Pages

Monday, June 07, 2010

Tick, Tick, Tick. Running the clock out on Los Osos

The Coastal Commission will be hearing the Los Osos Sewer Project late on Friday, June 11th down in Marina del Rey. It’s the last item on the Agenda so there can be little or no discussion, just bang, bang, bang, No Time, Move Along, Nothing to See Here.

Over at the Rock is a nice little recap of How Things Get Done In This County. Once again, nothing to see here, move along, too late, Done Deal.

Actually, it was a Done Deal before the horse got out of the gate. Remember Noel King spilling the beans even before the TAC was formed? Oops. From there on, it was just a matter of a little grease there, a little spin here, orchestrated by Paavo and Gibson with a clueless/compliant Board (Move along, Boys, nothing to see here) and a clueless, manipulated community.

Well, that’s how it’s done in this county. And how it’s done when horses are put before carts; “Processes” are corrupted and deals are done. And, too bad for Los Osos. They’ll never know what the hard numbers would have been on an actual clean Design Build process and  project. Guestimates, but no hard numbers.

Well, thanks to a spun “public survey,” the corruption of the Design Build “Process,” the lack of real numbers, threats and electioneering by the Water Board, the homeowners picked from a carefully selected and limited list of options, without protest, so now they’ll get what they said they wanted: gravity system, sewer plant out of town, water reuse, affordable/cheaper/cheapest.

Well, sort of. The last wish –“affordable”—was never really possible. There was always just “unaffordable,” “really unaffordable,” and “holy s*#t! unaffordable.” And since we never had a real Design Build process, we never had real numbers so “cheapest” remains an unreal and unreliable “guestimated” moving target that can be manipulated at will. Which means that come Saturday, the community will get three out of four wishes. They could have had four out of four, except that Paavo & Gibson, Inc, were in charge of the show from Day One, so the community will be getting what they are given.

And, to give the devil his/her due, thanks to Sarah Christie and the Planning Commission, they’ll be given a much better project than the sprayfield plan the county was trying to ram through, (an expensive attempted ram-through that wouldn’t have happened had we been allowed to stick to the original (promised) plan of a clean process and clean DP. Sprayfields wouldn’t have made the final cut.) So, I guess we should be grateful for small miracles.

Over at The Rock is posted a glimpse of this game. Read it and . . . laugh? http://rockofthecoast.com/news/local/868-ogrens-mwh-gravity-bias-costing-los-osos-tens-of-millions

Yep, that’s how it’s done.

33 comments:

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

Using your scenario, a 'design-build' process would (at best) MIGHT......MIGHT!...... result in a 'less expensive' project for Los Osos....................... with the resultant design-build project STILL being too expensive for you and yours. You would not be happy with the cost of a 'design-built' project either.

Even if the County designed the project as you suggest it would still be substantially more expensive than if we had built the County's 1985 or 1997 Projects; and definitely more expensive than the LOCSD's 2005 Project either.

The odd thing is that the County's Project (as now conditioned by the CCC) is still NOT as technologically superior as the Tri-W Project. The Tri-W project achieved a much higher quality of treated effluent (via membrane filtration) when compare to the lower quality effluent produced by the County's SBR treatment.

In the end, the cost of letting Los Osos have a yet another WWTP redesign 'do over' has not been worth the financial or political cost.

Our paying $300/month (for 30 years) for the County's Project for redoing the project has not been worth the extra $100 per month we will pay (and pay for a longer payoff period too) than if we had just built Tri-W @ $198/month (for 20 years) to begin with.

Mike said...

Good Morning Richard...

No one seems to be talking about the bankruptcy, like it sort of just went away...

Do you know how the bankruptcy cost will be paid...???

Is it going to be in addition to the County Project costs of $300 per month...??? ...or is it going to be "blended" into the project costs...???

Ron said...

Richdora, do me a HUGE favor: Show up at the CCC meeting on Friday, and argue this:

"The odd thing is that the County's Project (as now conditioned by the CCC) is still NOT as technologically superior as the Tri-W Project."

Awww gawd, that'd be hilarious. PLEASE do that... pleeeeeease.

Wow, did you guys f-up... to the tune of 7 years and $25 million.

But, just like Ann wrote:

"a clueless, manipulated community. "

.... Los Osos is SOOOOOO stupid, and, yes, manipulated, that you, and your little gang, are going to get away with it.

Now, go "Celebrate Los Osos".... Richdora.

Mike said...

..let's do add, thanks to Ron's insistance that he knows far better what should have been done than the great pre-recall folks who actually obtained every legal permit and a completed design and purchased the property, that the ENTIRE County should pay the full cost of the bankruptcy...!!!!

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Mike....long time no see!

June will be an important month for Los Osos:

June 12:
CCC issues CDP on County Project.
It will take the County 9-12 months to satisfy CDP conditions, resolve future lawsuits, and sell $125 million in bonds before construction begins.

June 15:
The CSD is back in US bankruptcy Court to file papers for the Court to approve the settlement of the TW public waste lawsuit. Upon the approval of the settlement, the LOCSD (all of us) will see $1,175,000 of the community’s debt repaid or eliminated.

June 17:
The US Bankruptcy Court-ordered arbitration between the LOCSD and the creditors begins.
I predict that the arbitration will fail to produce a bankruptcy plan acceptable to the creditors.

The LOCSD acknowledges $13,000,000 in debts; so the questions are:

A. How little of the $13,000,000 can the LOCSD get the creditors to agree to be paid?

and

B. How is the LOCSD going to raise the $10 - $13,000,000 to pay off the creditors?
-Sell bonds?
-Attach a fee to the WWTP rates?
-Be unable to raise money at all; thereby likely to result in the dismemberment of LOCSD assets to
satisfy the claims?

Sewertoons said...

Good morning gentlemen! It's been a while where we have been able to discuss the realities of this situation. Thank you Ann for providing the platform.

Yes, the unmentionable that keeps NOT popping up is the bankruptcy. I, like Ann, would prefer to hide my head in the sand at this point. But the bottom line is, in some way or another, we citizens of LO WILL PAY for it. Like everything Los Osian, we will sit and wait to see what mechanism that will be. Barring winning the lotto for Los Osos (another "disappeared topic" these days) there are few options.

I agree, the County wasn't entirely up front on Step/Steg. They never wanted to mention that they would not venture into eminent domain to do it - which is where they would have to go to obtain the easements. Elizabeth Deitzmann wrote a couple of good legal opinions on that issue.

Some think that the "lesser cost" was the only issue regarding S/S - but S/S proponents refused to realize that not everyone is agreeable to tearing out trees and fences and upgrading their electrical panel and giving up part of their property to be treeless and shrubless with large plastic riser covers for decoration to theoretically "save some money." The County tried to show how S/S wasn't going to work on the narrow streets - say a pumper truck is busy pumping and an ambulance or fire truck needs to pass through -- well, S/S proponents just couldn't see any problem with that. I don't know, for me, having the excavation in the street, rather than on my property (ripping out the bird habitat - not to be replaced either) seemed the better plan.

I'm sure the County was very interested in making the cost be less for us - hence secondary treatment and sprayfields. I'm sure that they picked the Turri road property to be PC and fair to the church and the neighbors around Giacomazzi - as after all, it wasn't going to be in town around the churches and homes there. So I hope that Ann is grateful to Ms. Christie for upping the cost for us in "fixing" those money saving ideas that the County had.

M said...

And now we'll never know what any alternative might have cost us. We've known all along what the present system is going to cost. Bundles. Perhaps the most expensive on record per capita sewer system ever. While the prohibition zone foots the bill. With the inevitable growth outside of the prohibition zone, we will become an even smaller entity. As to the bankruptcy, I don't know who all have a claim on it, but as far as I am concerned, the contractors can eat the bulk of their claim. They certainly knew the risk going in as to what might, probably was, going to happen. It was said that their bids were high because of just that issue. That the Directors took those bids anyway knowing that, doesn't seem to me to be acting responsibly for those they were elected to serve.
Sincerely, M

Richard LeGros said...

M,

Regardless of how you feel about the debt, contractors, contracts signed and such, the undeniable truth is that you will pay far, far more for the WWTP than you had to.

Blame whomever you want (old CSD, recall CSD, the County, the State, the Feds.) as playing the blame game will not lessen the monthly WWTP bill.

Today, the hard fact is that time has run out for Los Osos and its polluting habits. At his time it is best for all PZ property owners figure out exactly how they are going to either;

A. Pay $300/month for the WWTP,
or
B. Get $ assistance to help pay for it,
or
C. Accept the probability that they can no longer afford to live in Los Osos and move; and in the process selling their home to others who are willing to pay for the WWTP.

And that, M, is just how things are.

Good luck!

M said...

Well, I guess a thank you is in order then Richard. Thank You.
Sincerely, M

Alon Perlman said...

The exchange goes on, Chuck included Orenco’s LO_Econ_Ltr_1.31.08.pdf and a 9/14/07 letter from Paavo in correspondence to the CCC
It may be part of the CCC record posted tomorrow(?) executive director’s report.
I was never comfortable with the notion of Al Barrow + Orenco as the way to sell STEP. Ripley handled Al, but Sanders(?) seemed a little too outside the Box.
I can guarantee that no 50 Million Dollar Sewer would cost less than 200$ Mil with Al in the mix.
Irrespective of that, The CCC will most likely approve Staff recommendation. At this stage, nothing that can or will take place prior to project start will save Los Osossians any money.
My main concern is fiddly mitigations that are biologically insignificant.
Richard, You were a CSD Director once. Is "NOT MOVING A PRODUCTION WELL IN TIME" Going to be at least as costly as the “inflation cost delays” In Orenco's 08 letter?
6 mil per annum /
Just read toons-
The County wanted a viable project, for the right reasons- Hence Tonini.
Unfortunately we all may differ in what we consider viable. I happened to know (before Jan 30, a year ago) what the CCC would not go for.

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

And why is it you feel the need to deliver the sad news? Over and over and as if you had no hand in it.
Sincerely, M

Alon Perlman said...

Unfortunately at this time, several Los Osaan appellants have submitted the Paavo is the Devil, MWH is Valhalla credo to the CCC.
How do you tell your friends; It won't work this time either, You are only diluting the salient parts of your own message.

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

You are right Alon.

Richard has said it all and correctly. Blame whoever you want, but the FACT remains, this will cost MORE. Really, at this point, blame is beside the point, as much as I have trouble with that myself. We are where we are. I just hope those with axes to grind realize that lawsuits now will not change ANYTHING - other than to make it be more expensive still down the road. We WON'T go step-steg, we WON'T keep processing poop in our tanks, we WILL NOT discharge.

The alternative may have delivered a cheaper project as for what we owe on the PROJECT, but the cost to the homeowner, OUTSIDE of the project, would have been more. Just ask any electrician what an additional sub-panel would cost. Just think of YOUR amount of sweat equity and materials to rebuild your walls, walkways or fences. Or what that cost is to pay a contractor to do it. Or a landscaper to fix what has been lost. Or maybe you just do with less, walking on sand with no fence, with plants missing where you once had a tree or shrubs- and then lose some of the equity in your property by not replacing them. (You would not be gaining equity with giving up property as an easement, that's for sure!) Then think of pumping. How much did that cost you the last time you did that? Think it will be cheaper in 5 years - the next time you pump - and many of you you WILL be pumping to have your tank inspected - which will be in 5 years? Do you pump your tank that often now?

I don't care how you "sell" step. It is a fiction that it will be cheaper. And now it is moot. I implore those contemplating lawsuits after the CCC grants approval. PLEASE DON'T. It will not help, only hurt. If you care at all about those least able to pay, just DON'T DO IT.

Churadogs said...

Interesting in this discussion that what went missing is how and why The Process promised with much fanfare went "unclean," with Noel King spilling the beans before the box could even be constructed to spill out of. That's ALWAYS been the problem here -- phony facts being spun by one side or another for whatever agendas were on tap. From day one. That's been Los Osos Tragedy, also from day one. Faster, Better, Cheaper! There are NO alternatives out of town! Let the best technology rise to the top and determine the project. Bwahahahah. Always, the thumbs on the scale with the citizens out of the loop or befuddled and lied to by skillful PR and phony rhetoric ("Anti Sewer Obstructionists!!!!!")And always missing is the "Why." This was never rocket science. This could/should have been done with a CLEAN "Process." But it never was. Why?

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

Your last post plus $300 per month will get you exactly what you voted for in 2005......a delayed project costing MORE. Opinions about 'process' do not alter reality or the situation you will face.

By the time the County Project is built, the delay from 2005 will have ADDED $80,000,000 in costs (which works out to about $17,000 more in costs to each PZ property owner).

This is the legacy Los Osos has decided for itself.

Accept it; Make plans NOW how to pay to stay.

FOGSWAMP said...

Who do you think our next Supervisor will be, Gibson or Ochliski?

We often hear that lawyers and politicians are at the bottom of the list when it comes to trust, so we are left with kind of a Morton's Fork coup or a dilemma.

I would think that Gibson would register pretty low on the trust barometer with many in town due to the fact that he lied about comparing the numbers or leaving it (Step) on the table.

Yes, it was a tough compromise he made with the "out of town" folk, but perhaps the old proverb that says, "when the going gets tough, the tough get hoeing" will come true and he will be sent back to the farm.

Some folk in town believe Ochyliski may have ties to the Taxpayers Watch group which will no doubt turn them off.

We willl probably have a low turnout, once again.

Ron said...

[This is going to have to be a 2-part comment, I exceeded the "4,096 characters" limit.]

'toons wrote:

"Really, at this point, blame is beside the point"

Maybe for Los Osos, but certainly not for me. In fact, that tiny, little point -- the "blame" point -- is vitally important to my overall story, and it's going to be a HUGE part of my Pulitzer entry at the end of the year.

For an entry, the Pulitzer Board allows for something called "supplemental material." And, what that is, is previous stories that were published before the current "calendar year," and support the main story in the application.

And my published and time-stamped "supplemental material" just flat-out kicks ass!

1) I'm going to include my 1998 story from The Bay Breeze, where I first exposed how the Questa Study showed that the Solution Group's "better, cheaper, faster"/dead-on-arrival "project" wasn't going to work, and I showed that FIVE MONTHS before the election that formed the Los Osos CSD... solely on the back of "better, cheaper, faster"... an election that killed the county's "ready to go " project, estimated at the time at about $70/month.

2) I'm also going to include my first New Times cover story, Problems with the Solution, from 2000, where I first exposed how, after nearly two years of the new LOCSD chasing their DOA/"better, cheaper, faster" disaster, that project was on the verge of "failing," JUST like the Questa Study, (and a bunch of other regulatory types) predicted, BEFORE the 1998 election, and just like I FIRST reported in 1998.

One month after Problems with the Solution was published, "better, cheaper, faster" failed.

Kick-ass journalism #2!

3) I'm also going to include my second New Times cover story, the ground breaking Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, from 2004, where I first exposed how, AFTER "better, cheaper, faster" failed, the LOCSD tried to cover up the fact that their DOA "project" -- that was SOLELY responsible for forming the CSD in the first place in 1998, AND killing the county's "ready to go" project -- by fabricating a "strongly held community value," and that fabricated "value" was the ONLY reason why they were able to keep the sewer plant for their SECOND disastrous "project" -- the Tri-W disaster -- in the exact same location where they promised Los Osos voters a "better, cheaper, faster" project in 1998.

And, then, after nearly four years and $7 million worth of county analysis, on Friday, the California Coastal Commission will FINALLY prove my 2004 story 100-percent right, when the Tri-W disaster is FINALLY officially off the table (keep in mind, the Tri-W disaster is STILL officially on the table in the form of an appeal to the CCC).

And, THEN, come Saturday, I will FINALLY be able to report -- six years after Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, ten years after Problems with the Solution, and 12 f-ing years after my Questa Study story, I will FINALLY be able to report that the ONLY reason the Karners formed the Los Osos Community Services District in 1998, is so they could make money, just like I recently reported at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html

... and, yes, THAT story is also going to be part of my "supplemental material."

Ron said...

[Part II]

I may not win the Pulitzer prize for investigative journalism (although, I REEEEELY should), but I CAN guarantee one thing: The Pulitzer Board has never... EVER received an entry like the one they are going to get from me next January.

So, yeah, 'toons, blame may be "beside the point" in "clueless" Los Osos (by the way, Los Osos is, hands down, the stupidest community I've ever seen. Unbelievable. Ann, you wrote, "a clueless, manipulated community." Well, that's WHY your community is SO easily manipulated, BECAUSE it's SOOOOOO stupid. I mean, c'mon, you guys are actually falling for that "Celebrate Los Osos" scam, after everything that's happened (and that I reported on) over the past 12 years? Aye yai yai... breathtakingly stupid), but the "blame" angle is a HUGE part of my overall story, obviously. So, no, it's not "beside the point" in ol' SewerWatch.

Sewertoons said...

ron, you don't live here. You only think you know what is going on. You are sadly out of touch. Good luck with that Pulitzer.

Ron said...

'toons wrote:

"ron, you don't live here."

Exactly. Ah, hell-no, I don't live there.

Look, your community is a colossal, easily manipulated embarrassment, that's WHY I make sure that my blog permanently reads: "I do not live in Los Osos"

Uh, news flash, Los Osos: Apparently, you are not aware of this, but you are the laughing stock of the county.

Wanna hear another great Los Osos story?

Late last year, after the County yanked even MORE funds from the roads budget, to give to your sewer disaster (a disaster of your own making), I passed that information on to one of our local representatives, in the Santa Margarita area... where there's never a shortage of gigantic potholes in the roads.

She immediately popped out a petition that basically said to County Supervisors, "Don't take our roads money and give it to the Los Osos sewer project."

She later told me that when she first approached people to sign the petition, the fiercely independent folks in the area were hesitant to sign.

It wasn't until she explained to them that the money was going to the Los Osos sewer project, that they couldn't grab the clipboard out of her hands fast enough to sign it.

By the end of that week, every single pothole on Pozo Road had been filled.

Now, why don't y'all go "Celebrate Los Osos," and don't forget to "send your checks to Nash-Karner at 350 Mitchell Drive," as it read in the Bay News the other day.

Hey, Los Osos, look! A little shiny thing. Now, send me a check, beeee-otches.

Mike said...

Apparently Ron has been deeper than usual into his cups this morning...

...BTW, without a few folks making sure the "process" was clean, we would have had a fully functional, fully permitted, flush and forget WWT system in operation today... but maybe I don't understand Ann's definition of "CLEAN process"... is that where anyone can sue to stop a legal and fully permitted public works project just because they don't happen to agree with 8 years of research, permitting, engioneering and let's not forget actually purchasing the required land...???? If anyone had their fat a.. on the scale, it sure wasn't Richard or the other pre-recall Directors...

..so unless the LOCSD is ready to again fund your next "CLEAN process" lawsuit Ann, are we to take it that we won't see your signature on any more of your lawsuits...????? ...or maybe the Rock will fund your next attempt....???? ...or your buddy Ron....??? Al, Gail, Lisa, Julie or Jeffie...???? This community is tired of hearing your pitiful bleating to try affixing blame to every one you personally disagree with... Fact it, the pre-recall Directors and volunteers did a fantastic job, it's too bad a few in this community had other uncompromising agendas, and it wasn't just to "move the sewer"...!!!!

M said...

Did you move back here to Los Osos Mike? Cause I know you haven't lived here for awhile. I was just curious about the "we" you keep talking about.
Sincerely, M

Alon Perlman said...

For those who may want to know the results of today's Election as they tabulate.


This will not start showing results untill the Polls close

GetRealOsos said...

Hey Richard (Mike):

Wasn't it you who stared the project before the recall election when half the town didn't want the Tri-W location and before any Prop 218 vote was held?

...and wasn't MWH picked to do the project from at least the early 90's...and wasn't that why everyone was kicked out of town (like Mary Gayman, etc.)

If you would have done things properly and legally, people wouldn't have to be forced out of their homes.

The PZ is probably illegal too under the 218 law.

It's been bad decision making by you, Gordon and Pandora that's cost the community so much.

Besides, your Tri-W project wouldn't correct any nitrate problem either -- how could it if the nitrates are from natural sources as well as fertilizers (Water Board confirms this recently). So you want to force people out of their homes for what again? Refresh me on this.

And while you're at it, tell me why the horse stable property isn't in the PZ -- they don't pollute?

And refresh me on the fact that homes like Bruce Payne's house is in the PZ, but the house just a few feet behind him isn't? How can Bruce pollute yet his neighbor doesn't? Tell me how that works and how it has been proven that one property is polluting while the other isn't.

And I can tell you one thing, there will be another strong lawsuit if the state is asking for the SRF monies twice.

Why don't you tell us about that Richard? If the 6.5 million is in bankruptcy, how can the County add it again onto the PZ homeowners? And just the PZ homeowners at that?

Just curious Richard if you have any answers.

Mike said...

CONGRATULATIONS JIM GIBSON...!!!

Ron said...

Fog wrote:

"Some folk in town believe Ochyliski may have ties to the Taxpayers Watch group which will no doubt turn them off."

Beautiful, for two reasons.

1) That reminds me of how corporations donate money to both democrat and republican candidates in a campaign, just to hedge their bets. That way, no matter who wins, they're covered.

and;

2) How the "ties to the Taxpayers Watch group" is political suicide in Los Osos.

Hi-lar-i-ous!

Yeah, but... Gibson has MASSIVE ties to the Taxpayer Watch group -- just look at his Parks Commissioner -- and look how he fared.

Oh well, just chalk it up to dumb, easily manipulated Los Osos. (Hey, Los Osos... look! Another little shiny thing! Now send me another check.)

That reminds me...

Mike, did you "send a check to Nash-Karner at 350 Mitchell Drive, Los Osos, 93402," like it told you to in the Bay News?

How 'bout you, Richard?

'toons?

Los Osos?

You know what I think I'm going to do from here on in? Since Los Osos is too stupid to figure it out, I'm going to help her:

Hey, Los Osos, "send a check to Nash-Karner at 350 Mitchell Drive, Los Osos, 93402"... and make it FAT check, damnit!

And, just to be crystal clear, we in the county OUTSIDE of Los Osos don't laugh at your town because you DIDN'T build a "sewer park" in the middle of your town.

Nope.

We laugh at you because you spent seven years and $25 million trying to.

Now THAT's hilarious!

Watershed Mark said...

From: Mark Low [mailto:mark@modernhunter.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 11:45 AM
To: 'REDACTED'
Cc: 'adam hill'; 'assem. blakeslee'; 'BGibson@co.slo.ca.us'; 'fmecham@co.slo.ca.us'; 'jpatterson@co.slo.ca.us'; 'kotcho kachadjian'
Subject: “significantly less expensive"

REDACTED,

The statements below demonstrate, clearly, the bias business model that lead to the selection of Paavo’s handpicked (no bid) consulting engineering firm Carollo Engineers and perhaps why that firm never studied vacuum collection and other competitive technologies.

Paavo Ogren stated on the record, during an August 2007 SLO BOS Meeting: “If there is a technology that significantly less expensive, then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away.” During that same meeting, Supervisor Gibson looked into the camera and invited anyone with cost saving and effective technology to “show up” ASAP as the AB2701 was beginning and he was looking for technology that would save money.

We know that STEP/STEG saves money, yet it was “dropped” from the process prior to Paavo issuing the RFQ. The citizens who will be asked to actually pay for the 83-13/AB 2701 mandated system decision, did not receive a review of vacuum collection http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/EIR+Comments+P/DEIR+Airvac+01.30.09.pdf which is at: the heart of the matter.

Given today’s current economic environment it seems prudent to spend the effort, time and money to take a look at systems which conserve resources to build and operate the system being considered by SLO County BOS.

AB 2701, Blakeslee San Luis Obispo County.
(1) Existing law authorizes the establishment of community
services districts for the provision of various services to the
geographic area within a district, including the collection,
treatment, or disposal of sewage, wastewater, recycled water, and
stormwater.
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/05-06/bill/asm/ab_2701-2750/ab_2701_bill_20060829_enrolled.html

Watershed Mark said...

Money saved from employing those “significantly less expensive” technologies could be used to handle the “stormwater” component of AB 2701. The shallow directional drilled and smaller diameter pipe could be installed while implementing stormwater collection and treatment with the money saved from not using the “gravity” bell and spigot system. The energy required to operate the 22 lift stations really should be compared with the 3 or 4 vacuum stations in a vacuum collection design, now. This energy conservation aspect of vacuum was never reviewed or compared during SLO County’s $7M+ “study/review of alternatives. Why wasn’t it? Given the significant cost difference between vacuum and bell and spigot collection systems, that comparison should be made now more than ever before.

With the CCRWCB’s 2011 deadline almost here and their statements: that as long as SLO County continues progress, they will not pull the trigger on the CDO’s and NOV’s is appropriate for the review of “significantly less expensive” technologies to be accomplished given the huge difference in costs and operating savings at stake.

Only when “common sense” is re-introduced into your project can there be any sensible and sustainable result. Paying consultants who ignore money saving technology is both stupid and unsustainable. But that’s just my opinion. My hope is that your elected representatives will make the effort to actually and fairly review vacuum and other treatment technologies before they commit to “taking on” the building of a collection and treatment system and choose the technologies that are, as Paavo put it: “significantly less expensive.”

From: Waterguy [mailto:waterguy@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 7:43 AM
To: Onsite/decentralized wastewater management issues
Subject: [decentralized] Fw: the heart of the matter

If the agents of society put in place to look out for society's interests would actually do that, would we really have much problem getting to where Mr. Lindell asserted we need to be?


----- Original Message -----
From: Waterguy
To: [redacted]
Sent: Wednesday, June 09, 2010 9:19 AM
Subject: the heart of the matter

I requested a copy of a PEFR from [name redacted] and received it yesterday. In that report, I read this:

"5.0 ALTERNATIVES

"Since a sanitary sewer system was needed, there were no other alternatives considered. There was not an existing system, so a new design was required."

That is the sum total of the "alternatives analysis". It appears that [agency name redacted] accepts this sort of "analysis" without question, and in this case committed to funding on the basis of it. Just the pure hubris of this is sorta staggering -- this engineer KNOWS that there is one and only one solution to this problem -- which is not defined or documented to begin with -- and he doesn't need to demonstrate that to anyone. He may have his reasons for acting in this manner, but what is [agency name redacted]'s reason for aiding and abetting this unprofessional, anti-social behavior?

This is the heart of the problem I've been trying to get you to pay some attention to for years. [agency name redacted] appears to accept without question that whatever the project engineer chooses to present is indeed the full universe of options that might be considered in any given situation. So the very idea of determining the cost effective approach isn't even on the table. It cannot be stated any more starkly than that passage above.

Please, as the guardian of the public purse, give this matter some attention. Thank you.

David Venhuizen, P.E.
Planning and Engineering as if Water and Environmental Values Matter
www.venhuizen-ww.com

Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend a hand
For the times they are a-changin'
-- Bob Dylan

Watershed Mark said...

Hey there Lyin' Lynette, Little "r" doesn't live in the P-Zone, yet you swallow his bunk hook, line and sinker.

You think there won't be any legal action once the county finally, finally decides to "accept" the project?

If so, Ron is right, stupid is as stupid does. Now, shoot him a check.

Once the flag drops, the bull$#it stops. All you have to do now is: wait and see.

Watershed Mark said...

Lyin' Lynette,
FYI:

Checks to:
Ron Crawford
P.O. Box 120
Santa Margarita, CA
93453

Watershed Mark said...

Lyin' Lynette,
FYI:

Checks to:
Ron Crawford
P.O. Box 120
Santa Margarita, CA
93453

For Alon: Word Verification: shivers