Pages

Thursday, October 30, 2008

Los Osos Water Users Warning

The CSD's been fixing our water lines and in my neighborhood, at least, we've had increased water pressure. In my case the increased pressure likely goofed up the toilet-tank water level, thereby causing the water to silently, stealthly slip over the overflow tube with absolutely no way you'd know or hear anything for a couple of months, until you get your water bill and find out you’d run up a heck of a water bill increase, or even possibly screwed up your septic system or notice one of your bushes is looking astonishingly green and tall lately, so you have to start looking for a leak in your irrigation system and such like.

So, if you've noticed an increase in water pressure in your neighborhood, do check your toilet tanks (reset to at least 1 1/2" below the top of the tube) , and keep a sharp eye out for hidden under-sink water pipes to check for small leaks (if your water pressure's been low for years, an increase may cause small leaks in old pipes & etc.) or else the shock to your wallet or floors or septic system may be way larger than you can imagine.

80 comments:

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"The CSD's been fixing our water lines and in my neighborhood, at least, we've had increased water pressure. In my case the increased pressure likely goofed up the toilet-tank water level..."

Good news, Richard and Gordon. You guys can now also sue the CSD for screwing up your pipes.

Round up the lawyers.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi All,

Another VERY BAD DAY for the LOCSD.

Tentative agreement has been reached in the Binding Arbitration between the LOCSD and the Contractor's in Bankruptcy Court.

The Arbitor has determined that the following debts are owed by the LOCSD for stopping the Tri-W project:

Monterey Mechanical: $4,600,000
(reduced from $8,876,000)
Barnard Construction: $5,540,314
(reduced from 12,000,000)

While there has been a reduction in the debts, these remaining debts are now UNDISPUTED DEBTS that will be adopted into the Bankruptcy court on November 25, 2008.
What does this mean?:

1. That Monterey Mechancial, Barnard Construction and Whitiker Construction, being owed undisputed debts, may now be appointed to the CREDITOR"S COMMITTEE, alongside, TW, WRA and Wildan.

2. That the LOCSD has acknowledged debts that must be paid by the Los Ososian taxpayers, in the amounts of :
RWQCB fine: $6,600,000
SWRCB loan: $6,300,000
MWH: $1,078,000
BNY bond: $ 743,000 (bond paymt)
BW&S Fees: $ 421,000
BW&S setlmts: $212,000
Ripley: $ 100,000
Wildan: $ 91,000
S. Sullivan:$ 78,000 LOTA
K. Neismeyer: $35,000 Measure B
Misc: $ 200,000
Whitiker: $1,300,000
Mont Mech: $4,600,000
Barnard: $5,540,000

Add thes debts all up and they equal......
$28,998,000 IN UNDISPUTED DEBTS THAT THE TAXPAYER MUST PAY TO THE CREDITORS FOR THE LOCSD'S STOPPING THE TRI-W PROJECT.

This sum means that $3,880 is owed by each of the 6700 Los Osos propety owners to resolve this debt.

As to how the bankruptcy can pay down the debt, the CSD does not have the rrevenue to pay the debt. The choices here are to asssign debt paydown based upon the revenue of a future WWTF when in the hands of the LOCSD, or thru a future Bond Measure, or by liqidating the LOCSD's assets ( and the LOCSD itself). Take your pick.

-R

Alon Perlman said...

Ann, Check under your water heater also.
Earlier this year in a CSD meeting, I suggested to this CSD that they increase the level of notification to their water customers, as various neighborhoods experience increases in pressures (to standards required for fire safety etc...).
There had been several failures including burst older water heaters reported. An undetected indoor leak can be very expensive especially if it generates Mold.
People do leave on vacations and some properties are vacant part of the time. The notification discussion turned on door hangers (too expensive) and settled on the possibility of notification within the bi-Monthly water bill.
I assume that this was not done-Ann did you get notification in your Bill?
It is likely the current CSD is unable to overcome the distractions of the multiple lawsuits. It also seems the excitement of the election has de-focused some sitting CSD directors from the routine of running the district, and distracted them into efforts to decide an election from their seats and in Cyberspace.



Alon Perlman LOCSD Candidate

Churadogs said...

Alon sez:"There had been several failures including burst older water heaters reported"

Thanks for the tip.

And a shout out to Richard LeGros. The aribitrator has now determined that thanks to him and the other two recalled CSD board members who unnecessarily voted to start the Tri W project BEFORE the election, and thereby wasted about $10 million dollars -- money pounded uselessly and needlessly into the ground -- which will now need to be repaid by the community.

Heck of a parting gift, Richard, Gordo & Stan. Heck of a parting gift. Thanks.

Ron said...

Richy (jooooo gotta a lotta 'splainin' to do) LeGros wrote:

"Add thes debts all up and they equal...... $28,998,000 IN UNDISPUTED DEBTS THAT THE TAXPAYER MUST PAY TO THE CREDITORS FOR THE LOCSD'S STOPPING THE TRI-W PROJECT."

Beautiful.

Now I have a figure: $28,998,000 -- The price of you, Gordon and Stan setting your own recall election date at one of the latest possible dates, and giving yourself the extra month needed to waste that $30 million, and rip up ESHA for no reason whatsoever.

The funny part (well, not "ha-ha" fuuny), is the official reaction I got to my story on how the three recalled LOCSD directors set their own recall election date at the one of the latest possible dates, and how that decision wasted $30 million and needlessly destroyed ESHA.

What official reaction?

First, SLO County Clerk-Recorder, Julie Rodewald, tells me that, had it been HER decision to make, she would have set the recall election date at one of the EARLIEST possible dates, therefore, had it been RODEWALD'S decision to make, that $30 million wouldn't have been wasted, and ESHA in the middle of Los Osos would have never been ripped up.

THEN, after telling me that she, like I, attended the meeting where Richard, and Gordon, and Stan set their own recall election at one of the latest possible dates, Rodewald goes so far as to offer me advice on how to get that terrible law changed.

THEN, after I notify Blakeslee's office about how that horrible law -- the one that allows elected officials that are facing a recall to set their own recall election date -- needs to be changed, a spokesperson for his office tells me that my idea is a not only a "office favorite," but, "We continue to be very interested in this issue and will keep talking with the consultants and other stakeholders to see if there is (a) route to achieving the same policy goal - namely, avoiding the inherent conflict of allowing a recallee to game the system by setting their own recall election date."

Richard, tell Gordon and Stan I have some very bad news for them: Blakeslee's office think you guys "gamed the system."

I'll be sure to pass your "$28,998,000" figure on to Blakeslee's and Rodewald's office. I'm positive they will find it very, very interesting.

Richard, want some more horrible news?

I recently spoke with a county official, and, not only are they NOT considering building your embarrassing "sewer-park" at the mid-town Tri-W site, that you, and Stan, and Gordon, and Pandora wasted $20 million and five years developing and then wasted another $30 million using as a political tool, they... wait for it... laugh at it, literally. (Yes... your project IS "ha-ha" funny to them.)

Richard, it's just been shown that you wasted $50 million developing a laughable "sewer-park" in the middle of town, and you call that a "VERY BAD DAY" for the current LOCSD?

Dude, another quick reality. That is extremely bad news for YOU... and Gordon... and Pandora.

I have a question:

- If Maria Kelly is all about "supporting the county's process," then what is her reaction to the county's decision to NOT pursue Richard's, Gordon's, and Pandora's embarrassing "sewer-park" in the middle of Los Osos -- the EXACT SAME DECISION that the current LOCSD Board so wisely made?

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

You posted pure nonsense!

Again, you PURPOSELY FORGET that the project BEGAN WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE FEIR IN 2001 (not with the commencement of construction), was funded in 2002 via the Bond assessment vote ($21,000,000 collected) with those monies spent to buy land, design and permit a project; additionally with atleast another dozen LOCSD contracts signed along the way that COMMITTED Los Osos to the Tri-W project YEARS before the recall election occured.

But as OBVIOUSLY you do not understand finances or a contract's binding legalities, you desperatley hold to the belief you and the recall board did nothing wrong in trying to negate YEARS OF WORK and MANY LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACTS. Such is the nature of your denial.

Sorry Ann, the recall board is complelely responsible for the $29,000,000 in UNDISPUTED DEBT that they compiled by stopping the Tri-W project, as well as throwing away an additional $21,000,000 in bond assessment money spent.

THE LEGACY OF THE RECALL BOARD IS THAT THEY HAVE STUPIDLY INDEBTED LOS OSOS TO PAY OVER $50,000,000 (THAT'S FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS ANN!) TO PAY FOR STOPPING A VALID PROJECT......AND THEN HAVE TO PAY EVEN MORE FOR THE COUNTY'S PROJECT....ALL THE WHILE SHIRKING THIER RESPNSIBILITY BY TRYING (LIKE YOU) TO BLAME OTHERS FOR THEIR FAILURES.

-R

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ann,

Richard says that he was legally in the right with his votes (to accept the bids which were above engineering estimates, to start construction and to set the recall election date after the start of construction). Others including Ann and Ron it would seem are saying that it wasn't right even so because of the contentious nature of the questions at hand ... that the recall vote should have been first.

I would suggest that when considering this question, people will need to choose one consistent way of evaluating the situation ... whether that is financial, ethical or realpolitik doesn't so much matter, but one's consistency does.

It is just plain silly to castigate Richard for making unethical decisions one year and then say we won, get over it the next. If you're gonna use ethics as a way of evaluating your opponents, you've got to be ethical yourself. If you're gonna play politics ruthlessly after winning, you cannot complain that the other side does the same thing. If you say that they're wasting money, you've got to be able to explain how your own actions aren't wasteful.

This is one chief problem I'm having with complaints about the cost of the bankruptcy from folks who supported the recall which was at least the proximate cause of the bankruptcy. If the recall hadn't happened, the cost of the bankruptcy would be zero.

This is all to say ... Ann and Ron ... you cannot honestly say that Richard is the only party to blame here and that the hands of the post-recall board were tied and that they didn't have any choice but to stop construction. That was a choice they made ... and even if they felt there was citizen support for their decision to stop TriW, there were also some very real costs of doing so (as we now see) and the post recall board didn't seem to consider these costs at all before stopping TriW.

Richard LeGros said...

Ron,

You, like Ann, post nonsense.

I have no reason to take seriously the HERESAY YOU BLOG REGARDING YOUR SPIN ON 'CONVERSATIONS' YOU 'CLAIM' TO HAVE HAD WITH OTHERS. Your posting heresay on heresay is stupid.

-R

Ron said...

Richard wrote:

"the project BEGAN WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE FEIR IN 2001"

An approval that required an unsubstantiated, and therefore, illegal, Statement of Overriding Considerations.

I first reported on that at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-ought-to-be-law-part-ii-oh-wait.html

That link reminds me...

MEMO TO: The Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club -- I think I speak for the vast majority of Los Osos, and ALL Californians, when I say, "Thanks for f-ing nothing."

Why? Go read that link.

Richard wrote:

"was funded in 2002 via the Bond assessment vote"

A vote that the LOCSD gravely, and deliberately, misled voters on, using the voters' own money, of course. To put it bluntly, the 2002 LOCSD used public money to lie to the voters of Los Osos.

I first reported on that at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/04/language-in-2001-public-opinion-survey.html

Great story.

Richard wrote:

"... STOPPING A VALID PROJECT."

A "VALID" project that the Coastal Commission called "bait and switchy," and then forced you, as a then-CSD Director, to act on "bait and switchy."

And a "VALID" project that county officials now laugh at, literally, one year after they simply let the permit for that "VALID" project expire.

Apparently, much like the majority of Los Osos, county officials aren't impressed with Richard and Co.'s, "YEARS OF WORK and MANY LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACTS."

By the looksee of things, SLO County officials, and the people that stopped that "VALID" project, all seem to be on the same page.

And Taxpayers Watch, with its ones of dwindling "supporter(s)", is on a completely different page.

Hmmm... sounds like an interesting story.

Richard wrote:

"I have no reason to take seriously the HERESAY YOU BLOG REGARDING YOUR SPIN ON 'CONVERSATIONS' YOU 'CLAIM' TO HAVE HAD WITH OTHERS."

And that's been Solution-Group-turned-pre-recall-CSD-Directors-turned-Taxpayer-Watch's biggest problem.

If you don't want to believe me, then don't believe. I really don't care.

But here's the problem with that: What I report is real... real quotes, from real sources.

If you guys want to put your hands over your eyes and think that no one can see you, whatever. Knock yourselves out.

The only thing I can do to help you, and Gordon, and Pandora (and, Maria Kelly, for that matter) is HIGHLY recommend that you read and process my blog before you open your mouth, or tap on a keyboard, because...

Rodewald told me that.

Blakeslee's office told me that.

The laughter coming out of my phone the other day from a county official was real.

"Bait and switchy" was real.

GetRealOsos said...

Richard & Shark,

Didn't Stan tell Lisa "We left you with NOTHING!!!!!(money)"?

Didn't Pandora tell the County to take the project back from this CSD? Didn't the "top" Dreamers promise to bankrupt this CSD (from day one after the recall)?

Isn't the Prop 218 law a right to vote on taxes? And didn't the recalled board forget to have the 218 vote (or were they waiting for the sewer to be 90% complete and then try to charge fees?)...If the recalled board would have followed Calfornia law, neither board could have caused so much financial harm.

Why WAS THERE EVER A CSD FORMED PANDORA???? Thank you Pandora!

P.S. HAPPY HALLOWEEN - THERE ARE SURE A LOT OF PEOPLE DRESSED UP IN RAT COSTUMES IN LOS OSOS!!!!

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

It seems pretty clear that the LOCSD didn't have enough cash on hand to design an out of town system. Stan's comments were simply that ... are recognition that the new group didn't have the resources to fulfill their campaign promises. To spin it any other was is little more than an attempt to distract people by trying to make Stan out to be the bad guy.

The same goes for your insistence that Prop 218 applied to the construction loan for TriW. (Although, interestingly enough, if it was an illegal loan as many claim due to the lack of 218 vote, why didn't the post-recall board immediately return the money they say they didn't want?)

The same goes for Ron's insistence that the CCC screwed up. Just because the LOCSD didn't provide evidence that Ron thinks would be sufficient for his pet peeve issue and just because the CCC chose to do something that later Ron thinks was wrong doesn't mean that the project wasn't approved in a legal fashion. Even if Ron is right about the SOC document, all it means that if someone wanted to challenge the CDP, they would have an issue to do so. The fact is, however, that no one raised this issue ... at all ... until after the construction started.

Ron does even more distraction by telling us that laws which he suggests but haven't even made it to the floor of the legislature yet should somehow be applied in a moral sense and retroactively. If Ron's gonna try to argue ethics, how about his refusal to admit that his "real quotes" about Maria's position on dissolution were wrong. Is it ethical to offer quotes from one side of the story?

Lastly, Ron's continued comments on the County process not choosing TriW makes it clear that he either misunderstands the County project scope and process or that he is willingly mixing up apples and oranges in an attempt to justify his actions which have led to some $30M in debt, a more expensive sewer and a sewer that gives the residents of Los Osos less benefit.

Mike said...

....did someone offer up an answer to the 2008 Bait and Switch shell game being played by our completely transparent LOCSD...???

C'mon Lisa, you read this blog, dry your tears and tell us the truth before you leave office... Just what is the real printed and signed agreement/contract between the LOCSD and the PZLDF...???? What are the terms and conditions....??? Cap Rate...???

Of course, then we would really love to see the accounting.... Right now it sounds as if you outright lied to the community and have been trying to hide the facts... If I'm wrong, please show me...I can admit it when I'm wrong, can you...???

Richard LeGros said...

Ann an Ron,

Shessh! Really guys! To continue supporting the stupid (and in some cases illegal) actions of Juie, Lisa, Steve, Chuck and John is pathetic.

Now let me throw another bombshell into this sorry excuse of a blogsite....

Tom Murphy of AES fame has SUED THE LOCSD AND IT'S GM for not using his reclamator service or device!

Murphy has also included in his lawsuit the USEPA (and director, THE CALEPA (and director, and Governor Swartzenagger), the RWRCB (and director), the SWRCB (and director), the County of SLO (and GM.....and little old Los Osos too. If you want a copy of the lawsuit...email me at arch RBL@aol.com.

So much for AES giving a damn about Los Osos....all he was looking for was a platform from which to launch a lawsuit against the Feds. Additionally, all those folks who bought into his scam should be ashamed of themselves...you know, the likes of Ben Difatta, Piper Riley, etc. (all of them Venditti supporters by the way).

At this point in time, instead of playing 'shame and blame' politics why not do what REALLY HAS TO BE DONE.....hire a competent lawfirm on a contingency basis to sue the daylights out of Wildan / Blesky and BW&S / Juilie Biggs for all the terrible advice that they gave the CSD5 as legally-bond consultants; advice that directly lead to over $50,000,000 in debt to Los Osos taxpayers and the bankrupcy of the district they were obligated to protect and serve. For you to continue to blame past boards for this mess is juvenile and does not solve the problem. Get with it!

-R

Sewertoons said...

Shark said:
"…a more expensive sewer and a sewer that gives the residents of Los Osos less benefit."

Correct, according to what I have heard from the County. The project MIGHT bring a pipe of secondary treated water back to the community with secondary treated water and then it is up to the water purveyors to figure out and finance what to do with that water. Meanwhile, our water will be sprayed onto fields NOT over our basin.

We don't know what the cost of the project will be yet, but add to that the things we are likely to need to do later - like clean up the water to tertiary level treatment, figure out a way to get the water back into the lower aquifer - and add into that the tax payment we are paying for the FIRST project - PLUS the repayment of the money lost in bankruptcy - it looks like we are going to be stuck into a total larger cost.

I wonder if the "new" board ever once had a discussion around the failure of their plan? It is telling that they refused to give us a 218 vote at the Blakeslee compromise. I read that as no faith in the community to further embrace their plan to move it out of town.

(More of the PZLDF rip-of later.)

Sewertoons said...

ron says:
"Julie Rodewald, tells me that, had it been HER decision to make, she would have set the recall election date at one of the EARLIEST possible dates, therefore, had it been RODEWALD'S decision to make, that $30 million wouldn't have been wasted, and ESHA in the middle of Los Osos would have never been ripped up"

What would have happened, as the no sewer/move people hadn't gained enough traction at the beginning (remember 20 votes won Measure B), is that we WOULD be looking at the completion of the project about now WITHOUT the bankruptcy millions staring us in the face and we would have, like San Francisco, a disguised sewer inside of a park.

Get over it ron, bottom line, Los Osos has lost, big time.

Mike said...

Hey Ron... Tell us about that ESHA... hear tell someone tried to get the CSD to protect the snails and so far the only response has bee to fund the PZLDF lawsuit instead of obtaining the permit to repair the fence legally... Wasn't Lisa some sort of biologist who knew all about protecting crittters in an ESHA...??? Why has she turned her back on the animals in that ESHA and instead tried to blame someone else... She shoulda gone to Jenny....

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"Others including Ann and Ron it would seem are saying that it wasn't right even so because of the contentious nature of the questions at hand ... that the recall vote should have been first"

1. NOT filing to block measure B from the ballot would NOT resulted in having to settle for $600,000 some versus 3 x more. NOT starting work would have saved gazillions by NOT pounding gazillions into the ground in the frist place. And NOT ripping up ESHA land. The contractors had a no play, no pay contract; even if the contracts were signed earlier, if they were "unhired" they'd only be owed their start up costs. The money pounded into the ground by the recalled three was totally and unnecessarily wasted.

There were "real costs" associated with the recall and stopping the project. Then there were totally unnecessary costs piled on by the recalled three. The community chose one, but not the other. The other was an unnecessary "gift" to the community from the three,(not to mention Pandora begging Roger Briggs to "fine the CSD out of existance") which is why I say, Hey, thanks guys.

Mike said...

The community, not just the 19 others, thank you Ann and CSD for being so dishonest about the phoney "agreement" between the CSD and the PZLDF....

Thanks to the dishonest recall and the kickback payoff's by the CSD5, the community lost all control of a legally designed and permitted waste water treatment system which we all know would have worked and would have been completed by now...!!!

The PZLDF has never spoken for my family, maybe we should ask the CSD to pay the TaxPayers Watch for being representative of more families in Los Osos than the 20 complainers called the PZLDF....!!!!!

Ann, you help cost this community more true tax dollars than the previous CSD's ever did....!!!!!

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

You just plain wrong on this one.

There would not have been ANY BANKRUPTCY OR ADDITIONAL DEBT to the taxpayer IF the CSD5 had, upon realizing that they did not have the political power, acumen or money to do as they promised prior to the recall, relented to the STATE'S COMPROMISE POSITION (restart the project's collection system construction AND hold a 218 vote to secure the SRF loan).

Sadly, the CSD5 had egos so huge that they would rather see the community and taxpayer pay MILLIONS in debts and fines instead of proceeding with construction or hold a 218 vote. THE CSD5 REJECTED THE STATE'S COMPROMISE....not the recalled board.

As the recall had occurred (and Stan, Gordon and I 'tossed off the train') THE CSD5 were in complete control of the CSD (ergo, 'driving the train') at the PIVOTAL JUNCTION in the State/CSD negotiations. The CSD5 would NOT compromise with the State (CSD5 'driving the train recklessly')....hence the destruction ('train wreck') of the CSD's viability and eventual bankruptcy.

Get it?! Good!

Now I am sure you and Ron will say "but you left the CSD5 with a crummy train speeding out of control', but you would be wrong. The CSD 'train' was solvent, working just fine and chugging prudently down the 'tracks' towards resolving the waste water problem...and the CSD's own financial records confirm this.

Nope, no matter how you slice it, the CSD was wrecked by the egos and incompetence of the CSD5.

At this point in time, I see no need to argue with anyone over the 'train wreck' issue. It is not relevant to what must now be done:

THE CSD MUST NOW, AS THE UNDISPUTED DEBTS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED, HOLD THE CSD'S CONSULTANTS (WILDAN AND BW&S) ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR MALFEASANCE (in the amount of $50,000,000) AS THE CSD5 ACTED UPON THEIR ADVICE. It is either this or the taxpayer will have to pay the debt!

So Ann, either join this fight or get out of the way.

-R

PS: Just to be clear, I DO hold the CSD5 accountable for the illegal settlements and misappropriation of the April, 2006property taxes....especially as some point they understood the illegality of these acts and did nothing to rectify them.

franc4 said...

Mr. LeGros,

"28,998,000 IN UNDISPUTED DEBTS THAT THE TAXPAYER MUST PAY TO THE CREDITORS FOR THE LOCSD'S STOPPING THE TRI-W PROJECT."

You have a bad habit of never finishing a fact?.

Example: " AND ME, GORDON AND STAN, FOR STARTING THE PROJECT PRIOR TO THE RECALL ELECTION.".....is missing from your statement above. Why is that, I wonder?

franc4 said...

Mr. LeGros,

"28,998,000 IN UNDISPUTED DEBTS THAT THE TAXPAYER MUST PAY TO THE CREDITORS FOR THE LOCSD'S STOPPING THE TRI-W PROJECT."

You have a bad habit of never finishing a fact?.

Example: " AND ME, GORDON AND STAN, FOR STARTING THE PROJECT PRIOR TO THE RECALL ELECTION.".....is missing from your statement above. Why is that, I wonder?

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ann,

I don't see how you can blame the decision to settle the Measure B lawsuit on Richard. Sure, you tell us that not settling would have cost more. I don't believe you. I don't believe that McClendon was right when he told us that. The W*ll M*rt case was quite different than the LOCSD case and to assume the results would be the same is a matter of convenience for the LOCSD board at the time who seem to have settled only so that they could hire BWS (and what did that get us?).

Face, the LOCSD had won the Measure B case and the settlement was a give-away.

franc4 said...

shark,

You said, "This is all to say ... Ann and Ron ... you cannot honestly say that Richard is the only party to blame here "

True. There are too many to list each time it comes up, but since he seems to be the spokesperson (self selected, perhaps) for the recalled members, it seems he should take the "flack" like a man, don't you think?

franc4 said...

Mr. LeGros,

You say (often) what the new board SHOULD have done:
" hold a 218 vote to secure the SRF loan)."

With all due respect, why didn't you and your pals do that very thing?

You are quick to find fault with the new directors for the very things you did or did not due.

You are quick to point out the errors that you and your pals were (are) guilty of.

Remember, " When you point your finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at you"

Furthermore, the new board are often accused of blaming someone else. Isn't that what you are doing?

PS I have no idea why a previous post was posted twice. (matbe because it was accurate and true)

Sewertoons said...

franc, as usual, you don't finish the thought but instead stop where it is convenient. To finish, the "new" board screamed about there being no 218. Then when they had the chance to do a 218, they refused.

Please explain that.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Suppose there is a train somewhere in the old West that is heading down the track. Some of the passengers say "hey, the train is headed towards a cliff ... we need to do something". So ... they threw the crew off the train and in their confusion, send the train down the siding. Unfortunately, the siding is the track that heads the train over the cliff.

Who do you blame? The engineer and coal man who were doing the right thing or the confused passengers?

Ann and Ron somehow think that had the election been two months earlier, that things would be far different today. Had an earlier recall succeeded, things now would still be about the same ... only some of our debts (well less than half) and none of our cost increases can reasonably be blamed at all.

In a situation like this, it makes zero sense to single out Richard or "dreamers" as the entire problem. Supporters of the post recall board should be honest and admit that their board has been most of the problem.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

You say, "Supporters of the post recall board should be honest and admit that their board has been most of the problem...."

BUT, I say, all CSD's could NOT handle a project as large as this sewer. It's the largest the County has ever done, right?!

So, why did Pandora and crew form the PZ and sell it to us?!

Was it in order for the PZ to pay rather than the County?! Was this because of the new law at the time in '96 called Prop 218? The County didn't want to pay, but should have. The County put illegal liens on ALL homes in the PZ without the homeowners knowledge. That was illegal! Then, magically, after the 218 became law, all the liens magically disappeared and the PZ came to play. How convenient for Pandora and the County, AND HOW ROTTEN FOR HOMES IN THE PZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The formation of the PZ was where it ALL STARTED. All the lies and fraud. That was Pandora. You can put down Ron all you want, but Pandora started the ball rolling. She knew the RWQCB wouldn't allow ponds, etc. It was all a scam to get the cost burden off the County and all onto JUST the PZ homeowners.

How could anyone expect regular citizens on any CSD board could possibly pull something off as big as a sewer project from scratch!!



p.s. Shark, why don't you take a crack on my question: If Golden State has increased rates in order to take nitrates out of the water, then why the over-kill sewer? If you say that we're polluting the groundwater, then why not have the state pay since it's their groundwater, NOT OURS!

Sewertoons said...

getrealsays:
"why not have the state pay since it's their groundwater, NOT OURS!"

Uh, are we using it or are we not? You want to pay for Cambria's water? Or Newport Beach's? Who is the State - but us?

GetRealOsos said...

Sewertoons,

You just don't understand, and you don't want to understand, obviously. But thanks for answering for Shark!

Lynette, we ARE PAYING for our water. (Or at least I pay my water bill.)

I'm talking about the 218 benefit. Governmental agencies are not exempt from paying for the sewer if they benefit. That's the law Lynette. It's the state's groundwater that is supposed to be cleaned up by a sewer system. They are to pay by law. Golden State benefits also and should be paying towards the project. Hmmmm.

... Go ahead and ask your brother-in-law -- the attorney, or maybe he's just an ambulance chaser, why not ask a municipal law attorney about that.

And, Lynette, where's the proof of pollution anyway? It wouldn't be expensive for the RWQCB to test each home. At least we would see who is polluting.

P.S. Did a portion of Newport Beach have to pay to build a sewer? Did Cambria homeowners have to pay to install pipes and build a plant? How about you in LA? Did a portion of your town pay to build the sewer and lay the pipes? ...Or was it there already?

Thanks to your buddy Pandora, the County got off the hook entirely!! In fact, the County will stand to profit, millions Lynette!! It's a scandal.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

Somehow you suggest that no CSD could handle a project as big as this one ... and yet the LOCSD until the recall ... was successfully handling the project just fine. The problem was when the "hey kids, let's put on a play!" folks decided that they could run things better.

To suggest that "regular citizens" are incapable of government suggests that you don't believe in representative democracy. Maybe I misunderstood the nature of your remark.


On the whole Ron issue ... by the same logic one needs to use to say that the Solutions Group should have known than their idea wouldn't fly ... Julie, Lisa and the post-recall boardmembers should have known ... before the recall ... that they couldn't just "move the sewer" without huge costs.


Lastly, you ask why we should even stop polluting because ... after all ... it's the state's water and not ours. I'll turn that around and ask why there are laws against littering along the highway and dumping oil into the gutters? The principal is the same. The answer? Because we should not unnecessarily foul the property of others?

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

Just love the way you avoid the real question and turn things around.

Did you learn this from George Bush or John McCain's campaign?

You should be working for them, not us.

And no, the CSD should have never been put in charge of the sewer. Very bad move on Pandora's part! Bad move for thousands in the PZ, good move for the county though!

The County should have done the project and paid for it county wide. Our property tax dollar goes to other places in the County. We don't have roads, no parks, no County money ever came to Los Osos. No developers fees from the 1,100 homes built, etc.

The state is not exempt. Period. It's their groundwater that a sewer would supposedly clean, and if so, it's the state's groundwater and they should pay their fair share! Besides, if we ARE polluting (there's been NO proof other than tainted wells) then test homes to see who is polluting and who is not before putting a project in that will tax many of us out of our homes. It's ridiculous.

You don't address the illegal liens, or Pandora's scam to get the County off the hook financially. Clearly, you work for the bad guys and rip off artists. Pandora started the scam and you know it.

Sewertoons said...

getreal says:
"It wouldn't be expensive for the RWQCB to test each home"

ARE YOU KIDDING? A lisyimeter under every house - tested week after week - for years? You would want YEARS now, wouldn't you -to REALLY prove that we are REALLY polluting? Why won't you accept that the standard is one acre and one septic tank is what works? Do you really believe in magic sand?

Besides where would the WB get the $$ to pay for such a thing - ha-ha-ha -- US!

Maybe the "paying for our water" has to get a bit more expensive because we have pooped and peed into it for too long? Why can't you connect the dots?

Sewertoons said...

getreal, name an area like Los Osos that looks any better than here - this is a county with little building to support roads and parks (see the difference in Santa Monica or Van Nuys) - or a "city" designation to pay for stuff - it all looks bad. Drive around to the smaller towns - don't take my word for it. We really aren't "special." We trade the big bucks of Orange County for open space here.

Sewertoons said...

getreal, the PZ is 85% of the town. I don't want Cabrillo paying to hook-up - adding them in will raise the cost for everyone.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

Perhaps it is because you've not been reading here so very long that you don't know that I view the formation of the LOCSD as a mistake and that I also think that the County has moral obligation to help pay for the sewer costs. They won't, but they should.

As for your other statements in your recent comment ... you're way off base.

I did not avoid your question at all ... I answered it directly. You're essentially saying that the folks in Los Osos who have polluted the ground water in Los Osos shouldn't be asked to stop polluting. That's off the wall.

Lastly, if a lien is really illegal ... you can sue to have it overturned. Go for it. Let us know what happens.

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"I don't see how you can blame the decision to settle the Measure B lawsuit on Richard. Sure, you tell us that not settling would have cost more. I don't believe you."

If memory serves, the appeal of that case took about 30 seconds for the appeal court to reverse and allow the election. so you don't have to believe me or McClendon. The appeal court spoke loud and clear. Courts have a long, long history of NOT blocking elections, no matter how looney the initiatives are, courts hold votes as sacred and prefer to err on the side of prudence BEFORE the election. Then toss the thing out AFTER the election (with a "stay" put in place so nothing actually happens inbetween) Voting to block that vote was a HUGE mistake.

Inlet also sez:"Ann and Ron somehow think that had the election been two months earlier, that things would be far different today."

Indeed, I DO think things would have been different. I don't think the recall would have worked and if, by chance it did, the gazillions pounded into the ground wouldn't have been spent (and the Measure B block the vote case wouldn't have cost the bundle it did) and so forth. Richard keeps whining about "blame and shame," but what Ron and I have been attempting to do is to connect the dots. That train you speak of started a long time ago and the wreck is all of a piece, including Roger Briggs gun to the head saying DRIVE! and the Coastal Commission turning away, it's been one long litany of failures by the very systems that should have acted as brake and prudent engineer and safety engineeer witht he reg lamp, waving it and hollering STOP, time to back up a bit, then re-start. That didn't happen. Instead it was gun to the temple and all hands shoveling coal into the box.

Inlet sez:"On the whole Ron issue ... by the same logic one needs to use to say that the Solutions Group should have known than their idea wouldn't fly ... Julie, Lisa and the post-recall boardmembers should have known ... before the recall ... that they couldn't just "move the sewer" without huge costs."

Now, there's one of the interesting dots that needs connecting. The project could have been amended, projects are emended all the time, projects that run into problems are changed, moved, amended all the time, the old CSD could have gone back to the community and said, Dang, Ponds won't work, what do you want us to do, we'll take a vote, the "compromise" could have been done, was in fact so close to being done (remember the Blakeslee meeting that wasn't a meeting,heh-heh, remember Polhemus? etc.) the plant could have been moved out of town, the Coastal Commission could have said, hold it, something wrong here, we need to shift direction, as I wrote some time ago, sometimes the best way ahead is two steps back and one sideways,it all was DOABLE, but somebody(ies) didn't want it done. Who and why? Ah, now there's a bunch of interesting dots that still need connecting.

Sewertoons said...

We still have not see what "do-able" means for out of town. Remember the Clark Valley residents who have threatened to sue?

The County with all of their resources has spent a year with information of every type or sort. People still don't know what they want to do. Even a step survey was too difficult to navigate for some. You are suggesting our fledgling CSD could have gotten people to respond intelligently? Isn't that why we elect officials - to do this for us? Do you really think some whacky no-sewer agenda group would not have awoken to spoil it all? - Oh wait - that DID happen.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Ann,

I know that you know that the project was in the process of being amended thru those negotiations that died because the LOCSD refused to the last request to hold a 218 vote. The state wanted a guarantee that they would get paid back (perhaps because they were worried that the post-recall LOCSD wasn't going to honor their commitments) and many people in the LOCSD wanted a 218 vote ... why didn't the LOCSD just take out a bridge loan to cover the cost of construction until a quick 218 vote could be run. I suspect the total cost of such a bridge loan would be well under $200k per month for the three months we would have had to carry the loan. During the same timeframe that Dan Blesky and Lisa told us that we couldn't afford such a bridge loan, the LOCSD board voted to pay more than three times that amount to BWS.

Simply put, we didn't have to turn the state down. The LOCSD board chose to do so.

Why? Sure as heck, I don't know. They got everything they wanted in the negotiations. Lisa even told us at the end of those negotiations that STEP wouldn't really save us any money over gravity and that the negotiated solution was really good. Why turn it down?

Perhaps the truth and reconciliation commission Ann suggests we ought to have could take this issue up as one of their first orders of business. What was said during the closed session meeting where this was discussed and decided without public input. What did Dan say? What did the lawyer say?

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

You say, "You're essentially saying that the folks in Los Osos who have polluted the ground water in Los Osos shouldn't be asked to stop polluting. That's off the wall...."

Shark, where is the proof? Give that to me, that all homes in the PZ are polluting. No, don't give me the sole source Cleath. Their reports are bogus. So, where's the proof Shark???

You are off the wall Shark, I'm saying that the State and Golden State Water, and the Federal Government, by LAW, have to kick into the expense of the sewer. Obviously, you and Lynette don't care about breaking laws...figures!

Then you say, "Lastly, if a lien is really illegal ... you can sue to have it overturned. Go for it. Let us know what happens...."

Again, Shark, your twist on the subject. The County put liens on the homes without any notification to the homeowners, then your buddy Pandora knew she had to take the financial burden off the County after the 218 passed -- then the liens came off and she sold the community the PZ and them paying for the sewer.

Stop protecting the criminals, oops, I guess you're a criminal too! Neve rmind!

Watershed Mark said...

Sewertoons said...
getreal, the PZ is 85% of the town. I don't want Cabrillo paying to hook-up - adding them in will raise the cost for everyone.

10:33 PM, November 02, 2008

Please explain how everyone will pay more for a project that includes them into a system, Lynette.
Unless the "body snatchers" got you on Halloween.

According to TAC tech memorandum, the studied treatment capacity would easilty accomodate more users than are currently included in the sewerage senario.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

Could you please re-phrase your recent comments? They don't make sense to me and and want to know what you mean.

franc4 said...

Shark said;
"Somehow you suggest that no CSD could handle a project as big as this one ... and yet the LOCSD until the recall ... was successfully handling the project just fine. The problem was when the "hey kids, let's put on a play!" folks decided that they could run things better."

After all this time and discussion, you still don't understand that the new board simply were against what you lobbied for for months on various blogs...TRI-W...period! As Ann has atated, there was no reason that the loan couldn't have been amended,re-negotiated or whatever, but since the loan was illegal in the first place,( no guarantee of how it was to be repaid, like a 218 vote) the water gods wanted an excuse to be, rid of it by saying it was "site specific" thereby getting them off the hook.
Another point, it is very obvious that none of you have any idea what a farce the Blakeslee Compromise was when the BOD approached Blakeslee after he wrote it.

Sewertoons said...

mark, its the kind of user, not quantity. To put pipes into Cabrillo would cost a ton. The residents wouldn't pay more because their terrain is more difficult, however, all residents included in the project would pay more because of higher costs to that area.

Yes, you are right. With the plant out of town and "expandable," we will be able to accommodate GROWTH, unlike Tri-W, which was designed for build-out and no more. GROWTH, the very thing the put-it-out-of-town people didn't want. Ha-ha, and oh well…

getreal says,
" I'm saying that the State and Golden State Water, and the Federal Government, by LAW, have to kick into the expense of the sewer."

Golden State will be paying to clean up the water returned to town, just like the CSD water customers and S & T customers too (although at 207 homes, it won't be much). Gee, I don't know, the Feds through the SRF loan with the special accommodations that Paavo and Bruce were able to get is a pretty good gift. We thumbed our noses at them last project by shutting it down and using the funds to pay BWS - it's amazing that we have shot to the head of the SRF list, don't you think? Guess they really want to get this thing done.

GetRealOsos said...

Franc4,

You said, "Another point, it is very obvious that none of you have any idea what a farce the Blakeslee Compromise was when the BOD approached Blakeslee after he wrote it...."

Franc, do you know that the COUNTY HELPED BLAKESLEE IN THE WRITING OF THE AB2701? ...Gail Wilcox.

Mike said...

franc, or should we call you Julie, since you seem to know all about the Blakeslee Compromise... The real problem is YOU have never understood compromise... YOU have your agenda and there can be no other unless it's over your dead body... Well B...h, you are history, go back to your trailer and "boy friend" and take care of that kid who didn't deserve what you are doing to him.... You've been a hugh, fat, failure and now you're out of here...!!!!!!

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Franc,

If the loan really was illegal, why did the post-recall board not return the funds?

If the state was willing in the negotiations to allow for a different site, why did the post-recall board turn it down?

If the compromise was essentially allowing the post-recall board to get everything they wanted (except STEP) why do you now tell us that it was a farce? Lisa was trying to sell us on the compromise one day and just a few days later she was telling us that adding a 218 vote (which presumably you support) was just too much.

Sewertoons said...

Somehow the result was - NO SEWER!

GetRealOsos said...

Sewertoons,

A pretty good gift?! From Paavo and Bruce?! Gee, they refused to get them to pay their share of benefit/cost for the cleaning of the (Federal) bay and for the (State's) groundwater.

Gee, thanks Paavo for following the law and helping out the homeowners in the (phony and illegal) PZ zone.

Golden State ALREADY charges for cleaning up the water Lynette. Rates have increased what about 50-60%?! Are they also charging you for piss in your drinking water like Shark likes to say?!

Funny how you support those who break laws Lynette. Nice...real nice.

Where's the proof of pollution Lynette?! I'm still searching for the justification of putting in the most expensive sewer possible. Give me something, anything other than Cleath reports. We all know now that Cleath gets those sole source contracts from the County to do bogus studies...


Shark,

Same thing, I'll make it so very clear for you. Where's the proof of pollution?! (Besides the one tenth of one percent in the bay.)???

To answer your question about the "illegal" loan and why it wasn't paid back...two million dollars was missing from it after the recall and (obviously) Julie Biggs gave very bad (illegal?) advice to the board (and they listened to her) and she paid and settled with herself. And the 218? Again, bad advice, probably illegal, on the part of Julie Biggs.

You know all this though, so why are you asking?! Could it be that you're selling your very corrupt agenda?!?!

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

You say to Franc4, "Lisa was trying to sell us on the compromise one day and just a few days later she was telling us that adding a 218 vote (which presumably you support) was just too much...."

SHARK, YOU SAID FRANC SUPPORTS?

IT'S THE LAW SHARK.

Why can't you understand that?!?

Mike said...

"IF" 2 million was missing, and we all know that wasn't true... however, even if Lisa had really suspected that, then why didn't she call in an audit before taking another step...??? Why didn't she...??? Because it was not true, but she wanted her few minutes of theatrics... I'm glad she and Tacker are out of here...!!!!! Just don't go too far ladies, there is a judge waiting to have a chat with you both....!!!!

Sewertoons said...

getreal, God could come down out of the sky and say, "LOS OSOS, YOU ARE POLLUTING!" And then you would say - "No! show me the proof!" You could go on the central Coast Water Board's new website and find these answers, but I know you won't. If if you did, you say the tests were incorrect. I give up. Nothing will change your mind that we are not polluting. Go for it - just don't get in the way of the sewer that we ARE GOING TO GET!

Rates were increased for GS to pay to clean up the water. Did you not go to the meeting at SBCC, maybe 1 1/2 years ago? Rates were increased on CSD water to be sure that we could make our Ibank payments (AND pay all of the lawyers).

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

GetReal,

I have to agree with Toons here about your request for proof. Presumably you are arguing that not every home in the PZ is polluting even though some are (because if you are arguing that none are, we clearly aren't gonna get very far because you're adopting a very off the wall position).

That being said, I won't argue that each and every home is polluting, but that the density as a whole is the problem. Too many homes per acre, especially too close to groundwater has long been known to be a septic no-no. That is why the County ... years ago ... messed up when they allowed septic systems on such small lots. I guess they figured that there would eventually be a sewer. In any case, fast forward to today and we see that the nitrate levels in our aquifer are highest underneath the the PZ and lower elsewhere. (You can criticize Cleath as much as you want, but if everyone from the County to the RWQCB to the post-recall LOCSD board to Ripley have taken his numbers as factual, you should explain why they should be viewed as anything but solid.)

Watershed Mark said...

Sewertoons said...
mark, its the kind of user, not quantity. To put pipes into Cabrillo would cost a ton. The residents wouldn't pay more because their terrain is more difficult, however, all residents included in the project would pay more because of higher costs to that area.

What type of pipe are you refering to Lynette?
I thought you were a team player? Together Everyone Achieves More...


Yes, you are right. With the plant out of town and "expandable," we will be able to accommodate GROWTH, unlike Tri-W, which was designed for build-out and no more. GROWTH, the very thing the put-it-out-of-town people didn't want. Ha-ha, and oh well…

How much more will it cost when the WaterBoard comes down on everyone not on a sewer, later when they have thwe time and energy? Think AB885 compliance here Lynette.

You're "glee" betrays your stupidity.

Sewertoons said...

mark, nothing has been proposed for Cabrillo. The waste from there does not travel toward the water basin. No doubt their time will come, and when it does I'm sure that they will vote to assess themselves. I think the working families, the disadvantaged, the elderly and those on fixed incomes, mostly in the PZ, do not need to be part of that team. Cabrillo as a whole has a higher income level than most of the PZ as you may be unaware since you don't live here.

AB885 seems to be stalled. Guess the State has more pressing matters at the moment.

I'm surprised that you think the poorer part of our community should need to be involved in paying more than they need to to sewer an area that the Water Board has no quarrel with.

My word verification is "sheer." I'd like to add the word "gall" just for you mark.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Toons,

If folks in Cabrillo want to tie in, they can ... as a group, approach the County and participate in a 218 vote to assess themselves for the cost of design and construction and they'll be part of the plan.

Of course, the cost for others won't go down by adding in Cabrillo, but they still have that option.

Sewertoons said...

Thanks for that update Shark! I have not hear any group coming forth yet on this to propose it - I am wondering at what point they would need to say something? I'll ask at the next Bruce Gibson meeting - Paavo or sometimes John is usually there.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette wrote:AB885 seems to be stalled. Guess the State has more pressing matters at the moment.

Let's see...Commence enforcement on 1 million septic systems..Hmmm.

I wonder how much money that couldraise...

Sewertoons said...

Hmmm. How much would THAT COST the State to implement?

Watershed Mark said...

Are you suggesting that government will act in a fiscally responsible manner?

Remember the citizens pay the tab.

Sewertoons said...

I'm suggesting to do this would be a bad idea given the economy right now.

Watershed Mark said...

-----Original Message-----
From: jwaddell@co.slo.ca.us [mailto:jwaddell@co.slo.ca.us] On Behalf Of LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 5:37 PM
To: LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us
Subject: Los Osos Wastewater Project Design Build Contracting

Attention Design-Build Contractors, Designers, and Sureties:


NOTICE OF PENDING REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR DESIGN-BUILD SERVICES

Information for Design-Build Contractors, Designers, and Sureties

Design-builders interested in the Los Osos Wastewater Project are invited to attend a non-mandatory informational meeting which will provide an overview of the Project and allow time for questions and answers. The meeting will be held at the following time and location:

Friday, November 14, 2008 at 10:00am
San Luis Obispo County Government Center
1055 Monterey Street, Room 161
San Luis Obispo, CA

The County intends to procure two separate Design-Build contracts for the Los Osos Wastewater Project. The contracts will be for the following:

• Collection System Design-Build Services: Design and construction of a community-wide collection system, consisting of approximately 45 miles of pipeline, plus service laterals and appurtenances, to serve approximately 4,800 properties. The estimated construction budget is approximately $80 million.

• Treatment Facility Design-Build Services: Design and construction of a
1.2 MGD secondary wastewater treatment facility, with optional tertiary processes, on a greenfield site. The estimated construction budget is approximately $25 million.

The County of San Luis Obispo is currently developing the Design-Build procurement documents for the Project. In accordance with Public Contract Code §20133(d)(3)(A), the County is making Draft RFQ’s available for comment from the construction industry, including representatives of the building trades and surety industry. A formal Request for Qualifications has not been issued.

Go to the Project website at www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/DB.htm to view the draft RFQ’s or contact John Waddell, Project Engineer, at (805)788-2713 for more information. Comments are requested by November 21, 2008.

(See attached file: 11-5-08 Notice RFQ.pdf)

Watershed Mark said...

From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2008 9:35 AM
To: pogren@co.slo.ca.us; John Waddell; Mark Hutchinson; 'LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us'
Cc: BGibson@co.slo.ca.us; Karl Hadler; Lou Carella; Mark Low
Subject: ECOfluid's USBF 1 MGD Generic Plant Proposal-Membrane Bioreactor all gravity process flow
Importance: High

Greetings Gentlemen,

In response to October 27, 2008: Release of the Final Report from the NWRI Independent Peer Review Panel:


Treatment Technology
4.3.1 Options:
Biolac
Facultative Pond
Oxidation Ditch
Membrane Bioreactor (added by Panel)




Attached please see a generic proposal for a 1MGD ECOfluid USBF Membrane Bioreactor Title 22 Water Reclamation Facility.

A close review of our treatment technology will reveal many advantages over the other treatment technologies your study process included.
These advantages include, but are not limited to, reduced footprint, reduced energy consumption, no odor, reduced sludge production, reduced capital and O&M costs.

The cost range is $6,900,000.00 for a Micro Screen option and $7,400,000.00 for the Membrane option which includes 30% design, engineering and contingency. As Paavo Ogren stated in August 2007- If there is a technology that is significantly less expensive”, “then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away”. When these words become reality the citizens are well represented by their government.

The one factor that significantly contributes to operating simplicity and reduces operating and maintenance needs and costs, is the all gravity process flow. Pumped once from the equalization tank into the bioreactors, the entire flow through the process (biology, filtration and UV disinfection) is by gravity.

Gravity and hydraulic action are forces of nature and is energy which is free of charge.

Of course any size (Gallons Per Day) facility for any strength (Industrial or Municipal) influent can be designed upon request.

The attached Nitrogen Reduction Memorandum should be of particular interest to those interested in solving Nitrogen loading problems.

www.ECOfluid.com President, Karel Galland and I are available to discuss in detail this generic proposal and how a site specific proposal can be developed for your project.

We expect to see our technology included in your study review process, including the Environmental Impact Report.

Time and money are precious, so we won’t waste any and know that you will want to give us your best consideration so we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Your prompt attention in this matter will be appreciated.

Kind regards,


Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"

Watershed Mark said...

You may email me @ Mark@NOwastewater.com if you would like to see the full proposal.

$25 Million for a seconday quality facility or $7.4 Million for a tertiary Title 22 Membrane Facility?

Let's put it to a vote, shall we?

Sewertoons said...

mark says:
"Of course any size (Gallons Per Day) facility for any strength (Industrial or Municipal) influent can be designed upon request."

And how much extra is that?

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

The only proposal I am interested in seeing is the one you submitted to the County.

Watershed Mark said...

No extra charge Lynette.
Steve, shoot me an email and I'll send it to you.

Watershed Mark said...

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/document+library/Draft+RFQ+for+Treatment+Facility.pdf

1.2.
General Description Of The Project
The project entails the design and construction of a complete wastewater treatment facility and appurtenances on an approximately 40 acre site of previously undeveloped agricultural land. The treatment facility will be designed for an approximate build-out flow of 1.2 MGD, with initial flows expected to be 0.8 MGD. Flows and loads will originate almost entirely from residential uses. The following treatment processes are being evaluated in the EIR and, subject to the final EIR determinations, are expected to be developed in the design build proposals: oxidation ditch, a BIOLAC system, or partially mixed facultative ponds. The expected effluent waste concentrations are listed in Section 3-9, and include a total nitrogen limit of 0.7 mg/L.

Release of the Final Report from the NWRI Independent Peer Review Panel:


Treatment Technology
4.3.1 Options:
Biolac
Facultative Pond
Oxidation Ditch
Membrane Bioreactor (added by Panel)

I wonder why the county process is not considering “Membrane Bioreactor” as recommended by the NWRI Independent Peer Review Panel…

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,
The proposal didn't cost the county taxpayers anything.

It was suppiled free of charge.

Watershed Mark said...

Sewertoons said...
I'm suggesting to do this would be a bad idea given the economy right now.

4:46 PM, November 04, 2008

Lynette, when would it be a good idea?

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...

Mark,

You can send me something at sharkinlet@gmail.com ... easy as cake.

Watershed Mark said...

Done.
Anyone else?

Sewertoons said...

mark, I didn't mean that the proposal would cost anything. What I meant was that you have an already done generic design for 1MGD, but the project requires a design for 1.2MGD. You know - actual design costs for 1.2MGD. We already paid for a project design. Now we will get to pay for another one.

I'm suggesting it would be a good idea when President Obama and his group can gain some financial stability for America and undo some Bush damage, and at some point when California has stopped being broke.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

Please provide the link to the to the "project design already paid for". Can you tell us what it is and how much was paid?

The EIR is evaluating several project alternatives on a co-equal basis so that project determinations can be made after release of the Draft EIR and based, in part, on the costs presented in the design-build proposals submitted in response to this procurement process.
This RFQ is related to the procurement of design-build services for the wastewater treatment processes. Three wastewater treatment processes have been selected as the most viable and cost-effective for the Project and evaluated in the Draft EIR. The processes include Partially Mixed Facultative Ponds, an Oxidation Ditch or the proprietary Biolac System. Solids processing facilities would also be required to process the biosolids for hauling to an offsite facility for recycling or disposal.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette thinks...I'm suggesting it would be a good idea when President Obama and his group can gain some financial stability for America and undo some Bush damage, and at some point when California has stopped being broke.

Then what?

Watershed Mark said...

Sewertoons said...
mark, I didn't mean that the proposal would cost anything. What I meant was that you have an already done generic design for 1MGD, but the project requires a design for 1.2MGD. You know - actual design costs for 1.2MGD.


Ok how about a 1.5MGD for 50% more than a 1MGD?

Cha Ching...No Charge.

I love technology, don't you?

Watershed Mark said...

Additionally, the County plans to procure design and construction services for the Project collection system, treated effluent disposal/reuse facilities, and raw and treated wastewater conveyance systems under separate contracts. These facilities, as well as operation and maintenance services, are not included in the scope of services for the D/B Entity as part of this procurement.

Sewertoons said...

I didn't live here when the prior project's 218 assessment was voted on, but it was to purchase land and create a design for a wastewater treatment facility - which was Broderson-80 acres, Tri-W - 11 acres and the MBR plant at TriW. The bill came to about $20 million. You could either pay off that assessment in one lump or continue to pay in increments on your tax bill. Mine is on the tax bill. I believe the assessment occurred in 2001.

Here is a quote I found off a document on the Water Board site from a letter of Bruce Buel to Roger Briggs:

"With the litigation over, the LOCSD Board authorized the sale of municipal bonds on September 19, 2002. The bonds were sold on October 31, 2002."

Sewertoons said...

mark, no need to cut and paste, I know where to read this stuff, thanks.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

Please provide the link to the to the "project design already paid for". Can you tell us what it is and how much was paid?

If you know "where to read" please show us you know "how to read".

You have made many statements which you do not or cannot back up with "links".

For instance:"We already paid for a project design."

The problem with that is it betrays your emotions when you should be demonstrating your logic.

But that's just my opinion.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

For your review and consideration:

http://www.ultra-flo.com.sg/mbr.htm