tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post4999239092164816579..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-87790643693619166912007-12-16T11:51:00.000-08:002007-12-16T11:51:00.000-08:00Ann wrote: As I’ve posted here previously, it wil...Ann wrote:<BR/> <BR/> As I’ve posted here previously, it will remain to be seen in this Battle of Words, (and battle of government agencies) just what/who will prevail: county? State? Feds? And what the meaning of “is” is. Which means we’re back in Humpty Dumpty Land: What are “pollutants?” What’s a” point source discharge?”And so forth. And who decides? A state judge? A federal judge? Well, stay tuned.<BR/><BR/>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode33/usc_sec_33_00001362----000-.html<BR/>§ 1362. Definitions<BR/>(14) The term “point source” means any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged. This term does not include agricultural stormwater discharges and return flows from irrigated agriculture.<BR/><BR/>(16) The term “discharge” when used without qualification includes a discharge of a pollutant, and a discharge of pollutants.<BR/><BR/>(19) The term “pollution” means the man-made or man-induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and radiological integrity of water. <BR/><BR/>Also check out "defintions 13050 @<BR/>http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_laws/docs/portercologne.pdf<BR/><BR/>Ann,<BR/> Tom Murphy has delineated the law of the people. He has developed and patented the technology which is Federally compliant, sewerage is not.<BR/> <BR/>I know that the people of LO/BP have suffered mightily due to some in government and some private citizens not knowing the law. <BR/>You don't have to be an attorney to be a Supreme Court Justice.<BR/> <BR/>LO/BP and WB#3 has provided the ultimate opportunity to promulgate, illuminate and educate government and private citizens about the ultimate waste reduction/water conservation technology available. <BR/> <BR/>Remember; those folks in government are public servants, some are even sworn to uphold the law. Even if it doesn't seem like it sometimes... <BR/> <BR/>We aim to help those that wish to uphold the law, to do so and expose those who would not.<BR/> <BR/>This is good GOOD NEWS for the citizens, their environment and their wallets!Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-61366519272289381852007-12-16T11:24:00.000-08:002007-12-16T11:24:00.000-08:00From today's Tribune http://www.sanluisobispo.com/...From today's Tribune http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/221562.html<BR/><BR/>In her suit, filed Jan. 31, Killmer said the “huge” limb “had clear signs of rotting” and the county should have known it was dangerous. She missed a semester of teaching. <BR/><BR/>-"and the county should have known it."<BR/><BR/>Supervisor Gibson, what did you know and when did you know it?<BR/>What do you know now?<BR/>What are you prepared to do?<BR/><BR/>We are about to find out.<BR/><BR/>GRRRRRBear EXCREMENThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04790985081593050766noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-70825305402086156292007-12-16T10:27:00.000-08:002007-12-16T10:27:00.000-08:00Great post, Ann.Sleep in the bed you make 101:- - ...Great post, Ann.<BR/><BR/>Sleep in the bed you make 101:<BR/><BR/>- - -<BR/><BR/>Dear Supervisor Gibson,<BR/><BR/>Considering that Pandora Nash-Karner developed and implemented a "strategy" (her word), in 2005, to have the Regional Water Board fine the LOCSD "out of existence," is the same person that publicly endorsed you during your campaign, and then was your appointment as 2nd District Parks Commissioner, why should the 45 families that now have CDOs due to RWQCB enforcement actions have any faith at all that you represent their interests when it comes to those enforcement actions... against those 45 families?<BR/><BR/>See what I mean there?<BR/><BR/>You're closely aligned with the same person that <I>supports</I> the local Water Board fining the LOCSD and the property owners of Los Osos, so much so that <A HREF="http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/contrast.html " REL="nofollow">she developed, <I>and implemented</I></A>, a "strategy" to help make it happen, and <I>then</I> you appointed her to a powerful county seat, and now you're appearing before the local Water Board to... well, I'm not sure what.<BR/><BR/>So, I guess I have another question: Mr. Gibson, do you, like your Parks Commissioner appointment, also want to see the LOCSD "fined out of existence?"<BR/><BR/>Are you two aligned on that "strategy," or do you differ from her on that subject? If so, it might be beneficial for your constituents if you made that distinction clear and public -- the distinction that you, unlike your Parks Commissioner appointment, do not want the RWQCB to fine Los Osos "out of existence."<BR/><BR/>I can think of at least 45 families that would be very interested in that distinction.<BR/><BR/>Thank you,<BR/>RonRonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14156410299483542733noreply@blogger.com