E-Mails 101

In my previous posting (Dec 14), I printed an email sent to Supervisor Gibson from Bev De Witt-Moylan. Herewith Mr. Gibson’s reply to Ms. De Witt-Moylan, posted with her permission. I look forward to “a Board resolution,” if any, on the fate of The Los Osos 45. So far, the silence from day one from them has been deafening. And posted next, Ms. De Witt-Moylan’s response to Supervisor Gibson’s’ reply. As she has in other postings, her comments should be read very carefully by anyone who doesn’t seem to understand what has happened to The Los Osos 45 and what the implications are of this whole insane RWQCB Mad Hatter Tea Party & Auto de Fe Public Hanging, and what it has really been like for those who are living through it. Her observation about the utter "bait & switchy" untrustworthiness of the RWQCB warrants particular attention for any who wonder at the “why” of this lawsuit. I can only trust that at least the other Supervisors are paying attention.

Subject: Re: Fw: Contact Us (response #787)

Ms. De Witt-Moylan: First, on Tuesday, I do believe that I said I hadn't read the PZLDF lawsuit "recently". I did read the first complaint, which I understand has been substantially modified subsequent to the first hearing. Second, I believe that I also said that the CDOs at this point were "more symbolic than substantive". I certainly acknowledge the unfairness of 45 households out of 5000 being singled out for enforcement and I do hope that the Regional Board acts soon to rescind those actions. That said,the progress made by the County over the last year has impressed the Regional Board and its staff. With that progress, the RB has held new enforcement in abeyance and has indicated that no action on the existing CDOs will occur in the forseeable future. I believe the RB would likely rescind the existing CDOs if the current litigation can be resolved. I appreciate Sups. Patterson and Achadjian suggesting a Board resolution. This will give us an opportunity to speak to many important issues facing the County and community in the coming year. Sincerely yours, Bruce Gibson



Email Reply 101

And now Ms. DeWitt-Moylan’s point by point response to Supervisor Gibson’s e-mail reply. [For clarity, I have put Gibson’s original email comments in italics]

Ms. De Witt-Moylan: First, on Tuesday, I do believe that I said I hadn't read the PZLDF lawsuit "recently". I did read the first complaint, which I understand has been substantially modified subsequent to the first hearing.

It would seem logical, Mr. Gibson, that substantial modifications in the PZLDF lawsuit would have led to your curiosity and to your own research into the amended lawsuit to keep yourself current, so that you might be able to report to the BOS from the original source rather than from what someone had told you about the suit or what you vaguely remember from the first suit that no longer fully represents the case. The PZLDF lawsuit in its entirety is very important to your District 2 constituency, and as I explained in my previous communication, it has implications for the entire state of California. Though you are engaged and occupied with the business of all the towns within District 2, the PZLDF lawsuit addresses issues that impact all your constituents, and such it deserves your time and attention.

Second, I believe that I also said that the CDOs at this point were "more symbolic than substantive". I certainly acknowledge the unfairness of 45 households out of 5000 being singled out for enforcement and I do hope that the Regional Board acts soon to rescind those actions.

With all due respect, Mr. Gibson, this response is unacceptable given the situation at hand. Your explanation and elaboration are as unsatisfactory as your original statement. Indeed, your comments are insulting to recipients of enforcement actions and demonstrate that you have not made a conscious cognitive connection with what we have been telling you since before you took office. I would sincerely appreciate your suggestions about what else people can say about their experiences as Designated Parties in receipt of CDOs and as Interested Parties living in fear of enforcement to help you to comprehend that the effect of these CDOs has been and continues to be crushingly substantive.

When we say we have spent thousands of dollars of our fixed and hard-earned incomes and thousands of collective hours of our own time in our defense, we are describing a substantive impact. When we say that we have spent time in doctors' offices, ERs, hospitals, skilled nursing facilities, and therapists' offices, as a direct result of CCRWQCB prosecution and enforcement, we are describing a substantive impact. The collective thousands of dollars in medical bills alone would add up to an impressively substantive amount if we enumerated them all.

We have lost our privacy. Though my husband and I do not have our address printed in the telephone book, on January 22, 2007, our name, address, and a map to our house was displayed on a screen, video recorded, live streamed, and shown on television many times subsequently. Anyone who accesses that hearing on line today can see it for themselves. Our request for redaction was denied. The ruling was that the public's right to know outweighed our right to privacy. Other information which I considered personal and private, which many people with whom I worked and socialized did not know about me, has become common knowledge in our defense against CCRWQCB enforcement.

At the December 2006 hearing the CCRWQCB prosecution team displayed on a large screen the name and address of a CDO recipient who had requested and been granted redaction. Reminding the prosecution team of the redaction, that defendant had to ask them to remove the personal information from the screen. Of course, the damage was done. Prior to receipt of the Proposed Cease and Desist Orders in January 2006 we were all private citizens exercising our choice to live and work anonymously in the community. That part of our lives is gone for now. The loss of our right to privacy because we had become defendants in a random prosecution is yet another substantive impact. A reading of the amended lawsuit would provide you considerable background on substantive impacts of the CCRWQCB enforcement actions to date.

It is confusing that you believe that, because the Water Board "indicated that no action on the existing CDOs will occur in the foreeseable future," we are out of danger. The CCRWQCB has a poor record of consistency, of doing what they said they would do, except for their resolve to continue to prosecute us, even as they insist they intend to treat everyone equally. It is astonishing given the CCRWQCB's history with your constituents that you continue to take this board at their word when our experience has been so different. "Unfairness" hardly begins to describe the CCRWQCB's actions toward us who have received orders. Nothing short of their vacating our orders will take us out of harm's way. They have the power of the Attorney General's office behind them. We have you. And you are not behind us. "I do hope that the Regional Board acts soon to rescind those actions," is simply not a commitment from you for those of us who have been on the receiving end of this enforcement for this long. We have enough experience with the CCRWQCB to know that mere hoping is futile and weak. The CCRWQCB does not respect "hoping." It is surprising that you do not know that yet.

Your peers on the Board of Supervisors see a significant enough degree of substantive threat in these enforcement orders that they are willing to consider drafting and presenting a resolution to the CCRWQCB in support of CDO and CAO recipients. Your failure to initiate such an action yourself and your noncommittal response to the action of your peers demonstrates a lack of support for vulnerable members of the community you represent.

That said,the progress made by the County over the last year has impressed the Regional Board and its staff. With that progress, the RB has held new enforcement in abeyance and has indicated that no action on the existing CDOs will occur in the forseeable future. I believe the RB would likely rescind the existing CDOs if the current litigation can be resolved.

The CCRWQCB has repeatedly changed the conditions of the prosecution, the orders, the dates, and the timelines throughout the past two years. They have changed the meanings of important words. I can only wonder about their definition of the word, "forseeable," as in "forseeable future." Elderly people and invalids who hold CDOs and CAOs are waiting for this process to end so that they can sell their homes and move into assisted living. As you know, the enforcement orders go with the property. It is very hard to sell a home with an enforcement order. These are people with no time to spare. That is a substantial impact.

You may remember that CDO defendants spent quite a bit of money to develop and propose a settlement agreement a year ago at this time, which many of us signed, the Sullivan agreement. We pledged to hook up to a WWTF as soon as one became available. We were naively hopeful a year ago that this reasonable action which demonstrated cooperation with the spirit of the CCRWQCB's enforcement would embody a satisfactory compromise. That agreement was unacceptable to Mr. Reed Sato and the CCRWQCB. Subsequently Designated Parties and many Interested Parties have spent considerable money to comply with the interim compliance requirements. The 218 has passed. Nothing is left for us to do except to hook up to a WWTF when one becomes available. Yet the orders remain. The Sullivan agreement is dead. There is no way to explain how maintaining enforcement orders on 45 households has any useful purpose in promoting the safety of the waters of the state.

That the CCRWQCB "has held new enforcement in abeyance" is cold comfort and an unacceptable rationale for 45 families to continue to have their property encumbered and threatened by CDOs and CAOs, with the real, substantive consequences occurring right now for people you represent. This tradeoff does not make sense as the best way for you to protect your constituents and stand for environmental justice. All around us people are remodeling and enlarging their homes, getting ready for the holidays, spending disposable income. At the same time we who face enforcement are concerned about what 2011, a mere three years away, will bring. No one has reassured us that when the CCRWQCB is finished with us we won't be walking away from our homes, for most of us our single biggest asset, at some future date. We have spent money on document costs, mailing costs, interim compliance costs, court costs, legal fees, contributions to the legal defense fund, medical costs, and therapy costs. Some of us have no disposable income left to spend on Christmas this year. My husband and I are dipping into our savings as it is to cover our own costs. All of these are substantive impacts.

The CCRWQCB has had almost two years to treat citizens rationally, respectfully, and equitably. We begged them. Defendants, your constituents, met with them personally, repeatedly, to tell them what this prosecution was causing and to ask them to use other means. They persisted with the prosecution, however, leaving us no choice but to ask a court of law to protect our rights. No one else has stepped forward in our defense. We are alone. I am sorry that you see the sacrifice of 45 of your families as an acceptable exchange for the County's good graces with the CCRWQCB and for the merely relative safety of the rest of the town - for the time being. I am most sorry that you have put yourself in a position to make the CCRWQCB's case, to represent them instead of us.

This is what I wish you had said at the CCRWQCB meeting on December 7, 2007. Instead of politely and passively expressing your hope that the CCRWQCB might resolve the enforcement issue soon, I expected you to tell them as our representative that you protest their actions against us. I expected you to tell them that, while you are committed to working with them, you also have a solemn obligation to protect your people. Standing for us and working with the CCRWQCB do not have to be mutually exclusive. If you do not take a stand for us, Mr. Gibson, who will?

I wish you had stood up for us. I wish that you had explained to the CCRWQCB the absurdity of their requirement, that no individual homeowner can build a WWTF, that this enforcement action is unacceptable, that prosecuting 45 private households for failures of government is a dangerous, destructive, unproductive, ill-conceived and poorly thought out strategy that threatens the health and welfare of your constituents. At the least, you could have demonstrated your support for us silently by staying at that December 7 meeting. Instead, you demonstrated the distance you put between yourself and us by leaving as soon as you were finished with your remarks. We got the message, as I am certain the CCRWQCB did, as well. We stood alone again.

Our country was founded, not by those who hoped that things would work out eventually, but by those who took a stand against tyrrany and established a government of the people. A grave mistake of those in power in a democratic society is forgetting who their employer is, who pays their salary. The citizens of Los Osos are taxpayers, and as such are the CCRWQCB's employer as well as yours. We deserve in that capacity the respect and protection we are due. Sometimes those who have temporarily been granted a modicum of power forget that the people ultimately decide who is protecting them, and who is not. Sometimes those with temporary power require a substantive reminder.

As our representative to the Board of Supervisors, I expect so much more from you, Mr. Gibson, than what you have offered so far. It is regrettable that we 45 families must look for relief and support in this struggle to Supervisors who have their own constituents to protect and defend. How fortunate for us that those Supervisors recognize that the CCRWQCB's prosecution in Los Osos has implications for all citizens of San Luis Obispo County and are willing in the name of San Luis Obispo County to come to our defense.

"The first obligation of government is to protect our people."
- Senator Susan Collins of Maine - 4/27/2006




Recovery 101

In case you missed it, there’s a rather funny story by Patrick Howe in this week’s New Times, “Merry Christmas, Sunny Acres!”

Seem Dan De Vaul and the county are at it again. The De Vaul ranch is that stretch of land near the corner of Los Osos Valley Road and Madonna Rd. A short time ago, Mr. De Vaul was in hot water with the county code enforcement folks for running “Sunny Acres, a not-for-profit clean-and-sober living facility” without the proper permits for the renovated barn where the residents were sleeping.

This resulted in the “evicted” residents setting up a sort of mini- “Little Hoover” rough camping arrangement by the road (for maximum exposure) of wind-shelters, cots, a fire pit, all asking a pitiful Question for passing motorists with winter coming on, “If we can’t stay in the barn, where are we to go except to camp out here in the wind and weather?”

And of course, embarrassment to the County by raising another question: Shouldn’t the COUNTY be doing something to help these people so they don’t have to go live in a Little Hoover encampment next to Los Osos Valley Road, right across the street from all those nice million-dollar ranchettes with people looking out of their million-dollar windows to this constantly changing . . . eeeuuuuu mess, and . . . eeeuuuu… all these homeless addicts and who knows who else . . . eeeuuuuu?

Now Mr. De Vaul’s selling Christmas Trees to raise money to support the Sunny Acres project but according to this story, doesn’t have the proper permit to sell the trees. Plus, the County enforcement is now fed up and threatening to charge him $99 per hour to deal with any new enforcement complaints. Says Mr. De Vaul, “I think all they’re doing is looking for a chance to bust my balls because of what I did with the beds.” Naturally the County denies any connection.

But here’s the question that rattled through my head reading, again, about this ongoing saga: Isn’t one of the first steps in recovery the No Bullshit Rule? No cons, no weasels, no games, take responsibility for your decisions, own what you do, clean up your act, straighten up, play by the rules, do it right?

If so, then what seems like a merry game to outsiders looking in – Merry Prankster Dan versus Mean County Code Enforcement Scrooges – is actually counter productive to Recovery 101 that the “clean-and-sober living facility” – Sunny Acres – is supposed to be all about.

Interestingly, in the same New Times, was an update on “Project Amend,” the only drug and alcohol detox live-in facility in the county. The group, headed by Michael Axelrod, has been working diligently to upgrade their small facility on Broad Street, raising money to do the work AND GET THE PERMITS NEEDED. They are still looking for donations of “cash, computers, office equipment, bedding, a lawnmower and volunteer labor” to finish the job.

So, there’s a recovery facility abiding by Recovery 101 – no excuses, no BS, do it right.

Which is a good thing since there are about zero facilities for live-in drug and alcohol treatment in this County.

And for more irony, the story following the De Vaul story was an excellent piece, again by Patrick Howe, “Putting the Pieces Together – If San Luis Obispo County is such a nice place to live, why do so many people kill themselves? Or is that part of the answer.” And at the top of the list given for the high suicide rate is this: “There aren’t enough mental health amenities.” Add in the high association of suicide with drug and alcohol abuse (chicken and egg) and you have some interesting dots to connect running through all three of these stories.

Which reminds me, since Project Amend over on Broad Street is in need of volunteer help, why not give Mr. Axelrod a call at 782-9600 at get on the work-party list. In the season of giving, the gift of time is the most precious of all. Barring that, send ‘em some cash to help pay for all the various proper permits the county requires so they can continue to do the work the county should be doing.

And, There Ought To Be A Law 101

As previously posted, Ron Crawford’s “ought to be a law” was one of seven selected by Assemblyman Blakeslee in his recent contest. Ron cc’d the following email to Blakeslee’s office to make the following important corrections to his proposal:

Hello Christine,

Thank you for your phone call the other day informing me that my "Ought to be a law" idea was one of the seven finalists.

Real quick...

In the Trib, it said that my law idea was:

"* Prohibit special districts from establishing their own recall election date and instead transfer that authority to the Local Agency Formation Commission."

Here's my question: When that says "special districts," does that also include things like City Councils and Board of Supervisors, and the like? Because that's what I meant, and it's very important.

What happened in Rosemead, for example, involved a city council, and not just a community services district.

So, I guess what I'm not clear on is this... is a city council considered a "special district?"

My suggestion is that ANY elected official facing a recall in California should not have a say in setting their own recall election date.

Just wanted to clear that up.
As always, much thanks,Ron



What’s in a Name 101

Well, it is true: Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan. There in the Dec. 15 Tribune is the headline: "Firm disputes sewer moniker -- Tri-W Enterprises wants public works officials to adopt a different name for the midtown parcel. "

Awww, Jeeze, and here we were told that the Tri-W Sewer Plant” was gonna be a jewel in the crown, a tremendous benefit and beautiful addition to the community, a community resource complete with tot-lot and playing fields, the ONLY solution to Los Osos sewer woes, the BEST solution, in short a tremendous asset. You didn’t hear anything from the Tri-W Enterprise lawyers threatening mayhem if the name Tri-W was associated with our centrally located Tri-W “resource park.”

But now? Quotes the Trib: “The company’s attorney, in a strongly worded letter, says that the repeated use of the name “Tri-W site” or “Tri-w parcel” with the “ill-fated wastewater treatment project . . . continues to defame my client’s good name.”

Lordy! Defame? Continues the Trib. “While there haven’t been specific problems with Tri-W’s name being attached to the site, Ochyliski [the attorney writing the “strongly worded letter”] said, ‘The way the name is used has a potentially bad connotation.”

Lordy! A “potentially” bad connotation? As in, maybe someday somebody might connect a sewer plant sited on the basis of an unsupported SOC with some kind of “bait and switchy” nefariousness? And maybe suspect that the Tri-W Associates had something to do with all that nefariousness? That kind of “potentially bad connotation?”

Thankfully (no doubt because they’d get laughed out of court?) the lawyers haven’t threatened to sue over the matter. Continues the Trib, “It has offered suggestions to the county, such as calling the land the “midtown site,” the “Pallisades site,” or the “Los Osos CSD site.”

Or how’s about doing like the rock star Prince did when he decided to change his name to “Artist” or “The Artist,” and/or used a weirdo symbol to represent himself, which forced everyone to print the weird symbol and then add, “The Artist formerly known as Prince.”

So, how’s about this? The Palisades site, Formerly Known As Tri-W.

In the meantime, my advice for the Boys over at Tri-W Enterprise, GET A GRIP. If the County Process doesn’t get derailed or a fix isn’t in or there isn’t some bait and switchy pulled at the last minute, it seems, at this point, that the FormerlyKnown As Tri-W site may never be selected for the sewer plant. In which case, it will be sold or traded or – God willing—be bought by the county and turned into a public park for under-parked Los Osos, with the result that maybe we’ll end up with a “resource park” without the sewer plant in the middle of it.

And should that happen and should the park be a beautiful park, we could call it Formerly Known As Tri-W Park and who knows, maybe the boys at Tri-W Enterprise will donate money to build a huge bronze monument to The Sewer Wars, something really artistically mediocre involving horses, goats, dead bodies, pikestaffs, snarling faces, leaflets flying everywhere – you know, like one of those monumentally ginormous realistic heroic sculptures found all over Russia to commemorate the Great Struggle To Save The Motherland.

Something big and bronze that the pigeons can poop all over. Something we can all be proud of. Something we can bring our grandchildren to see and point at and say, in a feeble voice, “Sonny, Ah served in thet War. An’ ever' time hit rains or Ah flush mah toilet, Ah gits a twinge in mah old war wound. Them wuz the days!”


More Sewerville 101

The following email was cc’d to me from Mr. Murphy of AES. With the following attachment. I’m not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. As I’ve posted here previously, it will remain to be seen in this Battle of Words, (and battle of government agencies) just what/who will prevail: county? State? Feds? And what the meaning of “is” is. Which means we’re back in Humpty Dumpty Land: What are “pollutants?” What’s a” point source discharge?”And so forth. And who decides? A state judge? A federal judge? Well, stay tuned.

My “goal”, which is in alignment with the “National Goal”, is to “comply” with the already existing laws, not to change any law as the laws already in place to support (require) everything that I am saying, doing and proposing to do toward the implementation of the AES program, not only locally, but nationally. The RECLAMATOR, as the “Ultimate Water Conservation Device” achieves the “National Goal” as defined in U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26 of “eliminating the discharge of pollutants at the source”.
The County’s due diligence phase, provided done ethically, will result in the County’s not moving forward with the project and turning it back to the LOCSD who are going to have an opportunity to enter into a Public Private Partnership Agreement with AES and move forward with the only federally compliant solution for Los Osos. However, if for any unforeseen or known justifiable reason the LOCSD doesn’t accept our generous offer, put $20 million in their account, acquire a $150,000 ongoing monthly revenue stream and challenge the current debts against them as unjustifiable as a result of them being a part of an unlawfully “Water Board” approved sewer project that was not in compliance with the requirements of U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26, AES is prepared to, as a private organization, move forward and retain all revenue and proceeds from the project as a totally private entity. This will simply be the LOCSD’s own choice. Please understand that the AB 2701 does not preclude nor prevent the LOCSD form moving forward with AES to provide its “Discharge Elimination Services”. This is a “service” and not a “sewer project” and upon us, i.e. AES and the LOCSD, or AES alone moving forward to provide this service to Los Osos, the County will then be precluded from moving forward with any “sewer” project for Los Osos as there will no longer be any “sewage” to “collect” within the community and therefore, no need for a County provided sewer collection system.
In regard to the County “entertaining proposals for decentralized solutions”, we are prepared to file a federal injunction against the project if any solution, decentralized or otherwise, is proposed which does not comply with the requirements as defined in statutes provided in U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26. Any proposed “solution” shall consist of the “best available demonstrated control technology currently available which will eliminate the discharge of ALL pollutants at the source” and additionally meet all other criteria (U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26, Sections 1311, 1312, 1313, 1314, 1316 and 1317) that is required to be considered by any authority who is authorized to identify such “best available innovative and alternative technology” and them to promulgate, require and assist in the implementation of such as an area-wide waste management solution and shall be specified by “name brand or equal” based on its performance. The RECLAMATOR is such a technology which achieves this “National Standard of Performance” as defined in U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26, Section 1316 and is additionally superior in comparison with all other “decentralized solutions” which, by law, if not “best”, aren’t such solutions at all. I have attached my “annotated working version” of this U.S.C. 33, Chapter 26 for you to familiarize yourself with if you wish.

In regard to your suggestion that there is a need to “replace septic systems in high density areas with a community system”, you are absolutely wrong. There is only a need to “eliminate the discharge of pollutants” through retrofitting such septic systems to “eliminate the discharge of pollutants”. This is what the AES Discharge Elimination Service will do. Neither “density” nor TMDL considerations are any longer an issue when the “discharge of pollutants” has been eliminated. A “community system” as you are suggesting will only be a community “water collection” system and I really don’t think the County wants to purchase our water which they would be collecting via their “community system”. How logical would that be? They have many other sources of water that would be much less expensive.

[ . . . ], the RECLAMATOR may show up in the “environmental review process”, however, AES isn’t going to enter into any working relationship with the County as their deadline to enter into an agreement with AES was the 23rd of October. I have already made that very clear with them. Any more money that the County spends on moving forward with the Los Osos “community sewer project” is only an unnecessary expense which is not justifiable since the AES Discharge Elimination Service providing the RECLAMATOR has become available as the most cost effective and best available technology which can eliminate the discharge of pollutants at the source as the federal law requires. I would encourage and support the citizens of Los Osos in gaining reimbursement of any unnecessary economic burden that may be unjustifiably imposed upon them as a result of the County continuing its project in light of recent developments.

The County process is dead as they cannot implement a “sewer collection lateral” with no positive revenue stream to pay for it. It is only simple arithmetic. To borrow funds to build and pay for a conventional system, they must guarantee the payback of the loan. It has always been a “basic operational procedure” in the past under these circumstances to provide to the lender a guarantee of payback through implementing a security agreement which would result in an ordinance being established that would require every property within the to-be-sewered-area to “hook-up/connect” to the publicly owned treatment works.

When in the past, a “required hook-up” justified a positive revenue stream to help pay for a conventional system. The “required hook-up” was able to be “required” and legally implemented upon the individual sources, i.e. homeowners, as they were discharging “pollutants”, however all that has been changed with the availability and implementation of the RECLAMATOR technology.

Rather than a “required hook-up” generating a positive revenue stream to assist in paying for a conventional system as has been the previous practice in the industry, a “required hook-up” would only create a NEGATIVE revenue stream for the County as California Water Code § 13050 defines the permeate produced by the RECLAMATOR as a “valuable resource”. Furthermore, California law clarifies that whoever owns the “facilities”, i.e. RECLAMATOR, that reclaims such recycled water also owns the rights to the water. AES retains ownership of all of its facilities it uses to provide the Discharge Elimination Services to its Clients. AES also has full right to establish the “price” of such and its price would be sufficient enough to cover any additional assessments or other economic impositions which may have been placed upon its customers by any public entity. For the record, the price of the AES recycled water has been currently established at 5Xs that of the cost of the public water source serving the same property.

The County, who is already in a $20 million dollar deficit, won’t be able to pay AES for its water. There is no law which requires a homeowner to deliver “sewage” to a public sewer service, and just to the contrary, we all have the right to 100% consumptive use of all the water we purchase from a public water supply entity. The RECLAMATOR enables the homeowner to benefit from such 100% consumptively. There is no legal means for a public entity, such as the County, to impose a service fee on anyone who has no need for such service.
[ . . . ]
Best regards,

D. Thomas Murphy,
Founder,
AES Central Coast Discharge Elimination Company, LLC.
(805) 305-2378
President,
Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc.
(775) 425-0911
Inventor,
RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Water”
(775) 848-8800
www.NOwastewater.com

"Science is but a perversion of itself unless it has as its ultimate goal the betterment of humanity." ~~Inventor Nikola Tesla


“ADDENDUM” TO GOVERNMENT CLAIMS FORM1) DEE THOMAS MURPHY, an individual; ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTALSYSTEMS, INC., A Nevada Corporation; AES CENTRAL COAST DISCHARGEELIMINATION COMPANY, LLC, A California Limited Liability Company15) There are approximately 5,000 dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs) in theLos Osos area. The Service Establishment Cost Profits are $37,500,000(5,000 DUEs X $7,500 [net profit after service establishment cost]). The OngoingMonthly Service Fee Profits are $42,000,000 over 20 years (5,000DUEs X $35.00 [net profit per month per DUE] = $175,000/month,$2,100,000/year and $42,000,000 [plus inflation]/20 years, which is thetime frame defined for such facilities in 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).18) The state agencies or employees against whom this claim is filedpublished various false and defamatory statements with malice orconstitutional malice during the course of a radio broadcast on September14, 2007, as well as in writing on September 6, 2007, which include, but arenot limited to, assertions that: Claimants have misinterpreted relevantfederal law; the Reclamator is not exempt from federal regulation; theReclamator discharges “waste;” the Reclamator discharges levels of “waste”that are not acceptable; Claimants have made claims related to theReclamator and its role and place in wastewater purification that areunsubstantiated and untrue; and, Claimants told representatives of theRegional Water Quality Control Board that Claimants were in Los Osos todisrupt the county assessment vote process.19) Under California law, a public entity may be held vicariously liable forthe conduct of its employees acting within the scope of their employment,but only to the extent that the employees may be held liable. (Gov. Code, §815.2, subd. (a); Peter W. v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist. (1976) 60Cal.App.3d 814, 819 [131 Cal.Rptr. 854].) The state is responsible for stateagencies or employees, such as those against whom this claim is filed, thatmake statements with malice or constitutional malice that are false in theirentirety as they pertain to Claimants, are slanderous or libelous on their faceas written, as well as through innuendo, and where such false andunprivileged publications expose Claimants to hatred, contempt, ridicule orobloquy, which has caused them to be shunned or avoided and which hasinjured them in their trade and occupation.

TAC Meeting, Dec 18th

Don’t forget, Tuesday, Dec 18, the TAC meeting will coincide with the EIR Scoping Workshop meeting. Public input and attendance is important. Speak now or . . . .

A special meeting of the Los Osos Wastewater Project Technical AdvisoryCommittee (TAC) will be held on Tuesday, December 18, 2007 at 7:00pm in theSouth Bay Community Center at 2180 Palisades Avenue, Los Osos.Members of the TAC will attend the Environmental Impact Report ScopingMeeting for the Los Osos Wastewater Project presented by County PublicWorks Department staff. The TAC will take no action at this meeting.The meeting agenda is attached. This information can also be viewed on theProject website at www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP.htm

O.K.,What’s So Unreasonable About This?

The following was excerpted from a PZLDF mailing. Various “Signal Jammers” on this blog have been claiming that the PZLDF lawsuit is about “fighting the waterboard,” or “stopping the project,” or that old phony stand-by, “anti-sewer obstructionists.” Here’s what the PZLDF case is about:

“The Water Board appeal filed by the petitioners request is truly in "self defense" -----no one petitioning for relief is picking a fight!
The terms in our petition are not unreasonable...review them below.

Compel and direct the water board to:
Invalidate and vacate Cease and Desist Orders (CDO) issued in the process of the enforcement actions against individual residents, businesses and homeowners in the Los Osos Baywood park prohibition zone.
Invalidate and vacate all Clean up and Abatement Orders (CAO) that purported “settlement agreements” entered into in the process of enforcement actions against individual residents, businesses, and homeowners in the Los Osos, Bay Wood Park Prohibition Zone.
Invalidate and Vacate all Notices of Violation (NOV) issued on or about March 21, 2007
Invalidate and vacate any and all attempts to apply retroactive fines under resolution 83-13, based on the 1988 County building moratorium.
Cease issuance of any further CDO’s CAO;s or NOV’s against petitioners or other similarly situated in the Los Osos/Baywood Park Prohibition Zone.” [END]


The County is responsible for a project. Individual home owners have voted to assess themselves for a project. Individual home owners cannot build a sewer plant on their own. The RWQCB has warned these homeowners not to even think about onsite systems that would protect them. In short, the RWQCB has singled out a few citizens for nearly two years of harassment, yet made it impossible for them to do anything to save themselves; they can’t build a sewer system themselves, they won’t be allowed to install onsite systems to solve the issue, and with CDO’s on their homes, they have been handed a financial hit on their property values. Their non-CDO neighbor’s haven’t been hit. But they have.

So, somebody please tell me what is wrong with the citizens’ demands listed above? The RWQCB has in hand and has stated their plans for instant community-wide “Paper Convictions” in the form of CAO’s, which can blanket the entire town in a matter of days, do not require any hearings, no due process, and are guaranteed automatic denials at the State level. Bam! Whole town convicted and ready to be hanged.

So, why are these Los Osos 45 STILL left hanging in the wind, continuing to suffer real damage to real people in an utterly pointless exercise in the RWQCB’s shameful CYA bungling?

Apropos Of Which, Let’s Add Injury To Insult.
The following letter was sent to Mr. Shallcross, of the RWQCB by CDO Recipient Bev De-Witt Moylan. Posted with permission.

Los Osos, CA 93402
December 10, 2007


Gary C. Shallcross, Board Member
RWQCB
895 Aerovista Place
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401


Dear Mr. Shallcross,

Please accept my apology for my outburst near the end of the RWQCB meeting on December 7, 2007. Though I believed you were finished speaking, and I had therefore interjected a response to your comment, my speaking from my seat when public comment was over was out of place and inappropriate.

Certainly, at our hearing on January 22, 2007, you were kind enough to assure me that despite Chairman Young’s indications to the contrary we would have our full fifteen minutes for our testimony. I am grateful that you respected the rights of defendants to have their say at that time. You were correct to point out to me that you did not interrupt me when I was at the podium to deliver my remarks last Friday, which had been prepared for the normally allotted 3-minute public comment segment, yet were truncated to a 2-minute time slot by Chairman Young.

Naturally it was deeply disappointing to have waited 3 hours through a hearing during which citizens from Morgan Hill had been afforded their customary 3 minutes, only to have public comment from Los Osos shortened by a third, because of the Chairman’s arbitrary decision that only an hour would be allotted to us. The “lateness of the hour” became the determining factor in our right to be heard. Somehow Chairman Young calculated that 21 or 22 comment cards divided into 60 minutes resulted in only 2 minutes each. Simply allowing us the same 3-minute limit extended to the Morgan Hill citizens and exceeding the hour by a mere 6 to 10 minutes would have been a simple concession to those who had assembled and waited in vain for hours in a futile hope of influencing the board’s decision regarding the enforcement actions, a hope that this time you might not only hear our words, but listen to them.

Throughout the nearly two years of this procedure in which Los Osos citizens, in particular the families randomly chosen for enforcement actions, have had a singular sense of being dismissed and demeaned, I have maintained composure and adhered to principles of decorum. Facing an impossible situation in which we have been chosen for retribution in circumstances over which we have no control and with no end in sight over this length of time, however, takes its toll. I had come to the December 7 meeting directly from a two-hour medical infusion appointment, and so I was in a weakened state. Sitting in the water board meeting room all those hours in that condition had been particularly taxing. That is not, however, an excuse for my behavior.

Perhaps you are familiar with the induced depression experiments carried on and replicated over decades in college and university psychology labs. I do not know if these experiments continue, but in prior years they were common. In these lab experiments dogs would be randomly electrically shocked. No behavior they exhibited could stop the shocks or mitigate their severity. No normal fight or flight behavior was possible to escape the shocks. Eventually the dogs simply ceased reacting to the shocks, ceased reacting to anything at all. Powerless to effect any change in their circumstances no matter what their instincts dictated, their nervous systems shut down, and the dogs finally collapsed.

As you know, I have been a student in a trauma program through The Foundation for Human Enrichment in Colorado for the past three years. I am now a graduate of that program and am enrolled in a post-advanced program through that Foundation. My studies have provided background and training in many kinds of trauma including that resulting from inescapable attack and sadistic emotional and physical abuse. Each class of trauma has specific characteristics, outcomes, and resulting symptoms in their victims, as well as prescribed methods for treatment.

In sadistic abuse the victim feels completely invaded by the perpetrator (for example, “On January 30, 2006, the RWQCB moved in with us. We have not had a moment alone since. You crowd our dinner table. You sleep between us. You meet us in the shower. You sit with us as we spend sleepless nights staring at just one more document.” De Witt-Moylan closing argument 1/22/07 CDO hearing.) Empathy becomes the perpetrator’s weapon instead of being a resource for the victim (for example, “I know how you feel.” Chairman Young to William Moylan May 11, 2006 in regard to being a CDO defendant). Keeping the victim waiting is a component of this form of abuse. Time and passage of time while the victim waits for the known or unknown punishment to come at a known or unknown time (for example, the Los Osos 45 are approaching 2 years of threats of fines and losing their homes through fees and fines and possible retroactive fines at a future unnamed date with enforcement beginning at a future named date) are classic weapons of the perpetrator of sadistic abuse.

Some of the common resulting symptoms arising in the victim of sadistic abuse are
…sense of helplessness…impulse control problems…poor boundaries…problems with immune system…allergies … depression…suicide attempts (for example, “I can’t take it anymore; I’m going to kill myself!” A message we found on our answering machine from an ill, elderly CDO co-defendant with a completely disabled husband and no relatives living nearby), among others. (See Somatic Experiencing Healing Trauma. Foundation for Human Enrichment. Boulder, Colorado. 2007 p. I3.10. See also DVD Somatic Experiencing Presented by: Diane Poole Heller, Ph.D., Intermediate III Philadelphia 2004-2005.)

Faced with these forms of abuse and the resulting array of symptoms they engender, having access to defensive responses is a sign of health. The conundrum is to maintain the balance between healthy and appropriate expressions of defensive orienting responses in context. The predictable outcomes of ongoing sadistic abuse, however, would indicate that outbursts are a possibility and that impulse control could well be an issue. Individuals can only endure for so long threatening circumstances over which they have no control before the nervous system moves beyond the threat response into dysregulation.

It has been iterated and reiterated, Mr. Shallcross, to the point where your board is bored with it. No action we can take will affect or effect the outcome you seek. No amount of evidence we have submitted and no amount of time spent on hearings and related meetings has so far done one thing to change the condition of the waters of the state in Los Osos nor our circumstances.

We are powerless to give you what you want, and we are being punished for not giving you what you want. It makes no sense to a rational being. And so, when the rational mind cannot cope, the brainstem takes over and we enter survival mode – fight, flight, freeze. Acting out is not a surprising or unexpected outcome.

Though I was wrong to speak out on Friday in response to your comment that the citizens of Los Osos have used their time at the microphone to “trash” you, I need to reiterate in other words now what I said in those poorly timed remarks. This is not about you, Mr. Shallcross. It is about us. It is about private citizens coping with ongoing sadistic emotional abuse over months, and now years. I truly am at a loss to understand how you can construe as “trashing” you or the board my comments or anyone else’s about how these orders have affected us and have changed our lives, about how we cannot comprehend the rationale behind the board’s apparently irrational enforcement behavior, and about how none of the board’s actions have resulted in anything constructive, beyond passage of the 218, which in the end did nothing to help those of us with enforcement orders. And so still we await the retribution we have been assured in writing will come. We wait.

On Tuesday I will make my way to Santa Barbara yet again for another appointment with the somatic psychotherapist who is helping me to cope with this existentially insurmountable situation. The cost of those weekly appointments is mounting, but they and my regular infusions are all that has helped me, while your board waits for this or that eventuality that has as yet made no difference in our situation, except to make it worse.

As a veteran of 38 years of teaching I spent my career and much of my private life serving the public. When I determined that I could no longer physically meet the demands of the job, I retired. To me public service always meant serving the public. If public service becomes personal instead of professional, the public servant is burned out. If the public servant succumbs to a sense of being trashed and unappreciated, that person can no longer serve objectively and effectively. If the public servant makes decisions based not on protecting and serving the people but on something else, then it is time for that person to consider moving on. If those trying to communicate with a public servant meet a barrier formed from that public servant’s projections, then that person cannot fulfill the obligation of every public servant to protect the people and should seek other employment.

Inserted below is the full text of the comments I had intended to make at the December 7, 2007, meeting. In my effort to comply with the 2-minute time allotment at the meeting, I left out portions that I would have liked to say to you. I hope that you are inclined to read and digest the thoughts behind the words.

I thank you, Mr. Shallcross, for supporting our right to speak. I appreciate your willingness to afford us the courtesy of uninterrupted comment. I apologize for interrupting you.

I now await the apology from the RWQCB for what all of you have done to us.

Sincerely,



Beverley De Witt-Moylan, M.Ed.


Cc:
John H. Hayashi
David T. Hodgin
Monica S. Hunter
Russell M. Jeffries
Daniel M. Press
Jeffrey S. Young


Beverley De Witt-Moylan
December 7, 2007


RWQCB REMARKS

On April 27, 2006, the day before the first RWQCB CDO hearing Senator Susan Collins of Maine said, The first obligation of government is to protect our people.

At a CDO hearing on December 15, 2006, Chairperson Young said,
205
22 CHAIRPERSON YOUNG: Okay. This is a
23 cumbersome procedure, but it actually goes towards
24 higher levels of due process being offered,
25 believe it or not.

On May 10, 2007, Vice Chairperson Jeffries, who was not present at the January 22, 2007, hearing and had to base his vote on the record of that hearing said,

RWQCB meeting Transcript for May 10, 2007
P. 47
25 VICE CHAIRPERSON JEFFRIES: I read all
P. 48
1 202 pages.
2 CHAIRPERSON YOUNG: Okay. And did you
3 watch anything?
4 VICE CHAIRPERSON JEFFRIES: No, I did
5 not. When I found out the length of the meeting
6 my wife wouldn't let me tie up the DVD that long.
7 (Laughter.)
8 VICE CHAIRPERSON JEFFRIES: So I read
9 all 202 pages during "Deal or No Deal".

Vice Chairperson Jeffries subsequently voted to issue two Cease and Desist Orders that day based on that record. No one on the board objected or made any reference to his comments. The transcript to which he jokingly referred contained evidence of extreme hardship and duress endured by the CDO defendants sitting before him.

None of you has any idea what it is like to be us. None of you has any idea what it is like to come home to a hysterical phone message from a CDO co-defendant saying, “I can’t take it anymore; I’m going to kill myself!”

You have no idea what it is like to be us. And so you can make jokes or tolerate jokes about our lives and deceive yourselves into believing that the CDOs are not burdensome. In fact, the human cost has been and continues to be incalculable.

By deciding not to vacate these CDOs but instead to consider further individual enforcement, you continue to fail in your obligation to protect the people. Holding citizens accountable for failures of government is irresponsible and unconscionable.


“The first obligation of government is to protect our people.”
-Senator Susan Collins of Maine


Supervisor Gibson Also Hears From Ms. De Witt-Moylan

And a good thing, too. One of the key problems with the RWQCB is that they rely for information on staff. So what happens when staff gets it wrong? I find it very interesting that apparently Supervisor Gibson hasn’t bothered to read PZLDF’s lawsuit? How is that possible? And that he is somehow unaware of the impact the RWQCB’s Mad Hatter Tea Party & Auto De Fe Public Hanging has actually had on his constituents, not to mention the whole community, to the point where he can apparently claim that the impact of the CDOs and the two years of CDO hearings are “symbolic?” How is that possible? All while the County stands silent? Not even a “symbolic” protest? Hmmmm?

Well, as George Orwell has it, “al pigs are created equal. But some are created more equal than others.” I guess The Los Osos 45 don’t much count – except symbolically, of course – as Mr. Gibson’s constituents.

The letter:

“The first obligation of government is to protect our people.”
-Senator Susan Collins of Maine 4/27/2006

Dear Chairman Lenthal, Supervisor Achadjian, Supervisor Gibson, Supervisor Ovitt, and Supervisor Patterson

On Tuesday, December 11, 2007, I listened to the Los Osos portion of the Board of Supervisors meeting on KCBX Radio. I was travelling back to Los Osos from Santa Barbara and did not arrive in San Luis Obispo in time to attend. I did, however, hear most of public comment and most of the discussion that followed.

Supervisor Gibson made two comments that I found disturbing. He said that he has not read the PZLDF lawsuit. He also stated as though it were fact that the impact of enforcement orders issued to Los Osos homeowners by the CCRWQCB has been essentially “symbolic”.

These comments concern me because Supervisor Gibson represents my community. We rely on him to provide the other supervisors with accurate information about his district. The enforcement orders issued to his constituents have implications for all his constituents in Los Osos, indeed for all his constituents in District 2, all residents of the county, and all citizens of the State of California. That he has not taken the time to read this important lawsuit and cannot report to you on it, except in the broadest of terms, raises a question about the source and accuracy of the information he did give County Board members.

Last Friday immediately following his remarks to the CCRWQCB Supervisor Gibson left their meeting. He missed the opportunity simply by his presence to demonstrate his support for his constituents. CDO recipients and others living in fear of enforcement orders have iterated and reiterated to him the daily effects of the CDOs and CAOs. Their lives have changed. These orders have had no positive effect in Los Osos beyond their stated goal of ensuring a positive 218 vote. Nothing has changed for the better for those in Supervisor Gibson’s district who face regulatory enforcement actions. The changes have all been for the worse. These impacts are not “symbolic.”

Recipients of enforcement orders have explained to Mr. Gibson repeatedly in detail that this enforcement has cost thousands of dollars in personal income and thousands of hours in personal time. Not knowing what awaits us in 2011, my husband and I have put off plans to improve our home. The CDO automatically precludes our being eligible for the home improvement loan amount we would qualify for if we did not have a CDO. Selling our home is not a choice and would be quite difficult, since the order is attached to the home. We face a real possibility of having to “vacate the premises” following CCRWQCB action on 1/1/11, of literally having to board up our home and walk away. We have an order that will prevent us from living here given the daily fine for violation. The CCRWQCB’s real threats to make the fines retroactive to 1988 would wipe us out financially. None of these impacts is “symbolic.”

We have stood virtually alone against the CCRWQCB for almost two years.

I was grateful for Supervisor Patterson’s interest in our plight and to hear his thoughtful, provocative questions and proposal for a board resolution. It was encouraging, as well, to hear Supervisor Achadjian’s comments in support of Supervisor Patterson’s proposal. Naturally, it was disappointing to hear Supervisor Gibson’s response to that proposal. He misrepresented our circumstances by diminishing the impact of the enforcement actions.

It is my hope that we can rely on the support of the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors in this arduous struggle that has taken such a toll on citizens of all ages and circumstances in Los Osos. I am grateful for your willingness to consider a County resolution regarding the CCRWQCB enforcement in Los Osos.

Sincerely,

Beverley De Witt-Moylan
CDO #83-2006-1041



And the Supervisors Heard from McPherson As Well:

From an email of remarks prepared by Gail McPherson for the BOS’s “Oh, Jeeze, It’s The Danged Los Osos Sewer Update Portion of Our Regular Meeting so It Must Be Tuesday” regular meetings.

I have repeatedly stressed how important this Process is, and how it must be kept clean and transparent and fair. A continued TAC, reviewed for any conflict of interests now that we’ve moved into another phase of this project, a renewed TAC with eyes on the page and eyes on the prize will go a long way to keeping that Process open for scrutiny.

The time for all due diligence is at hand during this critical next phase. The cleaner that is, the better that is, the easier all the rest of this will go. Sometimes, going a bit slower means getting where you need to get much faster – a lesson that wasn’t learned earlier and for which we are paying too high a price..

12-11-07
Item: LOWWP SLO County BOS

Honorable Chairman Lenthall, Supervisors, and County staff,

I first wish to thank your staff---PW director, Paavo Ogren and Supervisor Gibson for their joint presentation on September 7, and follow up with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Board with a short presentation last Friday December 7, 2007.

The citizens of the County and residents and taxpayers of Los Osos can view the 1.5 hour meeting. The only reason it was video taped and available was because both Paavo and the Los Osos CSD general manager, Mr. John Schempf agreed to cover the expense at the last moment. My sincere thanks for their recognition of the need for open information to the public affected by the discussion for the current and future enforcement.

The item scheduled for 1:30 was not heard until nearly 5:00 PM, and provides some praise for your ability to keep items on schedule and orderly. Both presentations are at www.slo-span.com and www.PZLDF.org.

I strongly recommend the Sept. 7 project update is viewed by each of you, and shown on both Ch 20 and 21, as it contains important information and details of the due diligence review, the affordability analysis, sustainability criteria, and a economic impacts analysis which you adopted. This is the subject of continued requested and long sought by the community.

I would like to suggest the county direct the TAC revisit their “mission” as the TAC has been extended in both the time and reach of their original commitment.
Renaming the public outreach group more appropriately “Community advisory workgroup” more accurately describes the next phase.I make a strong recommendation for the County to consider reviewing the participants for any conflicts of interest that exist, or may occur in the near future, such as running for office, or working on projects or with entities in conjunction or related to the wastewater project.

The need to review the community proposals presented by the Coopers for NWRI, and by Citizens For Clean Water and others, and criteria to establish the community values is critical for project selection. This must be established and reviewed to assure the needs are covered in this next most important evaluation process. The ability to deliver the best value project is based on the fair process, with checks and balances in place to assure accountability, and independent third party review. This process is part of all quality assurance/quality control, and an absolute must to build trust.

Please direct the staff to assure a credible and robust process by implementing these recommendation and move forward with an effective due diligence process. An energized team is high priority for a community advisory workgroup.

I submitted the enforcement petition for review and the record, and information on Citizens for Clean Water "Insider Exclusive " show that is also on the pzldf website and public access channels.



And Finally, A Shout Out To Ron Crawford. Way To Go!

If you remember, Ron, our smarty pants blogger over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com posted one of his own “There Ought To Be A Law” proposals in Assemblyman Blakeslee’s “There Ought To Be a Law” contest. Well, by gosh, his “ought to” made the cut, one of 7. His proposal? “Prohibit special districts from establishing their own recall election date and instead transfer that authority to the Local Agency Formation Commission [LAFCO]”

Ron thought it nuts when he discovered that under the present law the Los Osos CSD members who were recalled got to set the date of their own recall election. Which means that under current law, people who are the target of a recall get to strategize an election date for their own best advantage, which may not necessarily be to the best advantage of the community as a whole.

Congratulations to Ron. Let’s hope Blakeslee has some luck changing that law.

There were also some other great ideas as well, such as this one: “allowing property and businesses owners who use solar power to sell their excess electricity to their neighbors or get a tariff for excess energy put into the grid.” Wouldn’t that be cool? Get those solar panels and put them to work. Light up your neighborhood, share the wealth, the huge investment in your panels get paid off quickly, all while helping to reduce carbon footprints. Where do I sign up?

What’s in a Name?

The following email from Tom Murphy of AES [“Reclamator”] raises the exact question that’s still rattling around in my head because I am still puzzled by the RWQCB’s “no discharge in the PZ” ruling under 83-13. The Board has spent nearly two years jerking The Los Osos 45 around, issued CDOs or CAOs on their homes, and brought real damage to real people by claiming that these folks are guilty of “discharging” within the PZ. (along with everyone else in the PZ who don’t have home-threatening CDO’s on their homes and who haven’t been jerked around for two years, despite Chairman Young’s blandishments that he was going to be fair and consistent and treat everyone equally. Bwahahahaha.)

The Staff and RWQCB have made it clear (wink-nudge) that NO ONSITE SYSTEMS will be allowed in the PZ because onsite systems “discharge” and there will be no “discharges” allowed in the PZ. Only a community-wide 100% collection and treatment system will be allowed. (Yes, I know, the RWQCB is forbidden by law to specify any particular system. Bwa-hahahah, they’ve been playing that Hobson’s Choice game for years.) However, here’s where it gets weird to me: The RWQCB issued a “discharge permit” to “discharge” treated “waste”water from the Tri-W plant and “discharge” the gazillions of gallons of treated “waste”water back into the PZ, back into the waters of the state of California, back into an impaired body of water. They didn’t issue a “recharge” permit, but a “discharge” permit. They set a nitrate and other pollutant numbers that they deemed were o.k. to “discharge” and since Tri-W met that number, it was given a “discharge” permit.

But onsite systems that meet that same number will NOT be given “discharge” permits?

Why not? If “discharge” is good for the goose, why not for the gander?

True, there can be real problems with individual onsites vis a vis compliance, monitoring, access, control, testing & etc. If that’s the real concern, then the RWQCB needs to make that clear. If, as others have suggested, onsites don’t solve the high-ground-water problems, then the RWQCB should make that clear also. If a hybrid community system of collection for low lying areas and onsites or cluster onsites for higher areas would solve the basin loading, then the RWQCB should make that clear as well. Then the all important issue of cost and community choice– not definitions of “discharge”-- would come into play.

As it stands now, we’re still in Alice in Wonderland’s world of meaningless definitions and counter-definitions. How is a raven like a writing desk? And if definitions aren’t correctly defined, how will the county be able to give all the technologies a fair evaluation during the due diligence phase of evaluation? After all, if you pre-define something incorrectly and toss it out on the basis of that incorrect definition, you’ve crippled yourself unnecessarily as to choices. Sort of like saying, without any evidence, “All cars that are NOT red, are ‘bad’.” Then you go ahead and buy a red car and then pretend that the red car you selected is the best car available.

As Gail McPherson notes in another email, again going to “definitions,”

“Septic tank discharge is NOT pollution unless it "pollutes." If the discharge is treated in the soils, does not reach the groundwater, and has a positive effect as a nutrient, it is not pollution. The water board says there is simply too many septic tanks for the receiving environment to handle, and the ground water, designated for drinking water supplies, is being affected by a build up of nitrates. Any water that is used and discharged to the environment from a point source that does not support the "designated beneficial uses" violates the CWA-and discharge permits. Individual Septic tanks are not permitted as point sources.

Distilled water by your definition is "pure" and "pollution free" but if discharged to a stream in certain places it would violate the CWA-and State standards...as it would not support the beneficial uses in some streams -(fisheries) and in places soft water-"aggressive water" actually strips metals from the environment that become toxic.

Bottom line is “ [. . . . no statute can force the Reclamator on Los Osos. . . . “] “[AES ] can sell it based on it meeting the needs and Waste Discharge Requirements the water board has set. The Reclamator can compete to be selected as the best value technology. Tom can even privatize the system and possibly sell the water, but the process is to present a proposal for a community or County decision. "


Mr. Murphy’s email:
I would be glad to help you to clarify the meanings and definitions of “Waste” and “Discharge” are one-in-the-same. Both mean the exact same thing. Waste IS Discharge and Discharge IS Waste. The “definition” of either will serve as the definition for the other.

FYI “Discharge” is defined in US Code, Title 33, Chapter 26 as “discharge of a pollutant” (waste) or “discharge of pollutants”. Discharge of waste means discharge of pollutants and the US Code requires application of technology which will eliminate the discharge of pollutants as it is the “national goal” and the RECLAMATOR has achieved this “national goal” and no other technology has. Therefore, based on performance, the US Code requires it to be specified by “name brand or equal” based on the criteria defined within the same US Code.

Per California Water Code Sec. 13050 states “Recycled water” is a “valuable resource”, not a “discharge of waste”. Waste has no value, recycled water does have value and recycled water doesn’t even have to meet MCLG treated drinking water standards. The RECLAMATOR does, now you tell me if the RECLAMATOR discharges “waste”. “Waste” is a word of specific “definition within the wastewater industry. It is very cut and dried; it’s about “value”. Does the recycled water qualify to serve as a “beneficial” application, or is it a “waste” which is only qualified to be “disposed of”? If the “effluent” still contains a total nitrogen level of greater than 10 parts per million (ppm), which would be a “secondary treatment level”, it can still qualify as a valuable resource and can be used in an irrigation application which needs the nutrients, this is the case for many golf courses, parks, green strips, etc. However, US Code allows such a beneficial reuse application only if advanced innovative technology isn’t available which can “eliminate the discharge of pollutants” at the source, which is the “national goal”. The RECLAMATOR achieves the “national goal”.

Any effluent which has had the total nitrogen (TN) to less than 10 parts per million qualifies as a “recycled water” and as such will serve as a “beneficial” use if nothing more than allowing it to continue into a drain field and serve the beneficial application of “indirect potable reuse”. All other conventional pollutants, i.e. colloids, viruses, fecal, disease carrying pathogens, etc., are all removed with only inches of soil. Nitrogen is the only pollutant which requires a biological process to be removed to become a “valuable resource” and also is recognized in the US Code, Title 33, Chapter 26, Sec. 1300 as a “sustainable alternative water source” which qualifies for federal grant assistance to cover up to 75% of the construction cost of installation of such technology, referred to in C26 as “best available technology” (other than publicly owned treatment works)
What more need I say?
Best regards,
D. Thomas Murphy,
Founder,
AES Central Coast Discharge Elimination Company, LLC.
(805) 305-2378
President,
Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc.
(775) 425-0911
Inventor,
RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Water”
(775) 848-8800
www.NOwastewater.com

And so the war of words continues, but I would repeat McPherson’s observation that “ . . . . the process is to present a proposal for a community or County decision.”

That, of course, will be the final “court,” – community and County – providing the Process remains clean and on track.


TV. Time
The Insider Exclusive interview with PZLDF & producer Steve Murphy (no relation to Mr. Murphy above) will be playing on Channel 2 on the following dates and times, for those interested in seeing it:
Here's the play dates for Insider Exclusive on ch. 2.
Thursday 12/13 9:30 pm
Saturday 12/15 9:30 pm
Monday 12/17 9:30 pm
Tuesday 12/18 2 pm

Regional Water Quality Control Board to The Los Osos 45 – No Christmas Candy For You! You Get Lumps of Coal In Your Shoes.

Yes, while the rest of the community slumber all safe in their beds this Christmas season, at their Dec 7 meeting, the RWQCB decided that The Los Osos 45, those hapless folks who have been singled out for two years worth of continued jerk-around punishment (and despite of the overwhelming passage of the Prop. 218 vote), will remain burdened with their CDOs and CAO’s hanging around their necks and encumbering their properties, to twist slowly in the winter wind.

This unsurprising decision was announced while the three Board members present coolly washed their hands of all responsibility in the flood of copious crocodile tears that flowed down from their bored eyes. Talk to the hand. Not our problem. Not our fault.

But the non-action item was not without its ironies and delights:

-- First off, a thank you to the last minute intervention of Paavo Ogren and the LOCSD, who agreed to split the cost of having AGP Video cover the meeting. The community owes them a real thank-you. As usual, the meeting will be broadcast over the usual channels and video-streamed from the AGP website. And hooray for AGP Video as well.

-- There was real confusion over what was supposed to happen at this meeting. It was understood that the Board had previously asked the staff to bring this item back for some kind of decision in Dec. Silly community. They thought that meant that the Board would actually do something about vacating the CDO’s, especially since by Dec, the Prop 218 vote would be in. Indeed, one member of the community, a CDO holder, noted that she voted “the right way” and trusted that since she had voted “the right way” that the Board would keep their part of the bargain – since everyone with an IQ larger than their shoe size knew that the point of stringing up those 45 was to coerce the whole town to “vote the right way,” but now she was shocked – shocked! – to find out that the Board wasn’t to be trusted!

Well, silly community. The staff had decided on another course of action and what should have been a possible action item was listed as an information item only, no action. Chairman Young then ‘splained that they had asked it be put on the agenda so “we could consider vacating CDO’s,” not that they actually might do that. Nope, just “consider” the idea. But before that could even happen, the Board’s lawyers met with them in closed session several times and advised them to do nothing about rescinding the CDO’s. Why?

Ah, now it gets interesting. Shauna Sullivan is to blame. Yep. In order to protect their homes, protect their civil rights and due process rights, some of The Los Osos 45 did the only thing they could do and did exactly what the law allowed them to do – walk through the constantly changing goal-posts of the RWQCB & SWB’s Mad Hatter Tea Party & Auto de Fe Public Hanging Civil Hearing Process, and then into a ‘real” court of law to get a ruling on the Board’s procedures.

Alas, following the rules and following the law governing the rules is exactly what the RWQCBoard didn’t like because actually standing up for one’s legal rights doesn’t allow the Board to play the role of noblesse oblige that they’re clearly so fond of playing -- and so, like the parent who beats his kid because the kid made him angry and then blames the kid because if he hadn’t made him mad he wouldn’t have to beat him, see? –the Board now wants this all to play out in the courts. As Boardmember Shallcross noted, he wants this all to stay in the courts to validate their methods to determine if what they’ve been doing is legal.

In short, Los Osos 45, you have been singled out to be the guinea pigs in the Board’s trial run at using individual CDO’s and CAO’s as a state-wide enforcement tool to get certain votes to go the “right way,” and/or get built whatever the RWQCB wants built. In other words, when governments fail the citizens, the RWQCBoard wants a new tool to punish citizens for their government’s failure. And lest the rest of the citizens in the Los Osos PZ think they’re somehow off the hook, they’re not, they’re next.

--As further reasons for keeping The 45 hanging in the wind, Chairman Young cited a comment in the Tribune from CSD Board member Julie Tacker threatening to “derail” the Tri-W project if it landed back in the middle of town. What makes Young’s citation of Ms. Tacker’s quote as a reason to keep The Los Osos 45 strung up so funny is that during the Mad Hatter Tea Party “trials,” it was Mr. Young who was ADAMANT that newspapers were NOT a credible source of any information so NOTHING in a newspaper would be admitted into evidence and so would NOT be allowed to even be brought before the tender eyes of the Board.

Yet here was Chairman Young citing a [out of context] quote from the Tribune as a direct reason to keep the 45 strung up. Even funnier, Tacker herself stood up during public comment to note the irony there and asked that before staff or even Young based any decision on that quote – in the non-credible newspaper – he could easily have called her and gotten the context correct.

But even stranger is this: Chairman Young noted that he was afraid that if the county picked Tri-W the citizens would – again – derail such a project. What’s Chairman Young’s obsession with Tri-W? Why would he think the County would pick Tri-W? That project came in dead last on the TAC’s evaluation process. Heck, even the Peer Review Dr. T Group listed Tri-W as at the bottom of the heap.

Then Board member, Monica Hunter, during Supervisor Gibson’s brief update of the 218 vote, tried to make a comment and the Board’s lawyer kept trying to shut her up. After some wrangling, Ms. Hunter’s observation to Gibson became a bell that couldn’t possibly be un-rung.

And what was her comment that had the Board’s panties in a twist? Just this – Morro Bay has recently been designated a national marine estuary and as such the rules governing what happens near it, around it, upwind of it, upstream of it, downstream of it, have changed. And Ms. Hunter wanted to caution the county that in their due diligence evaluation process they needed to be aware of those new rules.

Translation? Near as I could see, it was a warning shot across the bow that at least one member of the RWQCB fully intended to take another look at the Tri-W site, should that site be chosen for a sewer plant. And that second “look” would NOT be benign. No smiley faces this time. No phony SOC. Instead, lots of diligence – at least from one RWQCBoard member.

So why the flurry to shut Ms. Hunter up? Why the “fear” that the county will pick Tri- W? Does the Regional Board know something we don’t know, but should??? It’s no secret RWQCB CEO Roger Briggs has been playing Hobson’s Choice with Tri- W for years. There was a reason why Pandora Nash-Karner emailed him to beg him to “fine the CSD out of existence” even before the recall was certified. And a reason Roger replied that he was way ahead of her and clearly had been working on doing just that even before the election. And now that the County has the project, are those sticky little fingers now melding with sticky little fingers from Chairman Young?

-- and then for some comic relief came Mr. Golden to observe drolly that if Los Osos wanted better treatment the community should change its name from Los Osos to . . . Olin.

It was a reference to an earlier agenda item concerning Olin chemical company that had contaminated the water basin of Morgan Hill and environs with thoroughly nasty perchlorate and the Board was considering the various staff recommendations as to the severity of the Clean Up and Abatement Order requirements – from relatively minimal to harshly pro-active. What made the contrast so interesting is that the Board spent a lot of time wringing their hands over choosing between A and C, with Mr. (“Kumbaya”) Shallcross noting that he really wanted to vote for C (higher severity level/pro-active) and Oh, Oh, Eeeuuuuu, he would hate himself in the morning for NOT voting for C, but, oh, well, he’d back off and vote for some lesser requirements, oh, dear, oh, woe.

So for Olin chemical company, compassion and Christmas candy. For The Los Osos 45 – coal in their shoes. Season’s Greetings.

-- And, then there was this: One of the cases cited during the original Mad Hatter Tea Party “trial” was the curious case of Morongo vs. RWQCB/SWB – a case that has been appealed several(?) times now and is heading for another major hearing. That case had to do with the fairness of a regulatory board using staff as prosecutors in their various Mad Hatter “trials.” The argument is that there is an inherent bias when a member of the staff is interacting on a day to day basis with the Board -- “all cozy and chatty as Auntie,” to quote poet John Giardi – and then comes the “trial” and poof! There he/she is acting as Prosecutor to the Board members who Poof! are now acting as Judges. (To avoid “Morongo” was one of the reasons the original Mad Hatter Tea Party was shut down, the Grand Inquisitor was brought in from Sacramento, and the whole mad process started over – which still left all the bells in the Board’s ears tainted and un-rung since the 45 and the original Board (Judges) remained the same.)

But at this hearing, if you wanted a perfect illustration of just what Morongo was about, you only had to whip out your cell phone and take a snapshot of the dais. There, sitting at the left hand of Chairman Young, was Roger Briggs. Cheek by jowl, elbow to elbow, Tweedle-Dee, Tweedle-Dum, Brothers in Arms, Bosom Buddies, Trenchermen at The Dais, nameplates and heads often barely inches apart.

Morongo doesn’t get any clearer than that.

-- meantime, as per Supervisor Gibson’s report, on Dec 18, the BOS will open the month-long “window” to challenge the recent 218 election. It’s during this period that anyone wishing to file a protest lawsuit & etc. can do so. After Jan 18th, that window will close.

Also, meantime, the county chugs along with the project. On Dec 18 at the Community Center in Los Osos, will be an EIR scoping workshop. Public welcome, though it’s a puzzle to me what remains to be “scoped, since the original EIR (the one that was overridden by the old (and now removed) unsupported SOC – the one about “overriding community values” that nobody seems able to track down, though Lord knows Ron Crawford over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot has been trying for years – talk about due diligence!) still seems to be mostly valid in and in little or no need of updating.

On the other hand, perhaps that Scoping workshop will be the time to bring up RWQCB member Hunter’s, advice concerning Morro Bay’s new status?

And now for folks who don’t have CDOs, maybe citizens in the PZ who have not been singled out to be jerked around and hammered for two years then left to swing in the wind, folks who might not understand what it feels like to get coal in your shoes this Christmas, the following remarks were prepared to be read during public comment, and printed with permission from CDO holders, the De Witt-Moylans.


December 7, 2007


RWQCB REMARKS

On April 27, 2006, the day before the first RWQCB CDO hearing Senator Susan Collins of Maine said, The first obligation of government is to protect our people.

At a CDO hearing on December 15, 2006, Chairperson Young said,
CHAIRPERSON YOUNG: Okay. This is a
cumbersome procedure, but it actually goes towards
higher levels of due process being offered,
believe it or not.

On May 10, 2007, Vice Chairperson Jeffries, who was not present at the January 22, 2007, hearing and had to base his vote on the record of that hearing said,

RWQCB meeting Transcript for May 10, 2007
P. 47
VICE CHAIRPERSON JEFFRIES: I read all
202 pages.
CHAIRPERSON YOUNG: Okay. And did you
watch anything?
VICE CHAIRPERSON JEFFRIES: No, I did
not. When I found out the length of the meeting
my wife wouldn't let me tie up the DVD that long.
(Laughter.)
VICE CHAIRPERSON JEFFRIES: So I read
all 202 pages during "Deal or No Deal".


Vice Chairperson Jeffries subsequently voted to issue two Cease and Desist Orders that day based on that record. No one on the board objected or made any reference to his comments. The transcript to which he jokingly referred contained evidence of extreme hardship and duress endured by the CDO defendants sitting before him.

None of you has any idea what it is like to be us. None of you has any idea what it is like to come home to a hysterical phone message from a CDO co-defendant saying, “I can’t take it anymore; I’m going to kill myself!”

You have no idea what it is like to be us. And so you can make jokes or tolerate jokes about our lives and deceive yourselves into believing that the CDOs are not burdensome. In fact, the human cost has been and continues to be incalculable.

By deciding not to vacate these CDOs but instead to consider further individual enforcement, you continue to fail in your obligation to protect the people. Holding citizens accountable for failures of government is irresponsible and unconscionable.


“The first obligation of government is to protect our people.”
-Senator Susan Collins of Maine

And

“I’d like to start by saying that unlike “Olin” corporation, who has a way to remediate their pollution, we residents on septic systems have no way to remediate the use of our septic system personally that the board is willing to accept.

You stand at a juncture where to take no action on the CDO’s you have issued is a cowardly act. You have stated that you want to treat everyone in the “Prohibition Zone” equally, and yet 13 CDO’s exist and have existed for almost a year now. 25 settlers face the same fate. Your resolve to do nothing on these enforcement actions keeps us recipients at a distinct disadvantage from the remaining 4500 homeowners in the “Prohibition Zone.” This is unfair and unequal treatment. It has been unequal treatment for almost two years now. How can you consider yourselves unbiased when just 38 households out of 4500 bear the burden of enforcement actions and have borne them for almost two years?

This is what having a CDO has done and continues to do to us:

It keeps us from getting a loan on our home for the full value of what we could borrow if our home were unencumbered.
It has cost us thousands of dollars and countless hours, days, and months of living a normal life while the rest of the community continues to lead lives untrammeled by regulatory actions.
We have put holds on our plans to remodel our home, not knowing if we must walk away from our property on January 1, 2011. As Matt Thompson said on April 28, 2005, “You will have to vacate the premises.”
Our doctor’s visits have increased as a direct relationship from the stress of this two-year long process. My wife has had several $7000 infusions to help with her immune disease. Prior to this harassment by the water board she was symptom free for almost a year. I have developed chronic heartburn, something I never had before our proposed and subsequent CDO.

This is what your own board members have said or done:

When I asked Michael Thomas how he would feel if his own mother had received a CDO, he said, “I wouldn’t like it.”
Mr. Hayashi said, “ I don’t know what I would do if I got a CDO.”
When I told Matt Thompson that I wanted to build an on-site, completely enclosed system that would not allow my wastewater to enter the soil, he said, “You don’t want to go that way, Bill.”
When we asked repeatedly for an extension of our hearing, we were denied each time, even after we complied with a twenty-page letter explaining in detail why we needed an extension. When I specifically asked Michael Thomas just what “substantial justification” for an extension was, he said he would get back to me with an answer from the chairman. He never got back to me with an answer.

But these men on the Water Board who sit in judgment of us are all honorable men. These are men who have promised to be fair to all. These are men who would not dream of having something done to members of their families like what they have done to us.”



Unfair and unequal treatment? Of course! Unfair and unequal treatment goes along with being held hostage as a guinea pig so the RWQCB can “validate” their procedures. They don’t call it Waterboarding for nothing.

Merry Christmas.