Curtains Up For The RWQCB’s Production of “Torquemada’s Mad Hatter Tea Party & Traveling Auto-de-fe Beheading, Part Uh, I’ve Lost Count, CDO Show Trial” for the last of The Los Osos 45, with over 4,655 Left To Go, Monday, January 22 at 1 pm. at the RWQCB headquarters on Aerovista Place in SLOTown.

Press release from PZLDF (Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund)

CONTACTS:
Gail McPherson, Alan Martyn PZLDF
805.459.4535 Mcp@charter.net

The Regional Water Board is continuing enforcement hearings against homeowners

Monday January 22, 2007 begin at 1:00 PM. at 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101, San Luis Obispo.


5000 properties are required to stop using their septic tanks or face stiff consequences.


The Water Board targeted the first 45 of 4700 homeowners last year in a regulatory 'test case' after the $163 Million Los Osos sewer project was stopped by voters. The Water Board contends that the use of Septic Tanks in Los Osos has been illegal since 1988.
All homeowners and businesses must stop use of Septic Tanks by hooking up to a wastewater plant or propose alternatives. But there is not plant available, and Individuals who face the enforcement orders say it is wrong to target individuals for government failures. Enforcement action could result in a regulatory taking of property and undermine current actions to deliver a project.


Individuals can't build a project alone. They say they have already done everything possible to comply with the order, including pumping tanks to insure they are working properly, voting and paying for a sewer assessment, and have agreed to hook up when a project becomes available. Enforcement orders can destroy property values, and individuals may have to consider installing individual treatment systems on their own lots, even though the water board as refused to approve them in the past.

Public officials have been asked to testify that enforcement is counter-productive and can undermine the county project. Among representatives requested : Assemblyman Blakeslee who put in place the legislation to move a project forward, Bruce Gibson, supervisor for the area, and Paavo Ogren, the new project coordinator.


The public is encouraged to attend.
-End-

Press Release

The following press release is from PZLDF (Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund)

PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ACTIONS
BY THE CENTRAL COAST REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD FILED
January 16, 2006: 14 of the 45 residents and property owners in Los Osos targeted for enforcement filed a petition for the State water Resources Control Board to review the actions of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. (RWQCB)The appeal is brought on behalf of all individual property owners and residents of Los Osos who have been, or will be, subject to the issuance of individual Cease and Desist Orders, or who oppose the issuance of CDO’s. Representation is by Sullivan and Associates. The appeal and the first step in contesting the “lottery style” enforcement actions taken by the Regional Water Board. Petitioners include designated parties who were issued Cease and Desist Orders at the December 14 and 15 hearings before the RWQCB. Named in the appeal is Rhian Gulassa, Alan and Jacqueline Martyn, Christopher D. Allebe, Edwin and June Ingan, Laurie McCombs, Julie Miller, Cinthia T. Coleman, Lawrence Kleiger, Clint Koch, and anonymous CDO recipient 1040. The petition is also brought by the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) on behalf of individual and entities targeted in the future, including the Los Osos CSD, who is a designated party in the proceeding. Petitioners also include at least five more designated parties who had “agreed” to settle, based upon misrepresentations or who were under duress and entered into a “settlement agreement” at the December hearings. They since learned the settlement is actually a Clean up and Abatement Order-(CAO), and could lead to $5000 per day in fines if the project does not move forward.
The Los Osos septic systems are county permitted, and functioning as they should, but do not remove nitrates. Nitrates can affect drinking water over time. The petitioners contend the water board is abusing their authority in this unprecedented action against individual citizens using regulations meant for government agencies and industry. Application of these regulations to individuals violates citizens rights, property owners cannot possibly comply with the terms, and could lose their homes if a collection and treatment facility is not available for them to hook up to by 2011.


The orders, along with reporting requirements, mean property owners must pump and inspect septic tanks. Most, if not all have met this requirement, and are paying a sewer assessment bill. The concern is they must stop discharging and hook up to a sewer, but what if a sewer is not available? Petitioners contend that government agencies build Wastewater Treatment projects, not individuals. They cannot accept responsibility for something an individual cannot control.


It took the water board nearly a year to hear just 4 cases, but the Regional Water Board expects to issue similar orders on all 5000 properties in the near future. “That isn't a cost effective or prudent use of taxpayer’s funds” according to Gail McPherson, spokesperson for PZLDF “Experts testified at the hearing that the enforcement requirements had no water quality benefits whatsoever. No one is against complying with the terms of the CDO, and petitioners have voluntarily complied with the requirements that are within their control. Individual enforcement in this form does noting for cleaning water, and undermines confidence in the Blakeslee bill and the county process to deliver the needed project. The issue of enforcement orders coercing a 218 vote ought to be a valid concern.”
The petitioners are requesting the SWRCB to "dismiss all enforcement actions and vacate all rulings, orders and CDO, CAO, and stop the RWQCB from pursuing further enforcement against individuals." The SWRCB petitions are usually resolved without an evidentiary hearing, and often the State Water Board will hold a workshop to discuss the matter. In this case the petitioners have requested an evidentiary hearing if the actions are not dismissed.
In the meantime, hearings resume for at least four more of the original 45 Los Osos property owners on Monday January 22, 2007 at 1:00 PM.895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101, San Luis Obispo. The public is encouraged to attend.

Donations to the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (Checks to PZLDF) can be made at Coast Bank or mailed to P.O Box 6095 Los Osos Ca 93412
-End-
for additional information on enforcement:
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov
SWRCB office of Chief Counsel
Dolores White dwhite@waterboards.ca.gov
916.341.5159
RWQCB Prosecution Staff
Matt Thompson: 805.549-3159 mthompson@waterboards.ca.gov

Calhoun’s Can(n)ons,The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA for Jan 17, 07



New Year’s Questions

This year, instead of New Year’s Resolutions, here’s my list of New Year’s Questions. Like Resolutions, I doubt much will come of my list, but, you never know.

1) What was so all fired important about keeping a sewer plant in the middle of town that three of the recalled Board members were willing to pound millions of dollars into the ground before the election, and then later get involved with actively attempting to dissolve the whole CSD? And why was the whole might and power of the State brought to bear in order to “punish” a community for simply wanting to move a sewer plant facility out of the center of their town? Especially when, during the “October Compromise,” almost every citizen who spoke at the CSD meeting admitted, “Well, I never was really married to that [Tri-W] site . . . .” For not being married to a site, this has been one hell of a down-and-dirty, world-class, messy divorce, that’s for sure.

2) Exactly who pulled the plug on the second payment of the SRF Loan, when did that happen, and were there any provisions in that SRF loan contract that required mediation of any changes before simply withholding a payment check? Who made the decision to withhold? I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but I do know that in regular law, you’re not allowed to shoot your neighbor because you think he might be fixing to steal your trash cans sometime in the next 90 days. But in contract law, who knows? That’s one of the questions that the CSD’s breach of contract lawsuit was supposed to answer. With the bankruptcy, it’s a question temporarily held in abeyance, but it’s a doozie and I hope it gets answered.

3) Who in the heck was responsible for monitoring the State Revolving Fund Program in the first place? In a 2005 press release, the State Water Resources Control Board states that it “takes its responsibilities to protect taxpayer funds very seriously . . . . ” Really? Then somebody needs to explain to me exactly how serious was the State Water Board in piling additional gazillions onto an existing unsecured loan, then sending the first chunk of money down the pipeline to a clearly divided community only weeks before a recall election that could change the terms of the original loan. This is due diligence?

4) Besides an attempt at electioneering and coercing a Prop 218 vote out of the residents, (Vote for whatever project the county comes up with no matter how cockamamie or we’ll shoot your dog AND fine you $5,000 a day!), just what IS the point of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s CDO process? The Regional Board’s own documents state that putting CDOs on a whole community is not recommended because it’s an inappropriate enforcement mechanism. We’ve heard expert testimony that the mitigation requirements of pump, inspect, repair used to justify the CDO may look good and feel good, but they won’t do diddly to the ground water. Clearly, these “show trials” are costing the Board a bundle in time and money. And, it’s also clear that these show trials have no impact on moving the county project forward any faster than it’s already moving. So, what’s the REAL point of jerking hapless citizens around for a whole year? If it is indeed electioneering and voter coercion, is that a legal activity for the RWQCB to be engaged in?

5) And, finally, the County’s Basin Plan is now up for its Triennial Review. Will the County, the CSD, The Regional Water Board and other agencies finally – FINALLY -- take that review seriously and make the desperately needed changes to get rid of the scientifically indefensible Prohibition Zone, re-configure the map to make a scientifically defensible rationale for all Water-And-Wastewater Projects BEFORE the county finishes designing the sewer? And will these critically important revisions also result in a basin-wide septic management plan that will be ready for the AB885 regulations that will be coming down from Sacramento – regulations that may well put all septic tanks in the county under the direct control of the same RWQCB that brought you “The Mad Pumping Scheme” and “Torquemada’s Mad Hatter Auto-de-fe & Public Beheading CDO Show” that’s now running amok at the water board offices near you.

Now, there’s a thought and a question to seriously chill the New Year.


BLACK-OUT ALERT! BLACK-OUT ALERT!

Because the Regional Quality Control Board’s budget is busted on these pointless Mad Hatter Auto-de-fe & Public Beheading CDO Shows, there is no money in the budget to have AGP Video televise the upcoming January22 “trial” of the remaining Los Osos 45 and the discussion and decisions regarding the other 4,500 Los Ososians. So, if it were up to the Board, all this would be done with no cameras present so members of the public who cannot attend the hearing wouldn’t know what the heck happened to these people.

But several citizens have chipped in to hire AGP for the day and AGP Video has agreed to pay for any extra time out of their own pockets to make sure this show trial remains accessible to the public.

I’m going to be sending AGP Video a few bucks to help cover their costs. I invite all of you reading this blog to do the same. What’s public access worth to you? Clearly it’s worth zero to the Water Board, but if it’s worth something to you, then send AGP Video a few bucks. You can mail your contributions to:

AGP Video
1600 Preston Lane
Morro Bay, CA 93442.

Then I invite you to think seriously about a Water Board that has such a limited budget that they can’t afford a modest amount to videotape public hearings, yet has spent gazillions and wasted a year’s worth of staff time on these useless show trials. This becomes especially appalling when you consider that their limited budget could have been spent oh, say updating the Basin Plan so they’d end up with really effective changes, changes that can have a real effect on . . . oh, let’s say . . . .the GROUND WATER that they’re supposed to be protecting.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Incoming Message! Anybody Home? Helloooooo?

The following press release was received from the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund. Some of the Los Osos 45 will be filing an appeal, both to the State Water Board and then go into a “real” court. The outcome of their efforts may well impact the rest of the citizens of Los Osos. The Chair of the RWQCB has indicated that negotiations for improving the “alternate” settlement agreements are still open for discussion before they proceed against the rest of the community – Yes, that means YOU..

Considering what an appalling mess they’ve made of this Mad Pumping Scheme, CDO Kangaroo Court, Torquemada’s Mat Hatter Auto-de-fe & Traveling Public Beheading Show, I’m sure the Chairman and Board would like to figure out a better way to approach all of this. So would PZLDF.

Your support now may save you a ginormous headache (and big bucks) further down the line. So, Los Osos, wake up, get informed. The Regional Board wishes you to believe that the difference between a CDO and their 9present) Alternate Settlement (a CAO in form if not in name) are but minor matters, sort of like the sleazy insurance salesman who tells you, “Don’t worry, all homeowners’ policies are alike. The language in the policy? It’s just standard, one policy’s like the other. The wording’s there for some one-in-a-million just-in-case, so don’t bother with the fine print. Sign here. Nothing’s going to happen.”

Until it does.

THAT’s why what PZLDF is doing actually does matter . . . to you.



A message from the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund

The PZLDF is heading up the organization of the appeal for about half of the enforcement defendants. 12-14 defendants are filing their appeal through Sullivan and Associates. The appeal (petition for review) is first considered for a hearing before the state board (SWRCB) and then (if necessary) in superior court.

Not only is an appeal about challenging the RWQCB enforcement method, but to propose better solutions. PZLDF has been proactive in alternatives to CDO's, and proposed interim workplans that improve water quality, and interim compliance measures within better settlement agreements, (Not a CAO that has severe unintended consequences).

The efforts by those appealing the CDO's have the potential of protecting nearly 5000 properties from getting CDO's, and providing cooperative efforts toward regulatory relief.

Even those who served as the first "test case" within the first 45 ---but who settled because of personal reasons --stand to gain a better settlement from the efforts of this first group of CDO holders who are petitioning for review (appeal) .

The cost for review is high and your help is needed. Because of the direct benefits to you and your property, I ask that you donate NOW to help fund the appeal process. The Water Board IS going to send you an enforcement order.
WHAT CAN BE CHANGED IS THE ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AND METHODS YOU WILL FACE.

You can make a donation directly at Coast Bank to PZLDF, or send a check in any amount to P.O Box 6095, Los Osos Ca 93412

Help your neighbors and help yourself....Give generously....the next wave of enforcement depends upon the few that are holding the line for you now.

Thank you for your consideration!

Woof! Woof!

The Tribune ran an editorial Jan 12 on the proposed off-leash dog park down in the five cities area, “Let dog owners in Arroyo run with their idea.” One statement in the editorial was a perfect example of the curious thinking that surrounds dog parks and another, a perfect example of our curiously muddled approach to “private” and “public” spaces as well as an illustration of how degraded our idea of The Commons has become.

First, the editorial notes that it will cost $11,500 to build the park and about $4,124 a year to maintain it, a cost that is expected to be covered by a private group calling themselves the Five Cities Dog Park Association. Then the Tribune adds, “What puts the wag in our tail about this plan is that all of the improvements and maintenance won’t cost taxpayers a dime: donations from area businesses, service clubs and the 200-member association will foot the bill.” And then concludes, “This is an excellent example of what can happen when residents take responsibility for providing for special recreational needs, such as dog parks or community gardens, rather than looking to government to underwrite their desires.”

I volunteer on the Board of the group that created the first off leash dog park in the County at the El Chorro Regional Park off Highway 1. When we started that project about 7 years ago, I was amazed at how clueless people in this county seemed to be. Letters to the editor always concluded, --We don’t need parks for dogs! We need parks for people! -- the writers completely missing the point: Dog parks are for people who just happen to be with their dogs. Indeed, after the park was finally built, it was amazing to observe just how intensely social a place it was – not for the dogs, but for the people. In short, dog parks WERE people parks.

The second thing that became clear at the time was that “recreation” has been defined in a certain narrow way. When city or county departments of recreation and parks fund a baseball field, or soccer field or skate board park or kids’ playground equipment, they do so using public funds and nobody says a thing. Those activities are considered “public recreation,” even though very few people own in-line skates or a baseball bat. Indeed, I suspect that there are more dog owners in this county than there are skateboarders or baseball players. Yet using tax money for those forms of recreation doesn’t raise an eyebrow.

But here’s the Tribune on the proposed Five-Cities dog park: “This is an excellent example of what can happen when residents take responsibility for providing for special recreational needs, such as dog parks or community gardens, rather than looking to government to underwrite their desires.”

First, of course, community gardens are limited to those assigned a plot. The public is NOT invited to come in and pick tomatoes at will. Dog parks, on the other hand, are open to all the public. Indeed, you can enjoy dog parks and socialize with the people in dog parks even though you don’t own a dog.

But, can you imagine the Tribune editorializing that parents wanting a baseball field should “take responsibility for providing for [this] special recreational need” and go raise the money needed to build and maintain it?

Hence the ongoing problem of defining what “recreation” is and who benefits.

But there’s another, far more troubling reality at work throughout the country and certainly here in this county. The devaluation of The Commons, that is, the idea that there are certain things that we, as citizens, should hold and pay for in common since they offer all of us, in one way or another, a benefit.

But since the so-called “Reagan Revolution,” a counter philosophy has been at work, that of Privitization of the Commons, which says that, except for a standing Military, most everything else should be paid for by private funds. Want a park? Go build it yourself. Think Yosemite’s nice? Privitize it and charge people the market rates to go see it, just like Disneyland. It is this philosophy that’s at work in the Tribune’s description of a dog park – but not a ball field – as a “special recreational need,” forgetting entirely that a dog park IS a public park for people, exactly what the various taxpayer-supported Departments of Parks and Recreation are funded to provide – parks for people.

This distinction with no difference is exactly what allows various cities and counties to foist their Common responsibilities off onto the private sector. If the taxpayers no longer believe in The Commons and refuse to adequately fund public parks, (a real problem in this county, where Parks & Recreation, properly funded, could be buying up land for more parks but now has no budget to buy OR run them, a tragedy in the making once park land is eaten up by development and everyone – too late – stands around saying, Oh, well, too bad ), then the situation is simple: You want a park, go build it yourself – unless, of course, it fit’s our definition of “recreation,” i.e. baseball, soccer, playground equipment, THAT we’ll fund with tax money, but . . . dog parks? Oh, no, that’s a “special recreational need” and you’ll have to fund that yourself.

Fortunately, as we found with the El Chorro dog park, there is a middle way: Public/Private Partnering. The key thing that makes the El Chorro Off Leash Dog Park so successful IS the participation of the private sector, park users who help with maintenance, fund-raising, park improvements and amenities. It is their commitment to this particular form of public recreation that keeps that park such a wonderful place for anyone to go to and enjoy. This type of partnering can also help keep ball fields working, skate-parks safe and maintained, our own Elfin Forrest here in Los Osos clean and invasive-weed-free, and so forth.

So, Tribune Editorial Board, I hope you’ll stop and think a bit on what you mean by “special recreational needs.” The Five Cities Dog Park Association isn’t trying to build some private enclave just for them. What they’re trying to do, as PRIVATE citizens, is to build a PUBLIC park. And to do that, they need equal partnering from the county and the surrounding cities’ Parks and Recreation Departments.

After all, that’s what Parks & Recreation Departments are all about: Parks and Recreation for people, whether they’re holding a tennis racquet, a baseball bat or a dog leash.



.