Buh-Bye, Zelig

Able Maldonado, former state legislator and lieutenant governor, got a quasi-obituary in the L.A. times Friday.  He's exiting his race for governor.  He's going to " . . . step away for a while and spend more time with my family and stay a little closer to home helping my community, as an active private citizen."

Translation:  He's not crazy enough for what the Republican Party has become.  Same thing happened to Sam Blakeslee, except Sam drank the Republican's Krazy Kool Aide and, like the vampire's bite, became one of them for a while until I'm sure he woke up one dark night and realized he'd sold his soul for a handful of twigs and got the hell out of Dodge.  He's now doing wonderful work here with his foundation and talented kids at Cal Poly and I'm sure they'll all discover or invent something that will save the world -- something politicians, especially bat-shit-crazy ones never could do.

For a while there, Abel was circling the same danger.  As Lt. Gov. he made sure he was always at Gov. Schwarzenegger's elbow.  Like Woody Allen's movie, "Zelig," there he was, like a remora fish, attached to The Governator's side, turning up everywhere.  Ah, such ambition, a man on the way up, the bright star in the Republican Firmament.  Until he actually cast a sane vote concerning a modest tax rise to solve critical fiscal problems that were hobbling the State, and thereby crossed Grover Norquist's blood- line and suddenly he was Anathema! Branded a traitor and taken out behind the barn by the Krazy Kool Aide Krewe and drummed out of the corps. No Goodies For You!

Unlike Sam, Abel must have missed his big sharks and all those photo-ops, so he kept trying to get back into the picture.  Bad call.  He should have said, "The Republican Party has gone crazy. I'm going home until sanity returns, then I'll be back." But he didn't and so thrashed around with fund-raising and efforts to get into the game.  But the Big Un-Fix was in for him. Finally, he came to his senses and, like Sam, went home to reclaim his soul. 

Good for him. Maybe he can call Sam and can come join Sam's foundation and help some kids invent something that will save the world.

Recall?  No Thanks.

The recall against Morro Bay Mayor Jamie Irons has failed.  I'm not surprised.  People hate recalls, which is why they are seldom successful, and this one was particularly fraught.  And it was fraught because nobody could get the narrative right.  To be successful, recalls have to have a really simply, easy to understand narrative, like "Mayor steals city funds, fees to France."

But this narrative was something like, "Mayor elected to oppose sewer previously approved, opposes sewer previously opposed."  And when he fired two at-will employees but could legally give no reason, that narrative ("He's a big meanie!") fell into the sewer confusion. (Did he fire them for stealing money and eeing to France? No.  Did he fire them for refusing to abide by the Coastal Commission? Maybe? So, what's the big deal? ) 

There followed endless letters to the editor that only muddied the water further. So, bad narrative. And as for the whole mess in the first place, years ago, when Bill Yates was still mayor and the city council was still spending gazillions on trying to come up with a way to skirt around the Coastal Commissions recommendations, I used to attend some of the meetings and during the breaks, I would sidle up to Bill and whisper, "Bill, I have two words for you:  Los Osos."  He'd laugh. 

Hey, I was serious.  Morro Bay learned nothing from Los Osos so the same old wheel kept getting reinvented for mo'money, mo'money.  

Well, Jamie's not out of the woods yet.  His reelection is coming up so it's up to the people of Morro Bay to decide if they want to stay the course and move forward to join another coastal town that will be greatly impoverished by a new sewer, or waste more money trying to stave off that inevitable  impoverishment. 

Pssst, Morro Bay.  Los Osos.  Pass it on. 

Panga, Panga, Panga

A "super" Panga marijuana-running boat, with its dumped cargo, was found abandoned on the Estero Bluffs beach boat.  Let's see, how many does that make?  Seems like every few months the MaryJane runners show up on our coast, get surprised by the various law enforcement guys who are lurking around with their night scopes and infra-red-spotting equipment, waiting like a patient cat in front of a mouse hole for the runners to look up, yelp, then dump their load and boat and scamper away. 

Seems like by this time they'd figure out this whole coastline is booby trapped and go find another place to throw away their expensive cargo. Unless they're smoking their own product and it's making them stupid?   I'm just sayin' . . . 

Choices, Choices

The United Nations committee on the Rights of the Child began grilling the Vatican about it's child abuse record and from Associated Press report, things are not going very well.  The Holy See is a signatory to the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child and said Convention requires that all signatories take all "adequate measures to protect children from harm."

Naturally, like all United Nation's efforts, such treaties are usually observed more in the breach, which was certainly the case with the Vatican, which is accused of turning a blind eye to thousands of priests who have raped and molested thousands of children for years.  Worse, in addition to the blind eyes, there is ample evidence they actively shielded their pedophile priests from the law and covered it all up in order to protect themselves.

But here's the Vatican's defense, offered by Archbisop Silvano Tomasi, the Vatican's U.N. ambassador in Geneva: " Priests are not functionaries of the Vatican.  Priests are citizens of their own states, and they fall under the jurisdiction of their own country."

Priests are not functionaries of the Vatican?  Really?

We'll see about that.  Let an American bishop declare that priests in his diocese can get married (gay and straight alike) and that he will begin ordaining women to serve as priests, then we'll see just how fast the bishop will suddenly become, once again, a "functionary" of the Vatican.

Bottom line in this absurdity is this:  The Catholic Church had a choice between protecting children and protecting itself.  It chose to protect itself.  What the faithful choose to make of that is up to them.  For me, the choice would have been clear:  Feet, make tracks . . . Out the front door.

Chinatown, Decoded

The main concern and industry of bureaucrats is not to rectify their mistakes, but to conceal them.
                                                                                       Simon Leys 

    For one of the best explanations of just how and why the Los Osos Sewer Disaster became the Great Los Osos Sewer Disaster, Ron Crawford has put it all together for you in an easily readable form at http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com     Let's hope Colin Rigley from New Times or Karen Velie over at Cal Coast News take a gander.  For sheer wasted public money, this puts Paso Robles' recent bungles and pay-outs to shame. And it's a hell of a story, but it has always been a very complicated one, which is why our media and so much of the public has turned away.  Well, no longer.  Here's the Reader's Digest Condensed version.  Simple. Clear.
     But ultimately sad.  There will be no accountability here.  The citizens in the PZ will be left to pay the bill, with 45 of them still branded as criminals and their homes under threat. Read it and weep. Your government at work here in . . . Chinatown.

Sustainability Group's Report and Link

     I received a copy of the Sustainability Group’s request for permit revocation that was presented to the Coastal Commission.  A previous posting that simply referenced Ron Crawford’s recent posting on a sewerish issue brought out the sewer crazies in this comment section.  This document is for the sane people who might wonder just what’s in the document.  (I note the cover letter’s notation that the Tribune apparently never bothered to read the document or even call for clarification before writing their story so it’s likely there’s a whole lot of people who have no clue what was sent to the Coastal Commissioners.) There’s also a link to the complete document giving fuller information as to why SG is asking for the Commission to take a second look.

     This document will  a) be totally dismissed, or b) cause some further modifications or improvements to be made, or c) result in the permit being pulled.  A few years down the line, the document will be proven to be a) a huge waste of time and effort or b) a chilling blueprint outlining a train wreck.  

     But, I’m posting it here so anyone interested in following all this can at least read what was actually written and the reasons behind the request, instead of just making stuff up or flying into hysteria then making stuff up. The history that focuses on Resolution 83-13 is most interesting.  I’ve long held that that Resolution was and is the fatal flaw in this entire enterprise. Because it went for the cheap/fast/easy “low lying fruit,” it was both too little and too much and kept missing the fundamental issue:  A Water Basin.

     History will decide whether all of this will play out as planned.  Or not.  Either way, the SG’s effort is part of the Process that is the Coastal Commission’s responsibility to review before moving forward.

     A warning to some of you Sewer Crazies.  I’ve left the open comment on this blog so it’s easier for sane people to participate in a discussion without fear of harassment.  But if you start in on your ridiculous neener-neenering, I’ll start dumping you right and left.  This document has plenty of interesting factual information in it to discuss and plenty of rational opinion to discuss.  It doesn’t contain ad hominem attacks and so doesn’t require that in return.  So, mind your manners, children. 

THE REPORT

Hi Everyone,

Just wanted to update you on what the Los Osos Sustainability Group (LOSG) has been working on for the last 5 months. After going through over 1,000 documents (over 10,000 pages), a comprehensive story developed that  explains  how the current project developed over the last 30-years, and how this project  could have disastrous adverse consequences on the Los Osos area, including the water basin and vital sensitive habitat. We feel the evidence presented strongly shows this project will do more harm than good. I am hoping you will take the time to read the following, and if you agree with it, take the time to write the Coastal Commission, and let them know of your worries and concerns.

As you may of read in the Tribune, LOSG submitted a "Request for revocation of the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) for the Los Osos Wastewater Project (LOWWP)" on February 20, 2012. There have been many comments regarding the request, but frankly, few have read the request, so many of the comments we feel are unfounded. The Tribune did not even read the request before printing the article, nor did they contact anyone from LOSG for comment or questions. We hope that you will read it, and then any comments you have about the request, positive or negative, at least will be from an informed position.

The full request can be viewed here: http://www.csclososo.com/?page_id=412

Email addresses of Coastal Commission members are attached.

I am including the cover letter for the request below, which gives an overview of the request (this can also be downloaded from the web site, along with the full request, and an outline).

Honorable Commissioners:
Attached is our Request for Revocation of the Los Osos Wastewater Project (LOWWP) Coastal Development Permit (CDP). This cover letter provides an overview of the issues covered by the Request, including why we are submitting the Request and why the Commission should revoke the LOWWP permit. Basically, the information we present shows the LOWWP could have disastrous adverse consequences on the Los Osos area, including the water basin and vital sensitive habitat, and agencies intentionally provided inaccurate, erroneous, and incomplete information that failed to disclose these impacts. Additionally, the evidence we provide shows agencies substantially exaggerated the benefits of the project and failed to disclose that a much less harmful, feasible alternative is available. As you know, the Los Osos Basin is a threatened resource, on which many vital systems rely. Water and wastewater decisions must be based on the best possible accurate and complete information.
Basis for revocation request and why we must submit it
The LOSG received the email from Mr. Carl on January 23, 2012, stating the criteria we must meet for a successful revocation request. We are sure our request meets that criteria and the Commission will see that 1) the County and CCRWQCB withheld information or intentionally provided inaccurate or erroneous information prior to June 2010, 2) the information was crucial to decision making and could have led to denial of the project or changed conditions, and 3) the LOSG has done due diligence as citizens to get the information to the Commission as soon as possible given the complexity of issues, size of the record, intentional withholding of information, and necessity for the issue to be addressed comprehensively. (Also see LOSG letter to the Coastal Commission dated January 26, 2012, pp. 10 & 11 and Section IV.E of the Request for Revocation for further evidence of due diligence.)
A comprehensive picture of issues, in the case of Los Osos, is necessary to show why a large body of evidence on the record supporting the project no longer constitutes substantial evidence. A complete presentation of issues is also needed to show how and why very serious potential adverse impacts remain unmitigated, why the project could do more harm than good (and cannot not be conditioned to protect resources), and why a management alternative is the least harmful feasible alternative. Finally, a comprehensive picture is needed to show why a process driven by Resolution 83-–-13 is inherently flawed and has led to a project that will harm resources.

We are sure the Commission will see that the issues are too important not to address. This project could have extremely serious adverse consequences on the Los Osos Valley Water Basin, the sole source of water for the area already threatened by an extremely urgent seawater intrusion problem. It could have severe adverse impacts on very high value sensitive habitat, including Morro Bay National Estuary and Los Osos Creek endangered steelhead habitat. It could also have severe adverse consequences on the lives of many people now and in the future, on air quality, and climate change. The Commission approved the project on the basis that it is “critically necessary” to protect these resources, based on County and CCRWQCB official statements and documents. However, the information we present shows that information is not accurate, and the project could severely harm those resources.
As citizens in possession of this information, we have no choice but to present it as soon as possible in the effort to prevent severe harm to resources. If agencies cannot show with specific evidence that septic systems are a significant source of pollution of the estuary and pose a significant threat to health and safety, that the project will stop that pollution and threat and is essential for basin sustainability, and that the severe potential adverse impacts we identify are mitigated with specific, measureable, enforceable-–--–-and feasible measures-–--–-then the permit should be revoked. This is what the County and CCRWQCB information claims, yet it is not supported by the information we located in the record. The decision to allow this project to go forward must be based on facts and an unbiased analysis of facts using the most relevant, complete, and accurate information available. This project has the potential to destroy a water basin, vital habitat, and a community. The decision to allow this project to go forward cannot be based on popular opinion, political expediency, or on information that might otherwise fail to meet Coastal Commission standards for accurate and complete information or CEQA standards for substantial evidence.
The information the County and CCRWQCB provided to the Commission claims that septic systems are causing significant harm to resources and the LOWWP will stop that harm, it is needed for basin sustainability, and it is least harmful feasible alternative. The information we provide shows that County officials knew the following prior to approval of the project on June 11, 2010.

·       Septic systems are not significantly polluting the estuary or related habitat, and the project will not provide a significant benefit to these resources.

·       The project provides no significant benefits to the basin and is not needed for basin sustainability.

·       The project has severe unmitigated potential adverse impacts on key resources: 1) the Los Osos groundwater basin, 2) very high value environmentally sensitive habitat (ESHA), 3) human health and safety, and 4) air quality (GHGs), for which feasible mitigation is unlikely.

Some of the most serious unmitigated potential impacts not disclosed include the following:

·       Severe impacts from earthquakes due to liquefaction under homes downhill from the Broderson disposal site that could result in loss of life, major property damage, and long-–-term shut down of the wastewater system.

·       Substantial adverse impacts to the upper aquifer (significant drops in water levels, seawater intrusion, reduced beneficial use, and adverse impacts to protected aquatic habitat), resulting from two issues: a delay of 2 to 14 years or more between the time septic system return flows stop recharging the upper aquifer (dispersed vertical recharge) and the time Broderson leach fields (centralized lateral recharge) restore water levels and replace flows (assuming Broderson disposal is feasible and works as planned). This impact is substantially increased by the adverse cumulative effects of major shifts in pumping to the upper aquifer, which water purveyors are currently planning to address the urgent seawater intrusion problem.

·       Substantial adverse impacts to all aquifers and habitat from conservation and recycled water programs that provide little if any mitigation. The CDP provides for a conservation and recycled water program to back up to Broderson disposal and add a margin of safety. However, agencies overstated the mitigation potential of both of these measures and failed to disclose adverse impacts. By June 2010, a considerable amount of conservation had already occurred in Los Osos greatly reducing or eliminating the potential for conservation to mitigate for the project. Also, agencies knew the recycled water program would not offset pumping of the lower aquifer significantly (so would not significantly mitigate for seawater intrusion), and they knew the high salt content the water could destroy soils and aquifers, also resulting in underuse of the program and/or the need for additional mitigation and facilities. The SWRCB has required a “feasibility study” for the recycled water program. However, a “study” after the fact does not mitigate for impacts or ensure feasibility. The CDP includes the recycled water program as a main mitigation measure for seawater intrusion and habitat, yet it has undisclosed, unmitigated potential adverse impacts on the basin, habitat, farmland, and farming aquifers.

·       Substantial unmitigated adverse impacts, including indirect and cumulative impacts, on the lower aquifer that could make the extremely urgent seawater intrusion problem worse. Purveyors have not come to an agreement on how to manage the basin to stop seawater intrusion and will not likely come to an agreement or make necessary investments to shift pumping to the upper aquifer realizing that the project will have major impacts on the basin. For example, they know the project has significant unmitigated impacts on the upper aquifer, and they know recycled water will be high in salts. They will not commit resources to the recycled water program or shifts in pumping to the upper aquifer if these measures put investments at risk (although experts agree urgent major shifts in pumping to the upper aquifer are needed to address seawater intrusion). The project also has unmitigated socio-–-economic impacts on these resources. The project will delay or prevent necessary water management measures, future mitigations, and major system repairs (e.g., due to earthquakes) because these essential measures will not be affordable to rate payers.

              • Substantial unmitigated impacts on Los Osos Creek, endangered steelhead habitat, resulting from a reduction in groundwater flows that could reduce flows in the creek and  increase contaminant levels by reducing the size and viability of buffering wetlands (e.g., Willow Creek Drainage). The project includes extensive mitigation for a possible minor drop in water levels in the creek as a pipe is installed over the creek, but ignores this much more serious impact.
These are some of the unmitigated impacts that we identify and explain in our Request for Revocation. The information we provide shows that County and CCRWQCB withheld information necessary for the Commission to recognize that the project has severe unmitigated impacts, provides no significant benefits on the estuary and basin, and will do more harm than good. The evidence we provide also shows these agencies withheld information showing a less-–-harmful, feasible alternative exists. A comprehensive management program, similar to the plan in effect for the San Lorenzo River Watershed will do everything officials claim this project will do, and much more, at a fraction of the cost. The CCRWQCB also has jurisdiction over the San Lorenzo Watershed.
Why information provided by the CCRWCB should be considered in this request
Although the County is the CDP applicant and lead agency under CEQA, your decision to grant the permit, according to the CDP Staff Report of May 27, 2010, is based on the finding that State and Regional Water Boards are requiring the Los Osos project. Further, the Commission relied, to a large extent, on information provided to you by the CCRWQCB for findings that resulted in the approval of the project. Much of that information is inaccurate, erroneous, or incomplete. Although the Commission’s authority is limited when reviewing a treatment works, the Commission does have the right and responsibility to expect and ensure the information provided to you by agencies is accurate and complete, in order to make the best decision possible. It has become clear to us, based on the evidence we provide, that, while the CCRWQCB and SWRCB are requiring the project, the agencies are not committed to project mitigation or basin sustainability.

Why Resolution 83-–-13 must not drive decision making and should be rescinded

Resolution 83-–-13 is driving the implementation of a centralized wastewater project for the prohibition zone of Los Osos, but Resolution 83-–-13 is not based on substantial evidence in the record. Most of the key findings supporting Resolution 83-–-13 have been refuted or no longer apply. CEQA precludes inclusion of inaccurate information as substantial evidence. So long as the effort to solve the water quality and supply issues in Los Osos begin and end with Resolution 83-–-13, Los Osos resources will be at risk. We’ve provided a discussion of Resolution 83-–-13 in our request so the Commission, including why and how Resolution 83-–-13 has resulted in a flawed environmental review process and project that will harm resources.
Los Osos should not be subjected to a project and process controlled by an obsolete regulation. Resolution 83-–-13 was implemented in 1983 under very different conditions, and current science contradicts most of its findings. In 1983, seawater intrusion was not a concern and decision makers believed they could resort to imported water if a centralized wastewater project caused seawater intrusion or buildout proved unsustainable. The realities of the 21st Century are much different— evidence supports that the carrying capacity of the basin has been reached and additional building is unsustainable. Thus, a centralized project—conceived and designed to allow buildout—should not be implemented. It will only increase growth pressures at the same time it causes a major disruption to a water basin already under stress from accelerating seawater intrusion moving through the large lower aquifers-–--–-9/10ths of total basin capacity—at 700 feet per year. Los Osos should not be held captive to decisions made in the 20th Century, which threaten resource substantially in the 21st Century. Therefore we are asking you to use your authority to have Resolution 83-–-13 rescinded.
How this project drives unsustainable growth
As our members of the LOSG have pointed out in the past, this project drives unsustainable growth by being so expensive that property owners and public officials will support more growth just to have the costs reduced. This is one way the County is promoting more growth. Recently, we’ve heard the County is preparing a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and applying for a “Sustainable Community” grant for a “study” of sustainable water supplies. This “study” will undoubtedly find that there is enough water in the basin for build out. To support this finding, the study will undoubtedly provide “proof” in the form of a hydrological study that relies on modeling. In the 1980s and 1990s, rather than limit growth, the County relied on revised models, which “proved” the basin could sustain more growth—and 20 years later we have a critical seawater intrusion problem. It is time to stop this cycle of resource overuse in Los Osos. We do not have the luxury in the 21st Century to sponsor growth at the expense of resources, nor do we have the luxury to install a $190 million wastewater project whose only verifiable benefit is to allow building, both of which set Los Osos on a course toward disaster.
How the Request for Revocation is organized
Our request for revocation entitled Request for Revocation of the LOWWP CDP is divided into for parts:
Part I: “Agencies intentionally provided the Commission inaccurate and incomplete information that would have required additional or different conditions or denial of the permit.” [Violation of Coastal Commission Administrative Regulation 14 CCR § 13105 (a)]
Part II. The project’s adverse impacts and risks far outweigh its benefits.
Part III. “Property owners adversely affected by the project were not notified and given a chance to comment.” [Violation of Coastal Commission Administrative Regulation 14 CCR § 13105 (b)]
Part IV. “The Commission failed to comply with the Coastal Act and CEQA due to inaccurate, erroneous, or incomplete information. (The CCRWQCB and SWRCB also violated CEQA.)
(Please also see “Outline of Request” and previous related letters/emails attached or on disc.)
If our Request for Revocation is denied, we ask that the Commission provide specific reasons and the specific evidence (documents) used as the basis for the decision. Again, we regret any inaccuracies or inconsistencies in our request. We have done the best we can to cover the issues within a timeframe that avoids harm to resources. If Commissioners or Commission Staff notice errors or inconsistencies, we request that they are pointed out. We will clarify or correct them.
We thank for your consideration of these important issues.

Ah, Yes, The Smart-Ass Comedy Tour Continues

     Ron Crawford over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com has posted a classic, complete with map.  The reply to his appeal letter from the Coastal Commission hearing today will undoubtedly put the dot on the "i" and the cross on the "t."  And I'm sure he'll post that as well.  Comic snarkery at it's finest and why the Hideous Sewer Wars have always been the ultimate of Mad Hatter Tea Parties. 

Calling Humpty Dumpty

     The Tribune reports that the Los Osos Sustainability Group has filed a request to the Coastal Commission asking it to revoke its permit for the sewer project. They allege that "the approval [of the upcoming coastal permits to proceed with this project] is based on willfully submitted inaccurate information."
     Says the petition, "Basically, the information we present shows that the Los Osos Wastewater Project could have disastrous adverse consequences on the Los Osos area, including the water basin and vital sensitive habitat, and agencies intentionally provided inaccurate, erroneous and incomplete information that failed to disclose these impacts."  The request for review/revoke is supported by "a 6-inch-tall stack of documents that allege false information was provided by the county and the Central Coast Regional Water quality Control Board in order to obtain the coastal development permit needed to build the sewer.  . . . These include whether nitrates from the town's septic systems pollute the Morro Bay estuary; whether disposing of effluent would cause liquefaction of nearby soils; whether the project would worsen salt-water intrusion into underground aquifers; and whether the project would cause unsustainable growth to occur in Los Osos." And concludes, "The decision to allow this project to go forward cannot be based on popular opinion, political expediency, or on information that might otherwise fail to meet Coastal Commission standards for accurate and complete information or (state law) standards for substantial evidence."
     And what was the response from Tim McNulty of the County Counsel's Office? "We are absolutely certain that there was no intent on anyone's part to provide that type of information.  Under these circumstances, a project-delaying suspension is quite improbable."
     And why would that be?  Well, because "The petitioners must prove that information was inaccurate, that it was knowingly submitted and that the information changed the outcome of the commission's decisions."
     Doncha love it?.  It's not enough that the information may be factually incorrect, i.e. that the numbers are wrong, that doing X will result in disaster Y, the bridge will fall because you've transposed weight bearing numbers, the dam will collapse because you added the numbers wrong.  No.  That's not the key thing here.  What's key is that you INTENTIONALLY gave the Commission the wrong numbers.  That you MEANT to fudge the numbers, nudge the numbers, make the numbers smiley-faced, happy numbers so as to get whatever permit you're after. The fact of their wrongness isn't enough to get the Commission to back off and double-check.  Nope.  You have to prove intention. 
     And, of course, your correct numbers have to be sufficient to have caused the Commissioners to change their minds, which is a really high bar because nobody on the face of the earth believes that the Commissioners wouldn't have approved that sewer, no matter how fudged the numbers were.
     Once again, we're back in Alice in Wonderland Land: actual facts don't matter much.  Intention, not mere incompetence, trumps all.  "Yes, the numbers are wrong and the bridge will collapse.  But, we're not going to change the plans since the Engineer didn't mean to add them up wrong."  

Meanwhile, Back On The Old SewerWatch

     Ron Crawford, at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com, has also written a letter to the Coastal Commission on a similar issue.  And posted that letter.  He's having way too much fun and this letter will be a delight for careful Sewer Watchers -- it's sly, and funny.  And if you read his response to a blog comment, you'll see the further comic possibilities in his original letter. Sauce for goose and gander.  After all, if "park amenities" were so critical, such a vital, overriding "community held value" for which the TRI-W defenders fought so ferociously, then here's the chance to get those park amenities back from the very Coastal Commission and Commissioner(s) who originally approved them. 
     Talk about Win Win.

Uh-oh, Better Get More Candles

If you want to experience a sickening sense of deja vu, get a copy of New Times ( http://www.newtimesslo.com/ )for Colin Rigley's excellent story, "Consulting Waste."  Morro Bay and Cayucos are joined at the hip via the Joint Powers Authority to upgrade their shared wastewater treatment plant which is located in Morro Bay. Naturally, this being a sewage project, the Usual Suspects showed up:  Corrollo Engineers, Wallace Group, followed by Montgomery Watson Harza.  And, as Rigley notes, "It's been five years since the two communities contracted the first consultant to begin planning for a plant upgrade project.  Morro Bay and Cayucos have, as it stands, a project proposal that could be in need of a complete overhaul.  Consultant fees have so far cost about $1 million in what could ultimately be a $34.3-million project -- unless it gets more expensive."

Continues Rigley, "'You hire a consultant, and they have no responsibility for the outcome,' said one local official intimate with the project. 

"The consultant gig can be a cut-and-run game in which the consultant submits a proposal, then skedaddles before that proposal is put to the test.

"'This means they can do anything they want, charge anything they want, and if it doesn't work out, then you have to pay more," said Gail McPherson, a wastewater division manager from Riverside -- now acting director for Citizens for Clean Water."

Adding to the expensive pile-on, are the lobbyists whose job is to try to finesse (or "spoon feed") a project past the Coastal Commission, a tough job if the project is shaky, which this project was from day one.  I mean, almost before the ink was dry on the copy of the plan, the CC was firing dangerous warning shots across the JPA's bow. The problem? Thinking they could just build a new treatment plant on the old site without looking seriously at alternative sites that would take the plant off a 100-year flood zone.  Plus taking a serious look at treated wastewater reuse, a costly re-do but one that's simply going to be the prefered plan for any upgrades from now on in a water-strapped state.

And so it went, consults begetting consultants.  Here's Rigley again.  "If some of the names and companies working on Morro Bay's and Cayucos' project seem familiar, it's because they are.  In the Los Osos project, members of the Wallace Group and Carollo -- specifically Lou Carella, who worked briefly for MWH -- sat on the panel that recently selected MWH as one of the top three firms to design and build the most recent incarnation of the Los Osos sewer project.

"In fact, [Project manager Dennis] Delzeit's contract with Mrro Bay is a joint venture with him as the project manager along with the Wallace Group.  On paper, Delzeit and the Wallace Group are virtually synonymous.  Every page of his contract pitch for the project management gig is labeled 'R. Dennis Delzeit & Wallace Group.'

"Delzeit was also part of a seven-member review committee that selected MWH to design the Morro Bay/Cayucos project.

"Morro Bay Capital Projects Manager, Dylan Wade, who worked for MWH until April 2007, also sat on the selection committee (wade, however, recused himself from the final state of the selection process, he said in a previous interview.)

"'It seems pretty clear that we just keep on reverting to the same firms,' said one local official.

Indeed, some of the same MWH people who designed the Los Osos project are part of the MWH team in Morro Bay and Cayucos.

"And the price tag is rising."

I'll say. Which is why Rigley concludes his article with this: "What no one wants, though, is a replay of Los Osos -- a project that has skyrocketed in cost over three decades and coutless revisions.  But as it moves forward -- manned by many of the same people and companies for a project that may need to relocate -- it seems the Morro Bay/Cayucos project could be facing the same fate."

Which is why I say, get out the candles, folks, and start saying your prayers for the good folks in Morro Bay.  

A Letter to Sara Wan

Any bets that Ron Crawford, of http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/, who has posted his letter entitled, "Would the Coastal Commission Still Have Approved the Tri-W Disaster in 2004, Had the Los Osos CSD Not Lied To Them?" will get an answer?  Hey, don't look at me.  I'm not taking that bet. I'm still scratching my head over "bait & switchy." 

Exhibit 3-C or How Much Is That $8-million in the Window?

"Seven Disasterous Years Later: The County's Recently 'Accepted' Project Looks Awwwfully Familiar to SewerWatch."  at http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/.

Read it and . . . . laugh? Then ask, What the hell was the Coastal Commission smoking, anyway? Without any proof demanded, they bought the pre-recall CSD's SOC statement about how the community was demanding a sewer plant in the middle of town so they could build a tot-lot next to it, and now it appears they also accepted, apparently with no proof, a claim that there was no "financial incentive" to put  the sewer plant out of town (C-3), even though, when the County later took over the project, it was easily able demonstrate a variety of "financial incentives" on the two plant sites.  (Not to mention that CEQA demands that if there's a less environmentally sensitive alternative, it must be persued.)  But in this case, that wasn't done and nobody asked, even when the old "bait & switchy" red flag went down on the play.  So, let me ask again: What was Rob Miller smoking?  What was MWH smoking?  What was the Coastal Commission smoking? 

Meantime, I think maybe Morro Bay and Cayucos better wake up since the CC will soon be "reviewing" their sewer upgrades and if the Wallace Group (Rob Miller) and MWH are involved with that project . . . ? 

Woa. Hide the silverware, Boys!

Ripley Writes To The CC, But Is Anyone Listening?

The following excerpt will be/is part of the “public comment presented” to the Coastal Commissison for their Hearing tomorrow. Fifty million dollars will buy a lot of bananas. It’s also strange that the CC says they’re interested in “cost,” but is that anything more than window-dressing and/or an optional consideration? And what about the goal of competitive bidding as promised in the 218 vote? More window-dressing? More options? And what’s with the reference to “change orders,” which, of course, equals a no-cap, open ended, sky’s the limit cost.

Well, anybody want to lay odds on how the votes as to how “cost” and fair-bids  and change orders will fare Friday? Naw, me neither. Not here in “Chinatown,” at any rate. Done deals is done deals and if the community wants a more expensive project, then who is the Coastal Commission to deny them their wish?

Honorable Commissioners:

I am Dana Ripley, team leader for the Los Osos Wastewater Plan Update1

The process schematic of the 2006 Update Plan is very similar to the process schematic that I prepared for inclusion in the recently published “Water Reuse” textbook (McGraw Hill, 2007) as Figure 13-15. Thecaption of that figure reads:prepared in 2006 for the Los

Osos Community Services District.

Our final report was completed in August 2006 and was validated by the National Water Research Institute in December 2006. Septic Tank Effluent Pump (STEP) collection isfundamental to the “2006 Update Plan” and is, in my opinion, fundamental to the long term success ofthe Los Osos wastewater project.

Schematic flow diagram of comprehensive water reclamation and reuse plan incorporating STEPsystems for low-, medium-, and high-density communities.



A copy of this schematic is provided as Attachment A. It represents what I believe to be state-of-the-artin small community wastewater collection, treatment, and reuse whether constructed for a new development or for an existing community upgrading to central collection and treatment.

My testimony to the Commission today will focus on cost and affordability. CC staff recognizes the importance of affordability to Los Osos homeowners and businesses as follows:

The affordability of the project has been and will continue to be a major concern for the residents of Los Osos2


1 Ripley Pacific Company, Los Osos Wastewater Management Plan Update for the Los Osos Community ServicesDistrict, San Luis Obispo County, CA, Wastewater Collection Treatment, Storage, and Water Recycling: Beneficial Reuse of Water and Nutrients. Digital and hardcopy provided to CC-Santa Cruz staff on February 8, 2010..

2 Application A-3-SLO-09-055/069 staff report, May 27, 2010, p.2

The single largest factor influencing affordability is obviously the project’s construction cost. The estimated construction cost of the 2006 Update Plan prepared by our team is presented as AttachmentB3. For comparison, San Luis Obispo County’s latest cost estimate for the gravity-based system is presented as Attachment C4

Based on my review of the two construction cost budgets, assuming service to both developed and undeveloped properties and cost escalation to 2010 dollars, the cost difference between the two systems is at least $50 million. That is, the 2006 Ripley Update Plan cost utilizing STEP collection technology is at least $50 million less than the cost for the County’s gravity-based collection, treatment, and reuse plan..

The actual cost difference between the two system alternatives could in fact be substantially greater than $50 million. For STEP construction, there is relatively low construction cost risk since excavations are shallow and impacts of unforeseen conditions can be mitigated easily. For this reason, the STEP contractor has offered a guaranteed maximum price cost basis to SLO County.

For gravity construction, however, construction cost risk is significantly higher due to deeper excavations and difficulty of dealing with unforeseen conditions such as high groundwater and archeological sites. The contractor will be required to fuse-weld at least 12% of the collection system and more if high groundwater is encountered beyond that already mapped. SLO County would be compelled to accept change orders for these unforeseen conditions which in essence provides for an open-ended contract, irrespective of what the winning competitive bid cost number is. Of course, the extent of change order costs cannot be known until project construction is complete.

I also note that the County’s budget for Broderson leachfields does not include a redundant disposal option as recommended by the project hydrogeologist due to the uncertainty of winter dispersal capacity at that site5

Based on the foregoing comments, it would be likely that the completed cost difference between the two systems could be substantially greater than the $50 million difference represented by the two attached budgets.

The Broderson leachfield system is a $6.1 million line item that may need to bereplicated at one or more other undetermined locations to provide sufficient winter dispersal capacity. Even with the minimum $50 million cost difference, the Commission is faced with at least two issues inconsistent with the Coastal Act if the applicant’s gravity collection system is constructed.

First, Coastal Act Section 30604(g) states:

The Legislature finds and declares that it is important for the commission to encourage th eprotection of existing and the provision of new affordable housing opportunities for persons of low and moderate income in the coastal zone.

3 2006 Ripley Update Plan, Table ES-5.
4 San Luis Obispo County, from SWRCB Credit Review Checklist, April 23, 2010, Table 1.1.
5 Spencer Harris, hydrogeologist, San Luis Obispo Planning Commission, June 30, 2009; “You’d better have capacity somewhere else.”
3Los Osos Wastewater Project Dana Ripley, PE CA Coastal Comm. June 11, 2010 De Novo Hearing Public Comment

A cost difference of this magnitude has a direct impact on affordability. A lower project construction cost will lessen the impact to low- and moderate-income residents living within the coastal zone.

Secondly, Coastal Act Section 30120 defines treatment works6

. . any devices and systems used in the storage, treatment, recycling, and reclamation of
municipal sewage or industrial wastes of a liquid nature to implement section 1281 of this title, or necessary to recycle or reuse water at the most economical cost over the estimated life of the works. .

, as follows:

Consistency with this section of the Coastal Act would require that the most economical plan be implemented, irrespective of any technology preference by the project owner. The $50 million difference in the two estimates would likely preclude the gravity system as a viable alternative.

I am aware of the applicant’s technology preference against STEP collection for reasons such as green house gas emissions, soil disturbance numbers, nitrogen removal, on-lot easements, and on-lot pumping. I believe that each of these issues can be resolved in favor of STEP collection given the opportunity in an open forum. It also must be reiterated that the STEP collection alternative was CEQA certified as environmentally superior in 2001, was determined to be a viable collection alternative in the current project EIR, and was intended to compete with gravity collection through the bidding process pursuant to the Proposition 218 assessment vote in 2007. Finally, the Request for Qualifications prepared by SLO County in December 2008 presented both gravity collection and STEP collection as accepted alternatives for interested design-build teams bidding on the Los Osos wastewater project.

Only with elevation of the STEP team into the competitive bidding process with guaranteed maximum bids can the $50 million cost differential presented above be ascertained one way or the other. The Commission should seek the assurance that the competitive bid process promised by the Proposition 218 vote will be preserved and that consistency with Coastal Act Sections 30120 and 30604 is upheld.

Including this requirement as a permit condition today will not only assure Proposition 218 and Coastal Act consistency, but will assure that project timelines remain in place to “maximize the project’s eligibility to receive funding support that can offset local costs” as urged by SLO County and your staff. Thank you for your consideration of these cost and affordability issues, and I am available for questions.

/dr

6 Definition of treatment works as set forth in Federal Water Pollution Control Act per Coastal Act Section 30120.

Here Come de Novo, Here Come de Novo

Well, I'll be hornswoggled. The Coastal Commissioners decided there were sufficient issues raised in the appeals that they wanted to take a second, closer, de novo look at the Hideous Sewer Project.

The Tribune reports this morning that Commissioner Sara Wan from Malibu states, "There are some serious deficiencies in here." [the "here" in question refering to the project reports & etc, I presume]. If I'm not mistaken, Commissioner Sara Wan was a commissioner the last time around, during the old "bait and switchy" days, and if Ron Crawford of Sewerwatch has sent the Commissioners one of his annoyingly thorough and nit-icky and document-linked emails asking about the missing substantial supportive documentation behind the previous (now rescinded) SOC for the Tri-W project, she may be aware that her original vote may have been based on bad or non-existent information so this time she's going to take a much closer look-see?

The Tribune's brief report notes that one of the issues the Commission will be looking at is a "more detailed timeline of the water conservation plan . . ." Good. The Sustainability Group wanted a much stronger conservation element, one that starts now instead of years from now, which sure seems like a good idea to me. So, let's hope the CC will take a look at that and maybe tinker with the requirements.

I'm sure some will spin this delay into an hysterical wail of how we've lost federal funding and we'll all go die in the streets, but I'm pleased with the Commission's ruling. This is a Hideously Complex project and as former County Planning Commissioner Sarah Christie said, we've got one chance to get this right. I would much rather have a slight delay and end up with a far better project than hysterically run ahead and get mired down in messes later, which has been the M.O. in the past.

So, everybody, take a deep breath. There's some work still to be done and I have no doubt the County will be working with the CC staff to address the issues they've raised, then the train will chug forward again.

Breathe. And remember, this a a "cow-free' zone, so don't have one if you plan on commenting below on this turn of events. Thank you.

Uh, Better Call Yer Lawyer

Yesterday was the start of an amazing “trial” in Federal court challenging Proposition 8, the California proposition outlawing gay marriage (after gay marriage was allowed, then, ZIP, gone, whoosh!). The outcome will end up going to the Supreme Court but in the meantime, if you’re married, I’d suggest calling your attorney.

After all, if the ban against gay marriage is found to be unconstitutional, your straight marriage will be over. I know, I’m sorry it had to end like that, but there you are. I mean, everyone knows that allowing gays to marry means that “traditional” marriage will be destroyed. O.K. so there’s no evidence that that’s the case, but that’s been one of the main arguments used by the folks who supported Prop. 8. And in the January 18th edition of Newsweek, Theodore B. Olson, the “conservative” attorney (one of two) who’s bringing this lawsuit before the Feds, wrote: “Another argument, vague and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sexpartners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.”

So, who needs evidence in a court of law? Right. Nobody. So, that’s why I suggest you call your attorney. Never hurts to plan ahead. It takes time to divvy up a household, so it might be smart to start now to put little Post-it notes on the furniture, His, Hers, His, Hers, The Kids, etc. That way you’ll be ready to break up the household if the Supreme Court finds that “equal rights under law” actually means “equal rights under law.”

Uh-Oh

Criicckkk, crrrcckkk, criccckkkk in the quiet of the morning. Then the Black Screen of Death. Yup. Catastrophic Hard Drive Failure. Luckily, I had back up on my little Magic Information Stick so all was not lost. Luckily, my Computer Tutor, Steve Vandagriff was able to come by and together we gazed on the smoking wreck. And being a Luddite, Steve was available to begin the arduous task of getting the thing up and going and we’re still struggling with all the tweaking and add-ons and de-bugging that has to go on whenever you (in effect) get a new computer.

Love ‘em. Hate ‘em. Criicckkk, crrrcckkk, crccckkkkk…

Hey, I’m just askin’

Jan 10 Tribune editorial, “Los Osos sewer project needs to move forward,” which notes that “The project is in line to receive $80 million in federal stimulus funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the form of a $16 million grant and a $64 million low-interest loan.” And further notes that the Coastal Commission needs to approve “the project” and issue a permit for “the project” without delay at the Feb hearing. (“To qualify for USDA funding, however, the project must have a permit from the Coastal Commission – and if issuance of that permit is delayed beyond February, it may be too late. The money may be gone.”

What “project” are they talking about? Do they have a “design” that the CC can issue a permit for? Last I knew (the Planning Commission) the county had settled on three generic components: a gravity collection system (no “design” or blueprints or engineering schematics, just “gravity collection pipes”) and, I think, an oxidation ditch treatment component (no plans, specifications, blueprints,) and tertiary treatment with disposal at Broderson and other places, but I don’t think that included engineered plans or designs or anything the CC could look at to determine if this particular dispersal or even if this collection of components would meet various coastal plans & etc.

Also not known is, do USDA funds require an actual “plan/design” or can funds be allocated on the basis of a generic collection of components, none of which are actually nailed down? Sorta, Give us the money now and we’ll let you know later what we decide to build and where it will be built?

Does the Coastal Commission need an actual designed project to give a permit to, or can they also issue a sort of generic permit, i.e. Here’s a permit for some sort of collection system, placement and design to follow; some sort of treatment plant, size, placement, etc. to be determined later, and a water disposal system that will be detailed later?

And if they can issue a permit for a “component concept,” can the project (or a component) be changed later down the line without losing the permit or the funding, since the permit and the isn’t based on any specific designed project?

Well, maybe the Coastal Commission can answer those questions at their next meeting. As with all things sewerish, stay tuned.

Koff-Koff-Koff

It's 2150 in a sealed laboratory/work station on a planet called Pandora. The work station/ lab is sealed because the air on Pandora is deadly to humans. Into this (presumably) "clean" lab, wherein the humans are creating avatars for use in the deadly outside world, comes our tough, smart head scientist, played by Sigourney Weaver. We know she's tough because she's SMOKING A CIGARETTE, in a "clean lab" filled with all kinds of sensitive equipment in a sealed work area that has to manufacture and constantly clean the air that's being breathed by the humans because the air on the planet is poisonous.

So, we know she's tough on account of the cigarette. But we now know she's really dumb and all the people running the station are also dumb. In films there's "gratuitous violence" and now we have "gratuitous product placement."

Not Avatar's finest moment.

Start Yer Engines. No, Wait, Stop Yer Engines. No, Wait . . . Oh Nevermind

The BOS held a re-hearing of the Los Osos Hideous Sewer Project to re-fiddle with the language in condition #97 to change the language a bit concerning water use, re-use, and return to basin issues that were raised by the Coastal Commission’s own appeal, said appeal being the only one being revisited. County Council McNulty didn’t think that this hearing would cause a problem with all the other appellants whose issues were not re-visited at this re-hearing – just the Coastal Commission’s concerns – and so he felt that the CC would, maybe, sorta wing it during their appeals hearings and try to accommodate all the other appeals. Or maybe the other appellants would have to re-submit their appeals or only submit another appeal based on the result of this one issue on top of their original appeal, or maybe . . . oh, who knows? Since this BOS hearing is outside the usual procedures, I guess everybody is winging it with the hope that nobody will take umbrage and call their attorney.

After public comment, staff told the BOS that the Coastal Commission staff was happy with the language proposed (the old CYA) and he felt that the Coastal Commission Board would be happy as well and might well withdraw their appeal. With no BOS Board member discussion, the revision passed 5 – 0.

In addition to public comment, John Diodoti noted that the County has secured a $16 million Federal grant and a $64 million 40-year loan, which will help with the cost a bit. Further, there’s a new blog on funding issues being set up at www.slocountypw.blogspot.com. (Let’s hope some of the nastier “anonymous” people who comment on this and other blogs, don’t show up on John’s blog. Eeeuuuuuu.)

Some public comment notes:

Alon Perlman suggested that it would be prudent for the county to stop pretending that the ISJ process is some kind of far-away vague proceeding that can be dealt with later, and start getting specific in identifying areas where the returning water will be going. That is, it’s better to get more specific now and plan for water return rather than leave it all vaguely up to a judge somewhere, sometime.

And both Linde Owen and Julie Tacker reminded the Board – again – of the time and money (taxpayer money) wasted by the whole focus on Tonini spray fields. That Supervisor Gibson’s previous comments on how closely the county has been working with the Coastal Commission was clearly at odds with reality since the CC fired off a letter of concern early-on about “spraying” water outside the basin. So, if the county had been in close contact with the CC, somebody somewhere would have said, “Psssst, don’t waste any time and money on spray fields; they’ll never fly.” Doncha think?

Ron Crawford of Sewerwatch Checks In

Did I say, somebody somewhere would have, could have, should have, actually did toss down warning flags before all that nice money was blown on Tonini? Well, Ron Crawford, of www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com certainly has something to say about that in a comment on my blog that’s simply too funny not to repeat here. On that particular thread, some folks were whining about what a pest former CSD Director, Julie Tacker is, to which Ron noted:

[quoting a previous poster] "Yes she's droned on before the BOS; I've seen them reach for their airsickness bags."

See? There's the problem.

Because she was 100-percent right on the groundwater/basin issue, instead of reaching for their airsickness bags, the Board should have just listened to her, and stopped wasting all of that money studying a DOA location -- the Tonini site.

My favorite part about this situation, is how Gibson limited her time to speak because he said the same people were saying the same thing over and over again.

Well, yeah, Bruce... Julie WAS saying the same thing over and over again. She was saying that the Tonini site wasn't going to work because it didn't return groundwater to the basin, then, after Bruce's Board threw a bunch of money at the Tonini site, it didn't work, just like Julie told them over and over and over again, while they were wasting time and money on the Tonini site.

When she had three minutes to speak, she said it like this, "The Tonini site is infeasible because it doesn't return groundwater to the basin."

Then, Bruce started whining, and cut her time down to two minutes, so she had to say it like this:"TheToninisiteisinfeasiblebecauseitdoesn'treturngroundwatertothebasin. Out!"

And they still didn't listen to her.

Last week, I e-mailed Paavo asking him for a "ballpark figure" on how much money his department wast... errrrrrrrr... spent on studying the Tonini site.

Of course, he never replied.

So, next week, I'll be doing a public records request for that information, and then (here's the cool part) in my public records request, I'm also going to ask for the cost of fulfilling my public records request, that I was forced to do just because Paavo won't answer my one, excellent question:

"How much money was spent (read: wasted) by the SLO County Public Works Department studying the Tonini site as the preferred location in 2008 - 09?"

9:45 AM, November 21, 2009


Pretty funny. Pretty expensive, but pretty funny. But there’s the key to why so much of this project kept and keeps turning into a train wreck: False branding and framing.

Once you frame or brand something, people stop seeing complex reality and instead, see the “brand.” More often than not, branding is an advertising technique used to create a false image that can then be used to manipulate people into buying something. In politics, “framing an issue” serves the same purpose – set up a false or cherry-picked “reality” in order to shape (frame) a complex issue in order to manipulate the voter.

That happened to Los Osos early on. It was very cleverly branded as a town with “raw sewage running down the streets,” a town of scofflaws who “don’t care about the environment,” a town filled with “Anti-Sewer Obstructionists” who needed to be “fined out of existence.” Anyone who objected in any way with any proposed project, even people who were trying hard to create a BETTER SEWER PROJECT, were immediately called Anti-Sewer Obstructionists and thus branded, they could be dismissed as . . . one of those. And, of course, if you’re “one of those,” you don’t need to be listened to. Even if you’re 100% right and are telling everyone as loudly as you can, Stop. Bridge Out. Cliff ahead.

Or as Ron would put it: Stopbridgeoutcliffahead!

That’s the problem with branding. Besides being dishonest, it blinds people to a complex reality on the ground and always, always wastes tons of money. Tons. And too often turns into a train wreck, as well.

Saint DeVaul Makes The L.A. Times

The Tribune’s front page picture by Joe Johnston of Dan DeVaul being cuffed (and headed for jail after refusing in court to comply with the probation requirements) and the story by Nick Wilson made the L.A. Times.

Noted the Tribune, “In explaining his reasons for sentencing De Vaul, [Judge] Trice said that De Vaul has ‘good intentions’ but that his argument was confusing the ‘social issues with legal issues.’”

“ ‘De Vaul has not been a good steward of the beautiful property he has,” Trice said, adding that DeVaul has consistently ignored county inspectors and ‘such conduct can only be viewed as irresponsible and arrogant.’”

And, in case you thought this case couldn’t get any weirder, an updated Tribune story informs us that one of the jurors in the case, Mary Partin, paid De Vaul’s $500 bail so he only got to spend one night in the pokey. Which is kind of nice: Martyrdom on the cheap. And of course, De Vaul’s attorney is appealing the case to the 2nd District Court of Appeal in Ventura, so it remains to be seen what will transpire.

The Nov 24th Tribune story had a side bar listing “what’s next” including County inspectors allowing DeVaul to comply with the code once he’s out of jail and if he doesn’t, they’ll clean the place up and send him the bill. Then if he refuses to pay that bill, those charges will appear on his taxes.

Missing from that sidebar is this worst case scenario: De Vaul property goes into tax default, is sold at auction, bought by a big developer, the “homeless people” evicted, property is annexed to the city, high-end “ranchettes” and condos, maybe a lovely little high-end shopping center (nice sales taxes to the city) are built, with some open space mitigation to make it all look nice.

Hey, don’t wrinkle your brow. That’s how it’s done. It’s called Progress.

As for De Vaul, the County and this whole mess? My only response at this point is I want to spank everyone involved in this ridiculous fiasco. It is an instructive case, however, a perfect illustration of: Do you want to be right or do you want to get something useful done, like helping the people you claim you want to help?

Take your pick.

Stop Yer Engines Fer Now And Call A Lawyer. I Fear A Train Further Down The Track

Here's an update to the previous posting's press release. What always makes “the law” so interesting is how it’s always looking in the rear view mirror after the train wreck. For example, this hearing on Tuesday before the BOS to hear, discuss and re-consider and possibly act on the Coastal Commission's appeal – but nobody else’s appeal – is decidedly odd to me, since its been cherry picked and makes clear that while the BOS pretends that it treats all appellants equally, it’s plain that some are created MORE equal than others. That is, the Coastal Commission’s appeal is getting a very special hearing of its own. Everyone else is chopped liver. And that’s o.k. with the court. And later, if and when it can be shown that “real harm” has been done to some appellant by this move, the court can then dismiss the case as “too late.” A perfect Catch-22, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. The danger here in making some appellants more equal than others is that it may tick some appellants off so they’ll sue which can then delay things and create an ever bigger mess further down the line. And if Mr. Edwards is correct and . . . the Coastal Commission is . . . unclear? Uhhnnnhhh, does all this sound hideously familiar? Well, stay tuned.

NEWS RELEASE
November 20, 2009

The request by Los Osos developer Jeff Edwards for a Temporary Restraining Order was denied by Judge Teresa Estrada-Mullaney, wherein Edwards asked the Court to postpone the County Board of Supervisors hearing on the Los Osos Wastewater Project set for Tuesday, November 24, 2009 . In the early morning exparte hearing, Edwards was unable to convince the court that the outcome of the Tuesday hearing would irreparably harm him at this time.
Edwards waived his right to a December 3, 2009 hearing to further consider the main issue. Unfortunately the central question of proper procedure being employed by the County for changes to the wastewater project wasn’t heard. Among other issues, an unintended consequence of the County’s Tuesday hearing may render his pending Coastal Commission appeal moot. Edwards who has 25 years experience in Coastal land use issues cautioned, “This is uncharted water and even Coastal Commission staff is unclear as to what will happen as a result of the intended Board action on Tuesday to the 23 appeals.”

Jeff Edwards can be reached via cell phone, 805-235-0873

Start Yer Engines Some More

If you’re a Los Ososian, you got the post card noting that there will be a BOS hearing, Tuesday, Nov 24, at 9 a..m. to “consider a request by the County of San Luis Obispo to modify, supersede, or replace conditions of approval imposed on the previously issued Development Plan/Coastal Development Permit DRC200800103 (Los Osos Wastewater Project) pursuant to Coast Zone Land Use Ordinance . . . .”

Naturally, being the Hideous Sewer Project, this hearing is a bit strange because there are a whole passel of “appeals” before the Coastal Commission, but the BOS is only going to be hearing this one appeal in order to maybe modify the County project to comply with what’s in the CC’s appeal of this project BEFORE officially coming before the CC, while the other appellants have to wait for the actual CC meeting? Sorta like one student getting a do-over of his test paper (complete with answer sheet) before turning it in, while the other students have to wait and take whatever grade the Proctor gives them later?

Which is still kinda odd since the CC Board acts as judge and jury in any project appeal, yet they’ve filed an appeal of their own, which is like a judge getting down off the bench during a trial, going into the witness box to testify against one of the defendants, then going back up on the bench to continue “judging.” Fair and balanced? Uh???

And if the County’s Nov 24 appeal hearing results in “delays” in this project, can everyone now start referring to the County as “an Ultra Opposition Anti-Sewer Obstructionist?”

And now we have the following Press Release. Let the Games begin. Stay tuned and see you all Tuesday morning for some more Waltz Me Around Again Willy.

Press Release:

Land use planner, real estate developer and 25 year supporter of a wastewater project in Los Osos, Jeff Edwards, has filed a request for a temporary restraining order against the County Board of Supervisors. Edwards is asking the Court to level the playing field with regard to the 23 appeals levied against the controversial wastewater project at the state level. In an unprecedented procedural move, the County Board of Supervisors has scheduled a hearing for November 24, 2006 to selectively rehear their approval of the wastewater project on September 29, 2009 . It appears the Board of Supervisors feels changes to an approval condition will obviate the pending appeals before the Coastal Commission.

Edwards said, “The County can’t make up the rules as they go along.” “In my 25 years of experience with Coastal land use policies and procedures I’ve never seen this, it hasn’t been done before.” Edwards is asking the Court to require a new hearing of the controversial project in its entirety if the County wants to make changes as required by existing regulations. Rehearing the 14 appeals from the Planning Commission decision on August 13, 2009, or to hold no hearing at all, “Let the process play out”, he said.



The 23 appeals include those by Coastal Commissioners, Los Osos citizens, out of the area property owners, and multiple environmental groups raising objections including the County’s self imposed condition on the project that defers groundwater management to the future. Condition 97 as written would also allow the County to dispose of treated wastewater outside the Los Osos Groundwater Basin .

The County’s intention at the November 24, 2009 hearing is to modify only one condition. If the Board of Supervisors wants to change the project or condition, they should consider the whole project. Certainly, no applicant other than the County could do what the Board of Supervisors intends to do.

Case#CV090657

Jeff Edwards can be reached for comment via cell phone, 805-235-0873

Chugga, Chugga Chugga

By the time BOS Chairman Bruce Gibson was finished listening to the appellant and general public input at the permit hearing for the Hideous Los Osos Sewer Project, I was struck by how quickly he turned into Chairperson Sarah Christie of the Planning Commission.

After reading the staff report and proposal, Christie must have rolled her eyes something fierce and muttered, Oh really, after spending all those millions of Los Osians’ nice assessment money, this sucky spray fields idea is the best they could come up with? And then took the county staff, their sucky proposal and “her” board by the scruff of the neck and frog marched them straight into the new! improved! strong water conservation, ag exchange, water-in-basin, Giacomazzi property plan. And if any of her Commissioners snorted and skittered about looking like they might jump their traces, a quick snap of the snaffle bit –chink! chink!—and she had them quickly settled down and pulling the project wagon exactly where she intended to take it. It was beautiful to see.

And now here was Gibson, prepared outline (and reins) in hand, heading his fellow Sups swiftly along the path he intended them to take. And if there was any whinny or wither-shivvering -- ka-chink! ka-chink! – Gibson would snap that snaffle bit and they’d settle back in line.

‘splaining a blue streak for the audience, his fellow board members and by that hour of the evening, the record, Gibson firmly guided discussion. Gravity? Check! No, no problems with Broderson, the planning commission’s thinking on that’s just fine. Mitigation? Not a problems? The EIR’s got it all covered. No worries. Giacomazzi? Check! Treatment system as written? Check! Sludge? No problem. Salt water intrusion? We’re on it! The Planning Commission’s plan has nailed it just fine. The annoying, nit-picking appellants we’ve had to listed to all day have had their say. Nothing to see there, move along, move along. Our staff tells us we’ve got all bases covered splendidly! See, it’s all right here in their EIR. Time to get cracking.

Appeals denied 5-0. Project permit approved! Now, on to the Coastal Commission, Yippee-Ki-Yi!

Some random notes along the way:

According to the RWQCB, any “leaks” from the traditional, gravity cap & bell sewer pipes will likely be minimal and is that’s O.K. with them. This from the same people who brought you The Criminal Los Osos 45 who find their criminal septic tank only remains criminal if they still own the property. Once they sell their homes and move away, the septic tank that remains behind and the new owners using it and “discharging” and polluting the groundwater of the state of California, are suddenly transformed into non-criminals, no CDO, no problem. It’s one of those Los Osos “miracles.”

A goodly number of “Dreamers” and TPWers have weirdly gotten themselves stuck in a puzzling delusion. I repeatedly heard them say the project should be moved back to Tri-W because Tri-W is “fully permitted.” Uh, there is no “permit” on Tri-W. The original ginned up SOC was rescinded and the permit was allowed to lapse by all parties, including the Coastal Commission. Were the project to be put on Tri-W, the whole permit process would have to start from scratch and a new SOC would have to be filed saying that there is NO alternative non-ESHA sites available, which clearly isn’t now and never was the case. Somebody should break the news to these folks, but do it gently, please.

Steve Paige had some interesting comments. The property tax State deferral program for seniors is kaput, so any lien put on their homes (sewer assessment) will result in those homes gong immediately ito default, which means they can be seized for non-payment.(since the State’s deferral program is kaput.)

Also, interestingly, septic tanks are property and expensive property at that, all legal and properly permitted by the county and RWQCB. If they’re now “condemned” and shut down without just compensation for their loss and without a proper hearing, that constitutes a government “taking” since there has been no proper hearing and the owners will not be compensated for the loss of a privately owned, legally permitted, expensive device. Basis for a class action lawsuit? According to Steve, yes,

Supervisor Gibson single-handedly took STEP off the table by claiming the county already had Mongomery Watson Harza’s original in-the-ground plans so they’d save $ on the redesign and they could claim they were “shovel ready” for stimulus funds that didn’t pan out. Yet STEP never got put back on the table. So much for the promise to allowing both systems to duke it out through the design-build-bid process.

This becomes interesting in light of Andrew Christie’s (Sierra Club, an appellant) remarks: He told the BOS that the Sierra club would withdraw all their objections and appeals to the Coastal Commission if the BOS would put STEP back on the table and allow it to continue on to the bid process so that the community could finally get real time, real life, real hard numbers. He pointed out that nobody on the staff or Corollo Engineering or the Water Board had any real life experience with STEP so their numbers were, at best, guestimates and the BOS really needed to get testimony and numbers from some real experts in STEP, with real experience with STEP.

That suggestion went nowhere, of course. So the community will never know what the real cost savings with a hard-bid STEP system would have been. But that’s o.k. with the community. While even the staff’s numbers did show STEP as being cheaper, 1/3 of the town didn’t care enough one way or the other to return the Community Survey and the other 1/3 wanted gravity and would stick with gravity unless it could save them more than $30 a month. So, 2/3rds of the community wanted to pay more for their system, so that’s exactly what they’ll get.

The front-loaded $5 million water conservation efforts (retrofit toilets in every home, using the money to reimburse homeowners for the retrofit if they do it within the first year of the project & etc.) got muddled and wandered off the field a bit. The BOS and Paavo started in on their usual mantra about working on a conservation program, which in this county means something will get done, oh, let’s see. . . um. . . never. Planning Commissioner Wyatt came to the podium to try to make the BOS understand that the nexus for that $5 mil was immediate water reduction as part of the reduced flow the sewer system was now designed to handle and it was time sensitive since it was also designed to slow salt water intrusion NOW, not into some vague future. She also wanted to amend the original condition to give it less specificity and allow more flexibility to include commercial establishments & etc. So the Supervisors muddled around with the language and it’s not clear whether the emphasis remains on the up-frontness of the idea. Clearly, all homes must show proof of having high efficiency toilets and retrofit showerheads & etc. before they can hook up to the sewer. But it isn’t clear whether the details of the rebate/financial incentive program will have to come back later for hammering out. So, if there are delays in this project, there’ll be delays in water reduction, which means MORE salt water intrusion, the stopping of which should be the absolute #1 priority.

The most interesting question, of course, is why STEP wasn’t allowed – as promised – to compete head to head with gravity. I mean, it wasn’t as if several systems with hard, real-time bids came back and STEP lost on various counts. It wasn’t allowed to compete in the first place. So, what was the real fear preventing that from happening? After all, if the Process had been allowed to proceed as promised and as it should have proceeded, either STEP would fall away as being too expensive or being environmentally unsound or something. Or it would come in way cheaper and the community or the BOS could then decide to accept or reject it on whatever basis. Or it would be there to “keep gravity” honest, much like the “public option” is being touted as being necessary to keep private health insurance plans “honest.” But it wasn’t allowed on the table to even compete. Why? What was the BOS and county afraid of ? (C’mon, honest answer here, please.)

People holding undeveloped property in the PZ who are under the impression that once the sewer gets built they’ll finally be able to build their dream homes and hook up and live happily ever after are gonna be in for a rude shock. No building, no hook up until the Habitat Conservation Plan, the Estero Bay Plan and the Watershed Basin plan are updated and the water basin is shown to be in balance. When all that happens is not known. Weirdly, people outside the PZ are free to build and use water to their heart’s content, thereby helping to deplete the water while those inside the PZ are SOL, thanks to RWQCB.

The new CAO, Mr. Jim Grant was given the microphone to alert the audience and listening audience of the earthquake in Samoa and to warn of a possible 2-foot tsunami heading for the central coast so nobody should run down to Morro Rock at 9 pm. last night to stand on the rocks to watch.

And, finally, Supervisor Meacham asked Mark Hutchinson why the sewer plant can’t be put back on Tri-W and Mr. Hutchinson said that in today’s world, Tri-W would be $24 million more than the Giacomazzi site, to which someone in the audience said, “Imagine that,” no doubt rolling his eyes as well. $24 million more to build today? I guess “out of town” really is waaaaayyyyy cheaper? Well, well.

Next up, the Coastal Commisison. In their early-on warning-shot-across-the-bow letter, they listed several issues they were “concerned” with. So far, I think their sludge concerns may still be a sticking point. According to Mark Hutchinson, ponds that would eliminate more sludge weren’t recommended due to the specific site size restrictions and Los Osos weather that can be problematic. But we’ll have to see. The Coastal Commissioners may figure two out of three is about the best they’ll get and better than nothing.

And we’ll all have to now set up the betting pool: Who will be the first person/acronym/group to file a lawsuit? Hey, it wouldn’t be The Hideous Los Osos Sewer Project without a lawsuit.

Yippie-ki-yi . . . .

The Sierra Club's Newsletter Checks In

The following comments appeared in the Sept newsletter on the Planning Commission recommendations on the Los Osos Sewer.


Santa Lucian • September 2009

Sewer Myths Busted

The County Planning Commission
hearings on the Los Osos Wastewater
Project shone a bright light on
various claims asserted by the County
and the Public Works Department
about the biggest, longest-running
public works project in county
history. They fell like autumn leaves
before the questioning of Commissioners
and in the face of hard data.
A short list, with corrections:
[in italics]

Gravity sewers don’t leak; any
evidence of such deficiency is a result
of old technology, the failure of 100-
year-old clay pipes, etc.

-- Major infiltration and inflow of
groundwater has been found in gravity
systems less than ten years old.

Gravity sewers are environmentally
preferable to STEP/STEG collection.

-- The only significant environmental
benefit of gravity over STEP is the
reduction of the amount of sludge
produced when a gravity system is
used with facultative ponds. If facultative
ponds are not used, there is no
environmental advantage to a gravity
sewer. Facultative ponds are not (yet)
part of the County’s project.

All collection systems would have
roughly equivalent impacts and the
Coastal Commission has no issues
with the selection of one over
another.

-- Dan Carl, Central Coast District
Manager, California Coastal Commission,
wrote to County Public Works
Director Paavo Ogren on July 15 to
say that sludge reduction should be
made a “a high priority in the
selection of preferred collection and
treatment technologies.”

The Tonini disposal site might not be
outside the water basin because, theoretically, there could be connecting
strata between the aquifers.

-- The Tonini site is outside the water
basin. Treated wastewater disposed of
at Tonini would be water wasted.

The Andre site cannot be used
because PG&E will not allow the hay/
grass crop that would be required to be grown under power lines.

-- PG&E restrictions apply to the
heights of trees and structures under
power lines, not grass and hay.

The use of recycled water in the Los
Osos basin cannot be required until
the basin has been adjudicated.

-- State law requires that recycled
water must be used in lieu of well
water by ag users if recycled water is
available.

“We’re trying to give the
county some guidance and
direction to avoid a train
wreck at the end of this
line.”
- Peter Douglas
Executive Director,
California Coastal Commission


A Sewer, Almost
Never did a project so flawed get so much better so fast

As a rule, improvements in what you
are given are extremely unlikely if you
simply take whatever is offered.
On August 13, after hundreds of
hours of study and public testimony,
two field trips, 8,000 pages of documentation
and 170 pages of findings
and conditions, the County Planning
Commission proved this point when it
approved the permit for the Los Osos
Wastewater Project.

The Commission vastly improved on
the project as originally submitted by
County Public Works -- a project that
had no chance of receiving a coastal
development permit due to its
impermissable environmental
impacts. Sewage will now be subjected
to a significantly higher level of
treatment, producing effluent that
can be safely recycled for use on
crops. The treatment plant and
disposal method will not consume
645 acres of prime agricultural land.
The treated effluent will remain in the
basin and be put to work curbing
saltwater intrusion instead of being
sprayed away outside the water basin
in the middle of a drought. A mandate
to reduce water use by 25 percent is
included, more than doubling the
originally proposed level of water
conservation.

The improved project demonstrates
the reason why the Sierra Club, in
agreeing at the outset that we all
needed to “support the project,”
elected not to follow the path of least
resistance in doing so. We joined with
concerned local citizens who insisted
that the project feature tertiary, not
just secondary treatment of wastewater;
that treated effluent be disposed
of inside, not outside, the ground
water basin and be made available to
growers to reduce pumping of the
lower aquifer and seawater intrusion;
and that a more aggressive water
conservation program be mandated.

And so it has come to pass.

Unfortunately, what the Commission
did not do, despite a wealth of
evidence that it should, was mandate
the use of a pressurized effluent
collection system and the use of
facultative ponds for treatment. The
selected gravity system and Biolac
treatment would result in greater
quantities of toxic sludge produced as
an end product of treatment. These
two parts of the project still need to
be changed to ensure that the County
takes the environmentally superior
course of action on the largest public
works project in its history.

The Environmental Impact Report
on which those decisions were based
was correctly and repeatedly characterized
by Commissioners as “flawed.”
They were being kind. Golden State
Water Co. correctly summed up the
fatal flaw of the EIR’s “failure to make
a connection between the facts
presented and the conclusions
reached.” Further: “because the
County fails to set forth an accurate
project description, a meaningful
alternatives analysis is impossible.
Because the DEIR does not provide a
stable project description to which
alternatives can be compared, the
‘alternatives’ presented in the DEIR
are more akin to a series of proposed
projects, rather than the means to
compare the worth and value of
alternatives to a proposed project.”

The Sierra Club is appealing the
certification of the EIR in order to
correct those flaws, correctly state the
project’s environmental impacts and
clarify the collection and disposal
options before a permit is approved.

The Planning Commission’s process
and the project that emerged from it
was a testament to the value of public
advocacy. Local residents, community
groups, wastewater experts and
environmental organizations brought
their concerns to the Commission,
backed them up with facts and data,
and the Commission listened.

Had we all heeded the call to “just
do it” and acquiesced to the project
that Public Works submitted to the
Planning Commission, none of the
above improvements would be part of
the project now.

When the permit comes before the
Board, for the sake of the aquifer, the
Morro Bay Estuary and the citizens of
Los Osos, those improvements need
to stay there, and two more need to
be added: an environmentally preferable
treatment method, and the
consideration of an alternative
collection system in the bidding
process.

"The estimated progress of seawater
intrusion since 2005 is the third, and
biggest bulge; the rate of progress
for the prior 20 years is shown in the
layers to the left of it. The rate of seawater
intrusion into the basin is now under the
Los Osos downtown and commercial area
and appears to be four to eitht times faster
than it was fourt years ago"

Cleath & Associates/Keith Weimer, LOSG