Pages

Monday, January 05, 2009

E-Waste Drive, SLOHS, Jan 10 & 11

The following email was sent by a friend. Great opportunity to clean house for the new year.

Are you replacing your old TV with a new HDTV this holiday season? Do you need to dispose of the old one, or of any other e-waste cluttering up your garage? Just in time, San Luis Obispo High School Tech Club is having an e-waste recycling drive on Saturday January 10 and Sunday January 11 from 10:00 AM until 4:00 PM. Just bring your electronics to the parking lot by the football field at SLOHS. We will happily unload it for you. This is totally FREE for you.E-waste is our electronic waste, televisions, computers, radios, copiers, the things we generate with our modern lives. If dumped in a landfill, the lead and other heavy metals will leach out into our environment as the e-waste decomposes. It is important to recycle your e-waste with a reputable company. Even better, every item you drop off for recycling helps out the Tech Club and the robotics team. So get out those old items that you don't want to pay to have picked up, and the other electronics they don't take in the trash, and bring them by on the 10th or 11th.ELECTRONIC ITEMS ACCEPTEDTelevisions - Monitors - Computers - Computer ComponentsFax Machines - Printers - Copiers - Toner Cartridges (but just send those to Tech Club....)Wire - Video Game Consoles - Laptops - CamerasCamcorders - Internet devices - Keyboards - MiceMP3 Players - VCR’s & DVD’s - Cell Phones - Telephone EquipmentRecycling these electronic items keeps their lead and other toxic parts out of our landfills and water tables. And remember, this is FREE. There is no fee to you to bring anything.I have attached a flyer that you can print and post or pass on to others who might be interested.PLEASE NOTE: Electronic items that belong to the school district MAY NOT be recycled unless they have been properly surplused. Properly surplused computers may not be recycled unless their hard drives have been wiped. Please see your site tech coordinator for details. Thank you,Jan FetchoSan Luis Obispo High School

Yes, Back to the Sewer Wars

Ah, it was a nice break over the holiday, even though some commentors kept at it amidst the mistletoe and holly. Sigh. This from the Insurance Law Bulletin, California Association of Independent Insurance Adjusters (CAIIA). As a side note, I love the use of the phrase “a group of disgruntled residents” under the section labeled FACTS, was used to refer to people supporting the recall, while the word “a group of disgruntled residents” was NOT used to describe “a group called Taxpayers Watch.” Hahahah. Hmmm, wonder where CAIIA got their “facts” from? Well, far as I know, this case is still being discussed by attorneys looking for a settlement, or it’s in limbo while the Insurance Company appeals the ruling (?) or . . . . ? And so, like all things Sewerish, stay tuned.

California Association of Independent Insurance Adjusters
Insurance Law Bulletin
Submitted by Smith & Feeley, LLP, Irvine, CA
Insurer Has Duty to Defend Insureds Against Taxpayer Suit Seeking Both Injunctive Relief and “Damages”
The United States District Court, applying California law, has ruled that a liability insurer had a duty to defend its insureds against a taxpayer lawsuit suit which sought both injunctive relief and monetary “damages.” (The Los Osos Community Services Dist. v. American Alternative Ins. Corp. (C.D. Cal. 2008) — F.Supp.2d —, 2008 WL 4885680)
Facts
The Los Osos Community Services District (“District”) is a public entity which undertook plans to build a wastewater treatment facility in Los Osos, California. A number of people who lived in the area tried to stop construction of the treatment facility by placing a measure called “Measure B” on the ballot. In response, the District sued and obtained a court order declaring the measure illegal and barring it from the ballot.
Thereafter, a group of disgruntled residents succeeded in recalling three of the District’s Board members. The “new Board” then immediately took steps to stop the construction of the treatment facility. Among other things, the new Board dismissed the lawsuit brought to stop Measure B, which by then had reached the state appellate court. In addition, the new Board allegedly used $600,000 in state money to enter into a settlement with Measure B’s proponents, who were allied with the three new members of the Board.
In response, a group called Taxpayers Watch and two individual taxpayers (collectively “Taxpayers Watch plaintiffs”) sued the District and several Board members, alleging that the settlement was “a sham settlement with the Board’s cronies” and that ultimately District taxpayers “will be responsible for repaying those monies to the state of California.” The Taxpayers Watch plaintiffs sought relief under California Code of Civil Procedure section 526a, which provides that “[a]n action to obtain a judgment, restraining and preventing any illegal expenditure of, waste of, or injury to, the estate, funds, or other property of a county, town, [or] city … may be maintained against any officer thereof ... by a citizen resident therein … who is assessed for and is liable to pay… a tax therein.” The Taxpayers Watch plaintiffs also sought “a judgment requiring and mandating that … the District’s individual Board members be held personally liable to repay the monies wasted as a result of their thoughtless and wasteful decisions, including return of the $600,000 paid to Measure B proponents in a collusive settlement.”

The District filed for bankruptcy protection. However, the District’s individual Board members tendered the defense of the lawsuit to the District’s liability insurer, American Alternative Insurance Company (“AAIC”). The AAIC policy provided that the insurer would indemnify an insured against “damages because of ... ‘wrongful acts’,” and that the insurer would defend an insured against any suit seeking covered damages. AAIC denied the tender, on the ground that the Taxpayers Watch plaintiffs were not seeking monetary “damages” against the Board members.
Following the denial of coverage, the Board members filed a bad faith action against AAIC, alleging that AAIC had wrongfully refused to defend the Board members in the underlying action brought by the Taxpayers Watch plaintiffs. The Board members then moved for partial summary that AAIC had a duty to defend them in the underlying action.
Holding
The United States District Court, applying California law, held that AAIC did have a duty to defend the Board members in the underlying action brought by the Taxpayer Watch plaintiffs. The district court acknowledged that the Taxpayer Watch plaintiffs had sued the Board members under CCP section 526a, and that the text of section 526a only allows for injunctive relief—not monetary damages. However, the district court noted that despite the text of the statute, California state courts “have extended section 526a to allow taxpayers to obtain an order requiring officials to repay wasted funds to the public entity” and “have characterized this remedy as one for ‘damages.’” Under the circumstances, the Taxpayers Watch plaintiffs were seeking “damages” from the Board members, sufficient to trigger AAIC’s duty to defend. It did not matter that any damages recovered from the Board members would ultimately go back into the District’s coffers, as opposed to the Taxpayers Watch plaintiffs themselves.
COMMENT
The AAIC policy did not define the term “damages.” As such, the district court applied the case law definition of “damages” i.e., “‘compensation,’ in ‘money,’ ‘recovered’ by a party for ‘loss’ or ‘detriment’ it has suffered through the acts of another.”
Note that when a third-party claimant sues an insured under a statutory scheme that only allows for injunctive relief and does not allow for “damages,” the insurer may not have a duty to defend. (See, e.g., Cutler-Orosi Unified School District v. Tulare County School Districts Liability/ Property Self-Ins. Authority (1994) 31 Cal.App.4th 617, 629630.) Here, however, the Taxpayer Watch plaintiffs sued the Board members under a statute that has been interpreted to allow for both injunctive relief and “damages,” thus triggering AAIC’s duty to defend.

CAIIA Newsletter
CAIIA Office P.O. Box 168
Burbank, CA 91503-0168
Web site - http:\\www.caiia.org
Email: info@caiia.org
Tel: (818) 953-9200
Fax: (818) 953-9316
Editor: Sterrett Harper
Harper Claims Service, Inc.
Tel: (818) 953-9200
Permission to reprint is always extended, with appropriate credit to CAIIA Newsletter

Uh, Oh, Sign of The Times?

Went downtown SLO yesterday to the “underground” Downtowner Center Cinema to see “Doubt.” (wonderful acting, muddled, “shaggy-dog, You Woke me Up To Tell Me That? pointless plotlines (maybe it worked better as a stage play?). Anyway, I had noticed that the Tribune didn’t have the usual movie times listing for the Downtown Center, so I asked the young man at the window. Oh, sez he, “Corporate” decided it wasn’t worth the cost and decided not to run their ads in the Tribune. You can go fire up the computer and go on line or run through the Rolodex and call the number and sit through a long tape recording to get the list of films and show times. I asked if they were advertising in any other papers and was told, Yes, we’re still listing in New Times.

A central downtown movie theatre no longer lists its films and times in the County newspaper of record? If you live in Arroyo Grande, you can get film times for the A.G. Regal, or live in North County for the Paso Park, and Jim Dee’s SLO Palm is still listed. But not the SLOTOWN Freemont, Mission or DowntownCenter.

Is it just me or is that weird?

Eeeeezzzzzeee Listening

Friend gave me a listen to a (to me) unknown singer, Johnny Hartman. With a voice even more liquid than Nat King Cole or Billy Eckstine, Hartman is described in the liner notes as “one of the very best of a strong lot of big-voiced crooners who were the sine qua non of the big bebop band.” As indicated in the liner notes of one of his CDs, Hartman’s career and fame likely got derailed by the 1950’s white culture/music industry that felt that placed a kind of quota on handsome black lead singers. Too dangerous to have too many around, thank you, and Cole and Eckstine had taken all the allotted “black” crooner slots, sorry, go away. The result is that, except for knowledgeable fans, the name Hartman failed to become a household word. Teamed up with John Coltrane in the CD “John Coltrane and Johnny Hartman,” you’ll hear just what a loss to popular music that has been. Woooo.

78 comments:

Ron said...

Thanks for leaving the e-mail link, Ann... makes it easier to send stuff like this:

- - -

Dear CAIIA folks,

In a recent CAIIA newsletter, concerning litigation involving the Los Osos CSD, you write:

"a group of disgruntled residents succeeded in recalling three of the District’s Board members."

and;

"a group called Taxpayers Watch and two individual taxpayers (collectively “Taxpayers Watch plaintiffs”) sued the District and several Board members."

However, what you fail to mention in your piece is the absolutely critical point that the same person that started Taxpayers Watch, Gordon Hensley, was one of the three recalled "District’s Board members."

In fact, that's the main point that makes everything that's happened since the recall so darn interesting.

I first reported on all of Hensley's one-man "groups" at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-want-to-be-like-gordon-hensley-in.html

Highly recommended reading.

As I report in that story, the way Hensley fails to mention his seven-year association with the Los Osos CSD while he uses his one-man groups to influence officials things (like laws that directly involve his decisions as a former LOCSD Director -- decisions that led to his recall), is very, very interesting.

And, now he's done it to you, too.

In your newsletter, you also write:

"The Taxpayers Watch plaintiffs also sought “a judgment requiring and mandating that … the District’s individual Board members be held personally liable..."

After you read my piece (linked above)... I'm curious, considering it was "the District’s individual Board members (to) be held personally liable" that beat the founder of Taxpayers Watch (Hensley) in a recall election, who do you think the "disgruntled" one(s) are now?

Just thought you might find all of this as interesting as I do.

Thanks
---

Thanks for the e-waste tip, Ann.

Shark Inlet said...

If I recall, the winners get to write the history.

In this case, CAIIA (or whatever) has likely looked at the legal disposition of the various cases, along with AB2701 and figure out who was disgruntled and who was merely gruntled.

Oh ... Ron ... how much is the plant and sewer gonna cost us now? Remember, any figure considerably higher than $205/month will raise the issue of why those proposing the recall (including you) didn't do their homework on costs. All other matters here are merely sidelines to the story of the disgruntled (or, if you prefer, gruntled) folks who had a "better solution" which has ended up costing us more.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ron asks:
"…who do you think the "disgruntled" one(s) are now?

The citizens who voted for the recall and for measure B and the community at large now faced with higher costs. Easy answer.

Gee, I'd think the recall supporters would prefer to not be named by their organizational titles since sympathy for their cause has dropped so radically.

M said...

Just think, right now we could be paying $205+ for a sewer in a pristine location while people are losing their jobs, homes, and pensions. There is no way I could come up with an extra $205+ a month right now.
As for homework on cost, how about the 46% or whatever over estimates that the previous board accepted? How in the world is one supposed to put any faith their numbers?
Every time shark inlet brings up that $205 a month I think about our P.I.O. I rather imagine that shark inlet and sewertoons would not have a problem with the nearly one million dollars we were set to pay him. After he convenietly was called to active duty shortly after the recall, I wonder who was set to take his place had the recall not happened.
That $205 a month figure was before construction even began. Can you imagine what it would have risen to had construction continued with all the crooks involved? And make no mistake about it, if the contractors bumped up the price because of a perceived threat to the project, and our board took those bids anyway then they are indeed crooks.
The old board knew all along that Tri-W was going to be an impossible sell, and yet they pursued it to the bitter end.
You two make me sick with your rhetoric about higher costs now. It was too high to begin with.
Sincerely, M

Shark Inlet said...

Perhaps to you the argument "$205 is too high ... so I would rather pay $250" makes sense. It doesn't to me at all. If you would care to explain why paying more is a good thing, I would love to hear.

As for whether you get sick of being reminded that the costs are now higher ... um ... I can't really help you there.

M said...

I don't remember receiving a notice of the amount I will be paying for this sewer from the county. Can you point me to it?
To your point of $205 being too high, can you name another sewer district with that high of a bill?
Sincerely, M

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

It doesn't matter what other Districts are paying. Who else has a 30 year record of stopping a sewer? We're getting to pay for the result of that folly. Somehow people think that they are entitled to pollute if clean-up costs too much. People thought it cost too much when it was $39.

I'd look up the County's document's to point you to how that figure was arrived at, but it is too late and I'm tired.

Churadogs said...

Toonces sez:"People thought it cost too much when it was $39."

There was another big fear early-on and that was unrestricted growth caused by the installation of a sewer system. Irony, had that happened, due to overdraft (which wasn't really clear at the time) there would have been a moritorium and another vote to assess homeowners to pay for the State Water PIPE (water optional, depending on snow fall.)

Unknown said...

...and you think a sewer farm out of Los Osos is going to "restrict" growth...???

Shark Inlet said...

M,

Whether Malibu or LaCanada or SLO or Santa Cruz pays more or less than $200/month isn't ... um ... relevant at all. If $200/month is too expensive, isn't something even more expensive even worse?

As for the County cost ... we don't know the cost yet, but all indications are that it will be considerably above $200/month.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

The costs were to be the payback (spread out to show the monthly rate, not how we might actually pay it on our tax bill) on the approximately $25,000 assessment, plus a monthly fee of using the service (when I left LA 4 years ago it was a $39.00/bi-monthly charge paid for on one's water bill). I believe that charge was to be about the same here, only paid monthly.

I wish we had Tri-W back. It was finite in size, could not be expanded to accommodate any more growth, and the water did not leave the basin. Oh well. That project is spray-coated in the venom of lies.

I fully support the County as I know they are the only ones capable of getting something built.

Ripley's Bahman Shiekh said the town will grow out to the plant if the plant was out of town. Excluding the green belt and a water source, that is what will happen with an expandable plant, which all 4 County options provide. I don't think it will happen right away, but the door will be wide open.

M said...

I give up. You people are just too bent on saddling people with an un-affordable sewer bill.
Your rational of us getting away with polluting our water without cost is problematic also. 30 years and what measures have been taken to mitigate the so-called pollution? 1,000 homes built after the resolution to ban septic tanks. What about that additional pollution? 10 years after the moritorium in 1988 the County still didn't have a project under way. And you still think they are the only ones that can get this thing done? 3.5 years now since the stopping of Tri-W and where are we?
Can you provide some documentation of this $39 a month figure? I have a hard time with someone who arrived here in 2005 to start giving me a history lesson.
In any event, I am done responding to any of your posts. Hopefully not many people view this blog and will not get the impression that you people know what you're talking about, or that you represent the mainstream of this community.
Sincerely, M

Shark Inlet said...

Okay,

Just to make it clear, I am not "bent on saddling people with an un-affordable sewer bill." I am bent on trying to keep the unaffordable sewer bill as low as possible. Hence my opposition to the recall, Measure B and the actions of the post-recall board to further put our community deeper in a hole.

I don't think the County is the only group who can get things done, but I do think that AB2701 says that only the County can work on a sewer at this time. Are you arguing that another group besides the County could do do it right with something better, faster and cheaper? Are you telling us that stopping TriW lowered our costs?

As for progress, it is clear that the County has done far more with their time since AB2701 than the LOCSD did after the recall.

Unknown said...

M still believes in the "magic sand" school of sewerage engineering and CSD accountability...

Watershed Mark said...

Yo MIKE:
Believe this?-

According to the annual report of the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Gloucester's combined average charge this year will be $1,793 — $658 more than the $1,134 that town of Tewksbury, with the second highest rates, is charging for the same services. According to the survey, Gloucester's rates also top any of the major cities surveyed across the nation, with rates that are more than $300 higher on average than charged in Seattle, which is listed as second on the national ranking. Following are San Francisco, Portland, Maine, the MWRA service area and Boston whose rates are a bit more than $1,000, or just some 58 percent as high as Gloucester's.

http://www.gloucestertimes.com/punews/local_story_363230310.html

I guess $200.00/month for sewer only would make LO/BP the leaders in the nation.
That's leadership, down the drain, fool.
But then, you voted for it..;-0

Watershed Mark said...

Steve wrote:
As for progress, it is clear that the County has done far more with their time since AB2701 than the LOCSD did after the recall.

Steve:
The County has spent $6m+ taxpayer money it does not have and has not decided to "take the project", yet...
I understand that today the Public Works Director was lobbying for another $1M for a lobbyist, to looking for money.

They have been spending in the face of a recession and "seem to" have ended up with a gravity sewer and an Ox-Ditch that emits secondary water that needs to be upgraded to tertiary at some point for $25M capital cost.

I guess that is better than going bankrupt as the CSD did.
I sure hope the county doesn't get in over its head, financially speaking, so that the rate payers aren't forced to repay a loan amount of unnecessary proportions.

Watershed Mark said...

They have been spending in the face of a recession and "seem to" have ended up with a gravity sewer and an Ox-Ditch that emits secondary water that needs to be upgraded to tertiary at some point for $25M capital cost.

Why not build a tertiary membrane facility for $8.8M?

The answer to that question will bring change.

Churadogs said...

Toonces sez:"I wish we had Tri-W back. [ . . . .] Oh well. That project is spray-coated in the venom of lies."

Hahahahah. It's likely not what you meant, but truer words were never spoken. That project was spray-coated in lies, like, as Ron Crawford is fond of pointing out, from day one.

Unknown said...

Unfortunately Mr Crawford embelishes points taken out of context and usually long out of date...

The Recall thrust was filled with outright lies and continued on with Lisa's Post Recall gang... The fraud brought to Los Osos by the Post Recall thugs is working it's way to the fore in the Bankruptcy Court and in the lawsuits brought in by TW and the State of California...

Whether the Tri-W site is developed as part of the eventual sewage system coming to Los Osos, one would do well to take Mr Crawfords perverted version of old history with a large grain of salt...

Shark Inlet said...

Mike,

Even if Ron is spot on about a few points (like, for example, the lack of documented support for the claim that the community values recreational amenities ... duh, what town doesn't?), there is still a larger issue with Ron and the Recall ... the cost associated with stopping TriW and attempting another solution was never ever ever addressed by those promoting that approach.

We bought a pig in a poke with the recall. No journalist (independent or actual) nor newspaper columnist (local or very very local) actually pointed out that the Recall team's plan which they swore would save us money was ever presented to the public for inspection (unlike the Solutions Group's plan, flawed though it might be, it was at least out in public) let alone thoroughly vetted.

Nope, Ron majors in the minors and glories in the minutiae when the $150,000,000 question is never addressed.

Watershed Mark said...

Pig in a Poke? What do you call AB2701?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I call AB2701 the ONLY WAY this town will EVER get wastewater treatment plant.

Funny (and not the ha-ha kind), the "move-the-sewers" got their wish for out of town with the County project. Now they nit-pick about that and don't like the environmentally preferred location - out of town. The "move-the-sewers" got a equal chance for step, but now they don't want step anymore, they want vacuum or low-pressure. The "move-the-sewers" protest the cost of the plant as an instrument for economic cleansing. Now they don't want the project to go any faster despite chances to get stimulus money to knock down the cost if we do, in fact they want a month's delay (or two weeks, depending on the group). The move-the-sewers are screaming about the water being sprayed on sprayfields, when they had no viable (read realistic) plan to recharge the aquifer.

What do I really think? Nothing will satisfy the "move-the-sewer" bunch because they don't really want a sewer, but must outwardly maintain the politically correct stance that they do. Any delay will serve their purpose and they will find them or create them for as long as they are allowed to do so.

Unknown said...

You are absolutely on the point...!!!

The bunch of obstructionists in this town have never wanted to stop the septic pollution, they could care less about the community, they simply do not want any sewer...!!! They don't even want Mark's various solutions... They only want to bitch and moan that they will have to become part of a society that actually depends on one another... They think they are still in the 1960's with their favorite recreational drugs and free love... Go look at the hovel next to the entrance to Montana De Oro if you think I'm wrong...That's real love fest showing by one of the obstructionist activists...!!!!

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Perhaps you should look up what a pig in a poke means. AB2701 said essentially "the LOCSD is DOA and will not be able to get a sewer going, let's give the responsibility to someone who can." Unlike the recall, where we were promised a solution (but that solution was never presented for our inspection), the County told us in advance of AB2701 the nature of the process they intended to follow.

Just because you don't like the outcome of the County process doesn't mean that they didn't provide as much detail as possible to us before making the decision.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,

I slaughtered my first steer in a slaughterhouse when I was 12 years old.
The cost of the animals were always known before the kill, not after.

SLOCO's consulting engineer did not cover all the bases before it popped out its report. The report was not "complete".

If what was "covered" in their report is as good a job as they could do, fine.
You will ultimately pay for it, so If you're happy with it, then so am I.

Lynette,

Perhaps the State or Federal Army Corps of Engineers will step in to make an example of how a solution should be implemented.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,
Where are you reading that "stimulus money" will not be repaid?

Step and gravity collection were not handled equally.

All MBR's are not equal.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

You should fire up wikipedia and see what "pig in a poke" means. Good reading, that wikipedia.

Second, there is zero way the County could tell people in advance what the cost would be before they do the preliminary work. You know that, so don't make yourself look stupid by suggesting that they were under any obligation to spend millions of dollars during a two month time period before AB2701 was voted on.

Third, surely you are not suggesting that AB2701 was, in any way comparable to group who promised they had a plan for a $100/month sewer but who later revealed they had no plan. As a community, we bought when we voted for the recall without checking into the details. Don't you think that that fits the definition of a pig in a poke exactly?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ws mark,

Perhaps YOU have not read that the stimulus money will be repaid by future generations. Please make a correlation of that fact to this situation. Are you hinting that we should not apply for it on some moral ground?

Perhaps you can explain how your killing a steer at age 12 applies here too. (Strange segue into sewers in my opinion. It's as if you just had to get THAT information over to us even if it makes a weak and tangential point.)

No process can be detailed out in advance on an ever-growing, ever-morphing process as this one has proven to be due to public input. No project, no matter how detailed out it is in advance will not encounter unknown costs (an unknown water line broken, an unknown burial ground located, etc.). That's how contingency percentages and change orders figure into to public works projects. A sewer is not a steer.

If t the State or Federal Army Corps of Engineers stepped in to make an example of how a solution should be implemented, they would be building the Tri-W project as it has already been designed and permitted, and partially paid for!

You know mark, you seem to be striking out here. Maybe both politics and sewers should be items you shouldn't comment on for a bit. Take a vacation, recharge your batteries - hey, maybe you'll find a newer technology to bring us!

Oh, and your statement, "You will ultimately pay for it, so If you're happy with it, then so am I." I don't believe you. If you REALLY were happy, you'd stop pushing your MBR technology. ;-)

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"As a community, we bought when we voted for the recall without checking into the details. Don't you think that that fits the definition of a pig in a poke exactly?"

What would you call The Ripley Plan? If the CSD had held an assessment vote that was successful and told Ripley, Build It, wouldn't we likely have a STEP system about 2+ years further down the road than we are now? I'd call that a "plan."

Mike sez:"The bunch of obstructionists in this town"

Mike, Mike, you're slipping. The correct term is "anti-sewer obstructionists." Please, keep your Official Mantra correct, otherwise people might start thinking about what your words really mean, and that wouldn't do at all.

And please correct me, but didn't the community as a whole, not a bunch of "anti-sewer obstructionists" vote to put in a new board that promised they would move the sewer out of town? Didn't the homeowners then vote to assess themselves for a sewer system (so much for being anti-sewer obstructionists) and didn't the TAC find that out of town would be cheaper than Tri W and proceed accordingly? And so forth. So when you use the term "anti-sewer obstructionists" to mean the community as a whole, that's simply the wrong description. The term "anti-sewer obstructionists" describes a tiny, tiny handful of people who don't want any sewer system. Or, in your case, you've expanded the meaning to include "anybody who opposed Tri-W but supported a variety of other different projects," which is hardly a correct description of "anti-sewer."

Mark sez:"SLOCO's consulting engineer did not cover all the bases before it popped out its report. The report was not "complete"

Correct. What the county did was "look at" a variety of options so they could declare that they "looked at" a variety of options, while really focusing in on gravity and step, (which was the recommendation of the Dr. T oversight group) with an additional eye to making sure the SRF fund is repaid and the dumped contracters can get back in the mix to pay them off and other financial/legal considerations and so forth. The community will be presented with a "survey" that likely will be "spun" to nudge a pre-determined result, the contracts will be signed and the holes dug and as Mark says, the community will ultimately pay for whatever was or wasn't done.

As for the community, you know, all those "anti-sewer obstructionists," they don't care if fingers were on the scale or if STEP and gravity weren't treated equally or if certain other technologies were off the table or if certain "arrangements" were factored in & etc. They don't care. They want "a sewer system," like, whatEVER, and so they'll get one. Then they'll pay for it. On that, Mark's right.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann asks about the Ripley plan.

First off, it was after the recall and second, it didn't justify the $100/month campaign pledge. After inflation was included and other deficiencies in the Ripley plan (which we discussed at the time) were factored into the analysis, the Ripley plan didn't save much at all compared to TriW. (That doesn't mean it was a bad plan, just that it was too little and too late for you to use it now as a way of saying that we didn't buy a pig in a polke with the Recall.) Simply put, some in our community were voting for the recall because they were told it would save them money. No one ever ever ever saw the details which would have justified the $100/month claim and lots of folks never even asked.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
Simply put, the "latest" assessment has no connection as to how much a partially studied sewerage contrivance will ultimately cost.

If tired technology gets plowed into the ground so will all the leakage and inflation that comes with it.

If better more efficient and less costly technology can be studied and offered as a choice for the BOS when it comes time for them to vote whether to "take or not to take" the project money, energy and time will be conserved.

Whatever occurs will be a matter of record and will prove useful to future wastewater solution selection.

Ann,
The people in LO/BP are very lucky to have you involved in this process. My guess is that your haed work along with Ron Crawford will be something which can be used by the new federal adminstration as a basis of how the current paradigm wastes time and money, both of which are critical in protecting the environment.

I appreciate some of my points have not been lost all togther as evidenced by your kind words above.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann says:
"…but didn't the community as a whole, not a bunch of 'anti-sewer obstructionists' vote to put in a new board that promised they would move the sewer out of town?"

No, 51% of the ballots marked (not the whole community) voted for that. Many have since regretted that vote. Not everyone wanted that pig in a poke.

BTW, Ripley's plan is far from "shovel-ready."

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

Why so bitter?

Please cut and paste the stimulus language that supports your claim:
Perhaps YOU have not read that the stimulus money will be repaid by future generations.

If it isn't law yet how can you claim it is?

The gravity collection system you seem to crave will have a one year warranty and no way of knowing how many gallons over 499 per diameter inch per mile of tested section.

Please cut and paste the guarantee language that will be used to insure the life of the pipe and most importantly the connections and their leakage rates.

You seem stuck in the muck of unquestioning loyalty to a government agency that provides millions of taxpayer dollars they do not have to pay for hours of sequestered study and public discussion, but only three minutes to those with real hard questions who will ultimately pay for it.

I just don't see how "public input" as you state has had anything to do with the county study process.

If you think I'm stricking out great! It means I'm in the game and at bat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slugging_percentage

Just for fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babe_Ruth

Watershed Mark said...

Should read:
The gravity collection system you seem to crave will have a one year warranty and no way of knowing how many gallons over 499 per diameter inch per mile of tested section, leaks from the entire conveyance system.

BTW is that stimulus money going to pay for the on lot costs of hooking up to a sewer?

An E/One system would include the on-lot and for far less money than gravity.

Ah, the sound of a perfectly hit ball as it cracks off the bat...

Watershed Mark said...

It is properly spelled strikeout (pesky lack of spell check)
In baseball or softball, a strikeout or strike out (denoted by SO or K) occurs when a batter receives three strikes during his time at bat. Strikeouts are associated with dominance on the part of the pitcher, although it is recognized that the style of swing that generates home runs also leaves the batter somewhat susceptible to striking out.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Here's an interesting question and/or take on fighting the power as has often been suggested for Los Osos.

If by stalling things (say by a lawsuit or by a complaint about the EIR, for example) you can increase the chance of adopting a less costly alternative (which presumes that there is one which would meet regs), you also will increase the price, if that cheaper alternative isn't selected, perhaps because of some unforeseen deficiency.

Now the question ... don't you think that there's a balance here, where in some situations it is better to take your lumps and throw in the towel instead of going back into the ring for another round or five and likely getting an even more sever beating?

It seems to me that uniformly the people who are opposed to the County process and plan are also those who were opposed to TriW and who don't seem to ever deal with the likelihood that additional delay (to study yet another alternative) will end up with higher costs (or, as in the case of the County plan versus TriW, higher costs and less benefit in terms of aquifer recharge). On the other hand, those who have adopted the "just get-r-done" attitude (myself included) are those who are not as concerned with sustainability and creative solutions but are more concerned with limiting their future costs.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ws mark, I will repeat what I said to YOU in response to me (You said: Perhaps YOU have not read that the stimulus money will be repaid by future generations.)

I said: Perhaps YOU have not read that the stimulus money will be repaid by future generations. Please make a correlation of that fact to this situation. Are you hinting that we should not apply for it on some moral ground?

Please answer my question. Clearly you did not read what I wrote.

And note that nowhere do I claim this is a LAW.

mark asks:
BTW is that stimulus money going to pay for the on lot costs of hooking up to a sewer?

No. Those costs are born by the homeowner and they will be different for each lot. Hardly a major part of the project costs overall.

And are your Eone people going to qualify to bid their proposal? You haven't answered that. It is not up to us on this blog to see if they have the chops to build anything, it is between them and the County.

I have never seen what you point is in coming to us here on this blog. It doesn't quite make sense.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,
Show me the basis for your atatement that stimulus money doesn't need to be repaid by future generations.

My point in asking is to demonstrate you have only opinion pieces to point to. There is no law yet...

If you cannot provide the cite uponh which you make your claims you will not make any sense.

COMMON SENSE is in very short supply these days as evidenced by your comments:

And are your Eone people going to qualify to bid their proposal? You haven't answered that. It is not up to us on this blog to see if they have the chops to build anything, it is between them and the County.

You ask a question then state the answer doesn't matter to you anyway.

Again, my reason for weighing in on Ann's Land: PROMULGATION of technology to folks who will be paying for it.

By doing so, I am making a record that will be useful...You will not be able to claim "I didn't hear about this or that".

However in your case it doesn't matter much, you seem stuck on the County's consulting engineer's study of sewerage...

Her's a quick question, If the Engineer wqas selected for their expertise why do they always come up with Gravity and Ox-Ditch?

CRACK!

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
In answer to your question, NO.

I'm not opposed to the county process per se. I will work hard to make it fair.

When it is the people benefit.
The technology you seem to think may not "qualify" has never been vetted.

Can't wait to see the billings and supporting documentation for $6+M worth of study for a gravity Ox-Ditch. (Git'er dun)

Especially if that's all that company does.

CRACK!!

Watershed Mark said...

Engineering is an important and learned profession. As members of this profession, engineers are expected to exhibit the highest standards of honesty and integrity. Engineering has a direct and vital impact on the quality of life for all people. Accordingly, the services provided by engineers require honesty, impartiality, fairness, and equity, and must be dedicated to the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. Engineers must perform under a standard of professional behavior that requires adherence to the highest principles of ethical conduct.

Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html

If technology exisits which protects the financial welfare of the public, shouldn't it be considered?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ws mark, I have just come from a meeting that our supervisor holds bi-monthly. As usual, Paavo Ogren was present. When asked about vacuum systems proponents getting a chance to bid, it was welcomed. Your guys need to go to the Contractor's meeting her in SLO or call Paavo direct. Now when you have done that, please let us know the results. You are not shut out of anything, but if you choose not to participate, or do not have the chops to deliver a project, it is not our problem. You have for us yet another 11th hour "solution" that may or may not work.

Your statement, "By doing so, I am making a record that will be useful...You will not be able to claim "I didn't hear about this or that"." That is absurd and rather pompous, considering this venue!! We have heard every possible solution that has been invented - including the "wonderful" Wrecklamator. It is highly unlikely we would say we didn't hear about it! Hilarious!!

I'm tired of your reading comprehension problem. One last time. If the stimulus money is approved, future generations will be called on to pay it back. Got it?

GetRealOsos said...

SharkInlet spouts:

"It seems to me that uniformly the people who are opposed to the County process and plan are also those who were opposed to TriW and who don't seem to ever deal with the likelihood that additional delay (to study yet another alternative) will end up with higher costs (or, as in the case of the County plan versus TriW, higher costs and less benefit in terms of aquifer recharge)."

First off, Steve, costs are coming down. Don't you read the papers? Contractors need work. At this point it should be said, "IF WE DON'T DELAY WE PAY!" Anyone in their right mind would want to do it right instead of wrong. What are you smoking?

Second, please don't talk about "benefit" as the County did not follow the law to have everyone who benefits pay for the aquifer recharge. This is not the sole financial responsibility of only the PZ homeowner. What are you drinking?


And to Lynette:

Did you catch the news on the pipe break down by Pismo this week? Shit in the streets? Your precious gravity system!

County biscuits for you and Steve.

Cal Poly biscuits for you and Steve.

This has to be the case. If not, both of you are very stupid.

P.S. How many times did Paavo mention that gravity was the preferred project at the recent BOS? And you really want us to believe he'll consider anything else?! Oh, he may "look" but never consider even though they use the other system at the Country Club and it takes one person to run it.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette writes: One last time. If the stimulus money is approved, future generations will be called on to pay it back. Got it?

Show me the written words that provide the basis for your statement.

GetRealOsos makes excellent and very succinct points. I could not have done any better myself.

Shark Inlet said...

I am glad that supply and demand will likely get us a bit of a reduced price on the construction. I don't think, however, it would be wise to delay unnecessarily in a hope to get an even lower bid on the job. We cannot count on that.

I don't think this is what you meant, but some might have taken it that way.


You (and Mark) are also right that it seems to some like the fix is in, that the County is interested in only one collection technology, only one site and only one treatment method. I would suggest that there is evidence to the contrary. Those who are now saying that gravity is evil and STEP was never given a chance were the same ones telling us that the County would choose TriW and MBR and that we should be really afraid. Well, the County didn't select the TriW site. Clearly they are open to considering more options than the doom-n-gloomers are giving them credit for.

I do think that the County is a bit resistant toward any system which isn't pretty traditional. This is partly because the less commonly used methods are less well known and understood and might have more possible problems with a unique situation like is found in Los Osos.

Even so, I don't think it is fair to castigate the County for their choices so far ... they seem to be supported by the TAC process and documents.

That some 15 regulars who attend every single meeting to fuss and whine about every issue, sub-issue and minute detail shouldn't be viewed as evidence that Los Osos doesn't want what the County is proposing. We'll see what the results of the community survey say and we'll know what people are thinking.

Sounds like some of the fuss-n-whiners are now saying that the County spent waaaaaay too much studying things so far but at the same time wanted the county to study more methods in waaaaay more depth, perhaps not realizing that this would drive the cost waaaaay up.

In our system of representative government, even if the government makes the wrong decision it might be better to learn to live with it than to fight the man and get your way. I don't mind if you wanna fight, but don't do it if the fight will increase my costs.

Watershed Mark said...

It is telling that a mandatory contractors meeting for those interested in bidding the “projects” is scheduled (months in advance) on or about the same day comments are due for the Draft EIR.

If the EIR isn’t final why waste the contractors time?
Conversly if "comments" made regarding the DEIR will not be addressed, then I understand.

Steve,

Traditional systems Treatment and collection are failing all over.
That's why upgrades are required.

For the county to RFQ a secondary Ox-Ditch that "must be upgradeable" makes that point succinctly.

CRACK!

The TAC process was a sham as it did not review anything other than what the county studied.

When the county posts the billings and supporting documentation we will have a better idea of how the money was spent.

Too bad your conflict of interest (gubment payroll) has you gelded.

GELD:
1 : castrate
2 : to deprive of a natural or essential part -the legislation was pretty much gelded by the time it was passed

"Hang in there" Buddy, those of us who have the testicular fortitude to make known the money and energy saving technology will soldier on.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

If you view showing up at a meeting to learn about the bidding process and the overall scope of the job as a waste of time, it is clear why you've not gonna get the job from the County. If you want them to cater to your whims and to justify to you why they didn't pick you and if you're gonna fuss about being invited to talk with them about their project, you seem like you're in the wrong line of work.

It is also patently unfair to point out that older gravity systems need repairs as proof that gravity systems are bad when you know full well that STEP or whatever Mark is promoting will also need repairs years and decades later. Considering the increased complexity of non-gravity systems it would even seem that the repair rate might be higher.

Next, "upgradable" in this context doesn't mean that the County expects their main system to fail but that there may be the need for additional treatment. Don't pretend that the word "upgradable" necessarily means that they expect their system to fail.

Lastly, for you to suggest that I have a conflict of interest or that my employment makes my opinion somehow tainted is simply silly. Someone could far more easily say that we shouldn't listen to anything you write because you stand to financially benefit from selling your system, you will bend and twist your understanding of the truth out of greed. I would also suggest that private employment versus public employment is not an issue you would want to make much hay over because in some industries or situations, the laws of economics pretty much show that the "free market" is incapable of efficiently providing a needed service. I'll take your last comment as typical conservative doggerel, cute but of no substance once one starts looking for truth or actual insight.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
I understand that the meeting wasscheduled before the DEIR comments could be addressed.
In business we call that putting the cart before the horse.
Businesses go out of business when they do that. Municipalites just raise taxes...

If you believe the county has been fair in its evaluation of technology, we simply must agree to disagree.

I read the RFQ and understand upgradeable to mean "better treatment". S
Hence my comments: Why pay $25M for secondary effluent plant when $8.8M for reclaimed water facilty is available?

Why pay more now and more later when Tertiary is available today?

You see, if you have not understood this concept up to now, I have little expectation you will ever understand it.

The current California State Budget would be a good example of how well a "public employer" works.

California is not at war is it? (careful-trick question)

GetRealOsos said...

Shark/Steve:

Clearly you don't watch channel 20 -- perhaps you don't have cable. Let me know on that, please.

Otherwise, you would have watched Robin Hayhurst, who worked for Blakeslee and now for contractors, as she stated at the last CSD meeting how much lower jobs are now because the contractors are desperate for work. Some have cut prices in half.

So, you can lay off your slogan, delay we pay, that is simply not the case now no matter how you try to spin or minimize it...nice try!
Geeze!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

mark, did you call Paavo? If you didn't, then you are not really serious about a solution for Los Osos. End of story. Enough whining. We can't do this for you, you have to put some effort into it.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynnette,

Paavo Ogren and Carollo Engineers have known about ECOfluid since before May 2007.
For you to suggest that technology is an 11th hour submission simply ignores the facts and what is truly at stake here. (But them I’m not surprised)

There is a process, which I am following.
In August of 2007 Paavo stated that "if there is a technology that is significantly less expensive then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away"...

He and his hand selected consulting engineer have “our” phone numbers and email addresses along with enough documentation to prove that USBF is a less costly and better treatment than Ox-Ditch or Ponds.
Yet since early September 2007 there has been zero contact, even though Lou Carella/Carollo Engineers, during the counting of the ballots in the SLOCO offices, told me in person he would call me to get more information.

What would "calling Paavo now" accomplish?

http://www.constitution.org/mac/prince06.htm

And it ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take
in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to
take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the
innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old
conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new.
This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on
their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily
believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them. Thus it
happens that whenever those who are hostile have the opportunity to attack
they do it like partisans, whilst the others defend lukewarmly, in such wise
that the prince is endangered along with them.

Unknown said...

Hey Mark... Is it possible ECOfluid is not the problem, but possibly the salesman was such a poor representative that ECOfluid was turned down...??? Perhaps Justin Hebner should have met with SLO County...???

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

mark, time for the rubber to meet the road. If you can't follow up with getting that info to the County months ago, then you are a poor salesman indeed. Seems like you are doing a better job on this blog trying to convince us with your daily publishing (as odious as that has been for me) than you are in applying yourself to working with the County by periodic phone calls.

Do you or do you not have a team willing to bid using this technology? If you do not, then calling Paavo would indeed be a waste. The County is not going to do the work for you. If you do not have that team, perhaps you would consider stopping whining about how great your technology is here on this blog. Mike is right, maybe YOU are the problem. Maybe Dean Willette can succeed where you cannot. In yesterday's meeting with our supervisor, Al B. said Dean would need to team up with someone. So I guess this means at this point, you have no team or is it Dean has no team? Are you competing with Dean to try to land the job?

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE, Lynette,
You’re not interested then you’re interested, which is it?

MIKE,

Salesmanship has nothing to do with technology as evidenced by the county's study process.
If you will be so kind as to tell us who the "salesmen" are for the OX-Ditch and gravity conveyance, you will prove my point.

Lynette,

When the comments to the DEIR are filed, studied and addressed the results could/should/would make a asking for bids on a $25M upgradeable secondary Ox-Ditch obsolete when the environmental and economic footprint is so much less for an $8.8M ECOfluid USBF MBR Tertiary/Water Reclamation Facility.

The blogging has provided a most useful device to get the issues all flushed out.
CRACK!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Gee mark, sure wish you'd answer my questions.

Maybe the County slipped up in your mind, but as they are clearly holding the door open for you to bid on this, why can't you tell us what YOU or ECOfluid is doing on that front?

Watershed Mark said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_sewerage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer

Lynette,

Again, there is a process which I am honoring.

Would you ask Maria about the Schemf severance situation and get back to us?
I'm interested how much his departure pay amount, if any, was.

Also could you cut and paste those words that support your pass our obligations to the generations to come language you used to supportyour claim and while you are at it please list out resources from Iraq we went in there to imperialize?

Also is it possible the current plans will be thrown out in favor od the MHW shovel ready TRI-W?

If so USBF MBR would whip Zenon in a head to head match up.

I'm sending you and Steve a copy of our third party comparison to your gmail accounts.

Abyone else who wants one please click a request to Mark@NOwastewater.com

Watershed Mark said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinder_pump

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer

Watershed Mark said...

Maybe the County slipped up in your mind, but as they are clearly holding the door open for you to bid on this, why can't you tell us what YOU or ECOfluid is doing on that front?

Didn't want to risk losing this gem, sorry for the repost.

Watershed Mark said...

Sewertoons said...
Gee mark, sure wish you'd answer my questions.

Maybe the County slipped up in your mind, but as they are clearly holding the door open for you to bid on this, why can't you tell us what YOU or ECOfluid is doing on that front?

2:03 PM, January 09, 2009

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

Clearly you do have a considerable amount of time today and so you can explain for us the evidence of Iraq's WMDs which was available before the start of the war which hasn't since been ... um ... disproved.

Simply put, was there evidence to justify such a war?

Watershed Mark said...

Inteligence is a very tricky business which has been hampered by Congress intervention...

In October 2002 the U.S. Congress passed a "Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq". While the resolution authorized the President to "use any means necessary" against Iraq, Americans polled in January 2003 widely favored further diplomacy over an invasion. Later that year, however, Americans began to agree with Bush's plan. The U.S. government engaged in an elaborate domestic public relations campaign to market the war to the American people. See, Public relations preparations for 2003 invasion of Iraq. Americans overwhelmingly believed Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction: 85% said so, even though the inspectors had not uncovered those weapons. Of those who thought Iraq had weapons stashed somewhere, about half were pessimistic that they would ever turn up. By February 2003, 74% of Americans supported taking military action to remove Saddam Hussein from power.[21]

It is useless to argue what we knew and when we knew it, because it won't change a thing.

Bush was re-elected in 2004...

Watershed Mark said...

I'm nore interested in Schemf and a shovel ready TRI-W Project...

Watershed Mark said...

These are ground zero issues for you and yours.
Keep your eye on the ball, the war will take care of itself...

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

What you are saying is that it doesn't matter whether the case for invading Iraq was entirely trumped up because it is too late now and by the way, the general public and congress bought into the lie too.

My point is that the administration should not have been pretty careful with their intelligence information and not portrayed it as worse than the case justified.

Now, some would say that we cannot be too careful and we should always be careful if there is the possibility of terrorism or a real danger from another country. This doesn't, however, preclude honesty and a desire to avoid a way.

I would also point out that fighting an unnecessary, ill-advised, unjustified and expensive war has consequences ... and in this case, the consequences are probably considerably worse than had we allowed Saddam to remain in power.

Watershed Mark said...

You are Monday Morning Quarterbacking Steve.

As far as Sadam goes he was a punk who could have avoided the "invasion" had he been "honest and desired to avoid it", who ending up hiding in a spider hole.

Watershed Mark said...

Inteligence is a very tricky business which has been hampered by Congress intervention...

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

It is not Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

Individuals inside the White House told Suskind that they knew in 2003 that there were no WMDs but that they ordered the forgery of a document to make it look like there were.

There is a difference between a well intentioned misunderstanding and the deliberate choice to portray all available intelligence in the most extreme way.

Don't get me wrong, intelligence is tricky ... but to blame Congress (as you seem to) for all problems makes you look like someone who would trade liberty for safety.

Churadogs said...

Lyenette sez:"And are your Eone people going to qualify to bid their proposal? You haven't answered that. It is not up to us on this blog to see if they have the chops to build anything, it is between them and the County."

Continuously vailid point. Were "alternative" systems really given a thorough vetting or superficially "looked at" then bypassed as a sort of CYA move, then it's on to either STEP or Gravity, period end of sentence. Did/Do any of these "alternative systems" have the chops, have the hard numbers, actually submitted and qualified for RFPs &etc. Unless they went through the hoops, they can't really say they offer an alternative. So, did Mark's alternative jump through all the hoops and is it now on the table. If not, why not? It's clear from the EIR that the county eliminated any "alternatives" except Step/gravity because the EIR was based on 4 options for collection/treatment; step/gravity ONLY. So, does Mark's process fall into collection? treatment? and if so, did it qualify for evaluation and if not, why not? Unless his company or process was in the mix from day one, and/or comes in too late, now matter how wonderful it is, it's meaningless. However, IF his process actually is better and cheaper and is ignored, then the people of this community will -- again -- get screwed and it's up to them to ask why.


Lynette also sez: (to Mark) "As usual, Paavo Ogren was present. When asked about vacuum systems proponents getting a chance to bid, it was welcomed. Your guys need to go to the Contractor's meeting her in SLO or call Paavo direct. Now when you have done that, please let us know the results. You are not shut out of anything, but if you choose not to participate, or do not have the chops to deliver a project, it is not our problem."

Again: Did your system jump through the hoops to get on the table? If not, why not? Is now the time for it to get on the table? Will it? If not, why not? It does no good to come on this blog for a little verbal striptease for the readers. We're not your audience; the BOS/Paavo IS.

Mark sez:"I read the RFQ and understand upgradeable to mean "better treatment". S
Hence my comments: Why pay $25M for secondary effluent plant when $8.8M for reclaimed water facilty is available?

Why pay more now and more later when Tertiary is available today?"

Illustrates my point: You need to ask Paavo and the BOS this, AND present your properly formatted info at the proper time to get it on the table. Then the question is valid. Until that time, wrong dumbshow before the wrong audience.

Mark sez:"He and his hand selected consulting engineer have “our” phone numbers and email addresses along with enough documentation to prove that USBF is a less costly and better treatment than Ox-Ditch or Ponds.
Yet since early September 2007 there has been zero contact, even though Lou Carella/Carollo Engineers, during the counting of the ballots in the SLOCO offices, told me in person he would call me to get more information.

What would "calling Paavo now" accomplish?"

My question is: What would it cost you to make that call, get that appointment, AND call and get a sit down with the BOS members as well. THEY need to have your information now so they can ask Corollo some questions.

Or is it that you have lots of time to discuss WMD, but can't be bothered to pick up the phone and call a few supervisors? Something is very, very wrong here.

Watershed Mark said...

Something is very, very wrong here.

Watershed Mark said...

When those attending the "dumb show" realize they will be negatively affected by a weighted process that some have defending fiercely and spend a fraction of the time they spend criticizing a messenger and ask their representatives why technology was not reviewed perhaps they will come to understand what I and others outside the “gravity/ox-ditch(and other big dumb obsolete treatment systems) already know.

Until then they will remain clueless as to just what is happening while being fed a paper blizzard that did not contain a fair and just evaluation of anything other than the “pre determined” solution, in this case gravity/ox-ditch. (The cost comparisons of STEP/STAG and Gravity in SLO County’s study are laughable)

Until the people who pay for the solution demand integrity from those who wish to serve the public and expect that even “pre-engineered” solutions will be evaluated on a apples to apples basis even though that comparison would eliminate tens of millions of dollars from the “solution”, “something is very, very wrong here”.

I will be posting correspondence addressed to SLOCO et al before the DEIR comment period expires.
There is an unaccepted standing offer to meet with those who may vote to accept the project and choose which technology gets utilized.

Technology that is significantly less expensive becomes the new standard and all others fall away-
When public servants don’t live up to their words- “something is very, very wrong here”, indeed.

M said...

to sewertoons, was the vote in 2001 in Dr. Rhuer's speech fact or opinion?
Sincerely, M

Watershed Mark said...

Ann Wrote: My question is: What would it cost you to make that call, get that appointment, AND call and get a sit down with the BOS members as well. THEY need to have your information now so they can ask Corollo some questions.

My question in response is: What would it cost the citizens/county to make that call???

It would save tens of millions of dollars. No gag, bit or business.

CRACK!

Watershed Mark said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grinder_pump

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_sewerage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sewer

Upon further consideration, Gravity was not reviewed fairly. Therte was nothing about the leakage, infiltration or discussion about reliability and lifecycle or responsibility after a warranty period.

Hydrogen Sulfide gas production waan't compared with the other collection types.

The Wiki provides more of a real comparison than the county's consulting ehgineering study yeilded.

Something is very, very wrong here...

Shark Inlet said...

When Ann suggests Mark should call the County to promote his business with the County instead of just whining here, Mark replies "What would it cost the citizens/county to make that call???"

Based on the way you've clearly presented evidence here as to how well your system (the one you are selling now, not the one you were selling last year) would work for Los Osos, the evidence you've provided of how long these devices will operate without hassle, the details you've provided about the O&M costs as well as your willingness to call the county yourself ... the expected benefit from such a call is clearly well below the expected time and hassle of such a call. Mark, you've convinced me it's not worth my time!

CRACKPOT!

Watershed Mark said...

I have been pitching ECOfluid to Paavo since March of 2007, before he hired Carollo and he never responded.
I didn’t expect that a trained account would know much about wastewater technology.

When he stated that “if there is a technology is significantly less expensive, then that technology becomes the new standard” I did expect him to follow through on that line of thinking given his accounting background.

The history of resistance to money saving technology cannot be understood unless you are in the "race".
But if you think "over quoted" here, you just may begin to question, “how the cart gets put before the horse in plain sight”, right in front of your eyes.

“There are none so blind as those who will not see”.
Don't worry I'll still work hard to make known great money and energy conserving technology to those who will fund and actually pay for the solution.

Fear not, "little cracked pot”, I still love LO, no matter how much “you”(and Lynette) kick and scream.
Remember the country wants “CHANGE”. Color me an agent for change.

CRACK!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

mark, please list the number of times you tried to reach Paavo and/or County staff.

Shark Inlet said...

Mark,

If you've tried to contact the County in the past, why are you unwilling to do it thesedays?

M said...

Sewertoons, please answer my question.
Sincerely, M

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

M, sorry, it appeared that I was ignoring you. I intend to respond as soon as I have time to do so, as it will take some time to do. (If not on this thread on another.)

ws mark, are you aware that someone in the community IS going to the County with the collection part of "your" technology?