Pages

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, tmurphyaes@earthlink.net 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: http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/
In a message dated 6/13/2008 1:54:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tmurphyaes@earthlink.net 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!!!!!!!!!!!!!

6 comments:

Rick said...

It's really simple.

If he's so confident, then I'm sure he will indemnify all purchasers of the Reclamator, with a bonded fund, from any and all fines, charges, liens, or assessments from the County related in any way to attaching that customer to the sewer, and have it backed by an AAA rated bonding agency.

That would settle the matter for me.

Put your money--not ours--where your mouth is, Mr. Murphy. Indemnify your customers, or go away.

Rick said...

P.S. I *hope* AES is right.
I *hope* it works and
I *hope* it gets the proper certification from the state.

I'm not here just to pooh-pooh the Reclamator. But I would feel terrible if a bunch of folks have to go through even more heartbreak regarding this sewer.

*PG-13 said...

I'm with rick. I want My Reclamator. But I want it with the same guarantee Mr Murphy repeatedly guarantees the county is obligated for. If he's sooooo certain about this I don't understand why he isn't willing to offer a guarantee of his own.

Rick > Put your money--not ours--where your mouth is, Mr. Murphy.

We know The Reclamator gospel. And we know The Reclamator disciples can talk. And talk. And talk. But they're always short on miracles, uh, proof. Granted, Los Osos has raised the sewer to something approaching religion. But belief in The Reclamator need not be an article of faith.

Sewertoons said...

Maybe the Tom Murphy hasn't been paying attention to the County when he says:
"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)?"

The County can't bill the homeowners until the County accepts the project (duh!) and they have just hired bond counsel to do the bond!

Prefix528 said...

Articles of Faith

Deeding an easement to AES relieves an owner from responsibility for discharging “reclamate” within the easement area.

There is only one on-site treatment option available – the Reclamator.

Federal law requires use of the Reclamator by every household in Los Osos (and perhaps the US).

People that purchase a Reclamator will be relived of having to pay the tax assessments authorized by the 218 vote.

The Federal Constitution obligates public agencies to purchase reclamate.

The Water Board doesn’t have jurisdiction over wastewater if it is treated to a high standard.

Federal grants are available to assist people in purchasing Reclamators.

Bears use Reclamators in the woods.

Mike said...

...and the Checks in the Mail!