The following email was sent along by Judy Vick, who's heading up a local campaign to get the BOS to at least send a letter to the PUC to stop the mandatory installation of "smart meters" until some issues can be ironed out. Here's my letter to the Sups:
"Dear Sirs: I would urge you to sign the letter asking the PUC to wait on the mandatory installation of "smart meters" until several troubling issues can be resolved at the state level: aparently these (mandatory) devices have no UL certification? (is that some kind of sick joke?), lack of a hack-proof security system, lack of a hard-wire option , etc.) The LAST thing this county needs is somebody suing you guys if this sytem goes ker-flooey because you were aware of the unresolved issues yet did nothing to protect the citizens from this "mandatory" installation.
The PUC is the unelected body that needs to step up to deal with these (soon to be) statewide issues. Ditto the state legislature. Get them resolved first, then proceed. Right now, it's clear the cart is driving the horse an the horse may well be heading off a cliff. (Awww, Gaaawwwddd, Why is THAT scenario so hauntingly familair?)
Sincerely,"
While some folks are having a snicker over the issue of having a cow over micro-bursts from smart meters while daily getting bombarded with brain-cell-altering cell phones, satellite transmissions, Wi-Fi's all over the place, nonetheless there's likely enough other screwey things left unresolved in this system to give one pause. What I see here is just more horses and carts and I suspect Ralph Nader's right: This is more about corporate bottom lines than about "smart" energy use. And when it comes to corporate bottom lines, the public better pay particular attention to their behinds, because Corporate sure ain't gonna.
So, if you hear wagon wheels screeching and the thunder of hoofbeats and spy a cliff ahead, drop an email to your Sup and let him know what you think about this matter.
Vick's email:
Enough county citizen complaints about smart meters (health, accuracy, loss of privacy, security, risk of fire and damage to in-home electrical appliances) have caused the County Board of Supervisors to consider sending a resolution to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to suspend installation of smartmeters until the CA legislature acts on current legislation AB37. The county will be joining 31 other California governments (counties and cities including Morro Bay) who have sent similar resolutions. Seven have gone as far as outlawing the installations and/or suing PG&E.
BUT ALL SUPERVISORS AREN'T CONVINCED! AND ONLY 4 WILL BE PRESENT (Frank Mecham out for surgery) FOR THE VOTE.
YOUR VOICE IS NEEDED!
Please attend the Board of Supervisors meeting, 9 a.m., Tuesday, March 8, 2011 in the Board Chambers on the corner of Santa Rosa and Monterey (1055 Monterey) in SLO. This is a Consent Item that is near the top of the list. If you want to speak as well as attend, there are speaker slips to fill out at the back of the room that can be handed to the secretary.
Please see attached Agenda, letter, and resolution.
AT THE LEAST: Write your supervisor, or all of them, before next Tuesday, March 8, 2011.
• District 1 Frank Mecham fmeacham@co.slo.ca.us
• District 2 Bruce Gibson http://www.blogger.com/goog_423829226
• District 3 Adam Hill ahill@co.slo.ca.us
• District 4 Paul Teixeira pteixeira@co.slo.ca.us
• District 5 James Patterson jpatterson@co.slo.ca.us
NEED MORE INFORMATION YOURSELF? Read a summary of reasons below and links to more information.
Capitola- During a meeting last week in which they joined six other local governments* who have passed laws criminalizing the installation of wireless ‘smart’ meters, the Capitola City Council discovered that the wireless ‘smart’ meters that CA utilities are trying to install are in fact not certified by Underwriters Laboratory, a certification that is required under the state electrical code for all electrical appliances and equipment within the home.
The lack of certification was confirmed by Karl Moeller, a senior engineer with UL earlier today:
Product certifications can be verified by going to www.UL.com then scroll down to the bottom and click on “on-line certifications directory”. You can search for active certifications at the On-line Certifications Directory.
In summary, I am unable to confirm these devices as being UL certified.
Not just CA--unqualified installers reported in Atlanta, Georgia (CNN-TV, March 1, 2011) and Victoria, Australia, challenging safety.
Public Citizen (Ralph Nader’s consumer advocate organization) leads a national coalition raising alarms about smart meters. “Smart meter installations have thus far prioritized utility budget efficiency – not household budget efficiency. Poring through utility dockets, utilities make it clear that the vast majority of projected savings from smart meters is from laying off utility workers – and not from consumers’ lowering their energy use and bills. Utilities highlight savings from remote disconnection--mainly for nonpayment. This raises serious consumer safety and health issues.”
http://www.citizen.org/documents/EnergyInvestmentForumPres.pdf
Public Citizen, AARP, Consumers Union, National Consumer Law Center and the National Association of State Utility Consumer Advocates released a sweeping overview of needed improvements for smart meters to better serve the needs of working families (August 2010). www.nclc.org/images/pdf/energy_utility_telecom/additi
The Division of Ratepayer Advocates (DRA), an independent consumer advocacy division of the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), and the California Small Business Association (CSBA), a non-profit small business advocacy group, have requested that the CPUC revisit its decision to direct Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) to place 500,000 small business customers on a dynamic pricing program beginning in November 2011. That program will likely lead to disruption and higher costs to small businesses. http://yubanet.com/california/DRA-and-CSBA-Request-Relief-from-New-Electric-Pricing-Scheme-That-Will-Cause-Disruption-to-500-000-PG-E-Small-Business-Customers.php
Bloomberg Business Week states, "Duke Energy's proposal to install 800,000 (such meters) in Indiana was rejected by regulators because the cost of the project would outweigh potential benefits to consumers." http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_39/b4196044842103.htm
The Government Accountability Office (the investigative arm of the U.S. Congress) warns that smart-grid systems are being deployed without built-in security features. Certain smart meters have not been designed with a strong security architecture and lack important security features like event logging and forensics capabilities used to detect and analyze cyberattacks, while smart-grid home area networks that manage electricity usage of appliances also lack adequate built-in security. "Without securely designed smart-grid systems, utilities will be at risk of not having the capacity to detect and analyze attacks, which increases the risk that attacks will succeed and utilities will be unable to prevent them from recurring," said the report. The report also took aim at the self-regulatory nature of the industry, saying utilities are focusing on complying with minimum regulatory requirements rather than having adequate security to prevent cyberattacks. http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2011/01/smartmeter-security-is-a-growing-concern.html
29 California local governments have formally demanded a halt or a moratorium on smart meters. Seven have gone further and legislated against installation, enacting ordinances, the strongest action a local government can take.
San Francisco Chapter of the Sierra Club voted unanimously (2/15/11) to call for an immediate ordinance to ban smart meters in the city http://stopsmartmeters.org/
Assembly Bill 37, introduced by Assemblymember Huffman, directs the California Public Utilities Commission to determine alternatives for customers who do not wish to have a smart meter installed. The legislation also directs utilities to disclose important information about the smart meters to consumers, including the timing, magnitude, frequency and duration of radio frequency emissions so that individual consumers can make informed decisions.Assemblymember Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) represents the 6th Assembly District which encompasses southern Sonoma County and all of Marin County.
For more information: emfsafetynetwork.org stopsmartmeters.org turn.org
Nina Beety, Monterey County, spent $4100 on a newspaper ad to protest Smart Meters.
http://www.ksbw.com/video/26880746/detail.html
A motion detector light is activated - goes on and off - when you put a smart meter with RF bursts near it. It malfunctions.The nervous system is activated - by bursts of RF - all day and all night - just like the light bulb. Your nervous system malfunctions. The body 'sees' EMF as 'light-at-night; interfering with the melatonin cycle, and interfering with sleep. Whether you are trying to sleep near a power line with high EMF levels, or a constantly transmitting RF device, it interrupts normal neurological functioning.
Melatonin production is high at night, and low during the day. Interfere with that cycle, which is one ofthe drivers for your circadian rhythms, and you have interfered with one of the most potent free-radical scavengers in the body (a cancer surveillance and mop-up system), you have interfered with sleep (essential to memory, learning and health maintenance). Someone reported recently that PG&E had 'replaced' a smart meter that caused a resident's motion detector light to go on and off continuously. Wonder when they'll figure out how to replace a malfunctioning human nervous system. And what it will cost you.
Cindy Sage
Environmental Consultant
Sage Associates
Co-Editor, BioInitiative Report
Research Fellow, Department of Oncology, Orebro University Hospital, Orebro, Sweden
Sage EMF Design is owned by Cindy Sage. Mrs Sage has been involved in EMF issues as an environmental consultant and public policy researcher since 1982. She has provided professional consulting services to cities, counties, various states and a national EMF policy group on the issue of EMF policy and prudent avoidance.
http://www.sageassociates.net/cindysage.html
http://sagereports.com/smart-meter-rf/
Showing posts with label Sierra Club. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sierra Club. Show all posts
Saturday, March 05, 2011
Friday, July 09, 2010
Smack! Smack! Smack!
Andrew Christie, in the July/Aug Santa Lucian newsletter of the Sierra Club ( http://www.santalucia.sierraclub.org/ click on "Santa Lucian" on the sidebar to the right) has a few choice words on the Los Osos Sewer Project, among which was the very apt observation that “. . . instead of “conducting a genuine public process, the County behaved as though it were running the war room of a political campaign and trying every trick in the book to get its guy elected.” Including, Christy notes, a “’community survey’ distributed to determine if residents of Los Osos would rather have a gravity system or a STEP system, [that] was virtually a self-parody of the ‘pick a card, any card, pick the one in the middle’ genre of stacked-deck push-polling, with leading questions designed to elicit only the desired (gravity) response.” (Heh-heh, a deliciously apt description of our infamous “Community Survey.”
Then he runs through a brief history of the transit from what the County originally proposed (sprayfields): “Narrow, status-quo groupthink came up with a project that, by design, would do only one thing: collect, treat and dispose of waste-water. Replacing the groundwater that would be lost, preserving environmentally sensitive habitat, maintaining the aquifer and avoiding its total loss to rapidly advancing seawater intrusion were deemed by the SLO County Department of Public Works to be issues of secondary importance and/or beyond the scope of the project.”
And adds that “it is a sad fact that every member of the County Board of Supervisors accepted this .. . one-trick pony version of the sewer despite the fact that, for several years, we spelled out its deficiencies to them in detail, and the necessity for agricultural reuse of the treated water inside the basin and more aggressive water conservation measures.”
Until intervention by the Planning Commission (headed by his sister, Sarah) that put the project on a more sustainable path, noting that “. . .the Planning Commission listened to and acted on what residents, environmental groups and independent experts were telling them. The Planning Commission tore up the inadequate plan and insisted on a project that comprehensively addresses the Los Osos’ water issues.” And that [Sarah] “Christie used public input to guide a remake of the project, making it possible for it to receive a Coastal Development Permit.”
And at the end of the long recap, in a long overdue sidebar, Christie goes on to thank and acknowledge some major players:
Dana Ripley and the Ripley Report that spelled out the practicality of ag water reuse and the “imperative to seal the sections of the collection system to be laid in areas of known high groundwater.”
Keith Wimer, of the Los Osos Sustainability Group, “and high on the County’s list of Least Favorite Persons,” . . . who “was steadfast in sounding the alarm on seawater intrusion and the necessity that the problem be addressed in and integrated with the wastewater treatment project, not separately and sometime later.”
Sarah Christie and the Planning Commission.
And, finally and delightfully, a big Thank You, Troublemakers, a shout out to all the Board of Supervisor’s “least favorite people.” Of those people, Mr. Christie says: “In the end, the Los Osos sewer saga was not a spectacle or a soap opera, nor endless, wall-to-wall strife and divisiveness for its own sake. Enough of the dust has settled for this much to be clear: The citizens of Los Osos have racked up a record of civic courage
above and beyond the call of duty. And as it turns out, that was a smart move. Had a sewer been built three decades ago, or even ten years ago, that project would not have contemplated groundwater loss and the peril to the aquifer from seawater intrusion, let alone ways to solve those problems. Instead, it would have greatly aggravated them, and disaster would have followed.
“And the potential solutions to those problems would not be part of the project today if the Sierra Club, Surfrider, The Los Osos Sustainability Group, SLO Green Build and concerned residents hadn’t spoken up and insisted on being heard despite constant shouts to shut up and sit down and “just do it.”
“The “secondary issues’ have been forced onto the table, where they can no longer be dealt with later. They must be dealt with now. “
Smack! Smack! Smack.
And there, in the midst of Christie’s recap, is the real tragedy of Los Osos: The ability of a small group of people to frame an issue wrongly, and then brand any input, no matter how scientifically sound or valid that didn’t follow the party line as “anti-sewer obstruction,” an incorrect label that then allowed any and all non-party-line input to be shut out, shut up and shut down. That and the unfortunate willingness of elected officials and appointed ones, to go along with whatever grand lie was easiest.
It’s a government failure. And a human one. It’s far easier to do the simple wrong thing than take the time to slog through the complex stuff needed to do the complicated right thing.
So, Thank You, Los Osos Troublemakers, indeed.
Run Away!
I’m not a runner. My dogs walk me, but run? Nope. But a friend send me a birthday present book that’s a doozie: “Born to Run; A Hidden Tribe, Superatheletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen,” by Christopher McDougall.
McDougall was a former war correspondent for the AP, contributes to Men’s Health, has written for Esquire, The New York Times Magazine, and other publications. He’s a wonderful writer, very funny, very engaging, and even if you’ve never run a single step and have absolutely NO interest in Ultra-marathoners or the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico, the world’s greatest long distance runners who actually run down deer for dinner – literally, run the thing down for hours and hours until it drops from exhaustion, while they’re good to go for another 100 mile – you will be totally engaged by this book.
Plus, you get the added bonus of his research into how Nike has absolutely ruined a whole generation of joggers who ran in their high tech shoes and thus destroyed their knees and hips, when all they really needed was to learn something important from a small band of Indians hiding out in the remote Copper Canyon wilderness of Mexico.
It’s a great read!
Then he runs through a brief history of the transit from what the County originally proposed (sprayfields): “Narrow, status-quo groupthink came up with a project that, by design, would do only one thing: collect, treat and dispose of waste-water. Replacing the groundwater that would be lost, preserving environmentally sensitive habitat, maintaining the aquifer and avoiding its total loss to rapidly advancing seawater intrusion were deemed by the SLO County Department of Public Works to be issues of secondary importance and/or beyond the scope of the project.”
And adds that “it is a sad fact that every member of the County Board of Supervisors accepted this .. . one-trick pony version of the sewer despite the fact that, for several years, we spelled out its deficiencies to them in detail, and the necessity for agricultural reuse of the treated water inside the basin and more aggressive water conservation measures.”
Until intervention by the Planning Commission (headed by his sister, Sarah) that put the project on a more sustainable path, noting that “. . .the Planning Commission listened to and acted on what residents, environmental groups and independent experts were telling them. The Planning Commission tore up the inadequate plan and insisted on a project that comprehensively addresses the Los Osos’ water issues.” And that [Sarah] “Christie used public input to guide a remake of the project, making it possible for it to receive a Coastal Development Permit.”
And at the end of the long recap, in a long overdue sidebar, Christie goes on to thank and acknowledge some major players:
Dana Ripley and the Ripley Report that spelled out the practicality of ag water reuse and the “imperative to seal the sections of the collection system to be laid in areas of known high groundwater.”
Keith Wimer, of the Los Osos Sustainability Group, “and high on the County’s list of Least Favorite Persons,” . . . who “was steadfast in sounding the alarm on seawater intrusion and the necessity that the problem be addressed in and integrated with the wastewater treatment project, not separately and sometime later.”
Sarah Christie and the Planning Commission.
And, finally and delightfully, a big Thank You, Troublemakers, a shout out to all the Board of Supervisor’s “least favorite people.” Of those people, Mr. Christie says: “In the end, the Los Osos sewer saga was not a spectacle or a soap opera, nor endless, wall-to-wall strife and divisiveness for its own sake. Enough of the dust has settled for this much to be clear: The citizens of Los Osos have racked up a record of civic courage
above and beyond the call of duty. And as it turns out, that was a smart move. Had a sewer been built three decades ago, or even ten years ago, that project would not have contemplated groundwater loss and the peril to the aquifer from seawater intrusion, let alone ways to solve those problems. Instead, it would have greatly aggravated them, and disaster would have followed.
“And the potential solutions to those problems would not be part of the project today if the Sierra Club, Surfrider, The Los Osos Sustainability Group, SLO Green Build and concerned residents hadn’t spoken up and insisted on being heard despite constant shouts to shut up and sit down and “just do it.”
“The “secondary issues’ have been forced onto the table, where they can no longer be dealt with later. They must be dealt with now. “
Smack! Smack! Smack.
And there, in the midst of Christie’s recap, is the real tragedy of Los Osos: The ability of a small group of people to frame an issue wrongly, and then brand any input, no matter how scientifically sound or valid that didn’t follow the party line as “anti-sewer obstruction,” an incorrect label that then allowed any and all non-party-line input to be shut out, shut up and shut down. That and the unfortunate willingness of elected officials and appointed ones, to go along with whatever grand lie was easiest.
It’s a government failure. And a human one. It’s far easier to do the simple wrong thing than take the time to slog through the complex stuff needed to do the complicated right thing.
So, Thank You, Los Osos Troublemakers, indeed.
Run Away!
I’m not a runner. My dogs walk me, but run? Nope. But a friend send me a birthday present book that’s a doozie: “Born to Run; A Hidden Tribe, Superatheletes, and the Greatest Race the World Has Never Seen,” by Christopher McDougall.
McDougall was a former war correspondent for the AP, contributes to Men’s Health, has written for Esquire, The New York Times Magazine, and other publications. He’s a wonderful writer, very funny, very engaging, and even if you’ve never run a single step and have absolutely NO interest in Ultra-marathoners or the Tarahumara Indians of Mexico, the world’s greatest long distance runners who actually run down deer for dinner – literally, run the thing down for hours and hours until it drops from exhaustion, while they’re good to go for another 100 mile – you will be totally engaged by this book.
Plus, you get the added bonus of his research into how Nike has absolutely ruined a whole generation of joggers who ran in their high tech shoes and thus destroyed their knees and hips, when all they really needed was to learn something important from a small band of Indians hiding out in the remote Copper Canyon wilderness of Mexico.
It’s a great read!
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Graywater's Coming! Greywater's Coming! Maybe
Mark your calendars: From the Sierra Club's Newsletter: There'll be a Graywater Workshop/info program that will cover the "do's and don'ts and maintenance programs and will evaluate the costs, complexity and environmental footprint of various systems."
"Gray water systems turn a waste product that can comprise up to 80% of residential wastewater into a valuable resource for irrigation and other non-potable uses. Harvesting graywater to meet your non-potable water needs utilizes and appropriate technology taha can recover initial costs quickly. No permit required. "
The Sierra Club has copies of the "San Luis Obispo Guide to The Use of Graywater" for $10 each while supplies last. You can E-mail kim.sierraclub@gmail.com or call (805) 543-2717 to reserve your copy.
The workshops will run from 5:00 - 8:00 p.m. (presentations 5:30 - 7:30)
Local contractors and vendors wil be present with tables of information
Light refreshments will be served.
Morro Bay:
Tuesday, Nov 10
Morro Bay Vets Hall
$5 suggested contribution at the door, no one will be turned away
$10 Graywater Guides will be available for only $5 for the first 30 buyers!
Atascadero (co-sponsored by the City of Paso Robles and TCSD)
Thursday, Dec 10
Atascadero City Council Chambers
Free at the door
"Gray water systems turn a waste product that can comprise up to 80% of residential wastewater into a valuable resource for irrigation and other non-potable uses. Harvesting graywater to meet your non-potable water needs utilizes and appropriate technology taha can recover initial costs quickly. No permit required. "
The Sierra Club has copies of the "San Luis Obispo Guide to The Use of Graywater" for $10 each while supplies last. You can E-mail kim.sierraclub@gmail.com or call (805) 543-2717 to reserve your copy.
The workshops will run from 5:00 - 8:00 p.m. (presentations 5:30 - 7:30)
Local contractors and vendors wil be present with tables of information
Light refreshments will be served.
Morro Bay:
Tuesday, Nov 10
Morro Bay Vets Hall
$5 suggested contribution at the door, no one will be turned away
$10 Graywater Guides will be available for only $5 for the first 30 buyers!
Atascadero (co-sponsored by the City of Paso Robles and TCSD)
Thursday, Dec 10
Atascadero City Council Chambers
Free at the door
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
