tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post8690834435373376050..comments2023-10-28T03:14:44.519-07:00Comments on Calhouns Can(n)ons: NewsstandGreghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04099049885765768069noreply@blogger.comBlogger66125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-25854353515366852692012-12-01T13:03:04.103-08:002012-12-01T13:03:04.103-08:00must check [URL=http://jacket-dresses.net/]moncler...must check [URL=http://jacket-dresses.net/]moncler jackets[/URL] for less nINKyqdX [URL=http://jacket-dresses.net/ ] http://jacket-dresses.net/ [/URL] <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-82895006515249333362008-01-21T15:31:00.000-08:002008-01-21T15:31:00.000-08:00Toons: I noticed you avoid the tough questions.-Bu...Toons: I noticed you avoid the tough questions.-But seriously, don't you believe that "scaleable" or better technology that will augment the RECLAMATOR is just around the corner? <BR/><BR/>More seriously-how old is your computer, cell phone, kids electronic games?<BR/><BR/>LO/BP citizens have been dumping into the upper aquifer more than shampoo residue forever. The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR will be able to meet or exceed any requirement or statute any other technology is subject to, faster and for less money.<BR/><BR/>I'm certain that the water companies are well aware of their fiduciary duties to supply legally complioant water and willtake the necessary measures to insure MCLG level water to their customers.<BR/><BR/>We are all entitled to our own opinions true. So in the sprit of Goose and Gander: The non-compliant county sewer process is "absurd" given the RECLAMATOR technology available today.<BR/>I know that "change" can be tough...Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-86584035997155680752008-01-20T19:16:00.000-08:002008-01-20T19:16:00.000-08:00Go for it mark if it floats your boat. Los Osos ho...Go for it mark if it floats your boat. Los Osos however, is sick of litigation. If you win (ha-ha) let us know.<BR/><BR/>Oh, btw your statement, "A few hormones and pharmaceuticals don't matter in your own water as they are yours," is just absurd. I don't usually ingest shampoo residue and don't care to start now. In case you weren't aware, water and the things it carries, percolates down to the upper aquifer which will be pumped for blending with lower aquifer water when the sewer is up and running.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-67872280985482627012008-01-20T04:03:00.000-08:002008-01-20T04:03:00.000-08:00Toons wrote:so - how do you propose to remove horm...Toons wrote:<BR/>so - how do you propose to remove hormones and pharmaceuticals if your device doesn't use peroxide or UV light?<BR/><BR/>Toons: Here's a thought- Sue gig pharmaceuticals, it worked for big tabacco...<BR/><BR/>I wonder if John Edwards will be up for it after the primaries?<BR/><BR/>Bur seriously, don't you believe that "scaleable" or better technology that will augment the RECLAMATOR is just around the corner? <BR/><BR/>More seriously-how old is your computer, cell phone, kids electronic games?<BR/><BR/>Why are you so invested in a non compliant sewer that keeps climbing in cost because it's based on "old" technology that leaks/stinks and uses more energy (which keeps climbing in cost)compared with newer more efficient technology?<BR/><BR/>Actually suing big P isn't a bad idea, is it?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-59965956214755554592008-01-19T20:00:00.000-08:002008-01-19T20:00:00.000-08:00Sewertoons said... mark, the Orange County plant c...Sewertoons said... <BR/><BR/>mark, the Orange County plant cost almost $500 million to do toilet to tap. Why weren't you there to save them bundles of money?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- Toons: The Orange County project is already done. We are currently working on the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. "Be here now"- The CCRWQCB is...<BR/><BR/>Here is what NPR had to say about the Orange County plant:<BR/>"But the real action takes place downstairs in a labyrinth of pipes. Engines push the water through the plant's microfilters. Using high pressure, reverse osmosis, it's then forced through a thin membrane. Finally, the water is injected with peroxide and blasted with ultraviolet light to remove lingering hormones and dissolved pharmaceuticals."<BR/><BR/>so - how do you propose to remove hormones and pharmaceuticals if your device doesn't use peroxide or UV light?<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- A few hormones and pharmaceuticals don't matter in your own water as they are yours. Additonally, they don't bother toilet flushing or irrigation reuse applications.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-76063441128111924292008-01-19T19:52:00.000-08:002008-01-19T19:52:00.000-08:00Shark:The RWQCB has NO CHOICE but to approve the R...Shark:<BR/><BR/>The RWQCB has NO CHOICE but to approve the RECLAMATOR. Furthermore, if they don’t do it real soon, Mr. Murphy is going to file a claim against them for every septic tank they have allowed a permit to be issued for, allowing such a toxic discharge of pollutants. Since 1977, permitting of a septic tank has been done in direct violation of USC Title 33 Chapter 26 Sec. 1311 (a).<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>The number of septic tanks in the RWQCB jurisdiction is well over 100,000 which have been permitted in violation of this United States Statute at Large. The RWQCB became aware of the best available technology for pretreatment applications in 1993 which was required to be promulgated throughout their jurisdiction on that year, besides the ones in the prohibition zone. The little $80 million dollar “stinger” Mr. Murphy has already filed against them is only a sample of what they are about to have to answer to IF they don’t find a way to “approve” the RECLAMATOR before “D” Day, February 5, 2008. I will give you a hint; it is about 20Xs the $80 million claim.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>It will never go to court, even though Mr. Murphy wants it to. If it goes to court and they lose, it becomes a new case law that the RECLAMATOR is mandatory nationally, not just a US Code anymore. They would be hung by their own kind if they allow this to happen. They have to surrender well before it ever goes to “court”. Besides, the delay court would make doesn’t effect us, only them.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>You have a misunderstanding about the result of a “required hookup”. A “required hookup” to those with a RECLAMATOR only means they don’t have to pay for anything, no water fee anymore, no user fee for the RECLAMATOR anymore as well as no sewer fee. Mr. Murphy has already stated that if any property served by the AES Discharge Elimination Services is subject to a “required hookup”, AES will pay for his client’s water and wastewater services charges. “Tying into a community system” isn’t a bad thing Shark Inlet, but a GOOD thing.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>The mindset that “we have to work with the RWQCB in the future” is wrong. We don’t have to work with any regulatory authority as the water quality the RECLAMATOR produces is of a standard which is “non-enforceable pubic health goal”. It is just like you when you turn on your irrigation water. You don’t have to work with the RWQCB do you? We don’t either because the water produced by the RECLAMATOR is of the same quality. They won’t “lead”, they won’t “follow”, so we are just going to require the RWQCB just get out of the way…. And stay out of the way as they have NO AUTHORITY OVER THE RECLAMATOR LOCATED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY! Their authority begins and ends with “discharge of waste” and management of wastes in public right of ways, i.e. conventional publicly owned collection systems. We have neither. <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>The County IS out to rape the Citizens of Los Osos, just fact. Mr. Murphy isn’t going to work with the County. The County will have to work with Mr. Murphy as each of their engineers will receive notification from the California Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors to specify the RECLAMATOR technology by “brand name or equal” in the very near future. Otherwise, they will be operating in violation of federal law and stand to lose their License to Practice.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>The County’s job is to regulate on the behalf of AES in service to AES and the technology it represents. It isn’t for us to strive to make the County happy working with us, it is up to the County to do their job and make AES happy, promulgating the best available technology as they are required to do under federal law. Get the picture? Your idea in regards to the direction of a relationship we might have with the County is somewhat tarnished Shark Inlet.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Their 30 years of brain washing they have imposed on you guys has not affected us. We still know who they are and what their job is. They are our public servants. Their job is to serve us, like it or not, not us serve them. If they abuse serving us as is their obligation, they are the ones subject to correction, not us. AND, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN SERVING YOU IN YOUR BEST PUBLIC INTEREST.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>In regards to a guarantee, we are offering you a guarantee as a community. The community will own a third of the AES Discharge Elimination Company. What better guarantee would you want? Also, Mr. Murphy is installing the first RECLAMATOR in his home in Bayridge Estates where all can come and see it work. AES guarantees 1) federal law provides for federal grant assistance to cover 75% - the County guarantees there are NO federal grants to cover construction costs of the sewer, 2) AES guarantees its services are less than half the projected cost of the County sewer – the County guarantees that their projected costs are NOT guaranteed and are subject to increase, 3) AES guarantees each of its customers a discharge elimination service that will provide its customers a sustainable water source equal to the amount of water they use each day in their home, a 100% water conservation device which provides 100% of their water for a reuse benefit to them forever – the County guarantees depriving you of all water used in your household per day for ever and you will never have it back without paying for it again, 4) AES guarantees no streets will be ripped up in the whole community – the County guarantees ripping up 42 miles of streets and roads in the community over the next five years, 5) AES guarantees project completion within just a couple of years beginning hooking ups in only a couple of months – the County has stated it won’t even be able to hook up one home for at least 5 years, and 6) AES will guarantee that for each customer it provides Discharge Elimination services to the cost to each of the County sewer patrons goes up unilaterally, i.e. if half of the community wants sewer, they would have to pay $140,000.00 plus per DUE – the County can not legally impose public sewer services on those who don’t want it. And one last guarantee, Mr. Murphy guarantees you will be very unhappy with the results of the County sewer if it happed, which it won’t now just because it economically can’t.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Your right! Tom is already working on an insurance program that will insure you have no chance of investment loss. I believe it should cost an additional percentage and be available if it is desired. I recall hearing something on the order of 15%.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>The other party is the LOCSD. Mr. Murphy is offering them an opportunity to be that other party you can rely on. He offered it to the County and they didn’t take him up on it, now it is the CSD’s chance. If they don’t, we have NSF International and who else could you want with more credibility than them?<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>For what “defined” reason does AES need backing? AES has done over 100 projects with no “backing”, why do we need any now? They don’t need the money as Mr. Murphy already has two banks that will provide any needed financing for the project. What could a “backer” offer that we need? What would we ask for? Your suggestion initially appears to be a reasonable consideration, but after evaluation, not logical or applicable. What would we tell them we needed, backing? Backing for what? <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>The lifeline is out. AES will start signing up subscribers to its Discharge Elimination Services the first of February and will start installing after the first 200 subscribers.Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-21548470632138621642008-01-18T19:51:00.000-08:002008-01-18T19:51:00.000-08:00mark, the Orange County plant cost almost $500 mil...mark, the Orange County plant cost almost $500 million to do toilet to tap. Why weren't you there to save them bundles of money?<BR/><BR/>Here is what NPR had to say about the Orange County plant:<BR/>"But the real action takes place downstairs in a labyrinth of pipes. Engines push the water through the plant's microfilters. Using high pressure, reverse osmosis, it's then forced through a thin membrane. Finally, the water is injected with peroxide and blasted with ultraviolet light to remove lingering hormones and dissolved pharmaceuticals."<BR/><BR/>so - how do you propose to remove hormones and pharmaceuticals if your device doesn't use peroxide or UV light?Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-83376451773197346102008-01-18T13:50:00.000-08:002008-01-18T13:50:00.000-08:00Mark,You talk a good game.A few issues still make ...Mark,<BR/><BR/>You talk a good game.<BR/><BR/>A few issues still make me concerned. Perhaps you could address these issues.<BR/><BR/>First, if the RWQCB doesn't approve of the use of Reclamators for Los Osos as an alternative to tying into a community sewer, it would take a court to force them to allow this. What if the court doesn't order this or your company goes under before a court can render a decision in your favor. It would seem to me that I'm still needing to tie into the community system ... and if your legal actions force a delay in the community timeframe, that County price that you say is $70k per household will rise.<BR/><BR/>Second, what if you don't get the grants you say you think you'll get? Certainly suing the RWQCB doesn't seem like a good business model if you have to work with them in the future.<BR/><BR/>Essentially, you say that you should be trusted to provide a solution better, faster and cheaper than the County. The last two times folks in Los Osos heard these sort of claims and trusted them, hopes were dashed and costs have risen.<BR/><BR/>Presumably you can at least see why many are so hesitant to jump onboard.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I would also suggest you stop making claims like the County is using Los Osos to line their pockets. I rather doubt it is true and you certainly haven't offered us any evidence for this claim ... but ... even if it were true, again it sounds like the sort of thing which should be said with a far gentler tone. After all, if you want to work with the County in any way in the future, pissing off their professional staff is a poor way to start.<BR/><BR/>In summary, you say that you aren't offering a guarantee but you say that we shouldn't need a guarantee to trust you. I've seen enough business deals go South to realize that even with a guarantee from you, we would be out of luck if your company went belly-up. If you are so darn sure that your product works great and so darn sure that you can offer services that will solve our community water and legal (well, at least RWQCB) problems you should try convincing someone with deep pockets to offer a guarantee. Sure, they would want a cut of the action and I know that I would have to pay a whole lot more, but I would feel far better knowing that even if AES went under, we would have another party on the hook as responsible to provide services and pay fines if the services were deemed faulty by the RWQCB. If you raised your fees from what you say they should be, you would still be far cheaper than any other game in town.<BR/><BR/>Try to sell a deep pocket on the idea of backing you. If that works out, let us know and I'm sure that the level of interest in Reclamators will go way up.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-77105705352825622882008-01-18T10:09:00.000-08:002008-01-18T10:09:00.000-08:00Toons wrote:Where is your 10 years of required dat...Toons wrote:<BR/><BR/>Where is your 10 years of required data? Mark says-Please provide the statute for the basis of this question.<BR/><BR/>Toons wrote:<BR/><BR/> This isn't scientific proof by a long shot! Marks says- Please provide the statute for the basis of this statement.<BR/><BR/>Toons wrote:<BR/><BR/>I can't see that you have anything stateside in the Los Osos range of 1MGD. Marks says- The RECLAMATOR was engineered and designed for the LOSTDEP. We will not be doing an "end of ~p~i~p~e", system here. <BR/><BR/>Toons wrote:<BR/><BR/>Well except this -- is the Hudson beef plant you refer to in your literature that discharged 1.5MGD in Hope Arkansas? Is it this one - the one that isn't Hudson anymore? Mark says- I'll research this and report back later.<BR/><BR/>(Off this site: http://www.rense.com/general6/arkTyson.htm)<BR/><BR/>"…the Clinton Agriculture Department stepped in to police an E. coli outbreak at one of Husdson's plants.<BR/><BR/>On August 12, 1997, Hudson issued a recall for 20,000 pounds of frozen hamburger when 16 people were sickened - none fatally - after eating undercooked burgers. Clinton Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman later determined the meat was contaminated by a potentially deadly strain of E. coli."<BR/><BR/>"…Hudson had to recall a crippling 25 million pounds of beef, costing the company its largest customer, Burger King."<BR/><BR/>Mark says- Toons, you have hit on a subject that will require a little graphic discussion to fully develop a substantive answer. E-coli 0H-157 found in meat products although sometimes is passed on by inadequate worker sanitation is mostly caused by cross contamination during evisceration at time of slaughter, 'nuff said. I could go on for an hour about the history and how processes have changed to include technology to reduce the incidence of contamination, but think it more prudent to point you and anyone else who is interested to a family style discussion located at- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escherichia_coli_O157:H7 while you are at the Wiki you might want to stop by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Osos . We are currently developing the RECLAMATOR Wiki page. I continue to work towards the technology promulgation and use for the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. It's going make one sweet Wiki exhibit!<BR/><BR/>Transmission<BR/>A major source of infection is undercooked ground beef; other sources include consumption of unpasteurized milk and juice, raw sprouts, lettuce, and salami, and contact with infected live animals. Waterborne transmission occurs through swimming in contaminated lakes, pools, or drinking inadequately treated water. The organism is easily transmitted from person to person and has been difficult to control in child day-care centers.<BR/><BR/>E.coli O157:H7 is found on cattle farms and can live in the intestines of healthy cattle. The toxin requires highly specific receptors on the cells' surface in order to attach and enter the cell; species such as cattle, swine, and deer which do not carry these receptors may harbor toxigenic bacteria without any ill effect, shedding them in their feces from where they may be spread to humans. Meat can become contaminated during slaughter, and organisms can be thoroughly mixed into beef when it is ground into hamburger. Bacteria present on the cow's udders or on equipment may get into raw milk. Although the number of organisms required to cause disease is not known, it is suspected to be very small.<BR/><BR/>Eating contaminated meat (especially ground meat) or produce that has not been cooked sufficiently to kill E. coli O157:H7 can cause infection. Contaminated foods look and smell normal.<BR/><BR/>Sewer Controversy<BR/><BR/>The community is deeply divided over the issue of where a sewer should be built. The cost of the sewer is well over $150 million and many are worried they will have to move because they cannot afford a potential $200- to $300-dollars-a-month sewer bill. There has been a building moratorium for decades because the town's septic tanks are too numerous and concentrated to dissipate nitrates, which are not broken down by septic tanks. Nitrate levels are regulated by federal and state environmental agencies because of the pollutant's health hazards. The Los Osos Community Services District is the agency in charge of building the sewer. It also provides for the town's drinking water, drainage, parks, recreation, and street lighting. Fire and rescue services, and trash services are franchised to outside companies. The CSD was formed after citizens balked at the cost of the county's proposed sewer. However, the price of the current plan has ballooned as a project is repeatedly delayed.<BR/><BR/>There is also a controversy about where the sewer should be built. A location in the center of Los Osos (also known as the Tri-W site after the name of the property) was chosen, partly because of a desire for an additional park. Despite critic's claims, the County, water board and Coastal Commission all approved a sewer at the Tri-W site.<BR/><BR/>In August 2005, the CSD began building a sewer at the Tri-W site, contractors began work on the project and were advanced payments from State Revolving Fund loan. Following a recall election which replaced the majority of the CSD board and enacted an initiative measure that would require relocation of the project, the new board stopped building the sewer, despite a letter warning them of severe consequences from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Due to the action of the new CSD board, the costs of the sewer project were greatly increased. In October 2005, the CSD defaulted on a low interest State Revolving Fund loan and the state subsequently refused to disburse additional funds and demanded immediate repayment. Project contractors filed suit for more than $23 million in lost profits and costs. State and regional water boards have used their regulatory power to impose fines against the district in the amount of $6.6 million for water pollution resulting from septic tank discharge of more than 1 million gallons per day. During February 2006 the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a state agency, threatened it would begin to issue cease and desist orders to citizens of Los Osos, and may require recipients to pump their septic systems every three years, and to stop using them by 2011.<BR/><BR/>On August 25, 2006, the district filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in federal court. While the district had enough money to cover day to day needs, they did not have enough money to cover their legal fees and consultant fees. This action stays the legal actions against the district related to money owed. Contractor lawsuits and other actions seeking monetary damages or claims against the district will be held in abeyance while the district addresses its financial situation.<BR/><BR/>Additionally, legislation has been approved by the California legislature that would return control of construction of the wastewater treatment facility to the County of San Luis Obispo. The bill, AB 2701, was signed by the governor and went into effect January 1, 2007.<BR/><BR/>The region’s daily newspaper has written many stories on the sewer. The San Luis Obispo Tribune’s editorial board has written editorials supporting and/or condemning many of the agencies, and elected officials involved with the sewer. The paper’s Los Osos reporter, Abraham Hyatt, has written about AB 2701, the bankruptcy, and the CSD’s financial and legal problems.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Toons wrote:<BR/>Maybe they believed that toilet to tap stuff. <BR/>Mark says- There is no link between wastewater and e-coli 0157 H7 at Hudson /Tyson or any other meat processing firm I know about. The RECLAMATER doesn't produce treated waste. It produces<BR/>ultra filtration "permeate" to meet or exceed Maximum Contaminant Level Goals- http://www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/index.html<BR/><BR/>I guess you missed this:<BR/><BR/>----- Original Message ----- <BR/>From: Mark Low <BR/>To: Mark Low <BR/>Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 6:18 PM<BR/>Subject: O.C. sewage will soon be drinking water - Los Angeles Times<BR/><BR/><BR/>The RECLAMATOR turns wastewater into drinkable water on-site using less energy and for less money than this "process".<BR/>The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution..."from obstructionists to world visionaries"- who would stand against it?<BR/><BR/>http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-reclaim2jan02,1,732425.story?ctrack=1&cset=true<BR/><BR/>As a hedge against water shortages and population growth, Orange County has begun operating the world's largest, most modern reclamation plant -- a facility that can turn 70 million gallons of treated sewage into drinking water every day.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Science & Technology: The 'end of the pipe' for O.C. water agencies | water, county, california, orange, district - OCRegister.com<BR/>http://www.ocregister.com/science-technology/water-county-california-1958363-orange-district<BR/><BR/>Thinking ahead<BR/>Water agencies aren't just jostling for more state water-bond money. They say increased conservation along with new ways to generate supply are also high on their list of priorities.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Toons- The RECLAMATOR is the future of water. -It "skate(s) to where the puck will be"- Wayne "the Great" GretskyMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-22280040224389248572008-01-18T09:02:00.000-08:002008-01-18T09:02:00.000-08:00Shark Inlet said... Mark,I note with interest that...Shark Inlet said... <BR/><BR/>Mark,<BR/><BR/>I note with interest that you did *not* offer a guarantee, just the hope that Los Osos *might* be a good place to try out reclamators.<BR/><BR/>Essentially your response sounds as if you are interested in taking advantage of our plight by using us as a test case. What happens if the RWQCB doesn't approve your device? What happens if trusting you costs us money? Are you offering to pay my very real bills if my trust in your results in those bills increasing?<BR/><BR/>Once you agree to cover my increases we can talk. If you're not willing to stand behind both your device and the permitting process in such a way that my butt is covered, you should find someone else to use as a guinea pig.<BR/><BR/>Shark:<BR/><BR/>Los Osos is a place which needs our service and is the beginning of our services being offered nationally.<BR/><BR/> The County is attempting to “take advantage of your plight” by shoving a ¼ Billion dollar sewer pipe into their pocket books.<BR/><BR/> We don’t care if the RWQCB doesn’t “do their job” and “approve our device” as we have already made them aware that we aren’t subject to their approval and that they are obligated to “promulgating” the RECLAMATOR throughout their jurisdiction. If they refuse to do this much longer, the next claim will be for the entire jurisdiction of the RWQCB at approximately 100,000+ septic tanks (permitted since 1977 in violation of federal law) X $5,000 per day (amount of fine per day per DUE established by the RWQCB) X 20 years. It isn’t going to get better for the RWQCB if they continue to play this game. Also, the County will be included in this one as the County is the entity that has been writing the permits. As the USC Title 33 Chapter 26 is the main Code which defined what their job responsibilities are and of course they all have attorneys who are suppose to be able to convey the meanings of such laws, there is NO excuse for “negligence” under international law, Duty of Care. The County’s liability is probably around 20,000 septic tanks.<BR/><BR/> Trust in whomever you wish. The county price is $70,000 and rising. The AES price is $15,000 and grant compliant. Appears to be a no brainer to me… Our program eliminates you having to “trust” us. Once you “deed” the private utility easement, all other responsibility for performance falls on AES. Other than that, there are no guarantees offered otherwise besides death and taxes.<BR/><BR/> We agree only to; <BR/><BR/>1) eliminate the discharge of your pollutants (discharge)-(1a-which is the purpose of the entire, federally mandated-state executed, excercise)<BR/><BR/>2) indemnify you of all liability for all your discharges (2a-A government program does not do this!!)<BR/><BR/>3) reclaim and repurify all your household water to a reuse quality that can be used for indirect and direct beneficial reuses by you(1a, 2a)<BR/><BR/>4) keep a $25,000 tax assessment from being imposed upon your property(2a)<BR/><BR/>5) make you a stakeholder partner in the AES Service Company itself, generating an ongoing income and revenue for you and the rest of the Community forever. (2a, GROUNDBREAKING!) <BR/><BR/>If these points are not enough, you will just have to take the County guarantee to “cost” you $70,000.00 plus otherwise, forever...<BR/><BR/>You won't get the benefits 1-5. Which would be a "real" missed oppourtunity in anyone's book<BR/><BR/> We are willing to “stand behind you”, however, the permitting process only applies to “wastewater treatment” system that “discharge pollutants”, i.e. still discharge. The regulatory is obligated to issue a “discharge permit” only if the technology that eliminates the discharge of pollutants isn’t economically achievable, the RECLAMATOR is such a pretreatment technology. <BR/><BR/>Your butt has been covered, one way or the other. Tom has filed a $79.5 Million dollar claim against the RWQCB. $75 Million will be committed to fund the Los Osos AES project one way or the other. The reorganization plan Tom is going to submit to the CSD requires them to put up the $20 Million they get to go toward the other 25%. End (butt) result is, you get your RECLAMATOR for FREE, paid for by State and Federal grant assistance.<BR/><BR/>Our work efforts are fixed and focused like a laser beam on the TECHNOLGY and the LAW which supports its promulgation and use.<BR/><BR/>I hope you will understand...<BR/>Knowledge is Power. Power to the People.<BR/><BR/>When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. <BR/>Thomas JeffersonMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-10468404391991115842008-01-17T20:43:00.000-08:002008-01-17T20:43:00.000-08:00mark - you show 2 reports under test data. One fro...mark - you show 2 reports under test data. One from 1994 - 12 samples in a 6 month period. And I see one test in 2005. Where is your 10 years of required data? This isn't scientific proof by a long shot!<BR/><BR/>I can't see that you have anything stateside in the Los Osos range of 1MGD. Well except this -- is the Hudson beef plant you refer to in your literature that discharged 1.5MGD in Hope Arkansas? Is it this one - the one that isn't Hudson anymore?<BR/><BR/>(Off this site: http://www.rense.com/general6/arkTyson.htm)<BR/><BR/>"…the Clinton Agriculture Department stepped in to police an E. coli outbreak at one of Husdson's plants.<BR/> <BR/>On August 12, 1997, Hudson issued a recall for 20,000 pounds of frozen hamburger when 16 people were sickened - none fatally - after eating undercooked burgers. Clinton Agriculture Secretary Dan Glickman later determined the meat was contaminated by a potentially deadly strain of E. coli."<BR/><BR/>"…Hudson had to recall a crippling 25 million pounds of beef, costing the company its largest customer, Burger King."<BR/><BR/>Maybe they believed that toilet to tap stuff.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-24314413458777067562008-01-17T17:38:00.000-08:002008-01-17T17:38:00.000-08:00Toons asked: Where's the data the County is asking...Toons asked: Where's the data the County is asking for?<BR/><BR/>Try looking here; http://www.nowastewater.com/engineering_report.html<BR/><BR/>You might also have a look at this: http://www.nowastewater.com/documents/fraudulent_use_218.pdf<BR/><BR/>Ever wonder why there has not been any letters circulating from the government about these "exhibits"?<BR/><BR/>It must have something to do about technology and the law...Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-44422555693094085422008-01-17T17:37:00.000-08:002008-01-17T17:37:00.000-08:00Mark,I note with interest that you did *not* offer...Mark,<BR/><BR/>I note with interest that you did *not* offer a guarantee, just the hope that Los Osos *might* be a good place to try out reclamators.<BR/><BR/>Essentially your response sounds as if you are interested in taking advantage of our plight by using us as a test case. What happens if the RWQCB doesn't approve your device? What happens if trusting you costs us money? Are you offering to pay my very real bills if my trust in your results in those bills increasing?<BR/><BR/>Once you agree to cover my increases we can talk. If you're not willing to stand behind both your device and the permitting process in such a way that my butt is covered, you should find someone else to use as a guinea pig.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-39235720287730850932008-01-17T15:05:00.000-08:002008-01-17T15:05:00.000-08:00Sewertoons said... mark said:"Mark says- What guar...Sewertoons said... <BR/>mark said:<BR/>"Mark says- What guarantee is the county offering, besides putting a lien on your property which will not cover the cost of a gravity sewer and treatment plant at that site formally known as the Tri-W?"<BR/><BR/>Uh, <BR/>#1 - The County has a great track record for getting huge public works projects completed. I don't think you can say that. Mark says-We wouldn't want to..Sewers and Treatment Plants are not the most cost effective and efficient method to eliminate the discharge of pollutants. Those methods are clearly over-priced, environmentally UN-friendly, waste energyand water and not appropriate for use as the LOSTDEP solution. The law and technology support that position. Despite big brother's opinion.<BR/><BR/>#2 - The County lives here, there would be constant pressure on them to deliver. You could just fly-by-night. Mark says-Why would we do that? I guess you have not had enough time to fully digest the Re-org plan summary posted elsewhere on Ann's Land. Los Osos will serve as the world class example for the RECLAMATOR and the citizens get to participate, guaranteed.<BR/><BR/>#3 - The County has demonstrated their reliability with the excellence and knowledgeability of their staff which we all have gotten to know personally over the past year. You come on like snake oil salesmen with threats to the County and to Los Osos that you are above the law, we must comply with your demands and pose to us unproven claims of drinking water out of toilet flushes. Where's the data the County is asking for? Mark says- everyone is entitled to their own opinion, just not their own facts. History will demonstrate the quality of county staff's -"excellence and knowledgeability-" . We are working to abide by "all" the laws of the land. I guess that work can be a bit disruptive. At least LO/BP citizens won't have to suffer from it. Men at work...<BR/><BR/>#4 - No project has been chosen. You are trying to incite uneasiness. Mark says- If history and facts make you uneasy... they should.<BR/><BR/>Someone else may chime in, but that is all I could think of right know as to why we trust the County over you. Mark says- Given the history and acts on the ground, I would be as cautious about the county process as you are with ours. In God we trust.<BR/><BR/><BR/>8:47 PM, January 16, 2008<BR/><BR/><BR/>Here is aanother big brother public works "problem" which would have been avoided when Best Available Technology is put into use, as proposed by AES DES;<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says-This just in:<BR/><BR/><BR/>-----Original Message-----<BR/>From: Derrick [mailto:wheels@cvn.net] <BR/>Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:02 PM<BR/>To: Onsite/decentralized wastewater management issues<BR/>Subject: [decentralized] Ruptured Pipe Spills Sewage Into Schuylkill River<BR/><BR/>Ruptured Pipe Spills Sewage Into Schuylkill River<BR/><BR/>HARRISBURG (Jan. 11) - The Department of Environmental Protection is helping<BR/>with efforts to repair a ruptured sewage line near Reading.<BR/><BR/>A 42-inch pipe ruptured Thursday evening between the city's 6th and Canal<BR/>streets pump station and its Fritz Island wastewater treatment plant. The<BR/>estimated 10 million gallons of sewage that normally travel through the pipe<BR/>to the treatment plant are, temporarily, being discharged into the<BR/>Schuylkill River until repairs to the line are completed.<BR/><BR/>Downstream public water suppliers have been notified and will protect the<BR/>public by monitoring the quality of raw water. A bar screen is being used at<BR/>the pump station to remove solids.<BR/><BR/>The City of Reading continues to experience problems in repairing the break.<BR/>The discharge is on-going and DEP staff will remain on-scene. Currently,<BR/>there is no time estimate for repairs to be complete.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, back at the California State Budget Deficit: Belshé said the budget cuts highlight the need for the governor’s health reform proposal, which would raise additional money outside of state spending to qualify for $4 billion more in federal health care grants each year. <BR/><BR/>The additional state money would come from a variety of sources, including increased taxes on tobacco and new taxes on hospitals and employers. http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/248686.html Mark says- Why should be accountable for spending the taxpayers money, they just tax some more... <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/> Shark Inlet said... <BR/><BR/>Mark,<BR/><BR/>Just put up the bond in my name that promises that should the RWQCB not approve of a Reclamator (TM) for my home I'll get the right to pay $45.75/month (plus inflation) forever for my wastewater treatment. Mark says- We can gaurantee that the county will charge $70,000.00.00 plus which will increase with every DUE that becomes a AES DES customer. As those AES DES customers will be exempt from obligation from the County's tax assessments (due to lack of need). The cost of the county sewer project will have to be divided accordingly with those who are left over. AES DES customers will be conserving water and money. Only the RECLAMATOR makes this possible and those properties that have the RECLAMATOR installed will be exempt from county's taxes. No other on-site wastewater ystem achieves the national goal.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'll not argue the science and costs of your system with you. I will say that it seems like the RWQCB and County won't approve of Reclamators and if they won't any delay caused by fighting this issue will cost me. Mark says-The LOSTDEP Solution is already underway and is not "delaying" anything. The RECLAMATOR is "ultra compliant" and produces a water quality the meets or exceeds MCLG's which is an unenforceable standard. It's like the water that comes from your water hose, you do not need a permit to release it. This is perhaps the most difficult part for people "to get their head around". The future of water has arrived. <BR/><BR/>I'm tired of my community being told repeatedly that there is a cheaper solution only to find out that those offering the cheaper solution had a misunderstanding of the situation or weren't careful enough or something else and ultimately I end up paying more than before. Mark says- There is no "mis-understanding" about the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution. It is the only solution being offered that is federally compliant and which qualifies for federal grant assistance. It is also the least expensive even before federal grants are considered. The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution will conserve, energy, time, money and water better than any other solution being considered bar none. <BR/><BR/><BR/>You might be right ... but these days (because of the recent history) I want to see ironclad proof that you are right and an ironclad promise that you'll really lower my bills. If you can't provide these things, go find another test-case community. Mark says- Los Osos/Baywood Park is the most "studied" water/wastewater project in the State of California. There is no better place to promulgate and demonstrate the RECLAMATOR. The WaterBoard knows it now you do as well. I think that folks in LO/BP will soon be using the term "obstructionists" to describe another very well known group. Nuff said. (I heard DR. Phil may have breached his legal duty regarding medical information disclosure and his meeting with whatever her name is...Poor guy sounds like he was just trying to help and ended up with headlines he may or may not have wanted. Oh well as the saying goes- there is no bad press, just as long as they are talking about you...I guess.)<BR/><BR/>9:56 PM, January 16, 2008Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-50459563277916346602008-01-16T21:56:00.000-08:002008-01-16T21:56:00.000-08:00Mark,Just put up the bond in my name that promises...Mark,<BR/><BR/>Just put up the bond in my name that promises that should the RWQCB not approve of a Reclamator (TM) for my home I'll get the right to pay $45.75/month (plus inflation) forever for my wastewater treatment.<BR/><BR/>I'll not argue the science and costs of your system with you. I will say that it seems like the RWQCB and County won't approve of Reclamators and if they won't any delay caused by fighting this issue will cost me.<BR/><BR/>I'm tired of my community being told repeatedly that there is a cheaper solution only to find out that those offering the cheaper solution had a misunderstanding of the situation or weren't careful enough or something else and ultimately I end up paying more than before. <BR/><BR/>You might be right ... but these days (because of the recent history) I want to see ironclad proof that you are right and an ironclad promise that you'll really lower my bills. If you can't provide these things, go find another test-case community.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-45736126976623457712008-01-16T20:47:00.000-08:002008-01-16T20:47:00.000-08:00mark said:"Mark says- What guarantee is the county...mark said:<BR/>"Mark says- What guarantee is the county offering, besides putting a lien on your property which will not cover the cost of a gravity sewer and treatment plant at that site formally known as the Tri-W?"<BR/><BR/>Uh, <BR/>#1 - The County has a great track record for getting huge public works projects completed. I don't think you can say that. <BR/><BR/>#2 - The County lives here, there would be constant pressure on them to deliver. You could just fly-by-night.<BR/><BR/>#3 - The County has demonstrated their reliability with the excellence and knowledgeability of their staff which we all have gotten to know personally over the past year. You come on like snake oil salesmen with threats to the County and to Los Osos that you are above the law, we must comply with your demands and pose to us unproven claims of drinking water out of toilet flushes. Where's the data the County is asking for?<BR/><BR/>#4 - No project has been chosen. You are trying to incite uneasiness.<BR/><BR/>Someone else may chime in, but that is all I could think of right know as to why we trust the County over you.Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-69008804133524020162008-01-16T17:32:00.000-08:002008-01-16T17:32:00.000-08:00Shark Inlet said... Mark,Aren't you the one who is...Shark Inlet said... <BR/><BR/>Mark,<BR/><BR/>Aren't you the one who is fighting the County and the RWQCB even suing the LOCSD? If not, why the various lawsuits and complaints here?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says-Whisky is for drinkin', Water is for fightin" true enough- I prefer to think of legal action as "preservation of one's legal rights"<BR/><BR/>If, for some odd or good reason (I don't rightly care now) the fight to get "New! Improved!" Reclamators (TM) costs me money, Mark, I resent your involvement.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- I guess you believe the county conventional solution won't cost you a thing. The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR cost, pre-federal grant assistance, is $15,000.00. Federal Law calls for its use and the grants to help pay for it.<BR/><BR/>If you can guarantee me both that you'll win every fight you've got and that your system will save me money I'll support your cause. The problem however is that even with your word on these matters, I just plain doubt it.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- I can guarantee the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution will save money, water, energy and time. I suppose you'll just have to wait and see.<BR/><BR/><BR/>As I've offered here before (probably before you joined up, Mark), I'll support your efforts if my costs will be limited to $205/month. Anything over that, you pay ... but if the real costs are lower, you get a windfall.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- The monthly service charge for the service commences at $45.75/month and is attached to the consumer price index. If the LOCSD Board accepts the PPP agreement everyone will be much better off financially than with any other solution being "studied" bar none.<BR/><BR/>If the reclamator really does work, you should be able to get someone to bond you to provide these services to us for $205/month and you'll make a mint. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- The RECLAMATOR really works. Again the service is $45.75 attached to the CPI. <BR/><BR/>Be aware, however, that without an iron-clad guarantee, you won't find much support from me. I'm really tired of finding out that each and every "New! Improved!" solution ends up not passing muster for some reason and the real cost continually increasing because of our community tendency to trust everyone but the professional engineers who have designed systems that have been approved by permitting and financing agencies.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark says- What guarantee is the county offering, besides putting a lien on your property which will not cover the cost of a gravity sewer and treatment plant at that site formally known as the Tri-W?<BR/><BR/>And if you don't like Dr. Phil you're no better than a muskrat in a wash-tub.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Finally Mark says- I have never watched Dr. Phil, so I cannot say whether I "like" him or not. Does he know anything about the LOSTDEP?Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-50598630206102451472008-01-14T22:47:00.000-08:002008-01-14T22:47:00.000-08:00Mark,Aren't you the one who is fighting the County...Mark,<BR/><BR/>Aren't you the one who is fighting the County and the RWQCB even suing the LOCSD? If not, why the various lawsuits and complaints here?<BR/><BR/>If, for some odd or good reason (I don't rightly care now) the fight to get "New! Improved!" Reclamators (TM) costs me money, Mark, I resent your involvement.<BR/><BR/>If you can guarantee me both that you'll win every fight you've got and that your system will save me money I'll support your cause. The problem however is that even with your word on these matters, I just plain doubt it.<BR/><BR/>As I've offered here before (probably before you joined up, Mark), I'll support your efforts if my costs will be limited to $205/month. Anything over that, you pay ... but if the real costs are lower, you get a windfall.<BR/><BR/>If the reclamator really does work, you should be able to get someone to bond you to provide these services to us for $205/month and you'll make a mint. <BR/><BR/>Be aware, however, that without an iron-clad guarantee, you won't find much support from me. I'm really tired of finding out that each and every "New! Improved!" solution ends up not passing muster for some reason and the real cost continually increasing because of our community tendency to trust everyone but the professional engineers who have designed systems that have been approved by permitting and financing agencies.<BR/><BR/>And if you don't like Dr. Phil you're no better than a muskrat in a wash-tub.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-67633706282646693732008-01-14T14:38:00.000-08:002008-01-14T14:38:00.000-08:00Shark:You make thecasefor the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR S...Shark:<BR/><BR/>You make thecasefor the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution while ignoring it.<BR/><BR/>I like being right and happy, don't you? Dr. Phil??!?? Sheesh...Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-12459916372276599972008-01-14T14:30:00.000-08:002008-01-14T14:30:00.000-08:00Sewertoons said... tcg - so nice to see you back h...Sewertoons said... <BR/><BR/>tcg - so nice to see you back here - and shark, mike and area 51! <BR/><BR/>Pssst - Mark - recharging the aquifer has been part of the County's plan all along. -I understand you like big government. Are you a county or state employee? I would love to discuss the county's plan on recharge at a TAC or BOS meeting but it would be very difficult to have a meaningful dialogue when questions are asked and unanswered. The whole "best the clock thing doesn't help either. Is that how you manage you "big purchase" decisions? <BR/><BR/><BR/>The County and the 3 water purveyors are in regular meetings. -Are you a "water purveyor- owner or manager? I would be interested in their take on events.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The County cannot "get control" of the water. -If you pay the county to "take" your wastewater you no longer own it. If the 5,000 drainfields are decommissioned the self sustaining recharge cycle would be disrupted. You would then buy water as you do now, then pay to have it taken away and treated and if possible pay to have it returned to you for reuse. The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution provides for remediation of the drainfield and water conservation through on-site beneficial re-use, that is unavailable from any sewer pipe technology, using federally compliant advanced treatment technology.<BR/><BR/>Apparently you spent too much time talking and not listening at the TAC meetings, as you (or Tom) were there at many of them and should have heard this.<BR/><BR/>It's really tough to get the TAC to hear let alone understand anything substantive in 3 minutes or less(in my case) impossible when the TAC will not consider , EXFILTRATION, carbon footprint or Native American Burial grounds. see unanswered email below:<BR/><BR/>We'll see if you are "federally compliant" or not. That is why I am promulgating. Now we are getting somewhere!<BR/><BR/>A good start would be providing the County with the data the data they have been asking for. We will see if you stack up or not. <BR/><BR/>On October 30, 2007, I hand delivered a 100% complete "Stamped" submittal package on the RECLAMATOR to SLO County's John Waddel and to the front desk of the CCRWQCB. As of this post AES has not been contacted by the County for any more "data". It seems they have everything they need to make their determinations.<BR/>If you have any written evidence that supports your statements to the contrary, could you please post them here or you can email me- Mark@NOwasterwater.com.<BR/>If you do not have anything in print then we can agree to disagree. We all get to have our own opinion however we must all use the same facts.<BR/><BR/>Meanwhile, do yourself and us a favor. Ease up. All this pontificating is just pushing people away (- well, I should say pushing people away FARTHER).toons:<BR/><BR/>Your thoughts are truly appreciated, Thank you toons-<BR/><BR/>----- Original Message ----- <BR/>From: Mark Low <BR/>To: LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us <BR/>Cc: Mark Low ; Harvey Packard ; rbriggs@swrcb.ca.gov ; pogren@co.slo.ca.us ; Mark Hutchinson ; tom@nowastewater.com <BR/>Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 9:02 PM<BR/>Subject: TAC Agenda for 1/7/08 SEWERAGE<BR/><BR/><BR/>Please address these components of the county's proposed 40+ miles sewerage and treatment: <BR/>EXFILTRATION & Hydrogen Sulfide Gas. <BR/><BR/>Carbon footprint of construction and operation(including electricity).<BR/><BR/>Native American Burial Sites<BR/><BR/>Mark Low<BR/><BR/>www.NOwastewater.com <BR/><BR/>----- Original Message ----- <BR/>From: Los Osos ListMail <BR/>To: <BR/>Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2008 8:50 PM<BR/>Subject: TAC Agenda for 1/7/08<BR/><BR/><BR/> <BR/>LOCSD TAC Agenda for 1/7/08 <BR/> <BR/> <BR/>TAC Community Meeting<BR/> Monday, January 7, 2008 - 12:00 PM<BR/> County Government Center, Room 161 - 1055 Monterey Street, San Luis Obispo<BR/><BR/>Public Input Slips<BR/>If you have a question or wish to speak either on a specific item on the agenda or in general comment, please fill out a slip and hand it to a member of the Project Team staff.<BR/>Please make sure that your questions or comments are on topics within the subject matter of the TAC.<BR/><BR/>Written questions and comments will be considered during our general discussions. Questions to the Project Team will be responded to as time permits.<BR/>Questions sent in advance to: LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us will be answered when that topic is on the agenda. <BR/> <BR/> <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>----- Original Message ----- <BR/>From: Mark Low <BR/>To: Patel, Sona - SLO <BR/>Cc: tom@nowastewater.com <BR/>Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 11:18 AM<BR/>Subject: Fw: TAC Meeting 1-7-08 Complaint<BR/><BR/><BR/>Hi Sona:<BR/>I wanted to get your reaction to the fact that TAC members refused to hear public comment from only two citizens who wanted to voice their comments.<BR/>San Luis Obispo County is still within the United States of America, I think.<BR/><BR/>Would you please call or write as I would like to get your thoughts on this issue?<BR/>Mark<BR/>480.363.1154<BR/>----- Original Message ----- <BR/>From: Tom Murphy <BR/>To: 'Mark Low' ; 'Ken Kotarski' <BR/>Cc: BDifatta@aol.com ; assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov ; senator@boxer.senate.gov ; steve@priawinc.com ; governor@governor.ca.gov ; hovitt@co.slo.ca.us ; jlenthall@co.slo.ca.us ; jpatterson@co.slo.ca.us ; mark@modernhunter.com ; pdouglas@coastal.ca.gov ; president@whitehouse.gov ; LOWWP@co.slo.ca.us ; hpackard@waterboards.ca.gov ; Strauss.Alexis@epamail.epa.gov ; 'Cinthea Coleman' ; mhutchinson@co.slo.ca.us ; pogren@co.slo.ca.us ; jwaddell@co.slo.ca.us <BR/>Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2008 9:16 AM<BR/>Subject: TAC Meeting 1-7-08 Complaint<BR/><BR/><BR/>Mark,<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>For the record, Bruce Payne and I were denied public comment at the TAC meeting yesterday.<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>Best Regards,<BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/>D. Thomas Murphy<BR/><BR/>Inventor,<BR/><BR/>RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Water”<BR/><BR/>(775) 848-8800<BR/><BR/>AES Central Coast Discharge Elimination Company, LLC. <BR/><BR/>Founder<BR/><BR/>(805) 305-2378<BR/><BR/>Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc. <BR/><BR/>President<BR/><BR/>(775) 425-0911<BR/><BR/>www.NOwastewater.comMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-57614596942509878552008-01-14T13:49:00.000-08:002008-01-14T13:49:00.000-08:00Let's summarize the state of Los Osos today.There ...Let's summarize the state of Los Osos today.<BR/><BR/>There are three kinds of people. One group are the folks who want to continue to fight the RWQCB, SWRCB, County, CCC, etc. until they get their ideal solution (a sustainable plant or collection of plants that costs so little to build and run that no one will be forced to move away because of the cost ... oh yeah ... it also can't be in located anywhere near any homes or churches unless it is the home or church of people who live outside the CSD boundaries). The second group are either folks who like the County running things, like TriW or have simply given up on fighting every regulatory body on every issue (perhaps because the cost of fighting is so darn high). The third group are folks who don't care so much either way ... probably because they live outside the PZ, are really wealthy or because they're renters who were thinking of moving anyways.<BR/><BR/>I would count myself in the second group. There is nothing inherently wrong with fighting for justice and for your way and the like ... but if the cost of the fight will bankrupt me, I would rather take my lumps and move on. Survival is smarter than winning thru a scorched earth campaign. Or, as Dr. Phil says, "would you rather be right or be happy?" <BR/><BR/>It is very clear to anyone who has seriously looked into the cost question at all that the cost of any solution keeps going up. Even the "cheaper" Ripley $154/month solution, once vetted by the County engineering staff, consultants and TAC ended up being more expensive than TriW's $205/month.<BR/><BR/>If the high cost of TriW was one of the key reasons for the recall passing, we're now facing higher costs ... because of the recall.<BR/><BR/>What is the best thing to do next? Stop going to County BOS meetings and complaining about everything. Start working with the TAC and County to make wise choices. Get with the program. To those who still want to fight the County and RWQCB and everyone else at all costs, I would offer a phrase from Gail: "you lost, get over it." I would also add that you've been gambling with my money for a long time now and you keep losing. I resent that you're unwilling to stop losing my money.Shark Inlethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07308339749797881391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-17947069200234855672008-01-13T21:37:00.000-08:002008-01-13T21:37:00.000-08:00tcg - so nice to see you back here - and shark, mi...tcg - so nice to see you back here - and shark, mike and area 51! <BR/><BR/>Pssst - Mark - recharging the aquifer has been part of the County's plan all along. The County and the 3 water purveyors are in regular meetings. The County cannot "get control" of the water. Apparently you spent too much time talking and not listening at the TAC meetings, as you (or Tom) were there at many of them and should have heard this.<BR/><BR/>We'll see if you are "federally compliant" or not. A good start would be providing the County with the data they have been asking for. We will see if you stack up or not. Meanwhile, do yourself and us a favor. Ease up. All this pontificating is just pushing people away (- well, I should say pushing people away FARTHER).Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzkyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04501351678541088868noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-17742871324262479252008-01-13T20:38:00.000-08:002008-01-13T20:38:00.000-08:00tcg:If the County gets control of the water in Los...tcg:<BR/>If the County gets control of the water in Los Osos/Baywood Park,the LOCSD and other water purveyors will be considering how they will get their customers "pay" for the Nacimiento PIPE water after they divert the citizen's water from the direct beneficial reuse delivery to the Los Osos upper aquifer.<BR/><BR/>The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution is federally compliant and will save the citizens plenty of money. It's the law that says so, I am simply promulgating that information. <BR/><BR/>For anyone to be against that is ludicrous!Markhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-19448069126674206232008-01-13T16:28:00.000-08:002008-01-13T16:28:00.000-08:00Exactly what does the Paso City Council have to do...Exactly what does the Paso City Council have to do with us?<BR/><BR/>I have been a property owner in this county for over 30 years, and certainly don't need "Mark," who is here for one reason only--to make money off of us--telling me what I do or don't need.<BR/><BR/>This is rediculous!TCGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311070108486162937noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13758431.post-52465633258470848632008-01-13T14:33:00.000-08:002008-01-13T14:33:00.000-08:00Shark: Again think LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution:Los...Shark: Again think LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution:<BR/>Los Osos has its own water basin and doesn't need Nacimiento Water "PIPE". <BR/>Los Ososans are too smart for a county "plan" regarding anything water. <BR/>It's part of that "world visionary" thing...<BR/><BR/><BR/>The City Council will consider spending up to $83,000 on a water-rate study to help decide how to pay for the Nacimiento Water Project. <BR/><BR/>The issue has been a hot topic since July, when the council adopted a flat-fee increase to water rates that outraged some residents. The flat rate would have gone up to $60 per month in 2010. <BR/><BR/>The council then considered a per-unit increase instead, with incremental increases ending at $4 per unit. This was supported by many homeowners but upset some businesses that use lots of water. <BR/><BR/>The idea of a tiered rate, which would have different per-unit fees for certain user groups depending on volume, has been mentioned as a possible alternative. <BR/><BR/>The city has signed on to the water project and is obligated to pay for a portion of the construction, infrastructure and other expenses. According to a staff report, Paso Robles must pay <BR/><BR/>$4.8 million per year. <BR/><BR/>The spending is set to be considered at the City Council meeting Tuesday at 7:30 p.m. at 1000 Spring St. <BR/><BR/>—Leah Etling <BR/><BR/>SLO County <BR/><BR/>Sunday 1-13-08 Tribune http://www.sanluisobispo.com/news/local/story/244779.htmlMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12745418296700849040noreply@blogger.com