Pages

Thursday, February 19, 2009

Start Yer Spinning Sewer Engines! Zoom! Zoom!

Ah, and now the Spin Machine starts. In the Feb 18 Tribune “Viewpoint,” Bill Garfinkel, former head of the TAC (information that was, interestingly left off the piece.) submitted what first appeared to be a sort of “balanced” overview of the information homeowners will be considering in the upcoming County “Survey,” (Due next week?) And I use the word “appears,” because it’s actually an endorsement for gravity superficially appearing as some sort of vaguely neutral evaluation. (Hmmm, maybe that’s the reason Bill’s association with the TAC was left off? Didn’t want anyone to think this was some sort of official endorsement, but merely a personal point of view? Good move.)

Unfortunately, Bill’s piece is only the first salvo in the upcoming “campaign” to subtly (and not so subtly) influence which collection system the authors wish the community to “buy” in this upcoming "survey." Get ready for more campaigning – coordinated letters to the editor touting gravity or STEP, other viewpoints pretending to neutrality that are nonetheless loaded down with “spin” of one sort or the other. And, of course, look for the Tribune to do their usual job of not-so-subtly “forgetting” key facts and information in order to do whatever it is the County wants done.

The problem with what the County is about to do with the up coming survey is that asking homeowners to “pick” a collection system now is premature because, so far as I know, neither systems have been evaluated via competitive proposals with real-world, maximum prices, including OM&R BEFORE the homeowners can begin to make an intelligent choice.

The importance of such a real-world evaluation and pricing, including OM&R is that – as the TAC report and Bill’s Viewpoint made clear – “Actual costs for the collection system are unknown until the county receives bids. Engineering estimates indicate the range of costs for the two systems overlap with STEP at the low end of the range. . . .” And in that “overlap,” one can hide all sorts of fudged numbers making appearances misleading.

In addition, Bill notes that engineering estimates don’t include the varying hook-up costs, and goes on to imply that a STEP system would “disturb an area approximately 250 square feet . . .” (for the tank, & etc.) thereby implying there’d be added-on huge costs without noting that, if memory serves, the Ripley Report/Proposal, for example, included the tank installation costs into it’s total project costs, and that total included an averaged-out “landscaping repair” rebate cost per homeowner. Since there have been no real-time proposals, how do we know whether a STEP proposal, for example, would also include that installation cost as part of the plan (as Ripley's plan did)? That's critical information before chosing anything, don't you think?

Plus, without real-time long-term OM&R cost-outs, the homeowner can't figure out that even with an initial higher restore/repair hook up for his property, it may be that STEP still comes out cheaper for long term costs. But without that information, the homeowner can't really make a good determination.

Which means that full life cycle costs, energy costs, sludge disposal costs, RWQCB “leak” fines, & etc. are actually important BEFORE anyone "votes" for anything. In short, the real devil is STILL in the details and without those, I fear that this community is about to be spun into another Hobson’s Choice. Again.

I understand. It's not easy because the problem of truthfully and fully giving the community the information it needs to make a wise choice is a daunting one since every “fact” requires about 70 pages of footnotes and 1,000 attached PDF files and charts to ‘splain it correctly since each “fact” trails all sorts of IF and WHEREAS and HOWEVER and ON THE OTHER HAND.

So, what to do? Well, my suggestion is to do – for real – what the TAC attempted in theory: Competitive real-time proposals with guaranteed caps on prices and a full evaluation of OM&R for BOTH systems. THEN, see what floats to the top.

Is that really too much to ask for? I don’t think so.

130 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

From: Gail McPherson [mailto:ronmcpherson@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, February 18, 2009 10:04 AM
To: CCW
Subject: Los Osos Community Survey----it's in the mail!!!! ----Please pass on & share with all Los Osos Residents

You will receive a community survey in the mail from the County sometime in the next week. It is important that every resident of Los Osos return this survey.

In accordance with the special legislation AB2701, the process developed by the County has worked to identify all viable options for the wastewater project. The work to date has identified several alternatives in the project & permit documents. The wastewater project is now entering into a competitive Design-Build process to assure the "best Value" project is selected.

The most costly piece of the project, the collection system has two types of systems proposed. Regardless of your position on the type of collection system, making the systems compete will give Los Osos the real-world cost information for an informed decision.


Write in on the survey:

Dear supervisors,
I want both systems (STEP vs. Gravity) handled in competitive proposals with a guaranteed maximum price, including full life cycle operation and maintenance costs for both collection systems.

Email the message to the BOS too: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/bos/BOSContactUs.htm


vi•a•ble
Pronunciation:
\ˈvī-ə-bəl\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
French, from Middle French, from vie life, from Latin vita — more at VITAL
Date:
circa 1832
1: capable of living ; especially : having attained such form and development as to be normally capable of surviving outside the mother's womb (a viable fetus)2: capable of growing or developing (viable seeds) (viable eggs)3 a: capable of working, functioning, or developing adequately (viable alternatives) b: capable of existence and development as an independent unit ..the colony is now a viable state) c (1): having a reasonable chance of succeeding (a viable candidate) (2): financially sustainable ..a viable enterprise
— vi•a•bil•i•ty \ˌvī-ə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun
— vi•a•bly \ˈvī-ə-blē\ adverb


1al•ter•na•tive
Pronunciation:
\ȯl-ˈtər-nə-tiv, al-\
Function:
adjective
Date:
1540
1: ALTERNATE 12: offering or expressing a choice (several alternative plans)3: different from the usual or conventional: as a: existing or functioning outside the established cultural, social, or economic system (an alternative newspaper) (alternative lifestyles) b: of, relating to, or being rock music that is regarded as an alternative to conventional rock and is typically influenced by punk rock, hard rock, hip-hop, or folk music c: of or relating to alternative medicine (alternative therapies)

1op•tion
Pronunciation:
\ˈäp-shən\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
French, from Latin option-, optio free choice; akin to Latin optare to choose
Date:
1593
1: an act of choosing2 a: the power or right to choose : freedom of choice b: a privilege of demanding fulfillment of a contract on any day within a specified time c: a contract conveying a right to buy or sell designated securities, commodities, or property interest at a specified price during a stipulated period ; also : the right conveyed by an option d: a right of an insured person to choose the form in which payments due on a policy shall be made or applied3: something that may be chosen: as a: an alternative course of action (didn't have many options open) b: an item that is offered in addition to or in place of standard equipment 4: an offensive football play in which a back may choose whether to pass or run with the ball —called also option play
synonyms see CHOICE


A gravity sewer hooked up to a secondary treatment facility in need of upgrading from the day it is constructed, will yield an “alternative community” that is no longer viable for those who live therte currently.

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

Let the citizens of Los Osos make up their own minds on the County Survey. Los Osos has heard all points of view regarding these issues ad naseum; and are ready and willing to commit to project. In short, let the County process continue unabated. Remember, you and yours can always have your day in Court if you disagree.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

RL,
Currently the county's study process has not included several technologies which have been presented, but then you already know that.

I know you are a big pipe guy from way back so for you what the county is presenting and more importantly not presenting is good for you.
Please correct me if I am incorrect, but don't you live outside the PZ and will not be paying for a "bad decision" based on incomplete information/proof?

I seriously doubt that Ann's opinion(s) can move a vote one way or another as you seem to fear, although I sincerely wish it could.
If people consider what the “studies” have cost, what an ill informed decision will cost and then ask why better technology has not been brought forward, they should be fine.

ECOfluid has put forward a design and proposal that is quickly and easily verified for costs of construction and energy use which is both the solution and the problem.
It simply comes down to those who are paying and those who are being paid. Please tell us how you justify buying something “without knowing” what it will cost to build.

Please tell us why the county’s consulting engineer doesn’t simply shoot down an $8.8MM design that uses less energy by far that anything they brought forward.
Please tell us why the citizens who are being asked to choose and pay for a solution are not able to make a better choice than what seems to be coming forward.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"Get ready for more campaigning – coordinated letters to the editor ..."

You mean, another "serious letter writing campaign," right?

Here's the link to Garfinkel's piece.

http://www.sanluisobispo.com/opinion/story/624728.html

Dude's apparently not down with some folks:

"... those individuals and groups who have successfully delayed the project these past 20 years are once again challenging the project with claims that there are better solutions, the project is not green enough, it costs too much, the engineering is flawed or we don’t need it."

He's wrong there. That wasn't "individuals and groups who have successfully delayed the project." No. That was just an individual.

At the end, it reads:

"Bill Garfinkel is a Los Osos resident. His Viewpoint also was signed by 82 other concerned members of the Los Osos community who support his position."

Is Pandora one of the 82? Because, that would be deliciously ironic. Oh, pleeeease tell me Pandora is one of the 82!

Sewertoons said...

ron, I suggest you return to the last article of Ann's in this bunch of articles and respond to Aaron.

Who (besides you) cares if Pandora signed this or not?

Richard LeGros said...

WM,

The folks of Los Osos are (without fear or reservations) ready to make their decisions on the County Survey. The issues have been discussed for years; with Los Ososians more informed that most communities regarding waste water topics.

From your past posts, the simple truth is that you fear the process's results; especially if the process results in a decision that you disagree with. But as I posted earlier, you may always take the County to court over your issues.

What I find sad is that you (and Ann too) claim 'process foul' when decisions are made not inline with your point-of-view.

In your case, you cry 'process foul' if the County decides not to review or use your questionable on-site system.

In Ann's case, she cries 'process foul' on ANY decisons regarding ANY proposed project as she knows ANY resolution to comply with the law will be too expensive for her to remain living in Los Osos.

In both your cases, the behavior is self-serving.

-R

Sewertoons said...

I think what Gail is not getting, is that the project costs are separate from the homeowner costs. The homeowner costs on step are huge and she is not alerting anyone to make their own assessment of that. (Restoring driveways, fences and walls, upgrading the electrical box, replacing landscaping - that sort of stuff. The project will not pay for these costs, the homeowner will. You can't get SRF money to pay for these costs. Ripley wasn't planning on using SRF money.)

No one is going to predict leak fines - don't even go there, it is silly.

It is a moot point really. Who will loan a homeowner money to fix up his driveway or yard in this economy? - (maybe if he has a huge amount of equity!) - but that sure isn't the picture painted about most LO citizens, is it?

Billy Dunne said...

Gee, you wouldn't be one of those people spinning, would you Ann?

Not quite sure what the fuss is with you. Bill couldn't be any more clear in stating his opinion:

"We believe gravity is the best solution for Los Osos."

There you have it. Why the constant need to create controvery when none exists?

I have all the confidence in the world that the home-owning citizens of Los Osos have become quite sophisticated in separating the wheat from the chaff concerning the WWP. The overwhemling support of the assessment vote and the results of the last election make that obvious to me.

We are sophisticated enough to know there is an element in Los Osos who will NEVER be satisfied with ANY project whatsoever and will continue to complain; nitpick; bemoan; insult; and generally embarrass just for the sake of, well, whatever their agenda. Anyone who watches the BOS meetings each week or the CSD meetings know this.

We have become sophisticated in separating out spin and obsesssive agenda-driven "journalism" from real, constructive information.

And we are sophisticated enough to be able to spot out-of- town agitators intent on fomenting more confusion and turmoil in an already dysfunctional community for the sake of padding their own wallets.

It sould be interesting to see how the survey shakes out, but I think ultimately the inconvenience of ripped up streets will prevail over the very real potential for destruction of personal property and the inherent hidden costs and responsibilites shouldered by the homeowner with a STEP system. Trading one septic tank for another seems absolutely ludicous, an opinion I think will be shared by most, but time will tell.

TCG said...

I don't want Gail McPherson telling me what to write to the Board of Supervisors any more than I do Pandora Nash Karner. How about you, Ron?

GVD said...

I would not be a bit surprised if the water board ramped up their campaign of terror at this time to whip us all into shape. Just like they did before the last 218 vote.

Watershed Mark said...

constructive fraud n. when the circumstances show that someone's actions gives him/her an unfair advantage over another by unfair means (lying or not telling a buyer about defects in a product, for example), the court may decide from the methods used and the result that it should treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven.

Richard LeGros said...

WM,

If you feel that 'constructive fraud' has occured, then sue the County. I won't srop you from wasting your money.

By the way, your definition ('(lying or not telling a buyer about defects in a product, for example)'), can be said regarding ECOflow. LOL

-R

Mike said...

Hey Richard... You're wasting your time responding to the WM nonsense... You only encourage him to spew out more BS...and he almost dominated this blog until we came to our collective senses...

As Ann accurately described ECOfluid (or maybe a new thing, ECOflow..??) as being just another in the long list of "Products" from which a design/builder might chose... Just another wigit....

We have better things to discuss than singling out just one of many, many "products"... The real issue will boil down to individual cost between Step and Gravity... Your experience in why the CSD selected the designed system for Tri-W would be important to hear about... What constraints came into play in making the decision...??? Why was STEP rejected at the CSD level...???

Thanks Richard, have a great day...!!!!

Watershed Mark said...

Richard LeGros said...
WM,

If you feel that 'constructive fraud' has occured, then sue the County. I won't srop you from wasting your money.

By the way, your definition ('(lying or not telling a buyer about defects in a product, for example)'), can be said regarding ECOflow. LOL

-R

11:41 AM, February 19, 2009

Please continue Richard.

Billy Dunne said...

Can anyone figure out what the difference is between a "serious letter writing campaign," which Ron takes offense with, and the campaign by the same 12 or so people who dominate the public comment session at the BOS each and every week deriding the county and everything "sewerish?"

Watershed Mark said...

ECOfluid has put forward a design and proposal that is quickly and easily verified for costs of construction and energy use which is both the solution and the problem.
It simply comes down to those who are paying and those who are being paid. Please tell us how you justify buying something “without knowing” what it will cost to build.

Please tell us why the county’s consulting engineer doesn’t simply shoot down an $8.8MM design that uses less energy by far that anything they brought forward.
Please tell us why the citizens who are being asked to choose and pay for a solution are not able to make a better choice than what seems to be coming forward.

You have no legal answers, eh? Bwhahahahahah

Watershed Mark said...

Can anyone figure out why there isn't any record of a B(W)illy Dunne in SLO County?

Willy are you living with your relatives or are you a ward of the state or something?

danbleskey said...

The type of collection system is key. The original compromise of October 2005 acknowledged that gravity was the preferred option AT THAT TIME because it would allow the project to continue and be completed on time per the original project goals. This included the redesign of an out of town plant. The original design and management of the project from permitting, design and commencement of construction was MWH’s responsibility. MWH’s design has now been confirmed to be deficient in numerous areas. As the LOCSD’s fiduciary where was MWH’s actions that pointed all of these issues out so long ago. There is a possibility that MWH has had a hand in shaping some of what is going on at this time. Consider this:

MWH’s original design promoted Broderson for an application rate far in excess of what the County has now determined to be the correct application rate. This was pointed out prior to the recall and now is confirmed;

MWH’s original design at a minimum inferred that you could not cross the various creeks needed to locate the plant out of town. The county has now confirmed that the creeks can be crossed;

MWH as the construction manager and as the District’s fiduciary allowed the commencement of construction during a politically charged period that risked huge costs if the recall was successful, and when the risk of the relocation of the plant became reality worked with the contractors and the state, AGAINST the District in order to assure that MWH could maintain its position to profit from the continued construction of the defective project. MWH did nothing to live up to its duties to the District. Instead they put their own interests for continued profits ahead of their Obligations to the District and its ratepayers as well as the State of California.

IMHO MWH will benefit if any part of the original project can be salvaged. It is not to say that either a gravity or a pressure system will not work, but that it allows MWH to shift focus away from themselves and avoid their responsibility to the citizens of Los Osos, SLO County and the State. Why are they not coming forward to financially make right what they failed to do? Again, IMHO, they are trying to protect the vast sums now in their pockets and not living up to their fiduciary duties to protect the District.

Mike said...

I'd certainly like to hear from someone with a bit better level of credibility than someone using the danblesky nom de plume... The "real" Dan Blesky" was run out of town for his genius in screwing things up...

Sewertoons said...

WOW! danbleskey uses "gailspeak!" A bunch of gobbldeygook-half-truths and innuendo!

Gee, Broderson application was always going to be ramped up - with monitoring wells (not sending up 800,000 gallons to start as this writer implies) - if things looked bad, a Plan B would be crafted. Just like now! Only Plan B is ready - it's sprayfields to start and the Water Purveyors will come up with their own Plan B later.

The rules changed as to creek crossing.

MWH "allowed the commencement of construction during a politically charged period" - ALLOWED? What's that got to do with reality? The project was scheduled to be underway and had not certain people LIED to the Community, we'd be hooking up right now. We can all see how well "changing the project" worked - firstly - THERE WAS NO PROJECT and the SRF monies were for THAT SPECIFIC PROJECT. No, stopping the project was a political move by certain members of this community, and there NEVER was a chance of relocating the plant with this bunch of Directors. MWH, etc, had signed contracts to perform work. They had spent money and time to get ready for this job, the idea that they should wring their hands and wait out some election doesn't change the fact that they had SIGNED CONTRACTS, which would need to be honored whatever happened. (Do you think they would say, "Aw gee, we're sorry we can't stay here to work - we'll just let that little old contract go, never mind all the money we have spent getting ready to work?")

Shift focus away from themselves? Do you really on this earth THINK (maybe that is too strong of a word) that a global-sized company cares about what some dinky little town thinks about it!!

The DISTRICT had the responsibility to protect itself, this wasn't MWH's responsibility. Their "vast sums," as you put it are pennies on the dollar in bankruptcy court - they have nothing to "make right" to us!

Have you ever worked out in the real world?

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

Ann opined: "Ah, and now the Spin Machine starts. In the Feb 18 Tribune 'Viewpoint,' Bill Garfinkel ... submitted what first appeared to be a sort of 'balanced' overview of the information homeowners will be considering in the upcoming County 'Survey,' (Due next week?) And I use the word 'appears,' because it’s actually an endorsement for gravity superficially appearing as some sort of vaguely neutral evaluation."

Them's loaded words. I can understand how you might disagree with Bill ... but it seems that when you put quotes around the word "survey" in this context you seem to be trying to poison the well somewhat like what you believe Bill is doing and somewhat like Gail's e-mail above. Have you seen the survey? Do you know that it is biased?

I presume that you can explain exactly how this survey is horribly biased.

The casual observer might think that Ann is opposed to a gravity collection system because she sees bias anytime Gravity isn't decried as vastly inferior to STEP.

Of course, if Ann provides a solid argument about the bias in the poll (you know, leading questions or misleading "data" being used) it would go a long way to support her public doubting of the legitimacy of the County process.


I would agree that Ron should explain why he seems to care deeply about some things (like whether Pandora has her finger on the scale) but not others that are comparable (like whether Gail does). Along those lines, I would love to hear a cogent argument from anyone why promising a lower sewer cost is biasing an election if it happens in 1998 but it isn't a problem at all if it happens in 2005. Unless Ron or Ann or someone wants to put forward an explanation for this one, perhaps it would best to remind Ron of his choice of irrelevance every time he brings up the ancient history of the solutions group. At least the rest of us are living in the last five years ... Ron seems to think that the only mistakes in Los Osos happened before 2005. Maybe he could rename his blog "lososossewerhistoryfrom1995to2003.blogspot.com" or something more appropriate like that.


Lastly, to Mark, it would be interesting to hear your comments on Richard's suggestion that you are withholding some info. Also, if your product could be chosen by whatever real contractor who actually bids on the job and gets the job, why are you complaining at us?

And, for anyone who wonders, Mark did send me some info about one site and several readings across about a year. Hardly the longterm proof from multiple sites which Mark claims exist. What Mark provided would hardy be called sensitive or proprietary information, so the choice of his firm to refuse to provide more data should be viewed with suspicion. Like I said before, real scientists and real researchers and real salesmen are always too happy to provide non-sensitive information to those who would want to evaluate the claims. What is Mark and his firm hiding?

Watershed Mark said...

The only location on the survey that offered the paying customer to share their thoughts concerns ideas wisdom via the "other...please specify" Box is:

"Lucky" #7- "Where did you get your information about the project?" Please check all the sources you used over the 'last few years' to help you understand the County's plans for the Project. Then check the one or two sources you found most helpful.

Too bad the County doesn't answer questions, raised in this "piece":

The estimated energy use for the technologies in your Draft EIR is as follows:
Ponds being the lowest at 600 kWhrs per year
Bio-Lac™ a proprietary technology, just like ECOfluid USBF™, at 1.1 million kWhrs per year
And Oxidation Ditch classified as medium usage is 900 kWhrs per year.
ECOfluid USBF™ will use 454 kWhrs per year. Lower than the lowest of everything in the DEIR.
Chairman Gibson, last year you had a piece of modern technology installed into your heart to correct a problem. I understand you waited until technology had improved to the level of quality it is now before you had your problem corrected. You could have had older less effective technology installed into your body, but you did not.
Given that you are using new technology in your heart, would you please find out from your county staff how it happen that a tertiary treatment technology that is so energy efficient was overlooked?
Chairman Gibson, Board members all, why overlook it now?
I am asking you on behalf of the citizens who will be affected by your choice, to accept our problem, to solve it utilizing the best technology money can buy.
Your board has yet to vote on whether to take on the collection and treatment problem as outlined in AB2701. The Draft EIR comment period just closed and your staff’s responses are forthcoming. There is time to get a second or even third opinion regarding technology that promises to conserve energy as well as ECOfluid™ USBF Designs do.
If you find that there is a legitimate reason to not use USBF™ please issue a written statement as to why, at least then you will have demonstrated your willingness to prove the integrity of your study process.
You and the people have everything to gain from a quick review of ECOfluid’s USBF™ Designs and much to lose if you don’t authorize and direct staff to double check its findings.
Using more energy than needed is wasteful. Saving energy is more important than ever. A Benjamin Franklin opined-“a penny saved is a penny earned”.
You must install the best piece of technology into the heart of Los Osos.

Realistic1 said...

Another thing Ron seems to forget is that before the Solution Group, there was CAWS and other "we don't need it" groups who torpedoed the County as they tried to get a project going.

Pandora and the Solution Group were not the first and, as we all know, not the last. No doubt there will be another group once the County attempts to actually build the chosen project. But in Ron's world (for reasons passing understanding) it's all Pandora, all the time.

As for spin, Ann, opinion is not spin. If it is you and Ron and Gail are as guilty as Bill Garfinkel. He expressed his (and at least 82 other people's) opinion. They like gravity. So do I, and so do my neighbors. The County expressed from day one they were leaning towards gravity. This should not be a shock to anyone.

As for the survey - how do you know it's biased until you see it? Have an advance copy? If so, please post it so we can all take a gander.

To anyone - do we know if out of town property owners will receive the survey?

Watershed Mark said...

Steve wrote: What is Mark and his firm hiding?

Nothing Steve, why is the county’s consulting engineering hiding USBF?
You have demonstrated you do not possess the desire to understand.
I think you are capable but you would rather engage in rhetoric.

Here is a prime example of your ignorance:
"The County seems to want to go with one firm to design the system and another to do the construction ... but they're open to design-build."

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/AssetFactory.aspx?did=19435

Would those who "believe" that technology providers should submit their statement of qualifications for the LOSTDEP Design Build please identify those technology providers from the county's website, please?

I have given you several opportunities to “straight out” your misguided and misinformed statement and yet you persist. I’m still waiting to see al the data you and Lynette are using to support your positions, I just won’t be holding my breath. I do enjoy seeing caught in your trap…

Watershed Mark said...

do enjoy seeing "you" caught in your trap…

Watershed Mark said...

I do, I do, I do....

Mike said...

Good Evening Shark...

Mark does NOT have a "firm"... He is only a commission driven, product (not system) salesperson...

I've been treated to a good many well presented and professional industrial systems sales dog-and-pony shows, and from everything I've learned about WM, he would never have come thru the door twice... His association with the Wrecklamator alone would disqualify him from any serious consideration...

If a qualified design/build engineering contractor is truly interested in the ECOfluid or ECOflow or whatever "product" WM is currently peddling, then don't you think they would have already been in direct contact with the ECOfluid Company and not some obnoxious sales hack...???

Watershed Mark said...

Heck MIKE,
Why don't you give answering this important questions a try:

Why won't the county’s consulting engineer simply shoot down an $8.8MM Tertiary design that uses less energy by far that anything they brought forward.

Facts are stubborn things...

A survey before the DEIR comments are addressed seems down right strange.

GetRealOsos said...

No wonder why the County, Maria, Lynette, Shark, Richard LeGros, Paavo and Gibson want the gravity sewer by Montgomery-Watson-Harza!!

-- When Pandora stood to make (with her husband included in the deal) $800,000. or so, why wouldn't Pandora and her people want M-W-H?

If Pandora stood to receive that much money (for nothing), what was Montgomery-Watson-Harza going to pay others????? Hmmmmm.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Bruce Gibson owe his career to Pandora and Shirley?? Doesn't his wife work with M-W-H? Hmmmm. All a bit too cozy!!

Maybe Gail can cash in with them too! After all, she dropped Dana Ripley real fast, like a hot potato and instantly sold out step to work with her kissing cousin Christine from Blakeslee's office to hype AB2701 which was the one and only "gravity/M-W-H" -- oh, it's all so cozy!

GetRealOsos said...

Oh "Real",

P l e a s e . . .!!!

The County couldn't do the project because the USEPA told them that the project was too expensive, the tests were inconclusive and more testing had to be done, they couldn't figure out how to pay for the thing (so they put liens on all PZ homes without any notice - not quite legal???) etc.

Thank God for Pandora. She figured it all out and got it off the county's back. She KNEW the water board wouldn't allow ponds -- she KNEW there wasn't enough land at Tri-W for ponds! But she did know how to get the people to fall for the trick of picking up the entire tab. A load of lies with Measure K!!

No wonder she's the County's little angel!

Sewertoons said...

GetReal, I want gravity because I don't want a stinking mini-bus sized tank with manhole covers and an alarm system put in my front yard, the putting of which means digging up all my carefully tended landscaping. I don't want pumping and inspecting either. It is really quite simple, that's it right there.

Speculate off into the cosmos with these crazy theories all you like, it is actually pretty entertaining, yet it means nothing - sort of like those vapid magazines on movie stars.

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

GetReal,

You seem to think that I care about gravity versus STEP (or whatever). I don't. I care about getting the best bang for the buck to meet our real water needs and keep the RWQCB at bay.

The conspiracy theory about Pandora aside, are we gonna be better off now, or would we ahve been better off with TriW or even with the pre-CSD County plan?

It would seem that every time someone has a better idea the result of their insisting on their way ends up costing us more.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

Go www.eone.com instead.
It costs so much less.

Why didn't county's consulting engineer write about their participation on Carnation???

Watershed Mark said...

the best bang for the buck:

www.one.com hooked up to tertiary low energy use www.ECOfluid.com EMBR

Watershed Mark said...

www.Eone.com hooked up to tertiary low energy use www.ECOfluid.com EMBR

Watershed Mark said...

Then there is this:

Los Osos' Affordable and Sustainable Options
Los Osos can have an affordable, proven, "shovel ready" waste water project right now. We can have a project which keeps people in their homes, (the EPA guidelines state that waste water costs should not exceed 2% of the median house hold income, that's about $80 per month for us), provides clean drinking water, recharges our aquifers, stops salt water intrusion and protects the bay. For a winning system, the Los Osos Sustainability Group recommends:
Collection System:
(70% of the project cost)
Choose anything other than gravity collection. Gravity collection involves digging trenches in the middle of the street which need to be shored up and de-watered. This takes time and money as the trench water must be cleaned before it can be disposed of. Gravity pipes are large and laid deep in the ground,(6 to 20 feet). These unsealed pipes inherently leak sewage, polluting our ground water. This system will require a dozen, energy intensive, lift stations each with it's own back up generator. Gravity's large pipes require constant maintenance in order to avoid clogs which cause spills. Cayucos, Pismo and San Luis Obispo's gravity collection systems have all spilled sewage in the past month and the CMC was recently fined again by the Water Board for their various problems.
Other technologies, Vacuum and STEP/STEG, are sealed, small diameter pipe systems, installed by horizontal boring along the side of the street at a depth of about 4 feet, (think arthroscopic surgery vs. traditional cutting). This is not only less expensive and less invasive, but in case of an earthquake, ruptures are less likely and much easier to repair, (After the Northridge earthquake it took 14 years to fix their gravity system.). Vacuum and STEP/STEG do not inherently leak, so they are protective of our groundwater. STEP/STEG, in the LOCSD's 2006 report, was estimated to be $100 less per month than the County's current Gravity projections. Comparable Vacuum collection projects have been build for even less than these STEP/STEG estimates.
Treatment:
Nature-based Nelson Air Diffusion System (ADS) or ECOFluid. Why choose one of these? Both systems utilize limited acreage, are low energy users, treat waste water to the highest quality,(tertiary), naturally and produce minimal sludge. Their cost is one half to one third of the secondary treatment the County is proposing. The County's options also produce large amounts of sludge which is a bio hazard. The County is suggesting we purchase more than 600 acres of prime agriculture land to accommodate their inferior system when ADS or ECOFluid would require a fraction of the resources while providing more benefits at a greatly reduced cost to the homeowner.
Site:
Out of town - Branin, Giacomazzi, or Cemetery. Tonini is outside of our water basin and may cause urban sprawl on LOVR.
Essential Elements:
A strong conservation element and agricultural exchange is a must. Using less water means the waste water treatment facility can be smaller. Conservation will help stop salt water intrusion, preserving the aquifers, and provide us with drinking water indefinitely. Twenty five percent conservation can be achieved using common high efficiency appliances, bought, installed and paid for through the project. Agricultural exchange means that instead of the farmers pumping our drinking water and using fertilizers to grow their crops, they will use our treated water. The bacteria in farm soil filter contaminants in ways that our sandy leach fields can't. Salinas implemented a similar program. They too had a water issues including salt water intrusion. Now their problems are solved because they utilized a holistic, integrated, sustainable approach. It is even Central Coast Water Board approved!
What's Wrong with the County's Plan:
Hybrid gravity is 95% conventional big pipe system and only 5% Vacuum collection. Bio-lac and oxidation ditches are expensive, large, mechanical energy users, producing unwanted sludge. Spray fields throw away water. Broderson means very limited basin recharge, possible liquefaction conditions and re-introduction of endocrine disputers, (Putting sewer effluent into your potable water source is a health hazard and the California PTA has a resolution against these bio accumulative toxins). The County's conservation element is very limited, only partially paid for by the project and will not solve our salt water intrusion issues. This "Environmentally Preferred" system is least sustainable for our community, economy, environment and comes with the biggest price tag.

Los Osos can have an affordable, environmentally friendly, sustainable waste water project. Choose one of the Los Osos Sustainability Group recommendations. If you don't see it on the survey ballot, please write it in.
Thank You


Viable options abound!!

GetRealOsos said...

Lynette,

You say, "Speculate off into the cosmos with these crazy theories all you like, it is actually pretty entertaining, yet it means nothing - sort of like those vapid magazines on movie stars.."

Lynette, what you don't realize is that I have all the (written) documentation!! It's ALL there!

You work for Pandora and the County -- I'd expect you to say exactly what you just said -- after all, you have to!!!!!!!!


And to Steve Rein,

What the County plans to do will ruin our unique water basin forever -- and you know better than anyone that the County will most likely import water too! Yep, that good tasting mercury water....!!! All that is okay with you because you get "yours" -- you get county biscuits. I'm sure your good friend Richard LeGros has filled you in!

You work for Pandora and the County -- I'd expect you to say exactly what you just said -- after all, you have to!!!!!!!!

Mike said...

GRO... "IF" you have such damning "documentation" about all the players in this 30 year war, WHY hasn't the SLO County DA or the State AG or any legal agency taken you up on your "documented proof" of wrong doing by anyone...???

You have been touting your so-called documentation for how many years now...??? Why hasn't anyone believed you...??? Do you have some "truth" of anything or just some of your fabricated dreams of what you think the world should be like...??? Either get some credible source behind you or start asking yourself why no one believes you....!!!!

Since TW seems to cut to the chase and is actually presenting real documented evidence in court, perhaps you should join forces with them if you can't get the DA/AG to doing anything...

Watershed Mark said...

constructive fraud n. when the circumstances show that someone's actions gives him/her an unfair advantage over another by unfair means (lying or not telling a buyer about defects in a product, for example), the court may decide from the methods used and the result that it should treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven.

For MIKE: the court may decide from the methods used and the result that it should treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven.

Remember our new Administration wants "transparency"...And “bang for the buck” utilizing technology, good buddy.

Watershed Mark said...

Why won't the county’s consulting engineer simply shoot down an $8.8MM Tertiary design that uses less energy by far that anything they brought forward???????????

Cat got your tounge(s)?

GetRealOsos said...

Mike,

Oh, you sound so very angry!

DA, well, he's got a conflict of interest. As I said before, much too cozy.

AG, haven't gone there. I haven't had all this written documentation for years either. I only happened to come across some of this material in the last couple of months!

You must be confusing me with someone else!

Watershed Mark said...

Why won't the county’s consulting engineer simply shoot down an $8.8MM Tertiary design that uses less energy by far than ANYTHING they brought forward?

Here Kitty, Kitty, Kitty...MIKE, Steve, Lynette, Willey, Sue, ANYBODY?

Churadogs said...

Richard sez:"In Ann's case, she cries 'process foul' on ANY decisons regarding ANY proposed project as she knows ANY resolution to comply with the law will be too expensive for her to remain living in Los Osos."

Uh, oh, Richard's making stuff up again. His false projections and weird assumptions always amaze.

Watershed Mark, in this blog comment section, has stated that his "product" is sweller than sliced bread, is cheaper, results in cleaner water, etc. Sez he's submitted info on it at the proper time, sez it was "overlooked," and so, I guess, re-submitted the info to the DEIR and at this point I don't have an answer to the simple question: Was ECOfluid evaluated? Was it found wanting (i.e. not viable) and dismissed? If not, will it be evaluated? If not, why not & etc. The answer to that question is important because IF the county has excluded a process or design or plan that works better and is cheaper (I say IF and have said IF to Mark's questions) then The Process has failed. And If the Process has failed, then everyone should cry foul. But if sticky fingers have kept off the table then the Process has worked and the people can decide via this survey several things: 1. pick whichever kind of system without any prices attached or 2. request that prices be attached 3. if they don't care either way, don't return the survey. Simple.

billy dunne sez:"It sould be interesting to see how the survey shakes out, "

In a previous posting, I suggested we start an office pool. If the last survey is any indication, 30% will go with STEP, 30% will go with gravity and 40% won't bother to even return the survey. Anybody else got any other guesses? 30/20/50?

GVD sez:"I would not be a bit surprised if the water board ramped up their campaign of terror at this time to whip us all into shape. Just like they did before the last 218 vote"

ah, I see you've been paying attention. Yes, look to see some "interesting" articles in the Tribune, perhaps some "interesting" comments from the RWQCB & etc.

danblesky sez:" The original design and management of the project from permitting, design and commencement of construction was MWH’s responsibility. MWH’s design has now been confirmed to be deficient in numerous areas."

The whole community needs to reads danblesky's comments. I wrote a lot of columns using the phrase, "Oh, Lucy, Joooo gotta lotta 'splainin' to doooo." and these comments sure do need a lotta 'splainin' Like, did MWH tell the recalled Board members, yes, you can cross a creek and the Board, which was locked into a downtown sewer plant location come hell or high water told them, Shhhh, don't tell anyone that, Shhhhhh. ?? And so forth.

Inlet sez:" The casual observer might think that Ann is opposed to a gravity collection system because she sees bias anytime Gravity isn't decried as vastly inferior to STEP."

Aw, Gawd, Inlet, you're making stuff up and projecting and reading into my comments things that aren't there. As usual. If you actually paid attention to what I've constantly been harping on, it's that without accurate information, "voters" filling out the "survey" are really just buying a pig in a poke. And -- please pay attention here -- getting accurate information is difficult due to the complexity of any "facts" since the "facts" require about 80 pounds of footnotes to avoid spin. And one of the key "facts" "voters" need to make an informed "vote" on the "survey" is this: What's the bottom line for [each homeowner], including onsite installation, capital cost, long term OM&R costs and etc? And how can I figure that out until I at least know full complete costs for the capital project (including OM&R and monthly "fees") AND have also been given a "cheat sheet" of STEP/gravity onsite costs, listing ball park figures for a variety of scenarios from A Real Mess (backyard, need crane, cement patio dug up, etc) to Ech, Well, Not Too Bad (remove fence, dig up tank and trench, replace fence and a few shrubs and some sod) to Piece of Cake (front yard, dig up , replace grass, short trench to hook up.) etc.)

with that info, "voters" can get a better idea of real costs and then they can choose the system that best meets their needs or wants or preferences and pocketbook, fill out such a "survey" and send it along.

Watershed Mark said...

President Obama’s Saturday, January 24th, 2009 Radio Address
“We won’t just throw money at our problems - we’ll invest in what works. Instead of politicians doling out money behind a veil of secrecy, decisions about where we invest will be made public, and informed by independent experts whenever possible. We’ll launch an unprecedented effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov.”
I understand that $40B or so is slated to be pushed through SRF programs and MANY are working to make certain that the new Administration understands the current state of affairs.
As the DEIR comments have not yet been addressed we shall "see" how Mark Hutchinson and his crew "handle" the questions about energy and such.
Putting out a survey containing a timeline which has DB efforts going on before the finalizing the EIR seems so strange and it isn’t logical.

The WB 2011 target for cessation of septic tank discharge will not be met by the county and they have yet to vote to accept the problem.

Inferior technology "floating" over more efficient and less costly designs and technology simply doesn't make sense.
It didn't make sense when the economy seemed robust and it certainly doesn't make any sense in today's economy.

“ We’ll launch an unprecedented effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government”
Perhaps a little "Forensic Engineering" may be in order...It should be “fun”, especially if our new Justice Department is looking for an “example”.

I cannot think of one that is more President Obama’s Saturday, January 24th, 2009 Radio Address
“We won’t just throw money at our problems - we’ll invest in what works. Instead of politicians doling out money behind a veil of secrecy, decisions about where we invest will be made public, and informed by independent experts whenever possible. We’ll launch an unprecedented effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government and every American will be able to see how and where we spend taxpayer dollars by going to a new website called recovery.gov.”
I understand that $40B or so is slated to be pushed through SRF programs and MANY are working to make certain that the new Administration understands the current state of affairs.
As the DEIR comments have not yet been addressed we shall "see" how Mark Hutchinson and his crew "handle" the questions about energy and such.
Putting out a survey containing a timeline which has DB efforts going on before the finalizing the EIR seems so strange and it isn’t logical.

The WB 2011 target for cessation of septic tank discharge will not be met by the county and they have yet to vote to accept the problem.

Inferior technology "floating" over more efficient and less costly designs and technology simply doesn't make sense.
It didn't make sense when the economy seemed robust and it certainly doesn't make any sense in today's economy.

“ We’ll launch an unprecedented effort to root out waste, inefficiency, and unnecessary spending in our government”
Perhaps a little "Forensic Engineering" may be in order...It should be “fun”, especially if our new Justice Department is looking for an “example”.

I cannot think of one that is more ripe for the picking.

Mike said...

Sorry GRO... I'm not even close to angry, but you seem right on the edge... Either you have some "documents" or you don't...

Just putting out some enuendo doesn't make your view of what Los Osos needs/doesn't need, into something credible... We've heard so many rumors, lies and enuendo for the past 4-5 years, that you appear to be just another quack with a wild conspiracy theory...

If you can't get anyone in the judicial system to listen to you (ok, so maybe one of the CSD5's or Gails PZLDF lawyers just might take your money), just maybe you are only spinning yourself into a room in Atascadero... Maybe you ought to jump right to Homeland Secuity, there's a new head there who just might listen to you... Maybe it's just you with nothing real to say, just your ego wanting to be infront of the CSD and BOS for your final 3 minutes of fame...

Watershed Mark said...

Putting out a survey containing a timeline which has DB efforts going on before the finalizing the EIR seems so strange and it isn’t logical.

The WB 2011 target for cessation of septic tank discharge will not be met by the county and they have yet to vote to accept the problem.

“If a leaky gravity sewer is brought forward and installed by the county “discharges” won’t be stopped at all.”
The WB has been and therefore is now adamant about “ANY discharges” being prohibited in the PZ, as my work has proven.

“How can a leaky sewer be “permitted” in the Prohibition Zone?

Fun huh?

Watershed Mark said...

MIKE,

Be honest with yourself. You are fuming and fit to be tied and seem positively apoplectic. You are angry…

Come on, have another cup of coffee and think about the "long arm of the law" and the "paper trail" here in LO.

The statute of limitations will exceed any construction time, no matter how hard and how deep it is tried to be buried.

Sunshine is a great disinfectant!

Let’s try a little diversion from your normal thought pattern:

Why won't the county’s consulting engineer simply shoot down an $8.8MM Tertiary design that uses less energy by far than ANYTHING they brought forward?

Given all your “alleged” experience with big projects surely you must have something you can contribute.

Bwhahahahahahahahaaaa!

Watershed Mark said...

As the value of your dollar decreases and the price of Live Gold Price increases, it is more importnt than ever to conserve and save.

Think about it as you fill out that flawed survey.
It was garbage in and garbage out...
There were no prices people. It is about money (MIKE), YOUR money...

Ron said...

So... was Pandora one of the 82, or what?

Richard, you're friends with her, do you know the answer to that question? (Heck, are YOU one of the 82? How' bout Gordo?)

I'm going to bet that she is, based on the fact that I've noticed, many times over the years, that that -- attaching a bunch of names to one Viewpoint -- is a "behavior based marketing" type of thing-ee.

That's a Pandoraism.

She just won't quit, will she?

Well, if it's "survey" time, AGAIN, in Los Osos, I recommend that we all re-read my piece:

She IS Los Osos

linked here:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/she-is-los-osos.html

... where I reported (using a killer primary source that I, exclusively, dug up, as usual) that Nash-Karner told her "followers:"

"Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."

Gawd... how can you people in Los Osos continue to stomach that kind of crap?

I mean, I understand that, once you're locked in a cover-up, you have to commit to it (that's the nature of a cover-up), but good Lord, this kind of BS:

"Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."

... has been going on in Los Osos, well, for as long as I can remember.

Whatever.

franc4 said...

Well, I've been gone for a while......miss me? I'll bet.
Seems like not much as changed.
Mike is still ANGRY as he has been from the onset.
"Maybe it's just you with nothing real to say, just your ego wanting to be infront of the CSD and BOS for your final 3 minutes of fame... and keeps accusing others with his limited thinking.(maybe he should look into special education or seek counseling, at the very least)
Shark still wants Tri-W,
Sewertoons is still half baked,
Biily has surfaced again with his words of wisdom,
Danblesky or whoever, writes the only thing that makes sense, much to the dismay to the limited brain function of Mike (angry)to understand as well as a few others.....you know who you are, don't you RL?

Richard LeGros said...

OK Ann........

Please name one REAL, VIABLE waste water project (not a vague, unworkable concept like the Ripley Plan) being developed by a RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY HAVING WASTE WATER AUTHORITY during the last 15 years that you have vigorously supported (or initially supported, then later fought).

As far as I can tell from your past behavior you never supported, and have vigorously fought, the SWRCB's and RWQCB's mandate for ending the pollution to the aquifer in Los Osos.

You never supported ANY of the County's prior attempts to build a WW project; and vigorously fought the County's South Bay Blvd. / Pismo Plan to support the Solutions Group Plan alternate.

You vigorously supported formation of the CSD and it's taking over the waste water authority from the County.

After the new CSD (composed mostly of Solution Group members) found that their beloved Solution Group Plan was NOT viable, you were silent during the formation of the Tri-W Plan. Much later after the CSD's official adoption of the Tri-W plan and its DEIR, you vigorously fought the Tri-W plan.

You vigorously supported a recall election to a successful fruition; and then supported a recall board and CSD which, through sheer incompetence, had its waste water authority stripped away by a unanimous vote in the California State Legislature.

You have vigorously supported, and been a plaintiff in, the PZLDF lawsuit against the State; with the intent to challenge the State's legal process and mandate (and lost).

Today you are vigorously fighting the County over their current process and plan; and have yet to offer any support to the County's project.

…….so Ann…… seems to me that you have fought all attempts to bring Los Osos into compliance with State Water Quality laws.


Lastly, how is describing your past behavior 'making stuff up'.

-R

Ron said...

Oh, PLEASE, Ann, allow me...

Richard wrote:

"You vigorously supported formation of the CSD and it's taking over the waste water authority from the County."

I don't know if Ann did that, but if she did, she was simply tricked, like everyone else, by Nash-Karner's overwhelming amount of behavior-based marketing in the run-up to the election.

For the love of God, read this Nash-Karner produced newsletter from 1998:

http://www.slocreek.com/sol_gro_newsletter.pdf

... and then ask why people "supported formation of the CSD and it's taking over the waste water authority from the County."

They "supported formation of the CSD" because she had them thinking that her project could lay golden eggs.

Richard wrote:

"After the new CSD (composed mostly of Solution Group members) found that their beloved Solution Group Plan was NOT viable..."

Richard, you're wrong there.

The new CSD (composed mostly of Solution Group members) found that their beloved Solution Group Plan was NOT viable long BEFORE the 1998 election, through the Questa Study, the RWQCB, the County of SLO, and the Coastal Commission (all excellent, primary sources that I was the first to expose on my blog) but, as an excellent primary source once told me when I asked what Nash-Karner did with all of that information that showed her project wasn't going to work BEFORE the election, that excellent, primary source told me, "She just sat on it," and, instead, she kept popping out crap like this:

http://www.slocreek.com/sol_gro_newsletter.pdf

Richard wrote:

"... you were silent during the formation of the Tri-W Plan."

EVERYONE WAS! Because Nash-Karner, as vice-president of the LOCSD, didn't tell anyone that her first project had failed, and her bullhorn, the Trib, failed to do their job. So EVERYONE (save me, of course) thought that "better, cheaper, faster" was STILL on the table at the time of 2001 assessment vote.

In Three Blocks, I used the word "quietly," to describe the CSD's transition from their first failed project, to their second failed project, and you know who told me they loved that word to describe that transition? One of my favorite primary sources, Steve Monowitz.

Richard wrote:

"... you vigorously fought the Tri-W plan."

Of course she did. Because the Tri-W plan was an embarrassing, "bait and switchy," $55 million-picnic-area-that-included-a-sewer-plant-in-the-middle-of-town, cover-up, as I've been reporting for the past five years, and the county has just spent the last three years and nearly $6 million proving me exactly right.

And, stopping that embarrassment/cover-up was THE BEST thing that EVER happened to Los Osos.

Richard wrote:

"Today you are vigorously fighting the County over their current process and plan..."

Uh, no she's not. Question the process, is not "fighting."

Richard? You know what you do? You listen to Nash-Karner. HUGE mistake.

So, was Pandora one of the 82 people that signed that Viewpoint?

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

GetReal,

Yes, the County plan is inferior to TriW from the point of view of aquifer recharge. Duh! However, due to the screw ups of the post recall LOCSD it is our best option today. As for your taunt that I work for the County or some such nonsense ... do you think that repeating it (especially without any evidence) makes people more or less open to hearing your point of view. Taunting others typically doesn't help. Why would you think that it would in this situation?


Mark,

Perhaps the reason people aren't taking you seriously is that you don't work for a company who can be hired by the County to do anything for Los Osos. Maybe if there were a real review by a real engineer who says that for Los Osos your device is better on the balance than the other options you would have a point, but so far nada. I would think that the County's consulting engineer should only be paid to evaluate actual bids from actual contractors who can actually do the work. Come back when you're ready to be a player.

Frankly, from what you've sent me, it is not obvious that you submitted anything like a coherent set of documents to the County and even if you had, that your company can't or won't submit any sort of qualifications ... um ... disqualifies you.


Aw, Gawd, Ann, you're making stuff up and projecting and reading into my comments things that aren't there. As usual. If you actually paid attention you would have noticed that I did not say that you were promoting STEP, just that it should be no surprise to you if others view you as doing so. All of your clever colloquial comments about 'splainin stuff and trains and thumbs pounding money into the sand seem to only be directed at individuals who have been pro-TriW, pro-gravity and pro-County. You've not suggested ... at all ... anywhere ... that Lisa has a lot of 'splainin to do or that Chuck was shoveling coal while the train was rushing toward the cliff.

Maybe you don't realize it, but if you continually question only one side, people tend to think you support the other side. GetReal has branded me as a gravity supporter for exactly this reason. I've never said gravity is better, just that I would like to see evidence that STEP is clearly better before I change my point of view that the County is doing something reasonable when promoting gravity. Franc similarly thinks that I want TriW. I just think that nothing that has been proposed is clearly a realistic and better option. However, that ship has sailed and I now prefer the County plan even with it's flaws to the plan of "hey kids, let's put on a sewer" the only alternative we've been given to TriW and the County plans.

I took the risk that GetReal and Franc would misunderstand me. I did so only because there seems to be a systematic overlooking of certain issues by certain common taters and journalists. Are you aware of your context and choice of words as a columnist? If you don't want to be viewed as anti-TriW and anti-Gravity and as opposed to the County process as proposed and as it's actually playing out you should probably change your tone or change the focus of your comments.


Lastly, to Ron ... you have yet to explain why ... even if the Solutions Group and LOCSD was wrong about everything before 2003 ... why electing Julie, Lisa, Chuck and the rest was a good idea when they clearly didn't have an alternative which would realistically meet the Community needs. When a kid doesn't like what he is hearing he might cover his ears and shout "la la la la", but that doesn't make the situation better. Why elect people who don't have a realistic plan? Don't you often write about exactly how much of a mistake that was in 1998? Why is it all of a sudden not a mistake in 2004 and 2005?

Aaron said...

I posted my response to Garfinkel's viewpoint here and I will entertain comments from him as well as his supporters.

Watershed Mark said...

RL,

A leaky gravity sewer doesn't satisfy "the SWRCB's and RWQCB's mandate for ending the pollution to the aquifer in Los Osos.

Read the county's PIS doc it says 499 gallons per day per mile per diameter inch of pipe leakage is fine in a test section.

One can only imaginge what happens to the leakage rate once it is buried out of sight.

I'll as you since you seem to think you are all up to snuff and all:

Why won't the county’s consulting engineer simply shoot down an $8.8MM Tertiary design that uses less energy by far than ANYTHING they brought forward?

And:

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

Your facts are wrong, and your twisting of the facts is sick.

You say to Ann, "and have vigorously fought, the SWRCB's and RWQCB's mandate for ending the pollution to the aquifer in Los Osos."

Richard, can you please supply any documentation of pollution for us?

If not, it would appear that the state and regional water boards only wanted a big community sewer to financially feed their master, Montgomery-Watson-Harza.

You know how much Pandora stood to make from them. Almost $800,000. Now, that is a heck of a lot of money for very little work from her!!!

Second, you say, "CSD which, through sheer incompetence, had its waste water authority stripped away by a unanimous vote in the California State Legislature."

Yes, it was unanimous. BUT, the legislation was based on the big Sam Blakeslee LIE, that all septics were polluting. May I ask where his proof of that is???? Sam went to Sacramento with color brochures stating PZ ruined the bay too. Give us a break. Nothing but lies from Blakeslee.

Third, you know better than anyone how Pandora had the County start working on taking back the project immediately after the recall. AND THEY DID! in secret of course!!!!!

Richard LeGros said...

Ron,

Ann (and you) do not understand the 'process' at all; other than
you both do grok that continually fighting, questioning and casting doubt about the 'process' guarrantees delaying a resolution to the problem the process is trying to resolve.

Frankly, Ann's incessant mau-mauing the 'process' has resulted in NOTHING constructive to bring Los Osos into compliance with State water quality laws or help keep to minimum the cost to Los Ososians to comply with those laws.



Again back to the original topic of this string, the County survey is out; with Los Ososians ready to intelligently tell the County its waste water project prefernces. The surveys results will be very interesting; hopefully providing the County with a clear indication of how Los Ososians wish to proceed.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

Steve writes: Frankly, from what you've sent me, it is not obvious that you submitted anything like a coherent set of documents to the County and even if you had, that your company can't or won't submit any sort of qualifications ... um ... disqualifies you.

Here again is a prime example of your ignorance:
"The County seems to want to go with one firm to design the system and another to do the construction ... but they're open to design-build."

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/AssetFactory.aspx?did=19435

Would those who "believe" that technology providers should submit their statement of qualifications for the LOSTDEP Design Build please identify those technology providers from the county's website, please?

You simply do not understand the process.

Let me see if I can help you, again.

The county hired, without an RFQ or Bid, a consulting engineer to "study and find" solutions.

Engineers have very esoteric methodologies to accomplish their prescribed goals.

They are supposed to find the kinds of information that you think is useless" and study it to prove it in or out.
(When we see the detailed billing reports we will know how much time was spent n what.)

The engineer obviously "overlooked or ignored" USBF(tm)a very robust efficient and proven proprietary treatment technology.

USBF(tm) is a very energy efficient technology with can easily be plugged into the LOWWP study process.

The DEIR comments have yet to be addressed.

Now isn't that easy? You could be surprised…

Watershed Mark said...

Ah HECK RL,

Of course Ann's input has positively contributed positively and mightily to the process in a most positive manner.

BTW she willbe paying for and you will not...

All you gravity people are just beginning to see what is so very wrong with "it" and the process bring it forward.
Soon many more will be looking into the LOSTDEP...

Who would I rather "hear"???

Why won't the county’s consulting engineer simply shoot down an $8.8MM Tertiary design that uses less energy by far than ANYTHING they brought forward?
(A very good question, even if I do say so myself)(Probably a game changing “Bird Strike”)

Does the cat have your tongue or is there just "no sustainable" way to answer it?

Richard LeGros said...

Hmmmm, where to start?

WM:

You posted "A leaky gravity sewer doesn't satisfy "the SWRCB's and RWQCB's mandate for ending the pollution to the aquifer in Los Osos."

False!

The SWRCB and RWQCB have over the years supported, and were providing State funds for, installation of gravity sewers in all the projects so far proposed for Los Osos. Their support was given as gravity sewers work, are easily maintained, and are the least invasive on the daily lives of the property owners over time.

Let's be realistic....even if there were leaks in a sewer system, the leak's pollution point could be easily found and repaired. Moreover, the leaks would be quantitatvely far less polluting than the unrestricted dumping of a 1,000,000 +gallons a day from the current septic tanks.


GRO:

You start by saying I am wrong that Ann has fought the Agencies mandate, but you do not give me reason as to why I am wrong. Your response does not address Ann's behavior at all...which is the basis for my comment.

Instead you blog of your belief that the Agency's mandate is a fraud for your well posted reasons (you know, your claim of no 'proof' of pollution, the 'conspiracy' of MWH, Pandoramania, the Blakeslee 'lie' in AB2701, back room dealing, etc.).

Again, please refer to the Court rulings on the CAWS lawsuits of the early 1990's regarding the issue of 'proof'.

As to the alleged conspiracy, allegations are not proof.

However, I will be the first to support your position if, after sending me the documentation you have to support you conspiracy claims, find the documents truely support your position.

As for Ron, nothing there need be replied to.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

RL wrote: Hmmmm, where to start?

RL, How about here?:
Why won't the county’s consulting engineer simply shoot down an $8.8MM Tertiary design that uses less energy by far than ANYTHING they brought forward?

RL wrote:The SWRCB and RWQCB have over the years supported, and were providing State funds for, installation of gravity sewers in all the projects so far proposed for Los Osos. Their support was given as gravity sewers work, are easily maintained, and are the least invasive on the daily lives of the property owners over time.

That was then, before they threatened to "fine" the discharge, this is now.
Technology is available to provide leak free conveyance, it is less environmentally invasive and it costs less to build and operate.

Why not use it?

How does that leak detection and repair scenario work, exactly?
How much does it cost and why isn't part of the DEIR for the county's consulting engineer's study?
I understand it isn't going so well elsewhere...

Now you want to discuss leakage of a full strength waste stream compared to legally permitted septic tank discharges. Great!

I Love LO!

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard LeGros said...

WM,

Sheesh!
You make all these amazing claims about your product and its benefits, but have to date shown NOTHING to back up said claims.

You can see why I and other folks are skeptical.

Additionally, you should be asking your questions to the County and to the RWQCB. They are the responsible and governing agencies, not me.

On another note, a specific maintenance program need not be shown in the DEIR.
The specific maintenance program will be developed during the Project Design Development Phase.


As to discharge via tanks versus a gravity pipe leak, let us look at your post of above:

"Read the county's PIS doc it says 499 gallons per day per mile per diameter inch of pipe leakage is fine in a test section."

Let us do a little simple math.......

GIVEN:
1. The LO gravity collection system has a total length of 22 miles.
2. The average diameter of pipe will be 6"...but for this argument we will use a larger 8" diameter pipe as the average.

THEREFORE:
499 gallons per day
x 22 miles of total pipe length
x 8" pipe diameter average
-------------------------------
= 87,824 gallons per day of allowable leakage in the TOTAL system.

The 87,824 gallons per day leakage from the gravity system is far less quantitatively than the current discharge of 1,000,000 +gallons per day by the septic tanks.

By simple calculation, the gravity system statistically would discharge (if it leaked every day) 92% LESS than the current septic tank discharge of 1,000,000 gallons per day. You know darn well that, even if the collection system leaked 87,824 gallons per day, a reduction of 92% from the historical discharge levels will greatly reduce the pollution of the aquifer.

Also realize that the system engineers are adopting this standard to design a collection system which will leak no more than 87,824 gallon MAXIMUM per day.

This does not mean that the system will leak that much every day....rather that the engineers are designing the system to such a high quality level that the maximum leakage the system engineers will tolerate will not exceed that amount on any given day (IF a leak occurs at all.)

-R

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

Mark,

Has no one ever told you that simply repeating a statement over and over make it true? Does the repetition convince others?

No matter how much you tell me that your system is awesome and that the SLO County engineers screwed up by not picking your awesome system, based on your behavior here dating back to your Reclamator days I will trust the County engineers over you until a real engineer who is not on the EcoRecOneFluidMator take offers a convincing analysis that your system beats the pants off of the others and would be ideal for Los Osos and will meet RWQCB requirements. Until then, your words and actions speak loudly, but probably not in the way you intend.

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

You ask, "Has no one ever told you that simply repeating a statement over and over make it true? Does the repetition convince others? "

Now, Shark, THAT'S FUNNY!!!

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT PANDORA PEOPLE, THE RWQCB, ETC. HAVE DONE TO THE PEOPLE OF LOS OSOS FOR YEARS!!!!

...just keep repeating that lie of pollution....hey, I'm not against the "right" solution, but to ruin our water basin, rip up the roads with all that noise for years...have mercury imported water...GRAVITY IS NOT the right solution! (You can't tell me you'd let your kids drink and bath in mercury water...can you?!)

AND TO RICHARD:

Your proof of pollution is in a Judge's ruling? What was the evidence?

You mean to tell me that Sam Blakeslee first words on the legislation wasn't that ALL septic tanks were polluting -- all 4,600 of them? Did Blakeslee have fact to prove his claim? NO!! It's a lie and you know it.

You mean Pandora didn't stand to make about $800.000 ??? Marketing for Montgomery-Watson-Harza ?? Heck, anyone else would be lucky to get $35 grand out of that kind of job. And her husband written in too? Wow, give me a break...of COURSE GIBSON, PAAVO AND PANDORA WANT Montgomery-Watson-Harza's big pipe project!!

...and you know Paavo and Bruce owe their careers to Shirley and Pandora! You aren't stupid, are you?!

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

One more question:

How can a "citizen" (Pandora) write to Roger Briggs at the water board and ask him to punish Los Osos homeowners and he jumps for her immediately?

Tell me how and why that worked!

GetRealOsos said...

Oh, and Richard, are you wanting documentation on the County allowing the building of over 1,100 homes after the RWQCB declared septic tanks were illegally discharging??

Do you want documentation on the fact that the County collected NO money for infrastructure?? (that money that could and should have been collected and we'd have all that interest on that money to help pay for a sewer) ...

...or that the developers and friends (Jeff Edwards has said we need a gravity sewer so he can develop...) you mean, those guys who want us to pay for them to develop...(our dear Julie), that kind of documentation?

...or how about the liens on all the PZ homes from the County for an unknown amount with no notification at all...that documentation?

...or how could the County continue with those liens after Prop. 218 law passed in 1996...that documentation? (therefore we had Mearsure K...)

...is that what you want????!!!!

And you (Pandora) people blame the Taylors for stopping the County from building the sewer back then.

Wow, give us a break!

Watershed Mark said...

RL,

I am tickled pink that you have demonstrated here on the record that gravity sewers leak thereby pollute!
It is a good day for LO/BP when a staunch supporter of gravity sewers admits that technology is inferior.

Just because low pressure collection is accomplished be small diameter shallow depth bore drill installed pipe that does not “leak” doesn’t mean you should try to misrepresent the pipe size of a gravity conveyance system. I am embarrassed for you…

The information supplied in the DEIR and SLOCO PIS located here: 74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:u_zhPl9T87cJ:www.slocounty.ca.gov/AssetFactory.aspx%3Fdid%3D9362+san+luis+obispo+sewer+public+improvement+standard&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
documents do not support the basis for your math. (sorry for the link the pdf was taken down…)

The DEIR suggests there will be 230,000 LF or 43.56 miles of 8”-18” collection and force main.
There are 4679 on lot connections of 4” at “about” 140,000 LF or 26 miles.

Where did you get your figures RL?
No wonder why you liked Tri-W...

I prefer to use a 200,000 gpd exfiltration rate figure for my discussion purposes.
The infiltration rate could be higher.

Should an earthquake or erosion disturb gravity pipes they will leak unnoticed at an unknown rate until a catastrophic failure alerts the owners of the “leak”.

Why do “you” want a leaky gravity contrivance, when a sealed low pressure system that uses less electricity is available?

The 19 pump/lift stations are expected to use 500,000 kWh/year while the STEP uses 475,000 kWh/year.
The vacuum and www.Eone.com systems were not included in the “evaluation/comparison” just like ECOfluid.

Gee, I wonder (actually I don’t) if those systems which do not contain the much dis-liked “septic tank” component use less 475,000 kWh/year?

Why not do a quick and painless “review” of those collection technologies to make certain they are not better than energy intensive leaky gravity?
What’s the rush?? We already know they use less energy.
Why not do a quick review of ECOfluid’s USBF™???

I would be happy to email you the exhibits Steve doesn’t understand or you can take a look at some of those exhibits posted on the DEIR comments page , I furnished the link to the entire page to give everyone’s comments equal weight and mine are list alphabetically under my last name, “Low”. There is a terrific PowerPoint complete with engineer’s comments that will make very clear how the process works, which I cannot post here on Ann’s Land.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,

Repeating something to you over and over will help you want to practice correct responses and set yourself up for success!

Watershed Mark said...

DEIR here: http://www.lowwp-eir.net/lowwpeir/

DEIR comments page here: http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP/EIR_Comments_by_the_Public_or_NGO.htm

Watershed Mark said...

Be certain to read Air Vac's comments RL.

"Vacuum ststems are totally enclosed and elimiate any opportunities toex-filtrate raw sewage directly into the environment protecting groundwater resources from pollution".

Gee whiz, golly gee, ah shucks...Sounds like a "solution" for a discharge probibition zone.

But that's just my opinion.

I am really looking forward tothecounty's reponses to all the logic being presented on the record in this current economic and political environment.

GetRealOsos said...

Richard:

Another question: Why did both Stan and Gordon state to then Gov. Wilson that a plant wouldn't do anything to correct the nitrate problem for 30-40 years IF EVER...

Didn't you see that letter?

Is that some of the documentation you wanted?

Watershed Mark said...

Folks,

Do yourselves a favor and read all the comments submitted to county regarding their DEIR.

Those comments are what lawsuits are made of...

Seems that LO/BP's discharge elimination can be efficiently handled for around $50MM.

Anyone who claims different has some splainin' to do...

Business as usual will be a whole lot more difficult this time around.

In politics transparency is introduced as a means of holding public officials accountable and fighting corruption. When government meetings are open to the press and the public, when budgets and financial statements may be reviewed by anyone, when laws, rules and decisions are open to discussion, they are seen as transparent and there is less opportunity for the authorities to abuse the system in their own interest[7].

In government, politics, ethics, business, management, law, economics, sociology, etc., transparency is the opposite of privacy; an activity is transparent if all information about it is open and freely available. Thus when courts of law admit the public, when fluctuating prices in financial markets are published in newspapers, those processes are transparent.

Open government is the political doctrine which holds that the business of government and state administration should be opened at all levels to effective public scrutiny and oversight.

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard LeGros said...

Mark,

You are not convincing anyone.

Power consumption costs of 19 lift stations vs. 5,000+ septic pumps is not the whole story; you must balance that with the energy costs of MAINTENANCE. I would rather have the County maintain 19 lift stations than rely on home owners maintaining 5000+ pumps...the demographics of scale suggest that fewer pumps will be less costly to maintain.

As for earthquakes, they are just as disruptive on 5000+ septic tanks, their laterals, and trunk lines too.

As for leakage, ALL manmade systems have a potential to fail and leak. If you are trying to claim that ONLY gravity systems fail, you are very mistaken.


GRO:

No, I am not saying the 'proof' of pollution is in the CAWS court ruling.

If you read the court rulings and you will understand why your issues, having been adjudicated, are moot.

As for your Pandora, she has no more power over the agencies / politicians than you or I do. Just because she wrote an email to the agencies does not mean that she had the power to force them to do her bidding. The agencies have the legal right to issue enforcement actins regardless of Pandora's or anybody elses public input.

I agree though that her letter about 'fining the community' (oddly, that included herself too) was mean-spirited. Then again doing a mean-spirited thing is not illegal. You must put her comment in context with the times though....ask yourself how would you feel if years of work (and millions of dollars spent) to bring Los Osos into compliance with the law was stopped by a political group who she believed would just make matters worse for the property owners? No doubt her anger got the better of her; which is, sadly, a very human trait.

Did Pandora / the Solutions Group make campaign promises she could not keep? Yes she / they did...but she / they fervently believed what she/they politicked to Los Osos in 1997-1998....and did so until she / they finally saw the truth of the situation (around 2000). Again, in the context of the time, Pandora / they just could not hear, or accept, the evidence / professional comments that their plan would not work. Again, not an illegal act, just a very human one.

History has a way of repeating itself too. The recall board too made campaign promises they could not keep either. In 2005, the recall board would not listen to the recalled board's dire warnings of what would happen if they did not abide to the CSD's contractual legal obligations; or to the regulatory agency comments as to what would happen if the Tri-W project was stopped. Again, not an illegal act, just a very human one.

As to the time period to clean the aquifer, it will take decades to undo the last 50 years (and counting) of damage that Los Osos has done to its aquifer; regardless of the treatment system installed. While we all wish there was an immediate (and inexpensive)solution to clean up the aquifer, such technologies just do not exist.

Regarding your County issues; nothing illegal has occurred. I agree their lack of planning served Los Osos poorly. I too am displeased over past County actions; but nothing legal can be done about it (I and others have done legal research to see if the County could be legally held accuntable; the legal advice is that such a lawsuit would fail.)

In closinig, I hope that you will focus your considerable energies on resolving the immediate problems facing Los Osos (getting a sewer in and operational) instead of ruminating over past issues. What we do now has greter meaning than what happened in the past.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

RL wrote:
On another note, a specific maintenance program need not be shown in the DEIR.
The specific maintenance program will be developed during the Project Design Development Phase.

So RL, is that "the phase" when the REAL cost of a gravity conveyance system becomes known?

Richard LeGros said...

WSM,

Yes, I have read all the comments on the DEIR.

Does anyone really doubt that someone or some group will sue the County? Given the history of the Project, lawsuits are expected. No big suprise.

-R

Richard LeGros said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Richard LeGros said...

WSM,

During the Design developement Phase as the project is further defined technically and quantitively, the cost estimates will be further defined too.

As for the 'real cost', that will be know when the project is completed.

Your post is suggesting thet the County is purposely hidding the cost of the project in order to deceive.

Not true!

In the WW industry, estimates are just that...estimates. The industry uses all availbale estimating techniques they can to make realistic estimates However, as real-world construction costs are dynamic and fluid, there is no way of knowing 'final cost' until the project becomes a reality.

If you are looking for a 'real cost' now, your expectations are not realistic.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

RL,

So now you are admitting the county's study process and subsequent DEIR has not provided "the whole story"...

This is wonderful news!
Now we are getting somewhere!!

You might want to "actually read" AIRVAC's comment letter.
You could learn something you big pipe guy, you.

Richard LeGros said...

WSM,

I am not 'admitting' anything....I am decribing the process by which any project (including yours) would be developed.

You are asking for the impossible; i.e. to know all aspects and costs of a project before the total project is developed or built.

The only thing 'wonderful' here is that you are showing everyone how uneducated you are about the process. LOL

-R

Watershed Mark said...

RL,
You continue to illuminate the foibles in the current county study process, thanks!
Have you ever heard of "not to exceed" pricing?

I know it would be difficult in the lengthy leaky gravity excavation and all.
The directional bore drill industry runs much more efficient operations.

The “real cost” of the project is known, it just isn’t being revealed.
Companies like AIRVAC and ECOfluid have put REAL COST proposals on the table.

If you read the DEIR, as you wrote, why did “misquote” regarding length of the system?

Watershed Mark said...

RL,

You have demonstrated that you are either dishonest or stupid or both.

If you read the DEIR, as you wrote, why did “misquote” regarding length of the system?

Watershed Mark said...

If you read the DEIR, as you wrote, why did YOU “misquote” regarding length of the system?

A very honest question, in need of an honest answer.

Have you read AIRVAC's letter, yet?

Watershed Mark said...

RL wrote:
As to the time period to clean the aquifer, it will take decades to undo the last 50 years (and counting) of damage that Los Osos has done to its aquifer; regardless of the treatment system installed. While we all wish there was an immediate (and inexpensive)solution to clean up the aquifer, such technologies just do not exist.

RL, Where is your "proof"?

RL wrote: What we do now has greter meaning than what happened in the past.

RL, On this we can agree!

You never did clarify whether you live in the PZ or not, why not?

Watershed Mark said...

The thing about better technology is that it is largely "pre-egineered" and does not need "development just execution...

Of coutrse there is some local engineering work to do, but NOTHING compared to what the current business model does.

"Pre-Engineered" it is here to stay.

Richard LeGros said...

Oh Mark,

NOW you are just being obtuse.
Hmmmm, come to think of it you are always obtuse. My mistake.

At this point in time I will have to agree with Mike that blogging with you is pointless; and a complete waste of time. So I will leave you be and just let you continue on your merry way. Have fun.

-R

Watershed Mark said...

So you see I have made my points.

Back onto the porch "Little Richard".

Watershed Mark said...

Agreeing with MIKE....Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa!

Watershed Mark said...

If you read the DEIR, as you wrote, why did YOU “misquote” regarding length of the system?

If you won't answer the question it proves you are dishonset, stupid or both.

Well one out of three isn't bad...Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha

Have a nice day...
Bwahahahahahahahahaaa

Billy Dunne said...

Hi Richard! Perhaps this is a good time to repost something I wrote to Mike a couple of weeks ago. I swear I think you're better off sticking knitting needles in your eyes then engaging the Gaseous Windbag from Arizona. He means absolutely nothing to Los Osos, and only creepily skulks around this blog to encite and annoy with his third grade antics. Surely not worth your, or anyone's time. (except Ann, of course). And besides, by responding to him you ruin one of my favorite things to do on this blog: watch how many times Low will post to himself in a row if he's ignored. I think his record is 6 or 7. It's hysterical!!

Mike,
I guess the question then is why do you and others keep engaging Low at all? You must have ended 4 or 5 or your posts with "have fun," which I took as you reaching your wits end. And who could blame you? But Low plays you like a fish on a hook, and I wonder why you continue to take the bait.

"No Mark, "I" do NOT trust YOU...!!!!"

"One more chance, Mark ... are you trustworthy or not?"

C'mon folks. Are you kidding?

All everyone needs to know about Mr. Mark, his character, his ethics, his credibility, his agenda is this: From approx. November 2007 to May 2008 Low initially hijacked this blog with fantastic claims and other-worldly scientific proof that the Reclamator provided all the answers to our sewer questions in Los Osos. If needed, go back to this 6 month time-frame and read for yourself. Some samples:

-- "I Love LO" he bellowed.
-- "From obstructionists to world visionaries.” he shouted.
--“Exceptions and Variances from the QCB? Septic Tank Survey...We don't it...Think!!LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution here!!!” he bragged.
--“Any CAO would automatically be satisfied with a RECLAMATOR installation/septic tank replacement.” He opined.
--“stay tuned...” he’d promise.
--“Ok. But seriously, The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solutiom costs $15,000.00 qualifiesfor federal grant assistance and the monthly cost is contractual beginning at 45.75 and is tied to the cost of living index.
Oh and it also provides for 100% beneficial reuse because it does not discharge pollutants. It also remediates the soil think (CAO Here)at no charge.
Can you say Cha CHING?!!! ...ibidy,ibidy, ibidy...that's all folks!” he would proffer.
--“If folks can't or qon't stand up for their rights "someone else must". Enter the AES DES LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution and those "someones" associated with it.
There are more than meet the eye, on that you may rely.
(I had to do my part for prose)” he’d giddily proclaim.
--“The AES DES PPP LOCSD BK Re-org plan due out shortly, will be a once in a lifetime story Sona. It is going to make HISTORY whether the Tribune covers it or not. Let's stay in touch.” He beamed to the Tribune.
“Let Freedom RING!!!” and “More tea?”

On and on and on it went. But then, he disappeared for a brief time.

Well, of course, we all know how THAT story ended. From New Times dated July 30, 2008:
“Despite all the big promises, Murphy’s former partner, Mark Low, got fed up and left. After his departure in late May, Low started sending a string of e-mails to environmental bureaucrats, politicians, and reporters that poke holes in the Reclamator’s effectiveness, and Murphy’s business model.”

CRACK!!!!!!!

What a guy.

And this:
“Low says the system has not been adequately tested, with only a handful of controlled samples used as evidence that it works.”

CRACK!!!!!

You have got to be kidding me, right? From November 2007 to May 2008 this guy rammed the Reclamator down the throats of anyone and everyone on this blog, day after day, unrelenting. And he what??!! He then recants everything, says the system was not adequately tested and then sends e mails to reporters and politicians debunking the thing?

CRACK!!!!!

It’s all you need to know folks.

Because here he sits a short few months later with yet another device and another company, Eco Fluid?, without a shred of humility or embarrassment, ramming and cramming it down your throats again. Almost word for convoluted word; dead end for dead end; wild claim for wild claim. As Yogi would say, it's deja vu all over again. Why, oh why, would anyone on this blog engage this gaseous windbag in any kind of communication whatsoever? He’s the Rush Limbaugh of Calhoun’s blog, and like Limbaugh, only seeks to irritate to nudge the appearance of credibility when, in reality, none exists whatsoever.
No credibility, none, nada, zilch. (Except seemingly to Ann, who seems to find his mulitudinous,long-winded blog-hogging posts enlightening.)

Let’s pretend I was in the market for a car, and I went to a Toyota dealership. And the sales person gave me his pitch, gushsing about how great Toyota’s were: how gas efficient; how safe; how comfortable; how they were the cars of the future; and how wonderful the people were who owned the dealership and how they were going to revolutionize the car industry and they were “world visionaries.” On and on and on he goes, until you think maybe this guy loves Toyota’s TOO much.

And what if in a few days on my quest I went to a Saturn dealership and the SAME person from the Toyota dealership was now working there and telling me what a great car Saturn’s were and what pieces of crap Toyota’s were. What if he even started telling me what a “cowboy” the owner of the Toyota dealership was, how he was gonna call the authorities to complain about his old employer at Toyota, and call the local media to whine and backstab his old employer.
Huh?

“So Mr. Dunn, you ready now to buy a Saturn from me?”
Yeah right.

CRACK!!!

Crack indeed.

"Please consider me a “Professional American Citizen” who understands the game which is afoot.... I will continue my educational promulgation of technology to LO/BP et al....."

I would caution everyone to watch out who educates you. Or in Low’s case, who schools you. In the meantime, why waste even a minute trying to converse with this blowhard.

Aaron said...

I like how people say, "[This person here] means nothing to Los Osos," as if they know -- as if they are the authority of -- what is meaningful to Los Osos. To me, it shows that they are exactly who they accuse other people as being.

That sort of behavior does not do anyone any good.

Sewertoons said...

Aaron, maybe you can explain how taking up acres of pixels with conflicting windbag claims are in any way meaningful to Los Osos, and why we should not have an opinion as to whether or not we deem it worthy for Los Osos or not? You are basically saying politics should be confined to ones own opinion slipped into a ballot box?

Please explain how wsmark's behavior does anyone any good.

Quote wsmark, "If you won't answer the question it proves you are dishonset, stupid or both." wsmark similarly disses the County with, "Think about it as you fill out that flawed survey.
It was garbage in and garbage out..."

Why was that behavior ignored and Billy Dunne called out?

Billy Dunne said...

No problem 'Toons. As always, I consider the source.

Yeee haaa!!!!! Just recieved my EcoFluidreclamator flyer put in my front yard from some group calling themselves the Los Osos Sustainability Group. Can anybody provide the names of those behind this group? (as if we couldn't guess)!!!

Aaron said...

I never said taking up acres of pixels was meaningful either. Personally, I'm not a fan of spam. If you have something to say, you can put all your thoughts on the subject on one message.

But that's beside the point. I'm just saying that those who go on a tirade about someone about their faults often share the same faults. I like to call that the Barrow Principle.

Watershed Mark said...

Why won't the county’s consulting engineer simply shoot down an $8.8MM Tertiary design that uses less energy by far that anything they brought forward???????????

It is a at least a $10MM question people.
Cat got your tounge(s)?

Watershed Mark said...

constructive fraud n. when the circumstances show that someone's actions gives him/her an unfair advantage over another by unfair means (lying or not telling a buyer about defects in a product, for example), the court may decide from the methods used and the result that it should treat the situation as if there was actual fraud even if all the technical elements of fraud have not been proven.

Watershed Mark said...

A leaky (as stated by Little Richard)gravity sewer hooked up to a secondary treatment facility in need of upgrading from the day it is constructed, will yield an “alternative community” that is no longer viable for those who live there currently.

Watershed Mark said...

Willey,

If that is all you have, you had better get back on the porch with RL...

Watershed Mark said...

Can anyone figure out why there isn't any record of a B(W)illy Dunne in SLO County?

Willy are you living with your relatives or are you a ward of the state or something?

Watershed Mark said...

Steve wrote: "The County seems to want to go with one firm to design the system and another to do the construction ... but they're open to design-build."

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

Watershed Mark said...

"Read the county's PIS doc it says 499 gallons per day per mile per diameter inch of pipe leakage is fine in a test section."

RL wrote:

Let us do a little simple math.......

GIVEN:
1. The LO gravity collection system has a total length of 22 miles.
2. The average diameter of pipe will be 6"...but for this argument we will use a larger 8" diameter pipe as the average.

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Watershed Mark said...

The estimated energy use for the technologies in your Draft EIR is as follows:
Ponds being the lowest at 600 kWhrs per year
Bio-Lac™ a proprietary technology, just like ECOfluid USBF™, at 1.1 million kWhrs per year
And Oxidation Ditch classified as medium usage is 900 kWhrs per year.
ECOfluid USBF™ will use 454 kWhrs per year. Lower than the lowest of everything in the DEIR.

Why won't the county’s consulting engineer simply shoot down an $8.8MM Tertiary design that uses less energy by far that anything they brought forward???????????

Watershed Mark said...

Please explain how wsmark's behavior does anyone any good.

Because "we need to keep raising the bar..."

That's 8 in a row Willey.
Any questions?

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,

Repeating something to you over and over will help you want to practice correct responses and set yourself up for success!

Sewertoons said...

Aaron, that is hilarious! I'll remember the "Barrow Principal."

Watershed Mark said...

I miscounted, this makes it eleven.
Agreeing with MIKE....Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaa!

Sewertoons said...

Hi Billy Dunne, nice postings!! If you are comfortable to do so, do you have an e-mail where I could write to? You can reach me at sewertoons@gmail.com and you know who I am as I have been outed here. I am Lynette Tornatzky.

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

Mark,

You should give it a rest. You're jumping all over Richard for misquoting something and yet he didn't claim to be quoting anything. Certainly if Richard was waaaay wrong, Mark should carefully point out where. That Mark hasn't done so shows that he is either dishonest or stupid or both.

Mark, surely you should realize that your antics here are causing people who would otherwise be open to your point of view to see you as a bit of a bull in a china shop if not an obnoxious jerk.

The question I have for you is this ... what is your goal? Perhaps if you are clear about your goal and ask yourself whether particular actions will get you there it will keep you focused. If your goal is to sell Los Osos a sewer system, I would suggest you spend your time and efforts working with the County and their engineers and convince them that your device really is the best thing since sliced bread. Your time blogging here won't help with that goal. If, on the other hand, your goal is to annoy the people of Los Osos and to convince them that you are not trustworthy ... :)

Watershed Mark said...

Steve wrote:
"The County seems to want to go with one firm to design the system and another to do the construction ... but they're open to design-build."

Steve,

Repeating something to you over and over will help you want to practice correct responses and set yourself up for success!

Did you actully read the hot link I set up for you?

RL is feable in his facts. He should stay on the porch.

I am and shall remain in the hunt for factual findings that lead to logical and honest conclusions and will not stand for the the fluff being spewed out by those like RL who as we know now does not have a handle on the facts.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve wrote: "The County seems to want to go with one firm to design the system and another to do the construction ... but they're open to design-build.

Steve,
This is not a factual statement.
Yet you have not acknowleged it, still.

I don't trust your judgement because you are not being intellectually honest.

You made a stupid statement.
Admit it and move on.

Don't get stuck on stupid.

Watershed Mark said...

Willey, you ask for names, yet you refuse to give yours. You are a coward.
I'm calling them as I see them folks. It's the only way to go.

Steve wrote: Certainly if Richard was waaaay wrong, Mark should carefully point out where. That Mark hasn't done so shows that he is either dishonest or stupid or both.

Steve,
Again you are being intellectually dishonest.
Didn't you read the DEIR either?

Don't stay stuck on stupid.

Churadogs said...

RL sez: " how is describing your past behavior 'making stuff up'.

Because you got so much of it so wrong. I suggest you go back and read all the sewer columns I've written as far back as 1991 and you'll see a pattern there that can best be described as 1. Jooo gotta lotta splainin' to do, 2. Pay attention Los Osos, 3. Give us accurate information and stop lying and fudging,and switchy baiting and telling us there's an overwhelming community value when there was no such thing or there are no other possible sites for a sewer plant but at Tri-w and other sites would be waaaaayyyyy more expensive, & etc. 4. Give us a Process that's clean, followed by a Chinese menu, and a vote (remember the oft repeated Chinese Menu request? That goes waaaaay back to pre-blog days). As for the RWQCB's appalling CDO Mad Hatter Tea Party, I'm not "fighting the laws," I'm fighting a process that abuses the law (and screws up royally while doing it) that abuses people unfairly. There was a proper way to do that CDO, i.e. put CDO's or CAOs on the entire community, for example. Singling out The Los Osos 45 was just plain wrong. And that you didn't stand with the Los Osos 45 speaks volumes to me about you. So, no, Richard, you haven't paid much attention to what I've said or written or done over the years. that's why I say you make stuff up.

Ron sez, apropos Richard's remarks,"In Three Blocks, I used the word "quietly," to describe the CSD's transition from their first failed project, to their second failed project, and you know who told me they loved that word to describe that transition? One of my favorite primary sources, Steve Monowitz."

I also need to add that I was out of Los Osos during that time (sick as a dog, staying with my sister in Fresno) and only got occasional clippings from the paper from friends and when I got back home, months and months later, it was all a done deal. But I asked Stan Gufstafson, smack dab to his face and looking him right in the eye, and he (I now know) LIED right to my face. When I returned to life and was able to attend meetings and follow up, things started not making sense and before long my columns on Oh Lucy Jooooo gotta lotta splainin' to do started showing up, again. And, indeed, as Ron has so amply documented, there was a whole lotta 'splainin' needed. Another reason why I say Richard makes things up.

Inlet sez:"I've never said gravity is better, just that I would like to see evidence that STEP is clearly better before I change my point of view that the County is doing something reasonable when promoting gravity"

Wasn't that what the TAC was supposed to do? And we're still waiting for good numbers, including O,M&R.

richard sez:"Frankly, Ann's incessant mau-mauing the 'process' has resulted in NOTHING constructive to bring Los Osos into compliance with State water quality laws or help keep to minimum the cost to Los Ososians to comply with those laws."

Wrong, again. If what I have written and the public questions I have asked, have caused even just a few citizens to WAKE UP and pay attention to what's going on, then I've done my job. What their choices are are after that is then up to them.

Richard sez:"Moreover, the leaks would be quantitatvely far less polluting than the unrestricted dumping of a 1,000,000 +gallons a day from the current septic tanks."

This raises an interesting point: The RWQCB has designated the PZ as ZERO DISCHARGE by homeowners, and if so much as one milimeter of "wastewater" is "discharged" in the PZ the homeowner will face thousands of dollars a day in fines, but apparently the board thinks that hundreds of gallons a day via "leaky" sewer pipes is perfectly acceptble when it's done by a government pipe versus a private septic tank? Is that "science" or "politics" or "hypocricy?"

And,more weirdness, consider Mr. Murphy's Reclamator which claimed to churn out pretty clean water. Not allowed, but "leaky" 100% pure sewage from pipes is? Which means the RWQCB is actually allowing a "load" in the PZ that it finds acceptable, so long as that pollution/discharge load is being done by county-owned pipes, not Reclamators or other newer high end septic system? Well, silly me. Clearly, I don't understand the idea of ZERO DISCHARGE, do I? Or is it like Animal Farm wherein all pigs are created equal but some are more equal than others?

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

You did not answer the a very simple question...

Name one WWTF plan developed by a Governmental agency having waste water authority that you have supported in the last 15 years?

From your post above, I now know for sure that you are delusional; and lying to yourself. You are not fooling anyone.


-R

GetRealOsos said...

Ann,

You always raise good points.

Have you seen what shape the Morro Bay pipes are in? They're cracked, they leak, some properties with no laterials at all.

Isn't it amazing that the RWQCB KNOWS about this and does nothing? And for years!


Richard,

As far as your comments back to me regarding the County's/Pandora's actions in the past -- their actions are why we are where we are today. (Please don't keep trying to blame the "Taylors")

The County should be pitching in the pay. They allowed 1,100 homes to be built after the resolution by the water board stating that septics were illegally discharging. They collected not one penny towards infrastructure.
Besides, with the Prop 218 law, governmental agencies are not exempt from paying if they benefit. We have a "federal" bay -- we have "state ground water" -- but the County wouldn't dare ask them to pay. WHY????

Heck, on top of that, what about our property taxes all these years? We've paid for other area projects, and when you take a look around Los Osos, you can clearly see our property tax money hasn't come back to Los Osos at all. Illegal, maybe not. Very wrong, yes indeed!!

You say nothing illegal happened. You say it's all "moot" -- you are wrong Richard, it all shows patterns of fraud. I know putting liens on the homes without notification is not legal.

The County taking the project after AB2701 has not done things legally correct either. To say the least, they've worked in the "grey" area of the law. But still show a pattern of fraud. There is no statute on fraud...right?

The fact that Blakesless gets a law passed that was based on a lie that all septics were polluting and did it all in secret is pretty bad. Illegal? Don't know. When you have lying politicians writing laws -- it just shows how corrupt our government process is. Things may change with Obama though, he has talked about fraud and will hold state and local government accountable now. This hasn't been done before.

Now, look at the survey. People outside who don't pay get to vote??? You don't think that people in Cabrillo Estates won't vote for the most expensive project to clear the riff raff out? What a joke. What a scam.

GetRealOsos said...

Steve Rein,

You didn't answer my previous post to you at all.

Let me ask you just this one question...

...WILL YOU LET YOUR CHILDREN DRINK AND BATH IN THE MERCURY WATER???

...I hear it's eaten the bottom out of boats...

GetRealOsos said...

Ann,

Sorry for three posts in a row, but clearly the CDO's were only issued to push the 218 through. Blakeslee assured the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assoc. of this. The County knew this -- heck, even Jeff and Julie knew this!

They weren't real and I don't understand why you think they were.

It looks more like the RWQCB made some deal with Montgomery-Watson-Harza a long time ago, so they've never considered for Los Osos any on site and/or cluster systems --- ever!

Just the fact that the State Water Board gave the SRF loan out without a dedicated source of revenue, or that they send Daryll P. down to work on a compromise and then state they have to "carefully craft" in a way to make it seem that he wasn't sent down as anything more than just an employee, or how the State Water Board's PR guy is telling the Trib what and how to write, etc. all shows a clear pattern of the collusion with the water boards and M-W-H. That's the bottom line -- nothing more than that.

Again, why wouldn't the "Dreamers" want M-W-H's gravity system when their leader Pandora stood to make almost a million dollars for nothing! If they were handing out that kind of money to her for nothing, how much money were they handing out to others?

Billy Dunne said...

"Now, look at the survey. People outside who don't pay get to vote??? You don't think that people in Cabrillo Estates won't vote for the most expensive project to clear the riff raff out? What a joke. What a scam."

Hey great point Conspiracy Boy. Conversely, renters who don't pay get to vote also. You don't think that renters will vote for the least expensive project because they don't want their rent to go up or they just don't give a whit altogether? Like, they don't give a whit if their front yard gets torn to shreds without any compensation to repair or replace the damage bulldozers can and will do? Like, they don't give a whit about electrical panels being added to their houses to accomodate tank sensors and alarms...ALARMS!!! or shouldering the burden of continued care for the tank, pumping, odor mitigation, etc. and the very real possibility of power outages causing failure and shit overflowing into their house? You think renters care about saving their lifetime investment from the very real potential of costly damage?

You're right my friend. What a joke. What a scam.

Ron said...

Ann wrote:

"If what I have written and the public questions I have asked, have caused even just a few citizens to WAKE UP and pay attention to what's going on, then I've done my job."

Amen, sister.

GRO wrote:

"Again, why wouldn't the "Dreamers" want M-W-H's gravity system when their leader Pandora stood to make almost a million dollars for nothing!"

GRO, I've seen you post that a few times. Do you have a source on that? I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Because, if that's true, and we combine it with the untold hundreds of thousands that she stood to make as one of Maria Singleton's "other assistants," (by the way, now more than ever... where in the F is Maria Singleton? Homeboy's got a coupla questions for her) well, then, the motive for her cover-up becomes more than just saving face over the needless (and completely baseless) formation of the LOCSD, huh?

Hey, a few hundred thousand here, and a few hundred thousand there, and, after awhile, it starts to add up to real money.

Certainly does pose an interesting question, eh?:

How much money has Pandora Nash-Karner made due to the formation of the LOCSD, when she was solely responsible for its formation?

GRO also wrote:

"... or how the State Water Board's PR guy is telling the Trib what and how to write... "

That would be one, Bill Rucksheyer (or however you spell his name... I can't even guess at it to Google it, but I have it somewhere in my notes.)

That dude's not down with SewerWatch. I've got a GREAT story involving him, but you'll have to wait for the book ; - )

GetRealOsos said...

Billy,

Many residents didn't get a survey at all.

It's a dog n' pony show. The survey means nothing. The County has already decided in the back room a long time ago what system we would get.

The taxpayers have no say in reality.

It's Montgomery-Watson-Harza period.

It's either Pandora's pick or Blaskeslee's pick for Los Osos to take the County's poop so his developer friends can build.

THE PZ HAS TO PAY FOR THE DEVELOPERS TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP.

Why would our own engineer, Rob Miller, prefer step and you can't??

GetRealOsos said...

Ron,

I have seen the paperwork on Pandora's marketing deal with Gary's landscaping deal for about $800,000. total. I'll look for it and pull it out, scan and post it.

Make sure you send a copy of your book to the Justice Department -- let Obama know!

Watershed Mark said...

GRO,
The federal folks I am working with are very interested in your project.
You are correct the new admin is looking for "stuff", especially when it is so very obvious.

WOOF!

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

Mark,

You keep harping on my earlier comments as if they are clearly wrong. You've done the same with Richard. However, if you refuse to point out the way in which you think they are incorrect, you're not helping the discussion progress.

Maybe you should think about it sort of like this ... if you tell your kid "hey, I know you did something wrong ... just fess up" you're not really helping them learn because odds are they have no idea what you believe they did.

That being said, if the County has asked for SOQs for Design/Build folks, wouldn't that indicate they're open to design/build? If not, doesn't it seem like they're gonna hire one company to design and another to build?

Your refusal to point out where Richard is horribly wrong shows you're stuck on this as an argument rather than as an attempt to help Los Osos. Please remember that Richard has far more knowledge and experience than you do in this area and if he says 22 miles, he's gonna be ballpark correct.


GetReal,

I fully agree that the County should be pitching in. In fact, I believe that they should cover the lion's share of the costs because, after all, it is County actions and inactions which have caused the problem. Even if there were obstructionists in Los Osos in 1980, 1985, 1990 and 1995, the County still had the responsibility and obligation to get the job done in a timely way. They made the choice to delay and the costs went up and up and up (yes, because of political pressure from folks in Los Osos), but it still was a County choice.

As to the survey, I've talked with folks at the County about the survey and they're stratifying the results by in/out of the PZ and by owner/renter, etc. so that way they can determine which group feels what way ... and it is owners inside the PZ who will have their opinions counted. The other groups are being included just to see the extent they agree with the PZ owners. As to the question of whether the survey is to be distributed to everyone or just a sample, I forget, but if it is just a sample, it would be no surprise if some individuals didn't get a survey. I know that I didn't. As to whether Rob prefers STEP ... I don't know that he does. Do you?

As for the mercury question, I apologize ... I didn't notice it the first time ... there have been quite a few comments and I've not had much time to read them. However, to answer, no ... but why is that relevant?

GetRealOsos said...

Shark,

Yes, Rob Miller has stated his choice. He said, "I'd rather have my yard torn up for a day or two rather than the town dug up."

That's what he said. He prefers Step, but works for the pay check. But Rob does know the truth. He knows about ponds and has done them. He prefers Step.

As far as the imported Mercury water, you ask why is that relevant...because that's what we will have!!! YOU know that!!!

I have to wonder how someone with kids would want them drinking and bathing in the water that Los Osos will have. (Thank You County!!) (Thank You Sam Blakeslee!!)

Why would you ask why this is relevant anyway...I don't get it...

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

GetReal,

Rob's comment can be interpreted as his preference for the installation method but not as a professional engineering comment on what system is best for Los Osos. Now he might have an opinion on that matter, but unless he's voiced that opinion, I would suggest not putting words in his mouth.

As for importing mercury water, I don't think that this plan has been announced anywhere. But, if you're gonna thank anyone for Naciemento water being more likely, it would have to be the post-recall board. The pre-recall board had a project which was going to allow Los Osos to avoid the problem of needing to import water.

Did you vote for the recall? Thank yourself as well.

GetRealOsos said...

Steve,

Rob made clear what he liked and he is an engineer. He knows more about Los Osos than anyone. He likes Step over gravity. He also liked the cemetary site. I'm not putting words in anyone's mouth.

You know better than anyone what people around here have to do and say to collect their paycheck and keep their jobs. I don't blame Rob since he has no choice with a family and all.

I did not vote for the recall, I was going to initially, but after seeing that Gail McPherson picked the new candidates and they all worked for the state, I changed my mind. The board should be called "the Gail board".

Anyway, at least I didn't have to lie like Blakeslee did to get a law passed by saying all 4,500 septic tanks were polluting or indicate that Los Osos alone was polluting the bay (going up to Sacramento with color brochures of the bay). Blakeslee's plan all along was a big regional type (now called expandable) plant which would receive septage from the entire County. YOU know that too! (Just what we need -- sludge coming down LOVR right to Los Osos.)

I didn't lie like the County has done from the 90's right up until this day. And you want us to trust the County? Not one thing they've done to date has been on the up n' up. Not one thing!

As far as the imported water, it is my understanding that even with the Tri-W they had plans to import water. The County has to sell it to someone. I'm sure they'll do it in Nipomo too -- anywhere that's targeted for development!

Sewertoons said...

GRO - as to your "understanding," were you aware that Nipomo is in process of looking at desal? And also a water intertie with Santa Maria?

Oh well, I am glad that you had the sense to see the hand of Gail in the recall and did not vote for it.

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

GetReal,

I'll ask Rob next time I talk with him. Frankly, I don't believe that he would view the TAC report and County proposed project anywhere near as bad as you might. There is a lot of subtlety out there that only the engineering professionals can fully understand. Mark's bluster would suggest otherwise, but the professionals I've chatted with on these matters are all pretty careful when they speak.

As for trusting the County ... I think that they're the last hope before something even worse is put into play. Think about it ... since 1995, every time Los Osos Locals have gotten heavily involved by insisting on their way, things have gotten worse. I see no reason to believe that this trend would change if we all start to vote for, say, STEP as some (maybe, say, Richard M. or Gail M.) might have us do. If the County really believes gravity is best or that it is likely to be the least expensive in the long run, sure we can try to tip the scales ... but based on what? Unless we have a solid understanding of the real costs and benefits, any survey or straw poll on technology options won't help a ton.

Ron said...

GRO wrote:

"I have seen the paperwork on Pandora's marketing deal with Gary's landscaping deal for about $800,000. total. I'll look for it and pull it out, scan and post it."

Beautiful. Let me know...

Also, you wrote that Paavo and Bruce owe their careers to Pandora. In Paavo's case, I can see that argument, because Pandora hired him as the interim LOCSD GM in 1999 (where he wasted a year deftly guiding her first dead-on-arrival project right into the inevitable wall), but I don't know how she's responsible for Bruce Gibson's career.

What's the connection there?

Sounds interesting, and highly plausible.

Thanks again.

GetRealOsos said...

Ron,

Regarding Gibson/Pandora, it's only that Shirley pushed and got Bruce in and Pandora and Shirley are like the same person. They even look alike now. Corruption shows on them physically! (watch out Lynette)