Pages

Monday, November 17, 2008

The Hell With Waldo, Where's Tri-W?

Today's Tribune, writing about the recently released Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Los Osos Sewer, notes that "The environmentally superior project is locatd on the 645-acre Tonini property, which is bounded on its north and east sides by Turri Road."

Also, "This location was given a slight environmental edge because its large size would allow the sewer plant to be upgraded to the higher tertiary level of treatment at a future date."

And also, "A third of the effluent would be piped to the Broderson property off Highland Drive, where it would go into leach fields that would allow the water to seep back into underground aquifers." "But Public works planers devised the spray field option for the bulk of the effluent in order to alleviate concerns in the community that disposing of all of the effluent at the Broderson site would cause localized flooding in town because of high groundwater levels and other problems, [project manager Mark] Hutchinson said."

And that "The document also examines the contentious so-called 'Tri-W' parcel in the middle of town, but gives it a much lower environmental ranking." "As we say in the (environmental report,) we don't think the Tri-W site is feasible from a community acceptance perspective,'Hutchinson said. 'But people may have different values.'"

Oh, and this: "A gravity system would collect the sewage from homes and pumps would carry it to the Tonini property." Interesting, apparently, STEP systems need not apply?

And this, "It is estimated to cost $165 million, said Mark Hutchinson, project manager." [That estimate I presume is before the value engineering is done?) And again, no STEP estimates or comparisons listed in this story, at least. And also missing from this story, any mention of the "community survey," you know, the one wherein the County would present several options and let the community weigh in on which they wanted to "buy." Well, maybe that'll show up later . . . .if at all?

Well, the project will be discussed, 6 pm., Wednesday, Nov 19, at the Los Osos Middle School. Do arrive with your questions. The EIR will be posted on the county's website on Tuesday, there'll be printed versions in the library, and compact discs available as well.

Start yer engines. The Hideous Sewer Wars can, once again, commence. Chugga-chugaa

93 comments:

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Let's see, Tri-W at $154 million with tertiary treatment, and the water does not leave the basin or the control of the CSD --OR Tonini at $165 million, secondary treatment, and 1/3 of the water is returned for disposal at Broderson, the rest going onto sprayfields. Well, Lisa, Julie, Chuck, Steve and John - I guess you got what YOU wanted - environmentally superior (!!) and out of town! Good job!

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Ann,

So far the County's project is preceeding properly. We all have concerns; however we still have a lenghty process to go through.

I sure the 'process' will fill in many gaps; and alter what has been proposed. The plan still has to undergo intensive review by the RWQCB, funding review, by the SWRCB, the CCC, the EPA / CalEPA, the Dept. of Health, County Planing, Value Engineering, the Public, etc. No doubt the project will morph technically and administratively.

-R

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Oh, and let's see what individual COST IMPACTS arise for the homeowner before step is thought to be the savior in this equation. Will it bring down the PROJECT cost only to slam me, personally, with a higher bill for property DAMAGE.

Watershed Mark said...

ECOfluid 1MGD MBR Tertiary to 4mg/l TN $7.4/gallon..
Small Pipe Directional Bore collection $20M
One Site EONE collection $25M

Ignoring technology that conserves resouses and costs less...PRICELESS.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

Where are the cost estimate bids for each on lot connection?
I don't believe they are covered in Mark's $165M "estimate"...

Imagine that bidding blood bath(for ther consumer)...

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
I have sucessfully made 50% of the comments on this thread thus far.

Realistic1 said...

WM -

I assume you are paying Ann for the use of her blog as a billboard for ECOfluid....

Watershed Mark said...

Don't forget EONE and the directional drill contractor who ever he will be.

Watershed Mark said...

Real?

You like Steve assume way too much.

Unknown said...

How much directional boring will be required with the gravity collection system...???

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

How much more boring will we have to endure from mark?

Watershed Mark said...

Intersting that the paper wrotea story before the EIR was released.

Can you get a big leaky bell and spigot pipe itno a directional drill bore hole two feet below grade, MIKE?

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

Why not begin a bolg :"yourself" and delete anyone you "get sick" from?

Next.

Watershed Mark said...

What is a Watershed?
A watershed is the area of land where all of the water that is under it or drains off of it goes into the same place. John Wesley Powell, scientist geographer, put it best when he said that a watershed is:

"that area of land, a bounded hydrologic system, within which all living things are inextricably linked by their common water course and where, as humans settled, simple logic demanded that they become part of a community."

Unknown said...

Thanks Mark, you have certainly turned this into a mind expanding experience... Good Luck with the County in accepting anything you may put forth...

Watershed Mark said...

Thank you MIKE,
RACECAR spelled backwards is still RACECAR.

Watershed Mark said...

A 200-acre swath of farmland west of Turri Road has been identified as the environmentally superior location for the long-awaited and much-debated treatment plant for the proposed Los Osos sewer.
The county Department of Public Works has completed a draft environmental analysis for the wastewater treatment plant it plans to build for the seaside community.
It is estimated to cost $165 million, said Mark Hutchinson, project manager.
http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/530771.html
Looks like the TRI-W @$50.00/gallon is no longer the highest project cost offered… Thank you Tribune for getting this “scoop” before anyone else!
Of course as the newspaper of record for the project I would expect no less.

Shark Inlet said...

I've heard it said that one can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I propose we amend that phrase with "or massive piles of BS."

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Thank you Shark!

Osos Change said...

Click here to view the latest winner of "Weakest Link."

Congratulations to Steve Rein!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

He looks cute to me, but then I like the intellectual type. What point were you trying to make?

How about posting a photo of you so we can make a comparison? (We know you aren't the intellectual type -- unless you are 11 years old, then you could be, I suppose.)

Osos Change said...

Since you asked...

Unknown said...

STROKE:Remember the 1st Three Letters....S.T.R.

My nurse friend sent this and encouraged me to post it and spread the
word.
I agree.

STROKE IDENTIFICATION:

During a BBQ, a friend stumbled and took a little fall - she assured
everyone that she was fine (they offered to call paramedics) .she said
she had just tripped over a brick because of her new shoes.

They got her cleaned up and got her a new plate of food. While she
appeared a bit shaken up, Ingrid went about enjoying herself the rest
of the evening

Ingrid's husband called later telling everyone that his wife had been
taken to the hospital - (at 6:00 pm Ingrid passed away.) She had
suffered a stroke at the BBQ. Had they known how to identify the signs
of a stroke, perhaps Ingrid would be with us today. Some don't die.
they end up in a helpless, hopeless condition instead.

It only takes a minute to read this...

A neurologist says that if he can get to a stroke victim within 3
hours he can totally reverse the effects of a stroke...totally. He
said the trick was getting a stroke recognized, diagnosed, and then
getting the patient medically cared for within 3 hours, which is tough.

RECOGNIZING A STROKE
Sometimes symptoms of a stroke are difficult to identify.
Unfortunately, the lack of awareness spells disaster. The stroke
victim may suffer severe brain damage when people nearby fail to
recognize the symptoms of a stroke.

Now doctors say a bystander can recognize a stroke by asking three
simple questions:
S *Ask the individual to SMILE.

T *Ask the person to TALK and SPEAK A SIMPLE SENTENCE (Coherently)
(i.e. It is sunny out today)

R *Ask him or her to RAISE BOTH ARMS.

If he or she has trouble with ANY ONE of these tasks, call emergency
number immediately and describe the symptoms to the dispatcher.

New Sign of a Stroke -------- Stick out Your Tongue

NOTE: Another 'sign' of a stroke is this: Ask the person to 'stick'
out his tongue.. If the tongue is 'crooked', if it goes to one side or
the other,that is also an indication of a stroke.

Apparently baldness is another indicator... Keep takingyour meds.... Q&F....Q&F...!!!!

Shark Inlet said...

OsosChange ...

Does Joey!!!! know that you are using his photo as one of yours? I can hardly believe that Joey!!!! would allow you to use his photo. Maybe it would be best to ask permission first.

Osos Change said...

Did Richard LeGros asked for permission when he posted Joey Racano's picture on SanLuisObispo.com discussion boards? I'll be happily awaiting your reply.

Shark Inlet said...

OsosChange,

Surely you aren't saying that two wrongs make a right. If it was wrong of Richard to do something, it would be wrong for you to do the same thing.

Even so, it seems the issue is that you claimed that Joey!!!!'s photo was a photo of you. Richard didn't make that claim.

Unless you are Joey!!!! you should ask his permission before using his photo and claiming that you are posting a photo of yourself.

I would also guess that this would fall under the category of joking or fibbing, but because it wasn't funny or even an apparent attempt to be funny, we'll assume that you were lying to us.

Unknown said...

For someone who has no problem spying on neighbors, who has cursed and threatened those you disagreed with, osos change or is it getrealosos or just plain Joey the Hardhat Diver... You sure get sensitive when others strike back at your assine comments.... We do remember those needlessly long CSD meetings and putting up with you...!!!!

Osos Change said...

Steve,

Answer my question.

Shark Inlet said...

OsosChange,

I have no idea whether Richard asked Joey!!!!'s permission. In fact, I had no idea that he had even put a picture of Joey!!!! there.

Perhaps you would care to explain how your question is relevant.

I also don't see that you have the right to be so demanding in our discussion ... after all, the consideration you've shown me is ... um ... less than appropriate.

Watershed Mark said...

Affordability Assistance
The following links provide households (homeowners and renters) within Los Osos loan and/or grant opportunities and financial assistance for the wastewater project. Unless otherwise noted, the household is responsible for contacting and applying for the assistance.

California State Controller's Office

Property Tax Postponement for Senior Citizens, Blind or Disabled Citizens

Synopsis: Allows eligible homeowners to postpone payment of the property taxes on their principle place of residence. Special assessments are eligible for postponement.

Additional Information: http://www.sco.ca.gov/col/taxinfo/ptp/index.shtml

How to Apply: Visit the link above and complete the required application, or call 1-800-952-5661

California State Franchise Tax Board

Homeowner and Renter Assistance

Synopsis: Once-a-year payment to qualified individuals for part of their property taxes or portion of their rent that indirectly covers property taxes. Special assessments are not eligible for postponement, however, qualifying individuals can lower their overall tax liability by receiving the payment.

Additional Information: http://www.ftb.ca.gov/individuals/hra/index.shtml

How to Apply: Visit the link above and complete the required application or call 1-800-868-4171

United States Department of Agriculture, Rural Development

Single Family Housing Repair Loans/Grants - Section 504

Synopsis: Loan and/or grant to low income households for home improvements. Qualifying households may use funds for "on-lot" costs.

Additional Information: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/CA/pdf files and documents/SFH Repair504.pdf

How to Apply: Contact Al Correale at the Santa Maria Office, 805-928-9269 x4

ECOfluid 1MGD MBR Tertiary to 4mg/l TN $7.4/gallon..
Small Pipe Directional Bore collection $20M
On Site EONE collection $25M

Ignoring technology that conserves resouses and costs less...PRICELESS.

Talk about: Affordability Assistance

Next.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Wrecklamator, ECOfluid.

Next.

Unknown said...

mark... Have you EVER actually looked into those Tax Exemptions and Grants...??? Few of us fit the exemptions if we own our homes... Very few are qualified for those programs...!!!!

I'm not saying to not look into them, but let's don't make it sound as if there is some magic pot of money just waiting to be scooped up...

As for the wonderful Ecofluid, it's just another of more than a hundred "systems" out there.... We should be thankful that so far, YOU are the only "Salesman" overoading this blog... What will this look like with 10 sales pitches...???? ...and why...??? There won't be any sales made from this blog...and like the Reclamator pitch, YOU remain arrogant and certainly not someone I would "buy" from... You are a tad insulting and that has lead to a distinct feeling that you are not entirely honest...!!!!!

Churadogs said...

Sewertoons sez:"Oh, and let's see what individual COST IMPACTS arise for the homeowner before step is thought to be the savior in this equation. Will it bring down the PROJECT cost only to slam me, personally, with a higher bill for property DAMAGE."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't onsite costs ALWAYS to be born by the homeowner? So even had Tri @ been built all the homewoners would STILL have to fctor in hook up costs on top of whatever Tri W (collectively) would have cost? As for additional costs of a STEP system, what people need to know is the overall lifetime costs, to which they can factor in their personal costs then see which comes out higher or lower over the long run. For example, let's say it costs $3,000 to hook up a STEP but your monthly overall cost over the life of the system is X, then break down that $3,000 and add it to X and see how that compares to a gravity hook up at $1,300 added to Y overall cost over the lifetime OMR costs of Y system & etc. That should give you the full costs. And with energy costs and sludge disposal costs just going to go up, then that's something folks need to pay attention to.

I found it interesting that only 1/3 of the water is being returned to Broderson. Did Corollo not feel that Broderson could accept 100% or something? Next serious step is to get the water purveyors on board to finally deal with the watershed as a . . . complete watershed.

Osos Change said...

Steve,

I have to be demanding because you don't answer my questions. I could always take the direct approach and show up at your Statistics class at Cal Poly and ask you there. After all, you spend an awful lot of time posting from there.

Even your students, who haven't even seen this blog or know of your activity, could answer my question with very little research.

Unknown said...

Hi Steve... osos change seems to be making a serious THREAT here...!!!!

It is none of his or anyone else's "RIGHT" to demand and then threaten to show up in your place of employment to get his minute of fame... This is serious and not to be taken lightly...!!!!!! osos change is a severly unbalanced individual...!!!!

This unfortunatly continues to point out the extreme steps the activists have and will go to force thru their own agendas...

Shark Inlet said...

Ann has a good point. There were to be real costs associated with hook up with each system and with STEP there would be additional costs for power and every so often, pumping.

As for OsosChange, I find it curious that you demand an answer to a question which would appear irrelevant and then refuse to explain the reason for your question.

If you would like to have a discussion on some issue, how about actually participating? I would suggest that acting like a troll isn't very productive and ... to help you out ... I'll try my best to ignore troll-like behavior.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette wrote: Wrecklamator, ECOfluid.

Wanna bet?

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE,

Technology requires "pitch men".
What do you think Carollo an Paavo are?

When technology that is best the total cost to the citizens is reduced to below any savings reulting from "interest free SRF" loans or 75% grants which should be looked into as per Fed & State requirements.

Because you didn't read closely enough previously you are confused now.

Weak.
Next.
I LOVE LO!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Does Paavo or Carollo endlessly thrash us in here with some pet "product?" No, they present our VARYING options to us at formal meetings. Big difference.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann says:
"Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't onsite costs ALWAYS to be born by the homeowner? So even had Tri @ been built all the homewoners would STILL have to fctor in hook up costs on top of whatever Tri W (collectively) would have cost?"

Yes, you are correct.

Gravity - a lateral hook-up, septic tank filled with rocks and abandoned in place. Pay that on top of the cost of $154 million with Tri-W or $178 million out if town.

Step - yard excavated, driveway (wall, fence, landscaping) removal for some, old septic tank abandoned in place filled with gravel if room, if not, old tank removed, new tank (project pays) put in place and electrical hook-up (homeowner pays --to existing box or new panel or whole system found not up to code?? Cost at present, unknown) PLUS a lateral. Step cost have higher O & M AND you will pay for 5 year inspection or pumping of your step tank. Plus your portion of $178 million out of town.

Each person will have to do the math. And check to see if they can afford the remediation costs to their yard. I would suspect you wouldn't want to wait on that driveway replacement.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann says:
"I found it interesting that only 1/3 of the water is being returned to Broderson. Did Corollo not feel that Broderson could accept 100% or something?"

440,000 gallons was what the County (over loud protests) stated Broderson could take without issues. (As putting water in the ground at Broderson is imperative - it being the only place that can access the lower aquifer directly - this number may have been picked more to placate the ZERO- Broderson group than anything - to give half-way, so to speak.) As with the old project, the water will be monitored.

The water purveyors - which cover BOTH PZ and non-PZ properties are now to cook up uses for the rest, and we will pay for what they come up equally or more equally, anyway - across the entire water service area. Of course, as we have seen, costs to do things only go up. Remember, we are only talking about secondary water coming out of the plant and it needs to come back into town if it is to be of any use to the aquifer.

Shark Inlet said...

'Toons,

I thought one of the key benefits of STEP was that it was cheaper to install and the treatment system could be less expensive as well. The numbers you present ($178M for out of town whether STEP or gravity) doesn't reflect that.

Unknown said...

WS Mark...

"When technology that is best the total cost to the citizens is reduced to below any savings reulting from "interest free SRF" loans or 75% grants which should be looked into as per Fed & State requirements."

...........
1. Simply stating that the ECOfluid technology is best...does not necessarily make it so...

Acceptance by the Governing Authority is required no matter what the sales pitch says...

2. Cost Savings can NOT be calculated on non-accepted technology...

Pretty sure that the SRF interest free loans are NOT available to individuals... Grants are also drying up due to the recession and most are NOT available to individuals.

3. The RWCQB will need to be in the acceptance loop no matter which system or technology is approved....


"Because you didn't read closely enough previously you are confused now."

I did read closely and find your condescending attitude a bit troubling.... Apparently you are incapable of working with the acceptance authorities and are less than understanding of the knowledge of the audience you seek to pitch your sale to... I wonder if the ECOfluid folks have read your many postings as being their "representative"....

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Hi Shark,

I'm just quoting what was in the Trib article as to cost. Maybe those are strictly gravity costs - in the tech reports however, the high end of step and the low end of gravity were quite close. The treatment system listed in the article were primary treatment in lined, earthen ponds and some unknown secondary treatment. (Tertiary treatment - no!) The environmentally preferred location, Tonini whose cost was listed I believe, is quite a distance further out than are the Giacomazzi or cemetery sites.

I think it is cheaper for the project itself to install step, but the on-lot costs borne by the homeowner are higher, as are the O & M costs.

(I am so happy to have the trash can back due to my bad spelling!)

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

mike, maybe they DON'T KNOW mark is their "representative?" Maybe he just holds a lot of stock?

Unknown said...

I doubt he holds any stock, but is merely a jobber hopeing to make a percentage of any possible sale... He certainly is not someone I would want representing my company...

His association with the Reclamator and the way he conducted his "Sales Pitch" and then ran away, speaks volumes about his business sense... It might work in the meat packing business, but sure doesn't play in Los Osos....

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I hope he isn't acting in this way in other towns! What a turn off !!

This technology is far better than the Wrecklamator and it might be a pretty good fit someplace else, but if people google him and see what he has done here…

Mark Low, Mark Low, Mark Low, Mark Low, Mark Low, Mark Low,Mark Low, Mark Low, Mark Low…

Watershed Mark said...

Lyneete wrote:
Does Paavo or Carollo endlessly thrash us in here with some pet "product?"

Yes.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette wrote:
Mark Low, Mark Low, Mark Low, Mark Low, Mark Low, Mark Low,Mark Low, Mark Low, Mark Low…

Thanks!

Next.

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE:
You made some very good points:

1. Simply stating that the ECOfluid technology is best...does not necessarily make it so... That is why it needs to “actually” be reviewed/studied and not ignored. Once it is in the “mix” it rises to the top for many reasons.

Acceptance by the Governing Authority is required no matter what the sales pitch says... We can agree on this, but it must first be presented by an “responsible” entity. Ignoring technology under the banner of “there are so many, so let’s just stick with what we know” doesn’t improve quality of treatment or save money. It’s that old “do you still use the first computer you ever purchased”, argument. You might still be on dial-up But might want to upgrade, why? Because it is faster and allows you to be on-line while on the phone. Phones are another technology like wastewater treatment technologies that have made great strides offer more advantages and in some cases cost far less than their predecessors. I could go on, but I think a reasonable would get the point.

2. Cost Savings can NOT be calculated on non-accepted technology... This is a tough one MIKE. I disagree that nothing can be “priced” without being accepted under a single source regulatory agency. Other regulatory agencies have approved ECOfluid and EONE so the price of those systems serve as examples and the cost savings from employing technology continue on a regular and daily basis. Gravity Pipes cost more to install and replace while they leak and stink on a regular and daily basis(Sorry, could pass up the chance to make those points, again)

Pretty sure that the SRF interest free loans are NOT available to individuals... Grants are also drying up due to the recession and most are NOT available to individuals. ...Grants and SRF IFL’s for municipal wastewater projects have always been applied for by municipalities. On this we can agree, yea.

3. The RWCQB will need to be in the acceptance loop no matter which system or technology is approved....Again. on this we can agree, yea.

"Because you didn't read closely enough previously you are confused now."- I’m sticking with this statement, sorry MIKE.

I did read closely and find your condescending attitude a bit troubling....EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion.

Apparently you are incapable of working with the acceptance authorities and are less than understanding of the knowledge of the audience you seek to pitch your sale to...Who told you I am not working with the “acceptance authorities”?

I wonder if the ECOfluid folks have read your many postings as being their "representative"...If you think you this statement will affect my efforts, you assume way too much. Sorry MIKE.

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE wrote: Grants are also drying up due to the recession.

MIKE: Why aren't you interested in solving a problem the best and most economical way possible especially in a "recession"?

Gags, Bits and Business as usual or what?

Watershed Mark said...

ECOfluid 1MGD MBR Tertiary to 4mg/l TN $7.4/gallon..
Small Pipe Directional Bore collection $20M
One Site EONE collection $25M

Unknown said...

Let's cut the crap Mark...

This blog is NOT going to get ECOfluid or any other system before the County.... either you go do it or go ahead wasting your time blogging...

Watershed Mark said...

Why so angry? That won't save you anything.

This blog won't keep ECOfluid from coming before the County.

Unknown said...

Sorry Mark, I'm not at all angry....

If you think the sheer volume of your many postings are somehow going to matter to the County or the RWQCB, then you are in serious need of a new job....

This blog, not even Ann, will get the ECOfluid whatchamajigit accepted by any of the government agencies who will have to accept the system that will come to LO... No amount of advertizing will matter.... so have fun...

Watershed Mark said...

Thanks MIKE, I appreciate your thoughts.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

mark misspelled:
"Lyneete wrote:
Does Paavo or Carollo endlessly thrash us in here with some pet "product?"

Yes."

The County or Corollo is blogging on here?? HAH! Please then, give us the name of those bloggers! But if you are getting the cold shoulder from the County - hmmm - maybe they READ here?

It is not up to the County to go out and test all the different technologies out there, we would never get anything built.

mark says:
"Other regulatory agencies have approved ECOfluid and EONE"

Can you name some in California? Thanks in advance.

Shark Inlet said...

Let's see ... we're now at 19 hours with no comments from Mark. Does anyone know where he lives so we can go check and make sure he doesn't need medical attention?

alabamasue said...

Shark,

Mark lives on East Hale St, Mesa, AZ, so I don't think that is an option. Can't say I really miss his constant blather...

Shark Inlet said...

Maybe we should call the local sheriff and point out that an individual who typically posts 20+ times per day has gone suddenly silent. Maybe they could swing by and check. Based on recent history, if Mark is breathing, he's posting comments here so I worry.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Hey all!

What if mark is on his way here to the town hall meeting???????l!!

Scary thought!!!!!

Osos Change said...

Steve,

I wouldn't talk about calling the sheriff if I were you.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Maybe mark read the EIR and decided to cut his losses and pedal his stuff elsewhere?

Or worse - read the EIR, fainted and fell, critically injuring himself? I really think that sheriff idea is a good one -- just in case…

osos change - why don't YOU call since you feel it would be a bad idea for Shark to call --?

But maybe it is too late by now?

Call anyway, osos change, bodies can rot quickly in that Arizona heat.

Unknown said...

Being the ever optomist re LO sales pitches, I would suspect mark is simply changing to another company/product/service that he knows is better than the last one... I guess we could read that as he found a better potential commission....???

There ARE lots and lots of "better ideas" out there... I'm pleased the County has to filter out the snake oil and decide on which of the few remaining choices to present to us...

Watershed Mark said...

mark misspelled: Ouch that hurt.
"Lyneete wrote:
Does Paavo or Carollo endlessly thrash us in here with some pet "product?"

Yes."

The County or Corollo is blogging on here?? HAH! Please then, give us the name of those bloggers! But if you are getting the cold shoulder from the County - hmmm - maybe they READ here?

Lynette, You speak of “here” as if you are in Wonderland. The county is prone to gravity and has spent millions of dollars trying to justify that bias. If you are more interested in what happens on this blog than what could happen when a good or bad decision is reached using incomplete information you deserve everything you get.

It is not up to the County to go out and test all the different technologies out there, we would never get anything built.

Their consulting engineer are responsible and required to follow the letter and spirit of the law. I am getting the feeling that law could be made based on what happens or doesn’t happen in this SLOCO BOS process as LO/BP is possibly the most studies “water” problem in the State. Solving it is a challenge that I and others in regulatory, legislative and industry are watching. From obstructionists to world visionaries or down the drain. I’ll keep doing what I do because it is very instructive, not just for me…

mark says:
"Other regulatory agencies have approved ECOfluid and EONE"

Can you name some in California? Thanks in advance.

I will respond regarding ECOfluid. Sure, when I am requested to do so by a county or other regulatory agency as they can actually study, review, choose, pay for and permit technology.
I showed you a 1MGD producing >4mg/l TN in Florida and you were disinterested to put it mildly.

Florida Government “Officials” are perhaps even more concerned with water quality and conservation than California or at least they are acting like it.

You defend, to your own financial detriment, a gravity system tied to an overpriced secondary treatment “spray field”, that WILL BE upgraded to tertiary standards, when a MBR tertiary technology is available. It would be a joke, HAH! If it weren’t so sad.

I know the value of knocking on doors. That is how customers are found.

Watershed Mark said...

ABS:

I hope you didn't pay for my information, when www.zabasearch.com is available.

Looks like it's getting personal for some...

We are all living in glass houses.
Mine is made of stone with windows made from glass.

Unknown said...

Dear mark:

You have been quite demanding on this blog, which seems to have become YOUR personal advertizing blog... sorry Ann, you apparently have lost...

But mark, when asked whether..."Other regulatory agencies have approved ECOfluid and EONE"...and "Can you name some in California?..."

You mark have chosen to reply in a very double standard manner befitting someone who has no financial stake in the community other than a sales commission: "I will respond regarding ECOfluid. Sure, when I am requested to do so by a county or other regulatory agency as they can actually study, review, choose, pay for and permit technology."

Sounds like you, mark, want the County or any other agency to "pay" for the testing of your latest product...

You, mark, go on to say: "I showed you a 1MGD producing >4mg/l TN in Florida and you were disinterested to put it mildly.

Florida Government “Officials” are perhaps even more concerned with water quality and conservation than California or at least they are acting like it."

"You defend, to your own financial detriment, a gravity system tied to an overpriced secondary treatment “spray field”, that WILL BE upgraded to tertiary standards, when a MBR tertiary technology is available. It would be a joke, HAH! If it weren’t so sad."

It does indeed sound as if YOU, mark, should stick to selling in Florida...!!!

...and finally mark says: "I know the value of knocking on doors. That is how customers are found."

Sorry mark, if no one has told you lately, you aren't selling vacuum cleaners door to door... Los Osos has had enough "better ideas" ridden into town... We on this blog are the wrong audence and this blog is the wrong stage for your act(s... If you were truly interested in obtaining approval of whichever product/service you were currently hawking, you should have had a marketing plan based on knowing your potential clients and just what were the folks holding the purse strings actually looking for... Trying to force feed your service to an unwilling client, no matter how much you believe the laws read in yoyur favor, is simply a waste of time... We have all told you that in many ways over this past couple of years and yet you persist in butting your head against the brick wall... If you want to sell your idea, then go directly to the RWQCB and don't try to tell them their business or read them the law...

If you don't like reading this, then head off to Florida... we really won't miss you...

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette wrote:

Maybe mark read the EIR and decided to cut his losses and pedal his stuff elsewhere?

I’m spent a little time last night and only up to page 58 of 490. Here are a few points of interest from my review thus far, I’ll be making comments later, of course:

Table 2-2 summarizes key points for each of the four alternative proposed projects under review
including treatment plant site and process, effluent disposal options, conveyance systems and storage
locations.

An oxidation ditch consists of a ring or oval shaped channel equipped with extended aeration and
mixing devices that create the optimal conditions for treating the raw wastewater to secondary levels.
The combined raw and partially treated wastewater circulates around the oxidation ditch many times
during the treatment process. This helps equalize the flow rates and wastewater concentrations
between day and night and during wet weather. The oxidation ditch tank configuration, aeration
system, and mixing devices promote unidirectional channel flow, so that the energy used for aeration
is sufficient to provide mixing in a system with a relatively long hydraulic retention time.
The long solids retention times (SRTs) and large tank volumes provide for nitrification. As the wastewater
leaves the aeration zone, the DO concentration decreases and denitrification may occur. Brush-type
or surface-type extended aerators are used for mixing and aeration. Secondary sedimentation tanks
are used for most applications, and in some cases intra-channel clarifiers have been used to improve
solids removal. Biolac® Extended Aeration is a proprietary process that combines long solids
retention times with submerged aeration in earthen basins. Fine bubble membrane diffusers are
attached to floating aeration chains that are moved across the basin by the air released from the
diffusers.
Although oxidation ditches and Biolac are different treatment processes, the two systems share
similar area requirements and treatment process trains, involving similar upstream and downstream
support process components. They are considered interchangeable in the Proposed Projects.
Oxidation ditches/Biolac systems are typically selected because they provide a mechanical process to
reduce BOD by oxidation of organic wastes. Additionally, effective nitrogen removal is integral to
the oxidation ditch/Biolac system rather than requiring a separate nitrification/denitrification system
process to follow the primary treatment process. Biolac offers a lower construction cost than
oxidation ditches because the earthen basins require less concrete and less energy to operate since the
fine-bubble aeration process has a higher efficiency. Energy requirements to operate an oxidation
ditch/Biolac system are higher than the energy required for a partially mixed facultative pond system.

According to the Carollo Engineers estimates, the estimated Project probable capital costs for the four
Proposed Projects range from $144 to $180 million for Proposed Project 1 and from $165 to $188
million for Proposed Projects 2, 3 and 4 as shown in Table 3-9. Table 2-7also provides estimates of
the projected annual operations and maintenance costs for the four Proposed Projects. O&M costs
range from $2 to 3.1 million for Proposed Project 1 and $1.6 to 3.0 million for Proposed Projects 2, 3
and 4.

.3 - Project Alternatives
The facilities that are part of the four alternative proposed projects evaluated in the Draft EIR are
located at several locations within and outside the Los Osos Community. Each Proposed Project
includes a conveyance system, a wastewater treatment process, a treatment plant, a primary
wastewater pumping station and effluent disposal sites. Some project elements, such as the
Broderson leachfield and the Tonini spray fields, are common to all four Proposed Projects; other
elements are included in only one alternative. Three of the potential treatment plant sites (Branin,
Cemetery and Giacomazzi) are located on adjacent parcels, and there are several potential LOWWP
configurations that include several of these parcels simultaneously.
Table 2-2 summarizes key points for each of the four alternative proposed projects under review
including treatment plant site and process, effluent disposal options, conveyance systems and storage
locations.

Gravity…….3 out of 4
STEP/STAG 1 out of 4

Oxidation Ditch 2 out of 4
Falcultative Ponds 2 out of 4

No MBR
No Bio-Lac

The four projects identified in the table above and discussed below represent a discrete combination
of treatment plant sites, collection system types, wastewater conveyance system schemes, and effluent
storage and disposal techniques. They form the basis for analysis in this Draft EIR. However, it is
possible that any combination of these elements may be used for the County’s preferred alternative
identified through this Draft EIR process and for the County to make findings that support the final
project decision.


Or worse - read the EIR, fainted and fell, critically injuring himself? I really think that sheriff idea is a good one -- just in case…

osos change - why don't YOU call since you feel it would be a bad idea for Shark to call --?

But maybe it is too late by now?

Call anyway, osos change, bodies can rot quickly in that Arizona heat.

I appreciate everyone’s concern about my whereabouts and health.
Another project had me tied up yesterday, sorry.

I am happy to see that I was missed.

Oh, so you aren’t concerned in the weeks ahead I’ll be taking a few days off around the holidays and I have a couple of projects that do require my attention.
So please don’t be concerned if I cannot respond immediately. Now that EIR has been released we have fresh meat to focus on. Have no fear I will remain fully engaged with the LOSTDEP.

I understand that public venue meetings are not where decisions are made and appreciate all of Ann’s hospitality as I work to inform you blogheads about technology that conserves time, energy and money.

BTW it is beautiful this time of year in Arizona.

Watershed Mark said...

Thanks MIKE,

Your opinions and questions mean a great deal to me.

If California is condernedabout water use and water supply.

Why isn't SLOCO considering reclamation instead of recycling?

Technology is available now which can reclaim that costs less and uses less energy than the ponds.

That "cuts to the chase", MIKE

Watershed Mark said...

Sorry all when compared to ECOfluid's USBF designs this is contraption:

The oxidation ditch tank configuration, aeration
system, and mixing devices promote unidirectional channel flow, so that the energy used for aeration
is sufficient to provide mixing in a system with a relatively long hydraulic retention time.
The long solids retention times (SRTs) and large tank volumes provide for nitrification. As the wastewater
leaves the aeration zone, the DO concentration decreases and denitrification may occur. Brush-type
or surface-type extended aerators are used for mixing and aeration. Secondary sedimentation tanks
are used for most applications, and in some cases intra-channel clarifiers have been used to improve
solids removal.

Watershed Mark said...

According to the Carollo Engineers estimates, the estimated Project probable capital costs for the four
Proposed Projects range from $144 to $180 million for Proposed Project 1 and from $165 to $188
million for Proposed Projects 2, 3 and 4 as shown in Table 3-9. Table 2-7also provides estimates of
the projected annual operations and maintenance costs for the four Proposed Projects. O&M costs
range from $2 to 3.1 million for Proposed Project 1 and $1.6 to 3.0 million for Proposed Projects 2, 3
and 4.

Makes me wonder if the folks who wrote the RFQ actually read Carollo's report.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

I've now read several times that you refer to the TriW cost as $50/gallon. Could you let us know how that figure was calculated?

The way I figure it, the TriW bill was to be about $200/month per household, so your cost per gallon only makes sense if each household produces about 4 gallons per month.

That being said, I am sure there is some misunderstanding here ... so, could you please explain what you mean by $50/gallon?


Also .... and this comment is addressed to all of you ... please don't feed the trolls!

Watershed Mark said...

It is in the mail, Steve.

Watershed Mark said...

The mail I sent bounced.
shark@gmail.com?

Shark Inlet said...

sharkinlet@gmail.com

You should post your answer here because you've been using that number as if it makes sense and either your definition is unusual and needs to be clarified or your calculations are in error. In either case, it should be in the open.

Watershed Mark said...

Did you receive the reports I sent?

Shark Inlet said...

Yes ... but I don't really wanna look thru 10 documents, many of which are multiple megabytes just to find that $50/gallon number. How about you summarize it for us?

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
I can lead you to the water but you’ll have to drink it yourself.
From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 1:24 PM
To: 'sharkinlet@gmail.com'
Subject: Ripley_Technical_Memorandum_6 (1).pdf - Adobe Reader


Check out page 16.

ECOfluid’s USBF uses less energy than the ponds.
That is a fact. The county knows it. Carollo knows it.

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"

From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2008 10:56 PM
To: 'sewertoons@gmail.com'
Subject: Ripley_Technical_Memorandum_6 (1).pdf - Adobe Reader

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

mark, I did take a break. Thank you very much for sending that lovely piece of music around. I really appreciated it, and I'm sure everyone else on the list did too.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

I read the document you refer to and it says that the capitol cost of TriW cost is $50/gpd not $50/gallon. I am unsure whether they include the collection system cost in that figure or how it was calculated. I was hoping you could tell us these things ... after all, you are the one citing $50/gallon without the appropriate context.

So, do us a solid and explain how that $50 is calculated.


And ... please don't tell us that the $50/gpd cost is somehow out of order unless you understand what it would have bought ... like the recharge of our aquifer.

Watershed Mark said...

The technical memo we are discussing is located here:

http://www.fillmoreca.org/images/Los%20Osos%20Ripley_Technical_Memorandum_6.pdf

Please turn to page 16

I use the term $50/gallon in place of $50/gpd as a term of art.
Either way, this Ripley Tech Memo states an Estimated base capital cost, land area and energy intensity.

Total capital cost for the Tri-W MBR w/ N removal was estimated to be $65,200,000.00 or $50.16 for each gallon per day of treatment capacity or $50/gallon.
Located on 8 acres, using 3,200kWh per each acre foot or 325,851 U.S. gallons of water treated.

The prices discussed in this memo were for "treatment" only and did not include collection or disposal.

Any questions?

Unknown said...

...hmmmm the "Riley Memorandum"...

If memory serves me, wasn't Ripley hired by the post re-call CSD to produce some magic Plan to show the community that they actually were doing something besides sueing the RWQCB...??? Wonder what Ripley thnks now since he wasn't paid and is now one of the Creditors in the bankruptcy...

...so unless I'm mistaken, the Ripley Report was written to provide a Plan at the direction of the post re-call CSD and in support of the No-Sewer or Move-the-Sewer AND was directed to discredit the Tri-W project...

...so mark, you might want to take statements such as $50pgd as possibly misleading since the entire Ripley Proposal was suspect at best... Remember, the folks who brought in Ripley, also campaigned that they had a $100 per month PLAN...and as we now all know, no Plan ever existed...

Shark Inlet said...

Okay Mark ...

If it is a term of art to misstate things in a confusing way ... go ahead. That $50 is $50 associated with the capital costs for a gallon per day of treatment capacity.

Part of the difficulty here is that you are comparing apples and grapefruit.

Part of the reason the cost was high was because of the in-town location. This may be able to be justified by the need to recharge the aquifer with denitrified water and, simply put, the cost of pumping water all the way out of town and then back into town is pricey. If one doesn't have an aquifer that needs recharge and one doesn't have saltwater intrusion and if one doesn't need denitrification, one has the luxury to consider cheaper systems.

Treatment options which don't denitrify are a whole lot less expensive, but not a realistic option for us.

Another interesting wrinkle in the Ripley memos is this ... they took the TriW bids (which were above engineering estimates) and compared them to engineering estimates for other systems. If those TriW bids were really too high, simply sending them out for a rebid should result in lower bids.

All in all, the cost for TriW you are presenting to us cannot be fairly compared to the other systems you are telling us about.


Still really expensive, but perhaps we ought to compare the options we are being given now by the County and not get confused by other "options" which were deemed inappropriate by the County or RWQCB. (And, if a system's proponents didn't provide appropriate documentation to the County, who can be blamed for that?)


Thanks Mark, we now know where you got that number, the $50 which you incorrectly labeled as the cost per gallon for treatment.

Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
Please cut and paste my words you used in support of your statement:

"Thanks Mark, we now know where you got that number, the $50 which you incorrectly labeled as the cost per gallon for treatment."

Your statement below is also incorrect:

"Treatment options which don't denitrify are a whole lot less expensive, but not a realistic option for us."

Perhaps you haven't read the current RFQ.

"Secondary Treatment" for $25M vs. ECOfluid USBF MBR Tertiary Treatment for $7.4/gal for a 1MGD or $8.88M (capital cost, for those of you at Cal Poly) for a 1.2MGD Title 22 Water Reclamation Facility.

Why would the SLCO BOS choose a lower quality technology that costs more when better technology which costs less is available?

This question cuts to “the heart of the matter”. That is why it is so very difficult to answer rationally and on the record.

“Instructive for all”, isn’t it.(?)

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

mark, you refer us to Ripley off of a citizens sewer website from the City of Fillmore. Why not the County website?

Watershed Mark said...

I sent the Ripley report directly to your Gmail Account before I posted the most readily available Google Link.

I think a better question is why is the report linked to the Fillmore website.

The answer is that Ripley did a great job and the work he did for Los Osos has taken on a life of its own.

You ask such good questions about anything other than the county's consulting engineer's study process...

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I think the County's process is excellent. If it won't fly with the Water Board - I do think staff is allowed to talk to staff - what point is there to pursue something that will not be accepted? And things that looked to be too contentious with the community were left off too.

Watershed Mark said...

Sewertoons said...
I think the County's process is excellent.

That "process" is attempting to ignore a better, less costly solution.

I would expect nothing more from you.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ws mark said:

"That "process" is attempting to ignore a better, less costly solution."

Spoken like a true salesman! I would expect nothing more from you either.

Watershed Mark said...

The truth shall set you free while it saves money, energy and water which will become even more important to the future.

Watershed Mark said...

The county didn't compare because their currently selected technology would whither.
It would take a couple of weeks tops to prove it. I am suggesting it be done.

Why would the SLOCO BOS want to vote on something that was rigged?
More tea?