will be subject to either the County system and/or $5,000 per day in fines. Seems like a “no brainer” to me. (Consider the Los Osos 45. 90% of this town have forgotten all about them and haven't contributed a dime for their defense. Do you really believe those same people will put their property and time and money at risk (Ann, they already have by voting in the “218”. They are obligated to pay WHATEVER the County assesses for whatever sewer project they wish to do. Again, please do research and learn what a private utility easement deed means, “no more liability for the homeowner”. of future litigation that can go on for years when they won't lift a finger to help 45 neighbors simply clarify some simple legal points? God helps those who help themselves!) NO “gamble” Ann. It is reality; if the homeowners DON’T pay AES $20K (only $15K if signed up for service by Aug 1st) for its service, they WILL pay the County $120K for a sewer…Guaranteed – No other Option!

3. The State doesn't have to win in order to win. [An added comment here: I should have said, the state doesn’t have to be “right” to win, either.]The State has already “lost”, and are about to loose a lot more if they don’t start playing my game on my terms under the “rules” of the federal water law. They have all the resources in the world, all the time in the world -- the taxpayers are paying their salaries. WRONG, WRONG and WRONG! The State is bound by the federal law. If the taxpayers are stupid enough to not stand up for themselves (especially now that I have come here to lead them and have proven I can) and allow the State (or the County) to take advantage of them, what can I say other than “they deserve it”. My Dad used to tell me, “stupid is, is stupid does”. They are then free to use that money to hammer the taxpayers forever, if needs be. All this goes away with the assignment of the private utility easement deeded to AES! If you followed the CDO mess, you'd know how traumatized so many of these people were -- and this over a rather "modest" "symbolic" CYA CDO. A serious full court press effort by the Board backed up by Jerry Brown and the full might of the AG's office would be truly terrifying for most people. I empathize with everyone in this Community as I too have been traumatized by the regulatory “Society” over the past 15 years. However, it is OVER Ann, let it go. It is time to realize and accept it and support the ONLY OPTION you and the people of Los Osos have, sign up for the service….or wish you had in five years when you don’t have a home anymore.

4. Which is why I stated that I hope you'd get some legal clarification BEFORE things get further down the line. Legal clarification has already been gotten. Remember, I have a $79.5 million lawsuit against the State Board. Now, we are giving the State “legal clarification” of the law and their obligations under the law. By the time all my lawsuits are over, the Los Osos Project will have already been done for years. You can assert (“assert”? What do you mean? I “QUOTE” the law, comply with the law and demand the regulatory authorities “conform” to operating within the boundaries of the law.) anything about the law you wish. But the law doesn't become the law until some judge somewhere actually agrees with your assertion. And the STATE can do anything they wish until a judge somewhere stops them. The County permit has ALREADY “stopped them”. (Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean anything. Sure it does when someone is there to hold you accountable. The USC is the peoples law and the people must use it. For example, you can break any number of laws and never be held to account until one particular DA decides to prosecute. (Or, in this case, the people decide to prosecute, which I already have.) Until then, nobody cares that you've broken the law, it's as if nothing ever happened -- until that DA decides that something happened. Same thing here. The Feds/State/Regulators can decide thin air is pudding and move accordingly until a judge somewhere decides otherwise. So quoting the law doesn't mean anything in the real world -- a real DA or a real Judge are the ones who decide whether the Law actually IS the Law. Such a pessimistic attitude Ann, remember…your attitude determines your altitude ) Are you suggesting there is NO Justice? Our legal system is corrupt? Sorry Ann, the “lights are on” and NO judge is going to rule against the RECLAMATOR as all eyes and ears within the entire industry are tuned in watching and listening.

In closing, AES has come in and won your fight. IT IS OVER!!! Now, let’s get on with doing the right and legal thing. Sign up for the RECLAMATOR service NOW! Reap the benefits of your 24 years of efforts and now Los Osos is the first community to totally eliminate sewage discharges and be served by an appliance which eliminates wasting of household water by 100%. Los Osos will become the first community with NO SEWAGE…and…each home will have its own Sustainable Alternative Water Source. Think about it. Get above the crap you and all the other citizens of Los Osos have been “living in” for the past 24 years and take advantage of your efforts. Claim your rewards!!! Claim your VICTORY!!!!!!!

BRIGGS IS BEATEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HIS GAME IS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Oh, Looooocy, Jooo Gotta Lotta 'Splainin' tooooo Doooooo

Ron Crawford, over at has been reading the county Los Osos Wastewater Tech Memos and is coming to some unsurprising conclusions. Read it and weep, los Osos.

Monday, June 09, 2008

Excuuuuueze Meeee?

This from Bill Dwyre's column in the Sunday June 8 Times, referring to Big Brown, who came in last at the Belmont, with trainers and jocky saying he just ran out of gas, had no "go" to go, or the jocky saying, "I had no horse."

"The third question put to (Veterinarian on duty) Bramiage in the post-race news conference was about drugs. Dutrow (the trainer) had admitted to giving his horses, including Big Brown, the steroid Winstrol on the first and 15th of each month.

"That is legal in horse racing in most states, including the three where the Triple Crown is contested.

"Then, recently, Dutrow said he had not given Big Brown any Winstrol since mid-April. so, the question to Bramiage was, could this have affected Big Brown in the Belmont? Instead of Big Brown, did we have Ben Johnson on Advil?

"Bramiage correctly wouldn't speculate.

"But the issue gets larger as the Breeders' Cup gets closer. this October, Santa Anita will host the first of two straight Breeders' Cup events, the next best thing in racing after the Triple Crown. More significant, this will be the first Breeders' Cup in which steroids will not be allowed."

Let's review: Amazing horse runs amazing races while on bi-monthly shots of (legal) steroids. Horse goes off steroids, runs out of steam. People act surprised.

Anyone with an I.Q. larger than their shoe size can tell you that steroids of any kind are always an unpredictable double-edged sword. They can save your life or trigger a cascade of disasters that can end it. They can have blow-back consequences on all sorts of bodily functions. They are, in short, nothing to mess with unless you absolutely have to in serious medical conditions.

Why are we giving them regularly to healthy, in-their-prime, bred-to-run race horses?

Oh, right, it's not about the horse, it's all about the money. Silly me.


Friday, June 06, 2008

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, SLO Ca, for June 5. 08

I Do, I Do, You Too, Part II

“And individual’s sexual orientation – like a person’s race or gender – does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights.” With that, the California Supreme Court ruled that, when it came to “marriage,” California would end its separate-but-equal, second-class status for gay people.

Naturally, another class of people are busy getting a Constitutional Amendment Initiative ready for the November ballot that would return second class citizenship to the constitution by once again making the rights and responsibilities of “marriage” available only to straight people.

If the court does not issue a stay on its ruling, gay couples throughout the state will be allowed to marry by mid-June. Which adds an interesting wrinkle to the proposed Constitutional Amendment: If the measure passes, what will happen to all the gay couples who got “married?” Would The State now force them to get a divorce? And what of those who had their civil “marriage” also sanctified in the Church of Their Choice? Should The State also have the power to say -- to certain couples only -- “Sorry, but YOUR “holy matrimony” isn’t the right sort of “holy?”

Sadly, this entire issue is really the result of intellectual laziness. So before anyone rushes to enshrine discrimination and soft bigotry into our constitution, maybe it’s time to ask and seriously answer some key questions.

1. First, remove ALL “cultural,” “traditional,” “religious,” ”God,” “Bible,” “love,” and “romance” references, and then answer the following: What – really – is the purpose/point of “marriage” and what’s The State’s compelling interest in regulating it? Is it for the protection of children? Then why does the State “marry” childless straight couples while refusing to “marry” gay couples with children? If gay couples are to be relegated to separate-but-equal second class citizenship, what of their children? Second class too? What’s The State’s compelling interest in setting up that kind of two-tiered system?

2. Is the compelling State interest in “marriage” the regulating of real property and issues of inheritance & etc? Then why doesn’t the State only allow property owners to “marry?” Instead, prior to this court ruling, straight people without a dirt clod between them were allowed to get “married,” while landed gay people were not.

3. Is “marriage” simply a religious issue? Many people believe that “matrimony” is Holy, a sacred rite. What’s The State’s compelling interest (or even legitimate interest) in deciding what constitutes “holiness?” Right now, many churches and synagogues conduct official religious “marriage” ceremonies for gay couples, thereby “sanctifying” their “marriage” according to their beliefs. If this initiative passes, the State will have to notify all those gay folks who got “married” in a civil ceremony AND then went to a church or synagogue of their choosing for a religious ceremony, that their “Holy Matrimony” is no longer “Holy.” Do the people backing this anti-gay marriage amendment really want The State to decide which religious rites are legitimate and which aren’t? Really?

4. The initiative’s backers need to demonstrate – exactly – how granting full “marriage” civil/legal rights to all California citizens will jeopardize or destroy their own full “marriage” civil/legal rights. No fudging here with intellectually lazy, hot-button buzz words that are really code for: I and My God don’t approve of you so that gives me the right to take away your equal secular/civil/legal rights.

The California Supreme Court justices were asked to think about these same questions. Trained in civil/secular law, they had to know the difference between what was to be rendered unto Caesar (“civil” matrimony) and what was to be rendered unto God (“holy” matrimony). The result is a court ruling that finds no ”legitimate basis” to deny equal civil/legal rights to all California citizens, while leaving untouched any and all religious options those same citizens choose to make.

That separation of church and state is vital to what this country is all about. If the petition to amend our constitution to deny and then go back to remove equal legal rights from a certain group of people comes before the voters in November, will they also know the difference between Caesar and God? Or, whipped up by baseless fear, demagogued by sly bigotry, blinkered by intellectual laziness, will they vote to enshrine in our constitution the right to keep some of our neighbors, friends and family members second class citizens forever? If so, that would be a sad legacy, indeed.

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Mr. Murphy? Judge LaBarbera. Mr. LaBarbera? Mr. Murphy. Mr. Briggs? Mr. Murphy. Mr. Murphy? Mr. Packard.

From an email to Tom Murphy of “Reclamator” AES from Mr. Kotarski. Odd that Judge LaBarbera is apparently assigned to hear this case since he’s hearing the PZLDF Los Osos 45 case, and for sure there’d have to be some kind of conflict here since Mr. Briggs and Mr. Packard are involved in that case as well, not to mention the Basin Plan, “wastewater,” “discharges,” and other interesting stuff. The October date seems a long away way, especially since isn’t the EIR on the County Sewer Plan sure to be in the wind by then? Will this turn out to be a race for the cliff, as in, a traditional sewer plant is built and shortly thereafter the judge rules that hahahahahah the Reclamator doesn’t “discharge” and legally rules on what the word “discharge” and “waste” actually mean, or could mean or do mean, and it turns out that Los Ososians could have (legally) been allowed to consider and use a variety of options, including onsites to comply with what the Basin Plan legally defined, except Briggs & Packard got it wrong, but then, well, hahahahahah, too late. Or not. Well, stay tuned.

The email:

The complaint was filed on June 2, 2008, and has been assigned to the Hon. Barry T. LaBarbera for all purposes. A case management conference has been set for October 6, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. in Department 2. The defendants are required to respond to the complaint within 30 days of service; we cannot agree to give them an extension of time exceeding 15 additional days without prior court approval.
I will keep you posted as the defendants are served.
10 Universal City Plaza, Suite 2200
Universal City, California 91608

The lawsuit:
Kenneth A. Kotarski (State Bar No. 100954)
10 Universal City Plaza, Suite 2200
Universal City, California 91608
Telephone No.: (818) 763-5292
Fax No.: (818) 763-2308

Attorneys for Plaintiffs





Case No.:

[Unlimited Jurisdiction]


1. Defamation;
2. Trade Libel;
3. Tortious Interference;
4. Declaratory Judgment; and,
5. Injunctive Relief

Plaintiffs DEE THOMAS MURPHY, an individual, ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC., A Nevada Corporation, and AES CENTRAL COAST DISCHARGE ELIMINATION COMPANY, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company, allege the following:

1. Plaintiff DEE THOMAS MURPHY (“Mr. Murphy”) is an individual residing in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California.
2. Plaintiff ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS, INC. (“Advanced”) is a Nevada corporation doing business in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California.
3. Plaintiff AES CENTRAL COAST DISCHARGE ELIMINATION COMPANY, LLC (“AES”) is a California Limited Liability Company with its principal place of business in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California.
4. Defendant STATE OF CALIFORNIA (the “State”) is one of the fifty subnational entities of the United States.
5. Defendant CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (“Cal/EPA”) was created in 1991 by Governor's Executive Order to create a cabinet level voice for the protection of human health and the environment and to assure the coordinated deployment of State resources, all towards its mission to restore, protect and enhance the environment, and to ensure public health, environmental quality and economic vitality.
6. Defendant STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD (“State Water Board”) was created by the Legislature in 1967 with a mission to ensure the highest reasonable quality for waters of the State, while allocating those waters to achieve the optimum balance of beneficial uses. There are nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (“Regional Boards”), the mission of which is to develop and enforce water quality objectives and implementation plans that will best protect the beneficial uses of the State's waters, recognizing local differences in climate, topography, geology and hydrology.
7. Defendant CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD, CENTRAL COAST REGION (“Central Coast Water Board”) is one of the nine Regional Boards of the State Water Board.
8. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that defendant HARVEY PACKARD (“Packard”) is an individual and the Land Use, Section Manager and the Supervising Water Resource Control Engineer of the Central Coast Water Board.
9. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that defendant ROGER W. BRIGGS (“Briggs”) is an individual and the Executive Officer of the Central Coast Water Board.
10. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, agents, representatives, employees, or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are presently unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each of the DOE Defendants was and is either intentionally, negligently, or in some other manner, the cause or a substantial contributing cause of, or otherwise responsible for, the damages suffered by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege the true names and capacities of each DOE Defendant, together with such allegations as may be appropriate, when their names have been ascertained.
11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times mentioned in this Complaint, each Defendant was the agent, servant, employee, partner, joint venturer and/or franchisee of each of the remaining Defendants herein, and was at all times acting within the course and scope of said agency, service, employment, partnership, joint venture and/or franchise. Moreover, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that each act and omission hereinafter alleged on the part of any one Defendant was done with the approval and consent and was ratified by each of the remaining Defendants.
12. Plaintiffs have timely demanded retractions of all defamatory statements, which demands have been refused.
13. Plaintiffs have timely filed claims with the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board against each Defendant, which claims have been considered and rejected and/or rejected by operation of law.

14. Plaintiffs are responsible for the development and introduction of a patented and patent pending advanced innovative control (treatment) technology that eliminates all pollutants associated with incoming wastewater streams. The RECLAMATOR™ is a technology invented or licensed to be used by Plaintiffs that repurifies wastewater flows for 100% beneficial recycle and reuse applications at the source (private property), providing a service to eliminate the discharge of pollutants. The RECLAMATOR™ repurifies the wastewater stream to meet the water quality standard as defined in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (“MCLG”), the level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health (the MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals). The RECLAMATOR™ is the only full range technology capable of feasibly repurifying wastewater streams associated with “small,” single-family dwellings up to “large,” municipal type systems serving an entire municipality.
15. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that the quality of water discharged by the RECLAMATOR™, referred to as “reclamate,” is a valuable resource which is a superior water quality as compared to effluent limitations listed on permits issued within the Central Coast Water Board jurisdiction for recycled water. See California Water Code §13050 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act 2002. As a valuable resource, reclamate or permeate of the RECLAMATOR™ is not waste, but instead is a sustainable alternative water source. See 33 U.S.C. §1300 (2006). The RECLAMATOR™ represents the Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (“BADCT”), providing for the maximum degree of effluent reduction and achieves the National Goal which is “a standard permitting no discharge of pollutants” as required by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). See 33 U.S.C. §1251 et seq. (2006). The RECLAMATOR™ additionally is the best available technology economically achievable which is required to be applied to serve each point source (sewer pipe coming from a building or source) discharge to comply with the pretreatment requirements so as to contain pollutants to prevent them from migrating via a publicly owned treatment works or via soil into a drinking water aquifer so as not to cause water and other environmental pollution. These federally mandated pretreatment requirements are required to be applied to control sources of toxic pollutants that are listed on the published EPA Toxic Pollutants List. Nitrosamines, one of the highest level carcinogens known to man, is on the EPA Toxic Pollutants List. Ammonia associated with domestic sewage is the source of nitrosamines. All new sources of domestic wastewater are required to comply with pretreatment requirements even before discharging into a community sewer (publicly owned treatment works). See 33 U.S.C. §1317(a),(b) and (c).
16. On September 14, 2007, Packard appeared by telephone on a radio broadcast, “First News,” for the purpose of refuting claims made by Mr. Murphy and Mark Low (on an earlier broadcast of the same program) with respect to the RECLAMATOR™ technology (the “Radio Broadcast”). During the course of the Radio Broadcast, Packard published the following statements:
1. “[The RECLAMATOR™] doesn’t eliminate waste, which they claim. There will still be levels of waste coming out of the system and into people’s groundwater.”
2. In response to a comment by the program host, “So, in other words, levels of waste that are still not acceptable,” Packard responded, “That’s right.”
3. “The timing right now is kind of curious and, in fact, Murphy and Low told me that they’re here right now to disrupt the county assessment vote process.”
4. In response to a comment by the program host, “He told you that,” Packard responded, “Yes, he did.”
5. “Well, they obviously showed up right as the county assessment vote was starting, and making these claims that are unsubstantiated and not true, so we thought it was curious and we asked them directly why they came right now and they said to disrupt the county assessment process.”

17. The statements by Packard set out in paragraph 16 above were false and were meant to harm Plaintiffs and their businesses and, in addition, to interfere with their contractual relations with actual and potential users of the RECLAMATOR™. Packard had been aware of Mr. Murphy’s efforts to provide his technology as a solution for the Los Osos discharges since 1994. His department actually conducted a demonstration on the biological process of the RECLAMATOR in Los Osos in 1995. Mr. Murphy has been actively involved in the Los Osos Project since that time making several proposals which Packard was made aware of. Packard was in possession of data and documentation that did substantiate Mr. Murphy’s and Low’s claims prior to the Radio Broadcast.
18. On September 6, 2007, Briggs sent to Mr. Murphy and to Mark Low a letter of even date wherein Briggs stated that, “the Reclamator does discharge waste and is subject to Water Board regulation.” Attached hereto as Exhibit “1” is a true and correct copy of the Briggs letter dated September 6, 2007. Further, the Briggs letter of September 6, 2007, was published to Cinthea Coleman by sending a copy to Ms. Coleman as a “bcc” recipient of the e-mail transmittal of the September 6, 2007, letter from Briggs to Mr. Murphy and to Mark Low.
19. On March 6, 2008, Briggs sent to Piper Reilly a letter of even date wherein Briggs stated that, “… even if [the RECLAMATOR™] works as well as its promoter’s [sic] claim it will, the Reclamator will still discharge waste. The Reclamator therefore does not comply with the Basin Plan, which prohibits all discharges of waste from individual sewage disposal systems, including engineered alternative systems.” Attached hereto as Exhibit “2” is a true and correct copy of the Briggs letter dated March 6, 2008.
20. The statements by Briggs in his letters of September 6, 2007, and March 6, 2008, were false and were meant to harm Plaintiffs and their businesses and, in addition, to interfere with their contractual relations with actual and potential users of the RECLAMATOR™.
21. Mr. Murphy enjoyed a good reputation as an honest and well-informed professional before Defendants, and each of them, attacked Mr. Murphy’s reputation by these libelous and slanderous statements.
22. Advanced and AES enjoyed a good business reputation in their industry, which has been damaged as a result of Defendants’ libelous and slanderous statements.

(By All Plaintiffs for Defamation Against All Defendants)
23. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 22 and incorporate them herein by reference.
24. Defendants, and each of them, caused the formulation, development, publication and dissemination of the Radio Broadcast and the letters of September 6, 2007, and March 6, 2008, which erroneously and falsely stated, among other things, that the RECLAMATOR™ discharges waste and that Plaintiffs sought to, and did, interfere with a county voting process.
25. The statements made in the Radio Broadcast and the letters of September 6, 2007, and March 6, 2008, are false in their entirety as they pertain to Plaintiffs and are defamatory on their face as written or spoken, as well as through innuendo, as they are false and unprivileged publications which expose Plaintiffs to hatred, contempt, ridicule or obloquy, which have caused them to be shunned or avoided and which have injured Plaintiffs in their trade and occupation.
26. As a proximate result of the above described defamatory statements made by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have suffered loss of reputation, shame and mortification, all to their general damage, in a sum to be proven at trial, but which exceeds $50,000.00.
27. As a further proximate result of the above-described false and defamatory statements, Mr. Murphy has suffered severe emotional distress, all to his general damage, in a sum to be proven at trial, but which exceeds $50,000.00.
28. As a direct and proximate result of the publication of the above-described false and defamatory statements, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in respects to their property, business, trade, profession and occupation in an amount not less than $79,500,000.00.
29. Defendants, and each of them, published the defamatory statements either knowing them to be false, or with reckless disregard for the truth, without reasonable investigation into the truth of the matter and without a good faith belief in the truth of the matter. Defendants’ acts in publishing and disseminating the defamatory statements were done with knowledge by Defendants that such acts would cause Mr. Murphy to suffer great humiliation and mental anguish and injury to Plaintiffs’ occupation and reputation. Defendants’ acts in publishing and disseminating the defamatory statements were done with intent by Defendants that such acts would discredit Mr. Murphy and his RECLAMATOR™ technology in the eyes public so as to gain the public’s support in a vote that would give the County of San Luis Obispo authority to impose assessments on the homes and property of the people of Los Osos to assist the County in building a publicly owned treatment works or public works (POTW) project and which, if Packard had told the truth, as is his fiduciary duty, the people of Los Osos would not vote to give the County rights to assess their properties because the people would opt for the much more less expensive RECLAMATOR™ solution. Furthermore, Packard did not want to acknowledge the pretreatment requirements of the federal water law and had no intent to comply with the federally mandated pretreatment requirements in association with the POTW and had no intention to require the project to comply with these pretreatment requirements utilizing the RECLAMATOR™ because they would cause the justification for the POTW to be no longer existent. As the RECLAMATOR™ purified the water at the source, there would then be 1) no need for the POTW as there would be no more discharges, and 2) no sewer user fees could be charged to pay for the POTW as there would no longer be any waste water or discharges to manage, and 3) because there would only be reclaimed /repurified water, a valuable resource, required hookups to a POTW by a public entity would only cause such public entity to be required to pay for the water instead of being able to charge for sewage. Therefore, there would be no public works project or associated revenues to pay for a POTW project, provided Murphy was successful in marketing his RECLAMATOR™ as the most cost effective solution to eliminate the discharges in Los Osos. Defendants’ acts were therefore willful, wanton, intentional, malicious and oppressive, therefore justifying an award of damages.

(By Advanced and AES for Trade Libel Against All Defendants)
30. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 22 and incorporate them herein by reference.
31. The acts of Defendants, and each of them, constitute trade libel under California statutory and common law. Defendants’ foregoing acts constitute statements presented as fact, not opinion, which disparage the quality of the RECLAMATOR™ as well as Advanced and AES.
32. Defendants’ defamatory statements have damaged the good business reputation of Advanced and AES by, among other things, erroneously and falsely stating that the RECLAMATOR™ discharges waste. Defendants’ defamatory statements, which have been widely disseminated by Defendants, and each of them, news organizations and trade associations, have caused Advanced and AES to lose sales and other potential business opportunites, and to otherwise suffer monetary loss.
33. Advanced and AES are informed and believe and thereon allege that unless enjoined, Defendants, and each of them, will continue to make such false and defamatory statements, and engage in such trade libel. Advanced and AES are being, and will continue to be, irreparably harmed by Defendants’ trade libel unless Defendants, and each of them, are enjoined from engaging in such trade libel.
34. As a direct and proximate result of the publication of the above-described false and defamatory statements, Advanced and AES have suffered damages in an amount not less than $79,500,000.00.
35. Defendants, and each of them, published the defamatory statements either knowing them to be false, or with reckless disregard for the truth, without reasonable investigation into the truth of the matter and without a good faith belief in the truth of the matter. Defendants’ acts in publishing and disseminating the defamatory statements were done with knowledge by Defendants, and each of them, that such acts would cause Advanced and AES to lose sales and other potential business opportunites, and to otherwise suffer monetary loss. Defendants’ acts were therefore willful, wanton, intentional, malicious and oppressive, therefore justifying an award of damages.

(By All Plaintiffs for Tortious Interference Against All Defendants)
36. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 22 and incorporate them herein by reference.
37. The acts of Defendants, and each of them, constitute intentional tortious interference with prospective economic advantage and economic business relations in violation of California common law. Several customers of Plaintiffs who had placed orders for the RECLAMATOR™ have cancelled those orders because of the foregoing tortious interference. Moreover, potential customers of the RECLAMATOR™ who would have otherwise purchased the RECLAMATOR™ have refrained from buying the RECLAMATOR™ because of Defendants’ foregoing tortious interference.
38. Advanced and AES are informed and believe and thereon allege that unless enjoined, Defendants, and each of them, will continue to make such false and defamatory statements, and to unlawfully coerce prospective purchasers to not purchase the RECLAMATOR™. Defendants’ acts in this regard have irreparably harmed, and will continue to irreparably harm, Plaintiffs.
39. As a direct and proximate result of the above-described acts by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiffs have been harmed through the loss of economic advantage from prospective purchasers in an amount not less than $79,500,000.00.
40. Defendants’ acts were done with knowledge by Defendants, and each of them, that such acts would cause Advanced and AES to loose sales and other potential business opportunites, and to otherwise suffer monetary loss. Defendants’ acts were therefore willful, wanton, intentional, malicious and oppressive, therefore justifying an award of damages.

(By All Plaintiffs for Declaratory Judgment Against All Defendants)
41. Plaintiffs reallege paragraphs 1 through 22, inclusive, paragraphs 24 through 29, inclusive, paragraphs 31 through 35, inclusive, and paragraphs 37 through 40, inclusive, and incorporate them herein by reference.
42. In the wastewater industry, the word "effluent" refers to a "waste" or "pollutants" and as such cannot collectively apply to water discharged from treatment systems having a beneficial reuse value. Any beneficial reuse water produced by a treatment system having a beneficial reuse quality is not "waste" and therefore is not "effluent". In particular, in the wastewater industry the word “discharge” means, when used without qualification means “discharge of a pollutant” or “discharge of pollutants”. See 33 U.S.C. §1362(16). The quality of the water discharged by the RECLAMATOR™ meets the MCLG standards and as such, is a superior water quality as compared to effluent limitations for most all other recycled water applications within the State of California.
As a valuable resource, the reclamate produced by the RECLAMATOR™ does not contain waste or a pollutant, but instead is a sustainable alternative water source of value and is economically beneficial to its owner for reuse applications.
43. Plaintiffs are entitled to entry of a judgment declaring that the RECLAMATOR™ does not discharge waste or pollutants. The sustainable alternative water source or reclamate water produced by the RECLAMATOR is reclaimed / purified water intended for a direct or indirect beneficial reuse application and is not an effluent for disposal. Recycled water produced by the RECLAMATOR™ for reuse applications is a valuable resource. As a valuable resource, it is the property of its owner and as such, its owner is entitled to receive fair and just compensation at fair market value if it were to be taken from the possession of its owner by any other entity, whether public or private.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows:

1. For general damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, according to proof, as a proximate result of the above described defamatory statements having caused Plaintiffs to suffer loss of reputation, shame and mortification;
2. For general damages in an amount in excess of $50,000.00, according to proof, as a proximate result of the above described defamatory statements having caused Mr. Murphy to suffer severe emotional distress;
3. For general damages in an amount not less than $79,500,000.00 as a proximate result of the above described defamatory statements having caused Plaintiffs to suffer damages in respects to their property, business, trade, profession and occupation;
4. For special damages in an amount yet unascertained but to be proven at trial;

5. For general damages in an amount not less than $79,500,000.00;

6. For general damages in an amount not less than $79,500,000.00;

7. For a judgment declaring that the RECLAMATOR™ does not discharge waste, but does discharge water, a valuable resource and as such is justified to be purchased at fair market value as personal property if taken from its owner;

8. For an order enjoining Defendants, and each of them, from engaging in acts of libel, slander, trade libel and tortious interference with respect to Plaintiffs;
9. For costs of suit incurred herein; and
10. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.


By: _________________________
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

No, I Didn't Fall Off The Face Of The Earth . . .

It's called changing email services, getting a DSL (instead of a dial up, two strings and tin cans), futzing around with getting this blog site to recognize my new email, having Greg get the time to set up the change mechanism, spending endless time tearing hair out while Blogger kept pretending it didn't know me. Whoooooo RRRRR UUUUU? Next up, changing out my address book, shifting accounts and passwordds, waiting to see what keeps showing up in the in-box so I don't forget anybody.

Oh, then did I mention, having a rebuilt, upgraded computer done and installed, (next week) followed by transfer all the programs (also had to go through the delete and purge a whole lot of crap I don't need or want any more). Plus keeping up with my regular schedule AND making time to go sit in the back yard corner and smell the lavender and worry about why there aren't more bees buzzing around. And think of ways to get rid of the gophers.

Speaking of which, from everyone I've talked to, NOTHING works on gophers. Not the smoke bombs, not the car tail-pipe carbon monoxide tube down the holes ploy, not Jucy Fruit gum sticks down the holes, not traps (unless you buy about a gazillion and put them down each hole and if you miss one, they're too smart and won't get caught again so you're out about $80 -- with traps about $8 apiece), and I refuse to use poison for fear of killing off the dogs, the neighbor's dogs, the neighborhod cats & etc.

So far, here's what I've found that works: Salvias of all kinds, lavender, rock roses, white sage, something called gopher bane (a wierd prehistoric looking plant), lots of various natives, giant Four o'Clocks, Peruvian lillies (so far) and, apparently, geraniums?? I suspect their roots smell/taste bad? Which is why I stuck in some rhubarb. Maybe they'll eat the leaves and die? And with luck, it'll survive and I can have rhubarb bie at the end of this War.

Anyway, those plants have survived, so I'm working on the plan to make my yard so icky -- food wise-- that they'll just go on down the road and eat up somebody else's yard.

Also got some goo that's based on castor oil that you mix with water and can spray on your yard. Dont think I'll go that far, but might mix up a bit of that and pour down fresh holes in hopes that the castor oil will make the gophers think tht maybe it's time to go to France.

Wierdly, for 20++ years never had a gopher in sight. Then suddenly a vast hoard arrived. Maybe when they eat up what they can eat and are left with nothing but awful tasting salvia roots they'll move on.

Well, hopefully will get back to blogging. But then, having all of us take a break has been nice, I suspect.