Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Stealth Water Board Updates

Press release from Citizens for Clean Water regarding the recent “Stealth” updates on onsite systems. If you live outside the PZ in Los Osos or live anywhere in the county and are on septic systems, you might want to attend or check the website below for further information. We will all be Los Osos soon.

Citizens for Clean Water is organizing a region-wide group of onsite dischargers to respond to the regional water board's new requirement for onsite systems. I would like to provide an overview for the public of the two resolutions passed by the water board which will effect over 100,000 properties on the central coast, and what property owners need to know.

Citizens for Clean Water meets the first and third Monday, but is planning meetings in North County and South County.
Look for the announcements on the meeting dates and locations on the CCW web site

April 6, 2009, at 7:00 PM WAMU/Chase in Los Osos, Citizens for Clean Water will address the onsite resolution R3-2009-0012 passed by the regional board on Friday March 20, and the process for State approval process, and what you can to stop the approval and protect you property rights.

If you want to join CCW's mailing list for notifications concerning septic regulations, go to the web site and fill out the 'contact us' form with your contact information.

Web site

Gail McPherson


Aaron said...

I urge everyone to not participate in any more Citizens for Clean Water events. Gail is attempting to represent more communities on septic tanks without ever fully and adequately addressing the issues in our hometown.

In short, she's making you go on a wild goose chase.

Richard LeGros said...

Let me get this straight...

an activist group calling themselves 'Citizens for Clean Water' is actively opposing new stricter State regulations to clean up our water? about an oxymoron! LOL

Lady, you ain't foolin' anyone!


PS: Aaron is absolutely correct....Gail has a real vendetta againt the State; and wants everyone to join her in her obsession.

Sewertoons said...

What she hasn't addressed in her hometown are the issues that she created here.

Is SHE paying the PZLDF bill, (her badly conceived but costly lawsuit that does not have her name on it)? No, she stayed clear on that one, leaving the signers and the CSD on the hook.

How about the recall, and the elections - $100/month, $154/month. Just what was the result of that "work?"

Maybe one ought to look at her track record before investing any time on this project.

Mike said...

"(Gail McPherson)...wants everyone to join her in her obsession."

She has already cost the District thou$ands in the stealth PZLDF legal fees... and Ms.Calhoun thinks the community should spend more in this futile effort "to make the RWQCB do a better job"...

When will the public ever see just how much the PZLDF has contributed toward this failed lawsuit...???? Maybe Ann or Ron can shed some light on the non-payment by the PZLDF...????

Alon Perlman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Alon Perlman said...

While I've had many differences with Gail, my interest in a functioning regulatory body that is intended to protect the waters of the State, does bring us together occasionally. The Basin Plan pertains to 4 Counties. It can be taken to be NOT ABOUT LOS OSOS. The programs that the waterboard is promulgating are in their infancy, the impacts of stringent regulations with consequences yet to be determined, so this can be certain to result in something other than "just" clean water.
So Mr. Legros-new stricter State regulations to clean up our water?..... lead invariably and efficiently to cleaner water?. You are naive... may I interest you in joining the sustainability group?-- I would not suggest that these regulations are critical to Los Osos on their face, after all we will be mostly off septics soon (?)
you may consider that the Waiver as introduced at the time that the basin plan amendments were introduced and passed, and that it took this long to accept the waiver.
You may also recollect that the Basin Plan had some sticky provisions regarding pumping of septics every five years.
There may be a value for someone to remind the Waterboard that Inspection should be done for the purpose of NOT Pumping out a tank, or that any transport of unnecessarily pumped partly digested septage is a violation of the spirit of AB32. Don't expect the Village idiot to do anything spectacular here. He only operates if the cameras show it back here, in Osos town.

Did the waterboard learn the lessons of Los Osos?
Heck, Los Osos didn't even learn the lessons of Los Osos.

Alon Perlman, Executive Director
Friends of the Waterboard (r).

Richard LeGros said...


I have absolutely no problem with our government enacting and enforcing laws to protect the quality of our water resources. If you have a problem with the water quality laws that we have been enacted over the last 50 years, take your issues up with the Federal and State governments.

Meanwhile, I compleley support the activities of all the water boards to bring their regulatins in line with the Federal and State law. I am willing to pay the cost to make sure that our water remains clean for ourselves and future generations.

All I see with the Citizen for Clean Water is an angry mob lead by a mad woman that just doe not like government intruding into their lives. They act as if they have a right to continue to pollute without reprocussions. They do not have my sympathy or support.


Churadogs said...

Alon sez:"Did the waterboard learn the lessons of Los Osos?
Heck, Los Osos didn't even learn the lessons of Los Osos"
Richard sez:"Meanwhile, I compleley support the activities of all the water boards to bring their regulatins in line with the Federal and State law."

Thank you, alon, and Amen. And I see the problem Richard has: He believes "Authority" -- any authority -- unquestioningly. Anyone who witnessed our local RWQCB's Mad Hatter kangaroo CDO trial would ever, ever make that mistake. The point of paying attention to these new "stealth" updates/regulations is to make sure somebody actually IS using correct science and common sense. Too much of that went missing here in Los Osos. Heck, ask Dr. Wickham if he thinks the staff (and board) of our RWQCB knows diddly about septics, something they're supposed to "regulate."That's been a big problem from day one. These stealth updates are just going to creat Los Ososes all over the place. California, you have been warned.

Richard LeGros said...


I believe what I analyze to be true; but not without question. I question the activities of both government AND activists groups equally.

On that note, the behavior of PZLDF and the Citizen for Clean Water is far more suspect, non-transparent and questionable when compared to the RWQCB staff and board clear and transparent intent of enforcing Federal and State laws. When I read your blogs all I see is a woman/group who hates being told what to do; always resorting claiming 'process foul' when you have absolutely no technical or legal basis for your arguments. I know you cannot claim that PZLDF pays its legal bills, has been forthright as to what the PLZDF lawsuit is all about; and in fact spent $35,000 of public funds to support a poorly written and executed private lawsuit that, to the jusdge, was incomprehensible. All that spells out that PZLDF / the CCW are just a bunch of flibbergibbets.

So Lady, you ain't foolin' anyone!


Mike said...

As far as the "kangaroo trial" for the CDO's... Just how many of the 45 have ever been required to pay any fine...????

...and while you're explaining that, how much did Gail McPherson pay for her illegal activities...???? $40,000 is a pretty hefty "fine" for such a perfectly honest sewer activist...!!!!! ...and loss of license....!!!!!!!

Realistic1 said...

And how much has PZLDF paid Shaunna Sullivan for their lawsuit against the State? As a co-plaintiff, how much have you paid, Ann? Or do you just plan to let the CSD foot the bill?

Sewertoons said...

Why doesn't Shaunna Sullivan submit unredacted billing to show the total and what everyone has paid and still needs to pay so we can just stop speculating?

That was the agreement (as foolish as that was) -- 25% CSD, 75% everybody else -- too bad Chuck, Lisa, Julie and Steve did not think to demand transparent billing so the citizens could see that they had been treated fairly.

PS - I think we spent closer to $80,000.

Mike said...

If correct...

CSD's 25% = $80,000

PZLDF's 75% = $320,000

For $400,000, Shauna could have already been in front of the US Supreme Court...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So Ann, have you paid your fair share or do you think you are an AIG type with all the entitlements....????

I sure don't mind paying my fair share, but PZLDF has NEVER been a representative of this community...!!!! We all get more representation from TaxPayers Watch and for a hell of a lot less than $400,000.....!!!!!!

Aaron said...

This morning I read Gail McPherson's press release again and I came across a few things.

We will all be Los Osos soon.

That raises the question: how did this all happen? Where was the CCW-PZLDF during the sewer saga? When she writes, "We will all be Los Osos soon," she doesn't take into account what she's done to make Los Osos the way it is now.

Citizens for Clean Water is organizing a region-wide group of onsite dischargers to respond to the regional water board's new requirement for onsite systems. I would like to provide an overview for the public of the two resolutions passed by the water board which will effect over 100,000 properties on the central coast, and what property owners need to know.

PZLDF was formed so that CDO recipients could put money toward a retainer for an attorney. The original mission was to provide a legal defense fund locally. Several thousand dollars later, after Shaunna Sullivan did her damage, now Gail wants to broaden her appeal to other counties -- and I'm thinking, "Wait a second. What happened to Los Osos?"

"Let's just conveniently ignore everything here and fight the water board's resolutions so that we don't end up like the problem that we ignored to resolve." That's brilliant, Gail! By the way, how's life inside that big bubble of yours?

My heart goes out to the homeowners who donated their money to CCW. All they get in return is a video of Gail McPherson getting interviewed by someone who is obviously married to his tanning bed and an attorney who can't even cite or interpret Public Resource code correctly.

So if you don't want your county to be another Los Osos, don't listen to Gail. It's that simple!

Sewertoons said...

Beautifully put Aaron, thank-you!!

Gail is one scary lady. She was around for the sewer saga, but not as PZLDF.

CCW came after the name "PZLDF" was laughed off the blogs (somewhere in early 2007? Probably on the old Trib blogs? The word pizzle means - well, look it up). To this observer PZLDF doesn't carry the scope and gravitas as Citizens for Clean Water! And we all know Gail fighting the Water Board is all about clean water, right?

I just wish there was a way to get the warning out past the borders of Los Osos.

M said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
M said...

Sorry. How do you all feel about the fact that we were in the process of paying $850,00 to the P.I.O. office for Tri-W?
Sincerely, M

M said...

The "Sorry" to start my post was an apology for my previous post in which I left out a few words, and trash canned it, but I didn't realize it took awhile for it to be removed. So I thought it was still there.
Sincerely, M

GetRealOsos said...


I agree with you about Gail.

I have to ask, what has she accomplished?

Many say that she's worked so very hard, but what have been the results?

Results are what matter.

I bet Julie and Gail dropped Lisa like a hot potato now that they got their way and made Lisa do everything that they wanted...

Gail's results have only benefited Sam Blakeslee and the developers.

What will be her reward?

Is her new group really set up to receive grant money?

Will she be fund raising throughout the County?

I know she, over the years, has insisted people attend RWQCB hearings and a few of those very people got very sick (one heart attack after a meeting) -- and what has public comment ever done to influence the RWQCB's decision (when they already have an agenda and know what they're going to do -- same goes for the BOS) -- so, again, what has she done for the community of Los Osos other than bleeding it dry and making people sick from the stress?

Gail, the leader for five years or so, has done nothing for a better, cheaper project -- and she clearly could have helped. But she helped put the community into a $50 million dollar bankruptcy debt.

Both she and Julie Tacker should have to walk in fear like Pandora does. People should know of their agendas for the developers. Many people know already.

Sewertoons said...

Hi M,

What is P.I.O.? Any of these?

GetRealOsos said...


I think "M" is talking about "Public Information Officer"?

...Michael Drake...

GetRealOsos said...


I realized one thing that Gail McPherson DID accomplish: She lead the opposition and where did she lead them?

She was very successful in leading the sheep into the slaughter house!

Billy Dunne said...

The final community survey is out. View it at:

I'm sure Santa Margurita Ron Crawford will shortly be in here crowing about the out of town preference and how bitchin' he is and all....good for him.

For me, more important but equally overwhelming is the preference for gravity over STEP/STEG. Spin as you will now all you conspiracy theorists and constant complainers. But as was loudly proclaimed after the recall, "the people have spoken." (Those who bothered or who cared enough, that is.)

alabamasue said...

Thanks, Billy Dunne, for the headsup on the survey results. I have already printed it and am currently reading through it. I don't know if Santa Margarita Ron will be weighing in, though. I heard he disconnected his shoulder trying to pat himself on the back one too many times.

Watershed Mark said...

For Steve who thinks Phoenix is having trouble with its groundwater: NIDIS
You all are in much tougher shape water wise than we are in the desert…

On another note, the survey respondents want an energy efficient treatment technology and low on going costs, so why is the county considering the use of treatment technology that uses the highest amount of energy?

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


While you might very well be right about Phoenix being okay ... water-wise ... even though you haven't shown us evidence of this when asked ... I would suggest you look up with the word means. The website you refer us to seems to only refer to precipitation shortages and not to aquifer overdraft.

Watershed Mark said...

But Steve, you stil haven't proven your original statement regarding groundwater.
Where is the likage that supports Phoenix is in overdraft.

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


You don't get it ... I don't care. I see no need to document each and every offhand statement I make. If you're right ... fine ... be happy. I do want to point out that you, as the arbiter of all that is true and documented have not given us here any reason to believe you on this matter over what I originally wrote. No worries ... if you want to judge others by standards you are unwilling to apply to yourself, knock yourself out!

Watershed Mark said...


If you don't care why did you make the false ascertion in the first place?

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


If you don't care, why did you a spell assertion incorrectly in the first place?

Dude ... who cares about whether Phoenix is in overdraft or not? Certainly not us in Los Osos.

If you want to make a federal case about it, go ahead ... I don't care. It would be nice, though, if you showed me to be wrong before repeatedly claiming I made a false statement. Essentially I still believe that Phoenix is in overdraft. You say I'm wrong. I don't care to waste my time looking it up. You won't back up your assertions (no surprise). But, if you do, I've apologized in advance for offending your delicate sensibilities on an issue that none of us in Los Osos view as in any way related to our discussion.

ps - I predict that Mark will reply to this at least five more times saying that I've not demronstated some cliam.

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

I apleciate teh slpelin lesin Tsvee.

Steve wrote: Essentially I still believe that Phoenix is in overdraft.
You make the point about how you write stuff that is "made up", very well.

Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...


Had you actually offered me a single reason to believe you, I might not still believe that Phoenix is just fine with regard to their water use. I remember (perhaps misremember) reading in the past that Phoenix was in overdraft. I have every reason to trust my memory on inconsequential issues instead of trusting your unsubstantiated claims.

ps - that's 1

Mike said...

Why are you still trying to discuss any of the twists WM keeps tying in your tail...??? STEP is out, Mark is out, Gravity is the only game in town...

Realistic1 said...


My best friend has lived in Phoenix for 40 years. She has been telling me for 20 years that the biggest issue on the City's plate is overdraft due to out of control building. Her water bill has more than quadrupled in the past five years and the City has implemented serious, mandatory conservation.

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

Realistic ...

Please inform your friend that she is full-o-crap. After all, Mark says so so it must be true ... even if he can't actually dredge up proof for his claim.

Realistic1 said...


I'll be sure and tell her.


Real 1

alabamasue said...

I got this from Gail's CCW website "": "All CCW members are strickly volunteers work free". Nice spelling and syntax! The typos are hers and her minions, not mine. Why anyone would want to have anything to do with her is beyond me, much less attend one of her "meetings." I'll bet Riverside will start to look much more attractive now...

alabamasue said...

Speaking of spelling; it should have read "". Sorry about that, but at least I don't leave it up on a home page for anyone to see. Good grief.

Sewertoons said...

Hi Alabamasue!

Hilarious! Guess they must be short on competent staff to monitor these things. You'd think Ann with her writing skills could have stepped in - but maybe she has never even seen the site!

They have changed it just lately. Here is another, new quote from it,
"Citizens for Clean Water will address the onsite resolution R3-2009-0012 passed by the regional board on Friday March 20, and the process for State approval process, what you can to stop the new regulations and protect you property rights."


But Gail, if nothing else, is consistent! Let's keep that water dirty, let's pollute and stick it to that mean, old Water Board!

alabamasue said...

Do you mean that mean, old water board that stuck it to Gail? She wants revenge, of course, for hiring her son-in-law, who was not qualified for the job, and getting fined for it! How rude.
Your latest quote from their site is indeed funny.
I don't know if Ann ever reads it; but you have to remember that Ann thinks that "and etc." is proper Latin. So, maybe she's writing that crapola, too ? The mind boggles...

Sewertoons said...

Indeed it does!

Well, Gail is on another cause and she is hunting for acolytes once again. Obviously she must cast her net beyond LO - who has wised up!

Hah! the word verification is "reemove!"

Watershed Mark said...

This portfolio of water supplies is more sustainable than most regions’ because of the attention paid to long term sustainability of supply and demand. The State of Arizona is more advanced in planning for water supply than most other states. It has a ground water management law that sets a target that ground water use in central Arizona must be at a level of sustainable yield by 2025. Further, it requires communities in central Arizona to demonstrate that they have water supplies that can be sustained under normal conditions for 100 years before plats for new development can be approved.
Phoenix has gone several steps further than the State of Arizona standards:
• Phoenix has reduced its use of ground water to a minimum amount and is planning its groundwater use for a sustainable yield under long term drought conditions.
• Phoenix is planning for a 100 year supply under conditions of significant growth, long term drought, and global climate change.
• Phoenix recycles in some form 90 percent of its wastewater, delivering it for use in agriculture, energy production, urban irrigation, aquifer recharge and riparian wetland maintenance.
• Phoenix requires new golf courses and large turf facilities in its northern growth areas to utilize reclaimed water for turf irrigation.
• Phoenix participates in and is planning new programs to bank water through ground water recharge for use when drought conditions result in surface water shortages.
• Phoenix has adopted a substantial water resources impact fee that is charged to new development and is used to develop future water supplies needed to meet the demand of development during normal and drought conditions.
Very few cities can demonstrate water supplies that can be sustained under these standards and commitments. This is why the water supply - and our philosophy of water resource planning - is number one.
R1, Please see if your “friend” will shoot Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name) a facsimile copy of her water bills so he can get it to Lynette.
Making a reckless comment without any substantiation and claiming “it” to be true in the face of proof that it isn’t a credible or sustainable position.

You ask and asked for proof, but it appears you can’t handle the proof. I postedthis link when you first made your incorrect statement about Phoenix ground water.
If you don’t want to read it I can’t be held responsible when you remain ignorant. You can lead a mule to water, but you can’t make it think.

Watershed Mark said...

Making a reckless comment without any substantiation and claiming “it” to be true in the face of proof that it isn’t, is not a credible or sustainable position.

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


Your awesome link is from a government entity (and we all know how you mistrust government, so why would you trust the city of Phoenix) and is telling people that "all is well, trust us." It does not say anything about whether the aquifer is in overdraft or not.

I'm afraid that you've drunk the kool-aid, my friend. Go ahead and believe your town is doing the right thing. You certainly haven't given us any reason to think that my statement about Phoenix being in overdraft is in any way wrong.

In fact, your inability to find any evidence that I am wrong makes me even more sure that I am right. If Reisner says it in a real book (you know, one with footnotes) but you can't find a single bit of information which contradicts him ... I would be a fool to believe you.

That would be like me thinking that the Reclamator (remember, you used to work for them) would solve all of our legal and water problems ... just cause you said so ... even if the authority, the RWQCB says otherwise.

In this case, you are not an authority on the aquifer Phoenix draws from. Do you even know what an aquifer is?

My gosh, baiting you is fun because you always seem to get your panties twisted all out of shape.

Seriously though ... if you don't have anything better than a document which is 100% irrelevant, I have no reason to think you are right, let alone competent at web searches.

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


Let's push this a bit further. That you are now telling us that "The State of Arizona ... has a ground water management law that sets a target that ground water use in central Arizona must be at a level of sustainable yield by 2025" even proves I am right.

If there is a target for sustainability (read "not in overdraft") by 2025, it shows that Phoenix is now taking more water from their aquifer than is being added through recharge.


It is nice when someone calls you a liar and then unwittingly offers proof that you are right.

Now it will be interesting to see if Mark can spin his way out of this one or apologize as would be appropriate.

ps - that's 2

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

The city of Phoenix maintains access to several types of water supply including: surface water, groundwater, and effluent or “reclaimed” water. For normal years (in which our supplies are unaffected by drought), about 95 percent of customer drinking water demand is met with surface water from two major sources. Salt River and Verde River surface water is delivered through the Salt River Project (SRP) and Colorado River water is delivered via the Central Arizona Project (CAP) canal. The remaining five percent is groundwater pumped from city-owned wells. In addition, in recent years, reclaimed water has become the major irrigation supply for several parks and golf courses.


I posted this information first time around also, so if you don’t understand that between injecting far more recycled water than the %5 that is pumped means that Phoenix is not in “overdraft”, as you have repeatedly and incorrectly asserted, it is ok by me.

Phoenix is cool. Why can’t you show us any linkage that supports your position that Phoenix is in overdraft?

You have the problem. Why not show us the linkage that Los Osos is pumping to create a vacuum for the ocean to enter into its drinking water aquifer?

While you are at it why not show us some linkage as to what the county or state is up to regarding your water supplies. Or are they still just talking?

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


If Phoenix is not in overdraft, why did you earlier tell us that they have a goal of a sustainable rate of groundwater use by 2025?

Perhaps it is because your new fancy river water project has only recently come online and decades of overdraft are not so quickly solved.

That you can't find any authoritative reference to back up your claim makes you look really silly. You seem to care, deeply, about proving me wrong ... but you don't have any data to show it. Go try again.

ps - that's 3

Sewertoons said...

Strike three and you're out in my book.

Shark, you have the patience of a saint, but I like where you are going with this!

Watershed Mark said...

You can't prove your claim that Phoenix is in overdraft.
You have never provided proof of your statement that is it.

I Love LO.


Your lying about Mr. Dean (I forget his last name) will shadow everything you write, in my book.
The fact you felt you had to lie speaks volumes about who and what you really are.

I too appreciate Steve making the record he cannot prove his point.
He hasn't lied like you, he just refuses to face facts.

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


The only "fact" entered into this discussion that is relevant ... by you ... is the statement that says by 2025 Phoenix will have to be out of overdraft.

If you want me to go and prove myself right on this matter (which is irrelevant to me) you will be waiting a long time. I don't care.

If you want people to know that you are right (and I'm calling you out as a liar on this one) you have work to do.

ps - that's 4

Watershed Mark said...

Sorry Steve your opinion is irrelavant.
I don't lie.

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

5 ... I win.

I predicted that you would spend lots of time responding and that you would not actually take the time to learn something and tell us.

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


I'm getting bored (or should I write "board"?) with this.

According to the Arizona Department of Water Resources, the Phoenix Active Management Area "currently is in an overdraft condition in the amount of approximately 251,000 acre feet annually." (See ... this same website indicates that Phoenix will not likely be able to achieve their goal of sustainability by 2025.)

The top 6 results in the google search for Phoenix aquifer overdraft all say that Phoenix is using more groundwater than is sustainable.


You are full of crap. You didn't even take the time to research my offhand claim before you jumped down my throat on the topic.

You are wrong. The magic internet proves it.

You should now either apologize or offer an explanation for why the Arizona DWR official information seems to disagree with you.

I apologize if this seems harsh, but every time I look into the issue at all, the information seems to confirm my original belief and seems to be calling you out as dead wrong.

Remember, you are the one who picked this battle ... you thought you could score points ... and you were dead wrong. What does this say about the quality of your input for Los Osos's wastewater treatment needs. If, on a matter where you think you are right you are proven so horribly wrong, it would seem to tell us that you are not a trustworthy source, no matter how well intentioned you might be.

Realistic1 said...

So Shark...

I guess I can call my friend and tell her she's not full 'o crap after all?

Job well done!

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


I guess that you should tell your friend she was right all along and that our "expert" on all things water and all things Phoenix was sadly mistaken.

I wonder whether Mark will apologize, argue or ignore. Wanna take bets?

Realistic1 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Realistic1 said...

Nah - that would be a suckers bet for sure. I can tell ya right now what will happen:

1) He will not apologize for being wrong under any circumstances because he will claim to have been testing YOU


2) He WILL argue the point by finding fault with your research

3) Under no circumstances will he ignore what you said because he just can't help himself

I can't tell you how relieved my friend was to hear that she actually does know a little something about the City she has lived in (and watch explode developmentally) for forty years... the fact that WM said she was full-o-crap was positively keeping her up nights!

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

I believe the key here, Real1, is that I have demonstrated that without additional specialized and perhaps convoluted information, the most natural thing to believe about the aquifers in the Phoenix area is that they have been in overdraft for some decades and that this is projected to continue until for at least one more decade.

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

Realistic1 said...
My best friend has lived in Phoenix for 40 years. She has been telling me for 20 years that the biggest issue on the City's plate is overdraft due to out of control building. Her water bill has more than quadrupled in the past five years and the City has implemented serious, mandatory conservation.

R1- You may want to send this information to your friend so she can compare it with her bills you wrote about above:
I think anyone (except maybe Steve, Lynette and Mr. Dean “I forgot his last name”) will agree that your assertions based upon what your friend said, do not hold up in the face of the facts below.

Water conservation 602.261.8367
The City of Phoenix has 3 rate periods per year:
2009 1.99/2.44/3.16
2008 1.83/2.20/2.81
2007 1.65/1.97/2.50
2006 1.50/1.77/2.24
2005 1.38/1.63/2.06
2004 1.30/153/1.94
2003 1.26/1.49/1.89
2002 1.24/1.47/1.87
2001 $1.17/$1.39/$1.76

The prices above represent the cost for 1 unit of water which is 748 gallons and very detailed billing information such as the rate periods, etc. can be found here.


The Phoenix “Active Management Area” you are using to support your incorrect conclusions about the "City of Phoenix" encompasses an area that is much greater than the area our discussion is focused on.
The City of Phoenix is NOT in “overdraft” and you are incorrect when you state otherwise. If and when you do some actual research you will know what I do.

I won’t be helping you with that research, because everything that I present, you consider flawed in some special way.
You might simply make a few calls and quickly find out that the City of Phoenix is a world class water management agency that is not in “over draft.”

You are in error. Get the requisite material and study it so you hopefully won’t keep making such a fool of yourself.
Patting yourself on the back is particularly silly, given you are so completely off base and incorrect.

Your “quick” Google searches aren’t working like you think they are.
Whining about your lack of understanding isn’t serving you well either.

Spinning your statement “Phoenix is in over draft” to include something called “Phoenix AMA” isn’t working.
Get back to us when you have some actual factual information regarding your assertion regarding “Phoenix being in over draft”.


Realistic1 said...


Told ya it was a sucker's bet....

Watershed Mark said...

Don't worry R1, there is plenty of misperception regarding water.
Your friend demonstrates that beautifully.