Another Buh-bye to Rog

The following is a guest posting by Ron Crawford of http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com.  He’s been writing about all this for years.  Indeed, if he ever writes a book about The Los Osos Sewer Wars,  the tome will be longer than “War and Peace.”  Heck, the footnotes alone will be 17 volumes.

It’s certainly been a long, strange trip, with some fascinating crossroads, key points at which even a slight tweak, a slight course change could  have made all the difference.  But those course changes didn’t happen and the reasons Why they didn’t are some of the most intriguing things about the Hideous Sewer Wars. Well, it’s all water under the bridge now. And that flat, bloody, furry thing in the car’s rear view mirror?  That’s Los Osos, smooshed flat by the wheels of history.

Ann recently blogged  about how the State's long-time local water "quality" CEO, Roger Briggs is retiring this week, so, considering that he's been working in that office as long as I've been reporting on Los Osos (since the early 1990s. Roger and I go waaaaay back. He knows me, and I know him, and, in full disclosure, I'm not a Roger Briggs hater. I actually kinda like the guy. He's always been good at returning my emails, and picking up the phone. He just got http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/05/she-is-los-osos.html Jedi Mind Tricked  on Los Osos, like everyone else), I want to quickly join in on the Calhoun's Can(n)ons  Roger Briggs Retirement Party (and, hopefully/certainly, spur one of my new favorite guilty pleasures: the crazy anonymous comments that show up on Ann's blog whenever she posts anything related to "the sewer." [And, apparently I'm not alone on that guilty pleasure. Am I right, people, or am I right?... you know who you are.]))

Before the CDOs, before the Tri-W disaster, before AB 2701, there was http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/10/briggs-blown-opportunities.htmlmy one question:

Why in the world did Roger Briggs allow the 1999 - 2000 Los Osos CSD to waste two years on a non-"project" -- the "better, cheaper, faster" disaster -- that Roger already knew wasn't going to work?

He http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/exposed-karner-confession.html KNEW it wasn't going to work, and then he just sat back and watched it not work... for two over-the-top-disastrous years.

That was THE  bureaucratic blunder, in the entire  Los Osos sewer mess, and it was solely responsible for the next 13-years-AND-COUNTING of Los Osos sewer disaster, and no one  -- well, other than me, of course -- said a word about that act of  gross  incompetence.

And, just like I write in my October 18, 2005 open letter at http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/10/briggs-blown-opportunities.htmlthis link, had ol' Rog shown up at that 1999  Los Osos CSD meeting, where http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/slo/race/109/ Pandora and Co. voted to kill the county's then-"ready to go" sewer project, and begin pursuit of the known-to-be-DOA "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, and simply said something like:

"Look, we all know that your gimmicky little 'better, cheaper, faster' http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html Community Plan  isn't going to work. It will not be better. It will not be cheaper. And it definitely will not be faster. It can't  be any of those things, because it is not going to work, as we, and a bunch of other water quality types, have been telling you for the past year.

“Now, I want you to listen to me very closely. If there is one friggin' nanosecond of sewer delay due to your pursuit of that paperweight you call a 'sewer project,' we are going to start fining you, hard and fast."

Had  Roger shown up at that meeting, and said that to the brand new LOCSD Board, in early 1999, the past 13 years-and-counting of Los Osos sewer disaster, at an IMMENSE cost to the State of California, would have never happened, because HAD Roger said exactly that, at that meeting -- and this point is crazy-important, yet almost never discussed (well, outside of SewerWatch) -- the project would have simply, and logically, just turned back to the county's "ready-to-go" project... that was sitting right there... "ready to go," and Roger knew that.

Which means that, since early 1999, ALL of the delays of "the sewer" -- delays that led directly to, among many other disastrous things, those hideous, and highly embarrassing to the the local Water "Quality" Control Board, CDO's -- are Roger's and the Regional Board's fault!

He never lifted a finger to stop that known-to-him-to-be a disaster.

So again:

Why in the world did Roger Briggs allow the 1999 - 2000 Los Osos CSD to waste two years on a non-"project" -- the "better, cheaper, faster" disaster -- that Roger already knew wasn't going to work?

Which means that I also want to bring this:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/04/sewerwatch-cdo-defense-six-mirrors.html... to Roger's retirement party.

That's the link to my April 14, 2006, blog post where I suggest to the CDOers, that their defense should be to bring six mirrors to their RWQCB "trial," and then hand them to the RWQCB members, and one for Roger, because the CDO's were actually their fault for allowing the 1999 - 2000 LOCSD to completely waste two years on a "non-project" that Roger http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/exposed-karner-confession.html ALREADY KNEW wasn't going to work.

And, frankly, it's a damn shame that none of the CDOers used my defense strategy. because, not only would it have been hilarious, it would  have worked.

So, happy retirement, Rog, and, a toast to no more "not happy memories!"

Cheers.

###

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.

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.

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.