Stand Down! Time To Do A Little Homework

Assemblyman Blakeslee’s “Breakthrough Proposal,” (the BBP) is making the rounds to all the warring parties. Basically, he’s asked them all (politely) to shut up and sit down and read his opening proposals and to begin considering their own offers or counter offers so the delicate dance of negotiating can begin.

Let us hope it will be a real negotiation without one party later saying, “Oh, heh-heh, the negotiations weren’t really negotiations.” Time to get serious. Failure here is not an option.

And I hope everyone in and out of Los Osos who’s interested in the outcome of the Sewer Wars, will take the time to track down and find the various original documents that are now in circulation. Hopefully, the CSD staff, when they get some time, will post the various Official Documents on their web site. In the meantime, copies of Assemblyman Blakeslee’s “Final Framework Resolution,” the CSD Resolution 2006 (June 8), as well as the CSD-authorized letter to Paul Hood of LAFCO, discussing collaborative options on a possible partnering with the County on the sewer issues, and so forth, should be available at the CSD office.

Every party in this process will have their own “deal-breaker” non-negotiable items. Right now, the language is deliberately vague in order to give all parties a chance to “fill in the blanks,” the details of which will be subject to debate, discussion, modification, rewrite.

And since the community is a vital part of this process, I hope they will all get involved to make sure their input and concerns are part of the mix. In addition, I can only hope that the community will take care not to fall prey to any fear tactics or spun “Truth” being hyped by one group or another or misleading headlines or half-baked media stories or wild suppositions and What-Ifs. Instead, I hope they will take the time to track down the actual documents and read for themselves what they actually say, attend any and all meetings to hear and comment on what’s being considered, and pay close attention to what actually gets votes on , since what is officially done is critical, not merely what is said. This community will have to pay dearly for everything that’s about to be done or un-done, so it needs to pay attention and make sure it becomes an active and open participant in the process.

“Stand down” does not mean idle, apathetic snoozing. It means get prepared, get informed, get creative, get smart, and above all, get involved. To start, the Board of Supervisors will begin a review some of the conditions of this proposal on Monday, June 19, in the new BoS chambers, at the County Government Center, 1055 Monterey St, starting at 2 p.m. The meeting will include public comment. So, be there, or at least send in your snail-mail or email comments. The county's involvement at this juncture is critical so the BoS needs to hear from all of you.

No, It’s Not Déjà vu, It Just Looks Like It On TV, and other Sewerville News

I rushed out to the driveway this morning to grab the Tribune. Figured that Abraham Hyatt would have another headline about “all septic tanks must be replaced!” like he did when he apparently mistook a years-old Ripley Pacific proposal for THE proposal he’s working on now. But since the CSD meeting last night went until 11, his deadline would have passed, so maybe the headline will appear tomorrow. Or Mr. Hyatt may be waiting until the project report’s written update is sent to the CSD and public Tuesday or Wednesday.

Meantime, folks at the meeting got a gander at what Ripley Pacific’s project update has been looking at. First, since the cost of a regular gravity collection system is already known (the collection costs for Tri-W), he’ll be looking at “pressure systems” alternatives, i.e. STEP or STEG or STEP/STEG combined with enhanced onsite systems where applicable. Prices still to come, but the cost of pressure collection systems is waaaaaaay cheaper and less disruptive than laying traditional gravity collection pipes. The cost of the treatment plant will also depend on the type chosen. If it doesn’t involve tons of cement or fancy “wave walls,” and doesn’t use MBR technology, it should be cheaper than Tri-W. Ditto if whatever treatment system is chosen can at least be partially run by solar energy, thereby keeping operation cost down. And, if a pressure system is chosen, then the necessity for tank inspection and the cost of tank replacement will have to be factored in as well.

Second, the heart of any alternative that he’s proposing is the use of a so-called “ag exchange” program. In short, farmers within the same basin stop pumping “drinking water” out of the lower aquifer to irrigate their crops and in exchange they get a secure source of treated effluent, and since the cost of nitrogen fertilizer has doubled, the more nitrogen left in the effluent the better. They get nitrates in their irrigation water that can be used for their crops and sod and nursery plants and Los Osos “townies” then have the unused clean lower aquifer water left in the ground that can be used for drinking. There will also be treated wastewater for the various parks, golf courses, cemetery grounds and so forth. With a strong water conservation program (already started by the CSD), and proper water management, the Ripley Pacific hydrologist feels that Los Osos may be able to achieve it’s planned build-out without having to import state water. (Still in the future would be the ability to “purple pipe” tertiary treated wastewater to homes for use in home irrigation. Right now, it’s an expensive dream, but with water becoming a truly scarce commodity, in the future that “expensive” dream may become a necessity unless we all xerescape now with California natives, which isn’t a bad idea anyway.)

But the most interesting part of Ripley’s proposal on the collection system is the plan to phase it in by laying the main collection pipe through the “nitrate hot spots.” Since pressure systems are cheap, the cost of the length of pipe is not the key, but avoiding elevations requiring huge amounts of energy to pump the effluent up hill and up dale is the key. Therefore, on the preliminary map, the main collection system would snake around following the topography’s low spots (like water flowing downhill) while hitting the worse nitrate “hot spots” and bayside areas to pick up any possible bay “seepers” before heading out of town. (The maps should be in the technical report due out Tuesday.) The second main collection pipe would run down LOVR and join up with the first one, with a cross-town pipe hitting the other “hot area” near the central business area. The end result is a closed loop system that allows for redundancy, i.e. should a malfunction somewhere along the main line occur, the effluent could be routed another way in the way that if there’s a breakdown in the phone system, a call can still get to New York by way of Toronto instead of Kansas, for example.

Since pressure systems can be installed in shallow trenches using a directional boring method, they’re waaaaay faster (and cheaper) to install than traditional gravity pipes, which means that phase one could start collecting from the worst hot-spots first. Collection in phase two would then go after the other “hot spot,” areas while the need to collect from the third phase areas would be evaluated to see whether those homes would qualify for Prohibition Zone “exceptions” and could use an enhanced onsite system such as the one being used at the Firehouse and so forth.

Overall, the option being looked at has the planned focus being put on speed and ease of “hot spot” collection as having the biggest bang for the buck, nitrate loading-wise, while the long term goal will be the total beneficial use and reuse of water, since water, even treated effluent water, is not something that needs to be “disposed”of or “discharged,” but is, instead, a valuable . . . no, priceless . . . commodity.

An interesting note from Ripley’s hydrologist: The farmers/growers at the tip of the water basin are at the highest elevation which means when the aquifer starts into overdraft, (water rolling down hill leaves the top of the hill first) they’ll be the first ones hit, with their irrigation well production dropping even before folks in town notice a thing. The farmers in Monterey county (Salinas valley) found out the hard way just what an impact an overdrafted aquifer can have on their wells – early seawater intrusion threatening their ability to farm. They’re now starting in greater numbers to use a steady supply of “townie” treated wastewater for irrigation.

When it comes to a water basin, speaking of “being in this together” isn’t feel-good, soppy rhetoric. For better or worse, it really is being in this together.

Speaking of which, an appeal was made last night that all folks claiming to be interested in the community and all things sewerish need to get their input in early. The environmental review committee will be looking at all this as is moves along, but the community in general needs to also be guiding and shaping the project report by their input. Unless nobody cares one way or the other?


Oh, Noooooo, The Trees! The Trees!


I know, it will look like Tri W Tree déjà vu all over again, the big saws and chippers suddenly at work, shattering the peace and quiet of a morning, great trees falling to wood chips, the startlement of folks driving by, Whaaaaaa?????

Starting June 12, some more big, ginormous eucalyptus trees will be coming down on Los Osos Valley Road. Nope, it’s not a pre-emptive strike by the CSD, just the result of widening the road at Palisades Ave. According to an email from Rosmarie Gaglione, SLO County Public Works: “Later this year, the Department of Public Works will be installing traffic signals at the intersection of Los Osos Valley Road and Palisades Ave. A right turn lane will be installed on Los Osos Valley Road westbound onto Palisades Ave. Drainage problems at the intersection will also be corrected.

“In order to construct these improvements, several eucalyptus trees fronting the park on the Los Osos Valley Road will need to be removed. No one likes to have to cut down trees, but without doing so the Department cannot build the needed improvements within established standards for roadway and traffic signal design; standards which are much more stringent than those in effect at the time that Los Osos Valley Road was originally built and those trees were not quite as large.”

“Tree removal will begin on Monday, June 12, 2006. This work was approved as part of the coastal permit for park improvements. We will be conducting the required reptor/nesting bird surveys during the two weeks leading up to June 12. Stump removal will occur at a later date; however, initial work will be monitored by an archeologist as required.”

Any questions, call Rosmarie Gaglione, project Manager at 788-2318.

So, bye-bye bit trees. Again.

Measure B Bites The Dust, some more, sort of, maybe, oh, wait . . .

Judge Martin Tangeman ruled that Measure B “went too far by dictating decisions that should legally be made by” the CSD Board. The CSD’s attorney reported out of closed session that the Board “had no choice but to appeal the case,” that meanwhile, they would work on a possible settlement, but wanted to avoid paying Taxpayer’s Watch’s legal fees and would be filing an appeal of the case in the meantime

It is certainly a case that may end up filled with Irony! The previous Board voted to have the CSD go to court to block Measure B from getting on the ballot. That lawsuit made the legal argument that Measure B illegally “dictated decisions that should legally be made by CSD Board members.” That blocking suit failed to stop it from getting on the ballot. (The courts have repeatedly ruled against such blocking suits, preferring that initiatives, no matter how cockamamie, be voted on THEN challenged and dumped.)

After the election that recalled that board majority, the group known as Taxpayer’s Watch, privately filed suit arguing that Measure B “illegally dictated decisions that should legally be made by CSD Board members.” (The unanswered question: If Measure B was written so as to require that a sewer plant be built at Tri-W, (instead of putting limits on siting and requiring a citizen vote that could lead to choosing another site and/or project) would Taxpayer’s Watch have gone to court, claiming that the initiative usurped the CSD’s powers? In short, was the Taxpayer’s Watch suit a principled one (i.e. upholding a general right or principle regardless of any particular detail) or one tied directly to a particular sewer plant in a particular place that they wanted built that the measure was thwarting?)

In any event, the newly elected board settled with CASE, over the matter of blocking the measure before the election. (And paid a big time penalty for that original board’s blocking folly) Yet to be settled was the appeal of the case on the validity of the initiative itself, now that the election was over. Also to be settled was whether Taxpayer’s Watch had filed their case within the proper time allowed.

Judge Tangeman ruled that they had filed “.. as timely as reasonably possible,” and upheld his previous ruling that Measure B was illegal. Since I don’t think, in all the suing and more suing, an appeals court has heard the merit of the case, (only the attempt to block the measure from being voted on) will the appeal now get the substance of the case before a different judge?

Weirdly, while the case is on appeal, the CSD could write and vote on an ordinance nearly identical to Measure B, thereby giving themselves an ordinance that couldn’t be challenged in court under the same laws Taxpayer’s Watch used the first time.

I find this all very ironic. Such an ordinance would appear to be the same sauce, but sometimes the gander changes and becomes a goose. And vice versa.

Well, it’s Los Osos. Stay tuned.

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA, for June 7, 06

The Da Vinci Snooze

Since I had read a variety of the same books Dan Brown used as the basis for his best selling novel, The Da Vinci Code, I didn’t bother reading the book since I already knew all about “the greatest secret in modern history” that if revealed “would devastate the very foundations of Christianity.” Alas, for fans of shaken foundations, the hypothetical beans had already been spilled years ago in the book, Holy Blood, Holy Grail and Christianity remained as un-devastated as ever.

But I was curious to see the film to figure out how they’d make a thriller out of a “secret” that required so much endless ‘splainin.’ Although I kept dozing off, the structure was: (1) blah, blah, blah --detailed, endless “explanations” of theoretical hokum and muddled facts [Hint to film makers: the audience doesn’t need to know how or why The Hulk turns green. Just mutter something vague about an “overdose of radiation” then get on to the leaping and jumping and smashing], then ( 2) every 20 minutes, an armed, Mad Albino Monk leaps out of the shrubbery bent on homicide, which causes a few minutes of (3) comic Fire Drill racing around and then (4) everyone rushes off to some photogenic European local, say . . . Zurich! (5) Repeat the cycle, only next time, go to . . . France!

The real Da Vinci puzzle to me was why on earth some “religious” folks were taking all this harum-scarum as if it were real. Sure, it’s the summer silly season and the media and various pandering groups use each other during that downtime to brew up faux controversies to sell more papers. And, O.K, author Brown did make the conservative Catholic organization, Opus Dei, the locus of our Mad Murderous Leaping Albino Monk, and, yes, part of the discipline the members engage in does involve mortifying the flesh with small whips and thigh chains, but, that’s hardly new. Flesh mortification has been part and parcel of “Christianity” for a long time. In addition, official “monks” – mad, leaping or otherwise -- are not a part of the Opus Dei organization.

No, what was interesting to me was that all the harrumphing by certain “religious” folks, made me wonder just how many Christians are actually familiar with their own history? Are they aware that there were many gospels, some of which undoubtedly still lie buried in the desert sands, hidden there by various early Christian sects, waiting to be discovered just like the Dead Sea Scrolls.? That the wide variety of gospels known and used during the early years were eventually selected and edited and deliberately shaped by human hands and minds into the canon we are familiar with today? (A canon that has undergone myriad translations, retranslations, and mistranslations through the centuries?) That in the early centuries after Jesus’ death, there were a wide variety of “Official Christian” belief systems known and practiced, systems that were winnowed out in a long, sometimes bloody historical/political/cultural transformation that resulted in the product we know today? And that that this shaping and reshaping process continues even now?

Only people ignorant of the long historical journey their belief system has traveled (including the missing pieces, lost, stolen, buried, deliberately destroyed) could get worked up over the claims and suppositions that author Brown had such fun playing with – Knights Templars, grand inquisitions, missing scrolls, the bogus Priory of Scion, hidden secrets, the whiff of sex and scandal. This was supposed to be the heady brew that contained the blasphemous “secret” that would shake the foundations of Christianity?

As if? Haven’t we learned long ago that faith and fact have never been dependent upon one another? Still aren’t. Never will be, world without end, amen.

If anyone has failed to understand that crucial lesson, may I suggest they hum a few bars from Porgy and Bess’s “It ain’t necessarily so . . .”, then go rent Monty Python’s Life of Brian. Underneath all the Python’s outrageous tomfoolery, lies a serious message: Proceed cautiously when it comes to blind faith – things may not be what they seem. And in an imperfect world, it’s easy to get things muddled.

And, if it’s a swell thriller you want, go rent The Bourne Identity, I & II. It doesn’t have leaping albino monks, but it’s a great chase movie involving lots of photogenic European locales. And no theological blah, blah, blah to slow things down.

Uh . . . .

If you think the Tribune’s regular stories are often skewed beyond weirdness, you’ll love the Editorial that appeared Sunday, June 4, 2006.

“Los Osos needs a stand-down. All Sides need to compromise now before more money and time are gone.”

The editorial continues:

-- that “the regional water board should hold it’s $6.6 million in fines in abeyance while giving a realistic timeline for sewer completion.”

--that “concessions would be made on all sides. For instance, Taxpayers Watch would relinquish its all-or-nothing stance on the Tri W midtown sewer site; it’s a nonstarter.”

--“And the district board should exhibit real leadership by showing flexibility. How? Not nitpicking every item in a compromise.”

--“The state water board – if its goal is truly to clean up the community’s pollution as quickly as possible – should reinstate the $135 million low-interest loan.”

--“Contractor claims should be fairly resolved. And the lawsuits filed against the district should be dropped.”

Uh, o.k. Stand-down sounds like a good idea, but is the Tribune serious here? For example, were they aware, when they wrote the above, that the CSD had already voted 5 – 0 to re-apply for the State Loan?

--Or that the CSD, from day one, is and has been involved in the required contract resolution discussions with the contractors? In addition, before contract problems can be resolved, if there have been violations of law involved, I don’t think those can or should be ignored. Is the Tribune unaware that such allegations concerning one major party in this drama were sent to the Tribune (among other media sites. See this blogsite’s posting of May 16, 2006) and to date not a peep about any of these allegations has appeared in the Tribune. Instead we get the Tribune consulting lawyers about the CSD’s law firm charging 20-cents a copy for Xeroxing. Why not run the formal letter of complaint sent to the Construction Management Association of America past the Tribune’s legal consultants and see what their take is regarding allegations of any legal violations, violations that may be stalling contract resolutions.

--And if the Tri-W midtown sewer site is a nonstarter, why would asking Taxpayers Watch to drop their “all or nothing stance” be a “concession? Conceding to a nonstarter isn’t a concession, it’s simple common sense.

--And how can the CSD board show “real leadership” and “flexibility” by “not nitpicking every item in a compromise.” Compromise? What compromise? Is the Tribune unaware that the project update report hasn’t come in yet? And until it does, there’s nothing to “compromise” about . . . yet.

I’m delighted that Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee may be working on any legislation that could “bring the state, district and community together in finding a solution.”

As for the Tribune’s bottom line editorial advice: “Get a site and get on with it.” Uh, gosh, thanks for the advice, guys. But that’s what the CSD has been doing from day one, in spite of all those groups mentioned in the editorial diligently trying to block the way and/or break their kneecaps and “dissolve” them to death.

I thought those kinds of things would have been obvious, even to the editorial board of the Tribune, but I guess they didn’t notice.

Fun With Numbers

At the June 7 LOCSD meeting, Dr. Wickham, CEO of ABG Wastewater Solutions, gave an update on the field tests taken from the Pirana “Sludgehammer” system that was installed in the firehouse’s septic system.

While the tests were only field tests (a larger volume of water will be taken later and trotted to the labs for official testing), Dr. Wickham noted that because the RWQCB was reluctant to accept the possibility that denitrification takes place in the soil (despite studies to that effect done by the county years ago, which they dismiss, with no data to back up their dismissal) , he modified the system to see what kind of reductions he could get in the tank. In the field test the nitrogen content started at about 80-90 and is now about 20, in the tank. In the soil, twelve inches below the tank’s discharge pipe, the field sample is showing 3 mgl nitrates.

Why is that interesting? Because the RWQCB has issued a discharge permit for the old Tri W project that allowed for 7 mgl of nitrates in treated wastewater to be discharged to the soil Seven or three? Which is better? If you said, “Why, three is better,” you’d be wrong. The RWQCB, the board that has the word “Water Quality” in its name, won’t allow an inexpensive onsite system that delivers 3 mgls of nitrates. It is going to force you to buy and build a gazillion dollar gravity-fed behemoth sewer plant that finally delivers treated wastewater that contains 7 mgls of nitrates. You see?

Also, when the RWQCB rushed ahead with the ill-considered CDOs and proposed their mad pumping scheme, they were aiming to reduce gross, overall discharges by some 20% by removing the wastewater, in order to attempt to reduce the overall nitrate load. They had never bothered to check with Dr. Wickham to see if his system would deliver in-tank nitrate reductions far lower (and cheaper) without removing gazillions of gallons of water out of our overdrafted basin. Hadn’t bothered to check. Which illustrates once again that the Board’s science is simply shoddy and their research nonexistent.

Dr. Wickham further reported that he’ll be applying to the county for building permits for the firehouse and one other site for the Pirana system. Dr. Wickham observed that the RWQCB was trying to exert pressure on the county to stop this system from being given a permit. They claim it’s a wastewater alternative and so they won’t allow it, but in reality, your septic tank has already received a permit from the county, and installing a Pirana is no different than installing a new bathtub or updating your plumbing fixtures by putting in a low-flow toilet and etc, items for which you’ve already gotten your county building permit, so you don’t’ need a new one.

And science marches on. Too bad the RWQCB won’t join the march.

LAFCO’s dissolution hearing date changed.

Due to a public notification goof-up, the LAFCO dissolution hearing has been changed from June 15th to July 6th, in the BoS new meeting room, starting at 9 .a.m. The extra three weeks will also give the staff time to get the latest information on budgets and other items. It should be an interesting meeting, since it may be difficult to keep the Commissioners on track since various “trial balloons” regarding the sewer issue seem to be clouding the issue.

In her May 25 letter to Paul Hood regarding the “sewer options” he had floated previously, Gail Wilcox, Deputy County Administrative Officer, had to note that she was “unclear about your intent in terms of the two scenarios presented in your letter. Our understanding is that the actions of LAFCO can consider at the June 15 [sic] hearing on the petition to dissolve are:

1) Approve the petition to dissolve the LOCSD (subject to confirmation of the voters if a petition signed by 25-50% of voters is submitted); or
2) Deny the petition to dissolve the LOCSD; or
3) Continue the hearing on this matter for up to 70 days. “

In short, instead of trial balloons or getting derailed by sewer projects, LAFCO is supposed to be deciding whether the CSD is a functioning entity or not. If it is, they need to deny the petition. If it isn’t, then they’ll have to vote to dissolve it. And if they don’t yet have enough legal or financial info, then they should postpone the decision until hey have enough information to make a considered decision.

You’d think, but this is SLO county, where weirdness is king.



And, finally, it’s the Why we’re SHOCKED! SHOCKED! Department.

In a May 31st Bay News story on the LAFCO hearing, it notes, “Joyce Albright of Taxpayers Watch, the group seeking to dissolve the CSD, said they oppose having the CSD continue to have any power whatsoever to direct the construction of the sewer project. Their goal is to have the abandoned [Tri W] project built.”

What??? Awww, and here I recall Taxpayer’s Watch got their dissolution petitions going immediately after the recall election by telling us they were all concerned about the district not functioning, about the district wasting so much money, wringing their hands over the district spending taxpayer’s money on legal fees by suing the district themselves, thereby causing the district to waste even more taxpayer money on legal fees, on falsely implying that dissolving the CSD would protect the citizens from the CDOs, all that wrinkle browed deep and abiding concern about good government and now . . . NOW? . . . we find out that what it was REALLY all about was using LAFCO's dissolution power to set aside the recall and Measure B vote so they could get their rejected sewer plant put back in the middle of town?

Gosh, I’m surprised by such a cynical ploy. Aren’t you?