Pages

Friday, May 23, 2014

Harvey and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day



Well, yesterday's Regional Water Control Board mini-hearing didn't go too well for staff CAO, Harvey Packard.  Agenda #14 was supposedly about asking the Board to remove the useless, stupid, horrible, pointless, no good CDOs from The Los Osos 45.  And, as the truth of the matter slowly spilled out, it turns out that it was several new Board members who had asked for an update and status review on the matter.  But instead of making that clear in an official, formal, complete notification to all the 45, Harvey was forced to fess up that he didn't do that.  Instead, he just sorta blew the whole thing off and instead casually asked CDO-holder, Bill Moylan, if he (Bill) could contact some of his fellow 45ers and see if they'd like to send in comments. 

It soon became clear that for Harvey, this Board request was just like, Oh, Whatever. And his lackadaisical approach left the Moylans with the clear idea that the whole thing was Harvey's idea.  Even his final staff report made no mention as to the source of this agenda item.  So it was a shock when he came back with his lame, ludicrous reasons for disapproving what clearly appeared to be his own request in order to keep the CDO's in place.

Naturally, once Harvey's muddling of this issue unwound at the hearing, I do not think the Board was amused. But, wait, it got worse.  Supervisor Bruce Gibson showed up to again request that the CDOs be removed and noted that if the Board was worried about compliance, the County has an ordinance in place that mandates --  with both civil and potentially criminal penalties  -- that homeowners hook up when the sewer goes on line.

Then Harvey was asked by a new Board member, whether he was familiar with the ordinance.  No, apparently Harvey had to admit he was unaware of its existence.  Then, to make matters worse, the new Board asked Harvey what other regulatory/legal/procedural methods were available to him (and/or the Board) to ensure compliance.  And CAO Harvey hemmed and hawed and had to admit he wasn't sure, possibly something could be done by the Attorney General, maybe, or he didn't know.  

All of which made clear what/who the problem with the RWQCB has always been:  A Board and staff  too often unprepared, uncaring, sloppy, incompetent, indifferent, heedless of consequences, or in the  words of  former staff member, Matt Thompson, uttered at Roger Brigg' insane Mad Hatter Tea Party Trial and Torquemada's Auto de Fe Extravaganza, that I guess we didn't think things through . . . .

(And, to be fair, a staff  often undertrained, overworked, understaffed,  and a Board burdened with enough technical reading material to digest and rule on that would choke an elephant. And, I need add,  "rule on" complex issues too often outside their area of expertise. Since these same people have the power and ability to ruin lives and injure communities, the disconnect between competence and overburden is a chronic, systemic problem and what can make regulators, without a good system of checks and balances, so dangerous.)      

Well the upshot of all this was that  Dr. Monica Hunter (who is now free to participate fully since the reason for her recusal as a Los Osos resident has been removed), sternly schooled Harvey for how he was to proceed when this issue again comes before the Board in September:  He is to formally, officially notify ALL the CDO recipients with full information notifying them of the hearing. None of this slipshod, whatever.  

So, no, not a good day for Harvey.  BUT, I think it may well have been a very good day for The Los Osos 45.  The new Board members were clearly uneasy about those CDOs, saw no point in them, expressed discomfort about the sheer unfairness of them.  (Former Chairman Young, who deserved to have a paper bag put on his head while this item was being discussed, wisely kept his mouth shut. He's smart enough to know you can't defend the indefensible, and the looney Mad Hatter Trial over which he presided had jumped the shark so far there was no hope of ever recovering.)

And so the consensus of the Board was to try to set up two-step hearings on the same September day.  The first item would be an informational hearing as to exactly what enforcement mechanisms are available to the Board.  (The Board is fearful that if they free the 45 that somehow they'll be helpless to do anything to anybody in the PZ ever again.  It's an example of a Board that still hasn't thought things through.) Then the second agenda item will be an action item: Discussion, public testimony, then a vote on whether or not to stop this nonsense and free The Los Osos 45.

Meantime, the Board will write a MOU to the 45 excusing their August requirement of tank pumping, a burden that pointlessly blows $600+ out of their budgets,  a  burden only The 45, out of the whole community, have to bear.

So, good news?  For the community, maybe.  As Supervisor Gibson noted, in making the case for stopping this insanity, the inherent unfairness  of the continued Board refusal to remove those CDOs is still an impediment to finally bringing the community together.

Indeed.  And that's because the CDOs remain a painful symbolic reminder of the basic injustice meted out to those 45 citizens who were stupidly, unfairly, pointlessly, sadistically hung out to dry. And left there to swing in the wind for years while everyone else in the community went on their merry way.


 

32 comments:

Ron said...

GREAT report, Ann!

I just got off the Trib's web site, and there were a lot of meaningless street-crime stories, but not a word on this meaty, fascinating, excellent story.

And, considering The (in bad need of sharpening) Shredder recently wrote, "I've used (the word 'nut') to describe just about anyone who has issued an opinion on the Los Osos sewer," I can only assume that New Times "reporters" are now forbidden from covering this amazing story... you know, or else they would be "nuts," according to Shred.

And, of course, Los Osos' own Bay "News"... well, considering that the advertisers that keep that "news"paper afloat are the same people that whipped up the "strategy" to have The Los Osos 45 "fined Los Osos out of existence" in the first place, I'm thinkin' they're probably not going to provide a whole lot of (if any) REAL coverage on this great story (one of the best stories in the county in a looooong time).

And that's that. Those are the ONLY 3 "news"papers around to cover this blow-your-hair-back excellent story.

Soooo, I've said it a million times before, and I'm gonna say it again: Thank GOD for blog technology!

[Oh, and for those who took me up on my bet that the worse-than-nothing local so-called "media" wouldn't write a word on this intensely great story, you can drop off my 12-vers of Heineken at The Pozo Saloon. I'll leave a pallet.]

Ann writes:

"He (Jeff Young) is smart enough to know you can't defend the indefensible."

What? NOW he figures that out?

Doesn't sound too smart to me.

Ann writes:

"... when this issue again comes before the Board in September..."

BEAUTIFUL!

That's also the start of fleecing season in Los Osos.

So, between those TWO great stories, it should be a busy (and fun) time at ol' SewerWatch... (uh, unlike the first half of the year, where I haven't published a single post : -)

Anonymous said...

I wouldn't waste my time on SewerWatch. It's poorly written and poorly researched by a has been and never was. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I also attended this meeting. While I thought Harvey Packard seemed unprepared, the reasons for which Ann outlined (overworked, understaffed which I know to be true) I saw a different story, one more focused on getting rid of the CDOs, which from the get go were unfair as we ALL did not get one. You can read my take of the meeting on my blog if you care to.

I think no one has ever taken the time to look at the side of the Water Board. They have a mandate to protect the waters of California. Don't we want that? Or do we only want that for OTHER communities? We could drink poison or dust if no one monitored this.

Los Osos is a community has been polluting for years and at every turn has thwarted the solution. (We could actually DRINK the water in the upper aquifer in the 70s!) In 1983 Los Osians voted to NOT fund a sewer even though the upper aquifer had become too polluted to drink anymore.

Granted, at first the Water Board was very weak and lame, the County was allowed to diddle away for years with NO results, in fact it allowed additional houses to be built while the pollution was already over the top. The WB tolerated the handover from the County to the newly minted CSD, but at that point were so skeptical that they hounded the new CSD to hurry up OR ELSE. Then that sewer blew up. Hounding wasn't enough, action was the only solution left to them. Hence CDOs. The Water Board had a side. They needed a tool to make a sewer happen. They didn't have that many tools. NOVs are toothless really and who among us besides us sewer geeks even knows we non-CDO recipients even has one?

If the 218 did NOT pass, the REAL hammer would have come down on us, all of us. The bankrupt CSD would have gotten the sewer project back, could do nothing but perhaps find some shysters to loan us money at credit card rates to build who knows what on the cheapest of the cheap, which we would pour money in to repair it frequently (you get what you pay for). Meanwhile you can bet we all would have gotten CDOs or fines of $5,000/day to discharge.

Really, what did the Water Board HAVE to get us to realize that we HAD to have a sewer? We couldn't just keep stalling by changing our minds over which type every few years? And it was clear that there was NO CONSENSUS on which type we would fund or IF we would fund! Remember, the Tri-W project did it all on rates and charges, NO 218 (which we have now and which gave us the lovely $25,000 liens against our houses).

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ron, you forgot to mention CalCoastNews who also did not cover the story.

Anonymous said...

And CalCoastNews did not cover the story because it puts Bruce Gibson in a favorable light. Can't have balance. Nope. Never.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

You are sure right about that!

Churadogs said...

Toonces, you can't put lipstick on this pig. The CDOs for 45 people was : 1)stupid 2)useless 3)pointless 4) wrong, wrong,wrong.

Anonymous said...

We appreciate YOUR "opinion" of the original purpose of the CDO's and your version of the meeting Ms. Calhoun.

Anonymous said...

Her version of history and the sewer war politics is one-sided and skewed away from reality. But then she's just an old person exercising her me-first dementia.

Anonymous said...

Not to defend the CDOs, but wasn't it Gail McPherson that faxed the names of the recipients to the Water Board prior to them being issued? Since you've worked with Gail, Ann, wouldn't that be something worth disclosing to your readers?

Ron said...

'toons writes:

"Ron, you forgot to mention CalCoastNews who also did not cover the story."

Uh, well, they don't count... do they?

I mean, what I'm getting at is, this excellent story doesn't involve genitalia, and they've made it perfectly clear -- from Wilcox to Paavo to Bruce -- that they don't do "in-depth" investigative journalism UNLESS it involves genitalia.

Then an Anon writes:

"And CalCoastNews did not cover the story because it puts Bruce Gibson in a favorable light. Can't have balance. Nope. Never."

Well, I can't speak for CCN, but, I gave Bruce big ups, yo, in the previous comments on this topic, when I wrote:

"... (including Supervisor Gibson's excellent comments [by the way, I noticed Clift didn't supply any comments])... "

Here, I'll even do it again: Was Muril at that meeting, standing up for the LO45?

I'm thinkin': No.

Of course, I also made the excellent point:

"... how does Bruce square all of this up? For example, here he is, pleading with the RWQCB, over and over again, to STOP fining Los Ososans 'out of existence,' yet, the person that masterminded the 'strategy' to fine Los Ososans "out of existence" in the first place, Pandora, is Bruce's own Parks Commissioner."

So, what Bruce is doing here makes ZERO sense.

Here he is, to his credit, writing all of these letters, and attending all of these meetings, standing up for the LO45, but the person that is (arguably) solely responsible for the LO45 is, like, his BFF.

I just don't understand stuff like that.

And, speaking of those previous comments... remember Anon 2:05's quote?:

"The property owners are encouraging the RWQCB to let the CDO/NOV's stay in place until the WWTF is operational!""

Well, did they?

Ann, did THE Property Owners really line up at public comment to tell "the RWQCB to let the CDO/NOV's stay in place until the WWTF is operational!?"

Again, I'm thinkin': Anon 2:05? Not so accurate on that one. [Imagine that... an anonymous blog commenter not being accurate. Huh... imagine that.]

Damn, I REALLY want to watch this meeting -- I mean, c'mon: "Dr. Monica Hunter... sternly schooled Harvey," and, "Former Chairman Young, who deserved to have a paper bag put on his head while this item was being discussed, wisely kept his mouth shut"... MUST see TV! -- but when you go to their "Board Info --> Webcasts" link, the meeting's not there.

So, I emailed their webmaster and s/he told me:

"We generally do not record webcasts, and the words "Audio" and "Video" that appear on pages for past webcasts do not indicate whether a meeting was recorded. To find out if it was, and how to obtain a copy, please contact the coordinator listed for the meeting you are interested in."

Oh, you've gotta be f-ing kidding me. What? I have to turn into Joe Investigative Journalist just to watch that meeting?

Damn.

Anonymous said...

Was Crawford even at the meeting? I don't remember seeing/hearing him Thursday.

Anonymous said...

Ron barks:

"I have to turn into Joe Investigative Journalist just to watch that meeting?"

Do it, Ron. It would be the first time you turned into an investigative reporter in any form.

As you have clearly shown through your wasted years, that takes a maturity you can never achieve.


Anonymous said...

Ron,
You need to post weekly on your blog page to qualify for the Pulitzer Prize you seek. Your last post was in January.
What gives?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann, we all should have gotten CDOs. As was explained, they intended to issue 4800 of them but when they saw how that was going, money-wise and time-wise, the Board told staff to stop issuing them. Had PZLDF not sued the Board, maybe the CDOs would have been rescinded years ago. It was certainly the reason they refused to dump them the first time Bruce Gibson wrote the letter asking the Board to dump them.

Critical to understanding here is how those who got CDOs and settled, felt about all of this. I have personally heard from no one in that category and it would be important for a full understanding of what happened.

That McPherson was key to the riling up people into mounting a lawsuit is also not explained clearly. Why did some join the lawsuit and of the ones that didn't, why not? McPherson herself didn't live in the PZ and none of her chosen Recall Directors got a CDO either. But we all know she had a personal ax to grind with the Water Board. Would the lawsuit have happened at all had she not been there?

I have never heard the theory posited above about McPherson faxing names to the Water Board. Interesting!

Ron, the Water Board generally does not film its meetings. So if you don't go, you are out of luck. You missed the boat this time.

FOGSWAMP said...

Toons stated "We could actually DRINK the water in the upper aquifer in the 70's"......."the upper aquifer had become too polluted to drink anymore".

Nice spin, however not altogether factual.

There are many shallow (100' to 200') upper aquifer private water wells still being used in the town & basin, approved by the health department and drinkable.

According to our CSD website our "groundwater is very clean and is simply disinfected to help minimize the chance of any viral bacterial contamination".

Even the Fugro Groundwater
Sampling Quality Report dated February 2, 2012. prepared for CDM confirms the aforementioned

I assumer that is why the sewer contractors were allowed to dump it all over our streets & into the bay.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

FOG, please refer to the Basin Plan. The link is on the CSD website. I don't think there is much detail on the private, shallow aquifer wells, and how many of them are used for drinking and how many are for irrigation.

The water purveyors are only allowed to use upper aquifer water by blending with the lower to achieve drinking water standards.

Of course the wells the CSD uses produce clean water, they are for the most part coming from the lower aquifer.

As for the Fugro Report,
Results of the water quality analyses indicate that no detectable levels of asbestos, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), semi-volatile compounds or dioxin were present in any of the groundwater samples. Several metals were detected at levels above the method detection limit including arsenic (well -13L5), chromium (all wells), copper (wells –13L5and -7Q1), lead (-18C1), mercury (-7Q1), nickel (-13L5, -18C1 and -7Q1) and chromium III (all wells). Additionally, several organic compounds (purgeables) were detected in several wells as indicated on Table 2. Note that the detections above the method detection limit are not necessarily above the screening level required by the RWQCB, the comparison to which was not performed, but will be required as part of the dewatering program.

Plus, where was there nitrate testing in that chart of what they tested for? What is in the shallow water, and leaching into the bay already I might add, does not mean we can drink the stuff.

Please point us all to your source on the many upper aquifer wells being used - thanks.

FOGSWAMP said...

Toons ..... It's common knowledge that most homes east of South Bay Blvd are on wells and also the Martin Track in town.

If you are genuinely concerned about the shallow depth and condition of the water 'not being drinkable' (as you allege) you can contact County Health. The records are available for each well, including well drill logs and water test results.

Please look at your source that states "We could actually DRINK the water in the upper aquifer in the 70s'". Perhaps you will find the number of upper aquifer wells in your source of information.



Anonymous said...

It appears Foggy has been drinking from his very own shallow well since the 1950's.

Anonymous said...

Toons wrote, "Had PZLDF not sued the Board, maybe the CDOs would have been rescinded years ago. It was certainly the reason they refused to dump them the first time Bruce Gibson wrote the letter asking the Board to dump them."

Take out the word "maybe" and you'd be 100% correct.

I spoke to Harvey Packard on a few occasions about Los Osos, and he kept bringing up PZLDF as being an "overly litigious" contingent that actually kept the CDOs in place because they kept their case going from continuance to continuance, and from ruling to appeal. The courts clearly stated that PZLDF did not have a case, but PZLDF kept going anyway.

The reason why people like Packard remain concerned about the CDOs being lifted is because of litigation. Not that the litigation has any chance of being successful, but that litigation stops progress. There's a lot of unnecessary foot-dragging.

I hold Ann accountable for a lot of this because she promoted this obstructionism, and when the first tentative ruling from Judge Crandall indicated that the lawsuit was going to bomb, Ann pretended that she was no longer involved; that she "moved on." Clearly she hasn't. Why would she continue to promote the "Los Osos 45" and Ron Crawford's "Hideous Sewer Wars" rants? Ask yourselves that.

In short, Ann, if the CDOs are "stupid, pointless, and wrong wrong wrong," why did you support lawsuits that kept them in place? Not very honest, are you?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

FOG, I'm not about to see if I can pull records on private wells. But here is what I found in searching around:

It is clear from the document at the link below these two paragraphs, if in testing and reporting, the nitrates are too high, a person can just install,

A permanent treatment system, meeting applicable code requirements, shall be installed on the water supply that will effectively remove nitrate. Proof of installation shall be provided to the Division of Environmental Health.

So who knows if the well water is drinkable "as is" or it has had a permanent system installed to remove the nitrates?

Source:
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PH/Environmental+Health+Services/Programs/Water/Water+Systems/Forms/County+of+SLO+Domestic+Water+Treatment+Notification.pdf

Now go to this link below and look at the data from the 2014 report the sewer project needs to log with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to establish a baseline.

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/document+library/Baseline+GroundwaterQuality+Report$!c2$!a02014.pdf

Look at Page 4 Conclusions,
Twenty of the 26 wells exceeded the MCL drinking water standard set by the EPA of 10 mg/L nitrate and two wells were equal to the MCL. Nitrate concentrations decreased by 85% in groundwater monitoring well 18A and increased by 74% in groundwater monitoring well 18J6r (a well with a total well depth of 35 feet).

Look at well locations and depths shown on Page 6 and 7 and the Nitrates on Page 8.

Some of these wells are shallow. So whatever was true once abut domestic wells being good to drink from, who knows now except the individual owners and the Department of Health Services.

To answer your question on numbers of domestic wells refer to the Basin Plan:
http://www.slocountywater.org/site/Water%20Resources/Reports/pdf/Basin%20Plan%20Public%20Review%20Draft%208.1.2013.pdf

Page 38 - for rural residential homes (on well water)— there are 138 in the Central Urban Area and 76 in the Eastern Area. But again, we don''t know how many of those have home treatment systems for nitrates, or have drilled deeper to get to better water.

Anonymous said...

I agree fully with Anon 12:49!!!

That is the most succinct statement made on this blog.

"I hold Ann accountable for a lot of this because she promoted this obstructionism, and when the first tentative ruling from Judge Crandall indicated that the lawsuit was going to bomb, Ann pretended that she was no longer involved; that she "moved on." Clearly she hasn't. Why would she continue to promote the "Los Osos 45" and Ron Crawford's "Hideous Sewer Wars" rants? Ask yourselves that.

In short, Ann, if the CDOs are "stupid, pointless, and wrong wrong wrong," why did you support lawsuits that kept them in place? Not very honest, are you?"

Very well said!!!

FOGSWAMP said...

Well- oh- well!

Seemingly, Phoenix the fire-bird has returned and rising from the ashes.

Get over it. We've flogged the horse into the trailer and moved it to the barn out of town.

Thank you Bruce Gibson.

Anonymous said...

Where is Ann Calhoun's personal apology to the community for her divisive role in continuing to fight, to delay, to add to the incredible expense of the undeniably necessary waste water treatment system?

Anonymous said...

As soon as construction began, McPherson fled to Sandpointe, Idaho, her job of planting the sewer for the county and ripping off the CDO recipients for thousands done.

This was okay with Ann. Complaining about the Water Board after McPherson kept the CDOs alive is all part of the scam.

Anon 12:49 nailed it, sadly.

We have all paid a big price for such treachery.

Ron said...

An Anon asks:

"Ron,
You need to post weekly on your blog page to qualify for the Pulitzer Prize you seek. Your last post was in January.
What gives?
"

That is a great and fair question, and thank you for asking it. And the answer to that great question is kinda long, but it's interesting.

You know what happened there? After that first "post" I did this year, in the first week of January, I missed the very next week, and that was that for 2014.

According to the Pulitzers (and as you correctly point out Anon), for my blog to be eligible, I have to post something "at least weekly," and if I miss just one week -- in the entire year -- I'm no longer eligible for that year.

I'm tellin' ya, it's quite an undertaking. Think about it: I could publish "at least weekly" for 50 weeks with the SOLE purpose of submitting a Pulitzer entry at the end of the year, and, say, on the 51st week, I missed the deadline, I wouldn't even be eligible anymore, and the previous 50 weeks would have been for nothing.

Which gets directly back to the extraordinary story of how I made Pulitzer history back in 2010, when, after I DID publish something "at least weekly" -- for the entire year -- the cool folks at the Pulitzer Admin DID accept my submission, and for a submission to be officially accepted (where they go on to cash your $50 entry fee check ; -), it has to "adhere to the highest journalistic principles," which SewerWatch clearly does. (I mean, c'mon... not only do I only cite primary sources, but, whenever possible, I also link directly to them, which I consider THE "highest journalistic principle," and is also exactly why I prefer blog over print. In print, you can't link directly to primary sources. Blog you can. It's awesome. I love it.)

Now, with that said, as it stands now, only my blog is no longer eligible this year (because of that whole "at least weekly" thing), however, I'm still eligible.

All I need to do to get a Pulitzer entry in for 2014, is have the story I plan on entering published in something that DOES publish "at least weekly," and you know who meets that criteria? My favorite media in SLO County: Calhoun's Can(n)ons.

And, like I show above, come this fall, when this amazing LO45 story starts coinciding, and overlapping, with my excellent Fleecing of Los Osos story, welp, I should have another mind-blowingly great entry this year.

[Oh, and, Trib, and New Times? If you guys ever want to hear the extraordinary story of how I -- a SLO County blogger -- made Pulitzer Prize history back in 2010, you have my email address. (I'm sure they'll get right on that... yo.)]

Ron said...

P.S. I just realized that I didn't explain WHY I made Pulitzer history:

2010 was the first year they began accepting "online-only news sites" entries, which means I was one of the first -- if not THE first -- official Pulitzer entry that never had one word printed on paper.

How cool is that?

Anonymous said...

I highly encourage people to not respond to Wrong Crawford. There's not enough eye bleach in this world to read his blog.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Please explain what you mean about Bruce Gibson FOG.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I agree Anon 11:44AM.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely Anon 11:44. It only feeds that drunk's sick mind.

He doesn't live in Los Osos, has no real connection and doesn't not attend Water Board meetings which affect out lives.

Anonymous said...

Agreed 11:44. Alas the tyke is broken.