So, How Hot Was It?
So, when I go to work Friday morning, the GINORMOUS four o'clocks in the back yard are head high, the HUGE mounds of nasturtiums are billowing about in massive piles, the hardy lavender are fluffy and huge and waving their purple blooms about, even the hardy, drought resistant rock roses and mallows were happily facing the day.
When I got home, the backyard (and a lot of the front yard) looked like someone had come through with a flame thrower. The nasturtiums were flattened, a lot of the four o' clocks were bent over and hanging down, the leaves on the mallows were fried to a crist. In short, the place looked like it had been hit by a blast furnace.
The paper the next day noted that Los Osos, my beloved, cool, ocean-breeze-washed Bangladesh by the Bay had been 110'
Yikes.
How did you all fare, dear and gentle readers?
I Do, I Do, You Too, Part Deux
In the June 19th Bay News (www.tolosapress.com) , the pastor of the Los Osos Christian Fellowship, Mr. Randy Nash, had a letter to the editor responding to my previous column, "I do, I Do, You Too, Part II." You can read his letter on the link above, page 8,and my original column June 6 posted below)
What makes Mr. Nash's letter so interesting is that his letter illustrates one of the most difficult aspects of this whole "marriage" discussion -- the near impossibility of many people to put down the scrim they're viewing the world through in order to consider that maybe, just maybe, there might be another reality for other people existing out there.
In my column, I asked the reader to put aside " . . ALL cultural, traditional . . God, Bible . . . references . . ." and ask, "What, really is the purpose/point of marriage." That question goes to the heart of the constitutional initiative people are going to be voting on and to the heart of the recent California Supreme Court ruling on equal rights for gay people vis a vis a "marriage" license.
Sadly, Pastor Nash was either unwilling to do that and instead he chose to "disregard Ann's rule that we "put aside religious references & etc. and so proceeded to outline HIS religious beliefs vis a vis HIS religions definition and purpose for "marriage."
Which is all well and good, but NOT the point of my column or even the point of the Supreme Court's ruling.
Like ALL of us, Pastor Nash views HIS world through HIS personal scrim, as well as viewing HIS world through HIS religious beliefs. What has gone missing from his argument is this: What about people who do not share HIS particular religious beliefs? Suppose they have different religious beliefs? Or no religious beliefs?
Indeed, a few days after Pastor Nash's letter, the L.A. Times ran an interesting article noting that the recent Supreme Court ruling has made clear that even when discussing "Christian" beliefs, (as in, "this is a Christian nation") there is no monolithic system, no unified field. The reality is that different denominations disagree on gay marriage, even within their own general religious traditions. So to say that "christianity" does not approve of gay marriage would be incorrect. Some "christian" and Jewish demoninations bless gay unions, sanctify them and are, even now, conducting wedding ceremonies for members of their congregations who want to get married. Others don't.
So back we go to my original request of the reader: Put aside "religious" and "traditional" and "cultural" reasons and ask -- in a Secular, democratic, civil, pluralistic society, one that prides itself of offering equality under the law to all its citizens, EXACTLY WHAT IS "marriage" supposed to do and be?
Answering that, may allow a clearer dialogue about whether we truly do believe in equal rights for all citizens, or whether we want to set up classes of people based on some mututally agreed-up secular reasoning (best interest of the state, some practical, civil reason, etc.) that would give full rights and benefits and responsibilities to some but not to others, and so forth.
Answerring that also may allow a clearer dialogue and understanding about the role a secular government does and should play in various personal and family arrangements in they way we live our lives nowadays. And maybe a clearer dialogue about the ways a secular government should NOT be involved in personal lives. And just how tangled up with religioun our "separation of church and state" government really is.
In a Christian Theocracy, Pastor Nash's explanation of "marriage" might well be the Official Dogma and the Law Of The Land (or may not be, depending on which Christian denomination held power). But in a secular democracy, where the separation of church and state is designed not only for the best interests of the citizens but also the protection of both church AND citizens, his definition doesn't suffice.
So the dialogue needs to continue and the question -- what IS marrige anyway -- still needs to be asked. And answered somewhere down the line.
Also, it should be noted, a bit of irony in Pastor Nash's letter. He closes with this: "It is in heterosexual married couples that God has entrusted the very running and management of the earth. 'WhatGod has joined together, let no man put asunder.'"
No mention of the . . . what? . . . 50% divorce rate among heterosexual couples in the U.S. Clearly, the definition of "holy matrimony" needs a bit of work here.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Friday, June 20, 2008
Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, for June 19,2008
Scott McClellan Nation
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell
It was as if “What Me Worry” Alfred E. Newman had stepped off the cover of Mad Magazine and started spilling the beans about the publishers. But with Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary and loyal Bush fool, there was one little problem: There were already miles of shelves filled with miles of books, all filled with nothing but carefully researched and documented beans. So the only new revelation Scott had to offer was this: How was it humanly possible for anyone with an I.Q. larger than his shoe size to remain so clueless for so long?
True, the paycheck was nice and that can buy a lot of willful stupidity. And silence. As one wag noted, it’s easy for a man to not know something when his job depends on his not knowing it. And knowing that speaking out would make enemies of your friends can be an intimidating proposition. But whatever made Scott think these people were his friends? They were cronies and he was their useful, willing and then expendable tool, nothing more.
Of course, Scott was not alone in his Kool-Aid-Drinking myopic zeal. The entire Bush administration is remarkable for the sheer number of people who put personal good above the good of the nation. Not for nothing was Colin Powell the one chosen to go to the UN to present the dog and pony show designed to justify the Iraq war. He had always made sure his public credentials were burnished to a fine gleam, so he could be counted on to do nothing to harm his career. If thousands of soldiers had to die to keep that fine public reputation polished, so be it. From Army generals who kept their mouths shut until that pension check was safely in the mail to the Talking Points Republican Congress members who put maintaining their position and political power over the good of nation, to the spineless Democrats who failed to fulfill their oversight responsibilities, to a bought-and-paid-for corporate media willing the be, not watchdogs, but useful handmaids, it was a Scott McClellan government – fingers in the ears, humming a la-la-la-la plainsong, willfully blind, asking no questions.
In normal times, such a government and administration would have outraged a skeptical, informed and watching nation, and been booted out of office. But in this case, the United States had also turned into Scott McClellan Nation – the whole country became the piano player in the whorehouse, pretending to be ignorant of what was going on upstairs. La-la-la-la. The citizens were lied to, bamboozled, conned, spun, manipulated, and fleeced , not once, but again and again and each time they scrunched their eyes shut and returned the wolves to the sheep pens. Until the stench of incompetence and rot and war dead and wasted billions grew so huge they simply couldn’t ignore it any longer. But even then, instead of outrage, impeachment hearings and a full regime change with a demand to hold those responsible to account, they made sure there would be no accountability. Just a brief news cycle jabber about yet another tell-all book that will go on a shelf, unread, while those in charge covered their behinds and scampered for the door scot-free.
It’s too soon to tell whether Scott McClellan Nation has finally had the same epiphany that Scott McClellan the man did, minus the book contract. Or whether we are still a nation of sleepwalkers, easy marks for the same lies, offering all our wedge-issue, hot-buttons to be pushed once again, sheep returning to the shearing pens.
Whether the country has had that epiphany is critical since there are extremely dangerous and complicated times ahead. Global warming, volatile weather shifts promising more Katrinas that will require competent government assistance, the coming battles over scarce resources, famine-driven migrations that will further destabilize an already volatile planet, and economic and environmental hard times that will also offer unique opportunities only to those prepared to seize them. All of these are issues that can only be dealt with by an awake, aware, accurately informed and engaged nation of gimlet-eyed “Show-Me” Missourians, with one hard eye on the Constitution and the other watching the silverware.
Scott McClellan Nation
Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give the appearance of solidity to pure wind.
George Orwell
It was as if “What Me Worry” Alfred E. Newman had stepped off the cover of Mad Magazine and started spilling the beans about the publishers. But with Scott McClellan, former White House Press Secretary and loyal Bush fool, there was one little problem: There were already miles of shelves filled with miles of books, all filled with nothing but carefully researched and documented beans. So the only new revelation Scott had to offer was this: How was it humanly possible for anyone with an I.Q. larger than his shoe size to remain so clueless for so long?
True, the paycheck was nice and that can buy a lot of willful stupidity. And silence. As one wag noted, it’s easy for a man to not know something when his job depends on his not knowing it. And knowing that speaking out would make enemies of your friends can be an intimidating proposition. But whatever made Scott think these people were his friends? They were cronies and he was their useful, willing and then expendable tool, nothing more.
Of course, Scott was not alone in his Kool-Aid-Drinking myopic zeal. The entire Bush administration is remarkable for the sheer number of people who put personal good above the good of the nation. Not for nothing was Colin Powell the one chosen to go to the UN to present the dog and pony show designed to justify the Iraq war. He had always made sure his public credentials were burnished to a fine gleam, so he could be counted on to do nothing to harm his career. If thousands of soldiers had to die to keep that fine public reputation polished, so be it. From Army generals who kept their mouths shut until that pension check was safely in the mail to the Talking Points Republican Congress members who put maintaining their position and political power over the good of nation, to the spineless Democrats who failed to fulfill their oversight responsibilities, to a bought-and-paid-for corporate media willing the be, not watchdogs, but useful handmaids, it was a Scott McClellan government – fingers in the ears, humming a la-la-la-la plainsong, willfully blind, asking no questions.
In normal times, such a government and administration would have outraged a skeptical, informed and watching nation, and been booted out of office. But in this case, the United States had also turned into Scott McClellan Nation – the whole country became the piano player in the whorehouse, pretending to be ignorant of what was going on upstairs. La-la-la-la. The citizens were lied to, bamboozled, conned, spun, manipulated, and fleeced , not once, but again and again and each time they scrunched their eyes shut and returned the wolves to the sheep pens. Until the stench of incompetence and rot and war dead and wasted billions grew so huge they simply couldn’t ignore it any longer. But even then, instead of outrage, impeachment hearings and a full regime change with a demand to hold those responsible to account, they made sure there would be no accountability. Just a brief news cycle jabber about yet another tell-all book that will go on a shelf, unread, while those in charge covered their behinds and scampered for the door scot-free.
It’s too soon to tell whether Scott McClellan Nation has finally had the same epiphany that Scott McClellan the man did, minus the book contract. Or whether we are still a nation of sleepwalkers, easy marks for the same lies, offering all our wedge-issue, hot-buttons to be pushed once again, sheep returning to the shearing pens.
Whether the country has had that epiphany is critical since there are extremely dangerous and complicated times ahead. Global warming, volatile weather shifts promising more Katrinas that will require competent government assistance, the coming battles over scarce resources, famine-driven migrations that will further destabilize an already volatile planet, and economic and environmental hard times that will also offer unique opportunities only to those prepared to seize them. All of these are issues that can only be dealt with by an awake, aware, accurately informed and engaged nation of gimlet-eyed “Show-Me” Missourians, with one hard eye on the Constitution and the other watching the silverware.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Email to the Tribune
The Tribune finally got around to printing a story on the resignation of the CSD’s lawfirm, Burke-Williams& Sorenson, which firm cited potential conflict of interest in the Taxpayers Watch lawsuit, the suit that’s personally suing the CSD Board members. Naturally, the story was late and apparently a dollar short as the following email forwarded to me indicates:
“Hi Sona,
The article concerning the Taxpayers lawsuit and BWS resignation from the district contained the following statement:
“Before the former Los Osos board was recalled Sept. 27, 2005, it was involved in several lawsuits. The plaintiffs in some of those ended up winning election to the district board after the recall. “
None of the three board members elected in the district recall were EVER plaintiffs in ANY lawsuit.
Steve Senet, Chuck Cesena, or John Fouche never filed ANY lawsuit or was ever a party to any lawsuit against the district. They were not members of CCLO or any organization that filed lawsuits.
Lisa Schicker was elected in 2004, however, she was never a party or a plaintiff in any lawsuit.
Long before being elected she did introduce friends to Keith Swanson of CCLO that were attorneys. This was NOT BWS, but another firm.
She has certainly openly and actively supported CCLO’s mission for an alternative project, but was never a member of CCLO or organization that filed lawsuits against the district.
The article unfortunately is misleading, does harm, because it suggests misconduct ---(such as plaintiffs later elected and then paying their attorneys) This is exactly what has been alleged by Gordon Hensley et al, but exactly what DID NOT HAPPEN.
The Tribune has an obligation to contact the directors to confirm their status concerning the lawsuits, and then to correct the statement to present facts to your readers.
Thank you kindly for your prompt attention to this matter “
Hmmmm, Which brings us back to a question that I hope the “Trial” will answer, because the Tribune didn’t: Somebody please ‘splain just what this lawsuit is really about?
Twenty Eight gay couples get Married In SLOTown
Amazingly, neither the county nor the state fell into the ocean or was struck by lightning. Some of these couple actually got married in the church of their choice, thereby having their marriage sanctified, according to their beliefs.
So, here’s where it’s going to get interesting. If the Change The Constitution Anti-gay Marriage Initiative passes in November, the state will have to require that these folks get unmarried AND they will be told that their holy matrimony wasn’t the right kind of holy.
And what’s truly odd about that is this: The various religious conservative groups who are funneling money into the state to support this initiative would have an absolute cow if someone were circulating an constitutional amendment initiative that declared that the people of the state of California should have the constitutional right to tell THEM what’s holy or unholy and un-sanctify THEIR marriages -- as in, "Oh, Sorry, but YOUR church isn't the RIGHT kind of church and so it's sanctity isn't valid. Only OUR type of churches get to sanctify things."
It would be cowville all ‘round. Apparently they’re working under the notion that our constitution and the bedrock foundation of this country is, “Freedom and equality for ME, but not for THEE.”
GGGAAAGGHHHHH, Better I Shudda Gone To France
Which is what I’ve been saying for a few weeks as I’ve neglected this blog (not a whole lot happening on the Sewer Wars Front, thank God), while my computer got an upgrade, put in DSL, and have been endlessly fussing with both a new email program and having to re-do my email address book. GGAAAGGGHHHHH.
Eventually, it’ll all sort out all right, but in the meantime.
And Finally, Is a Divorce in the Wind?
Been hearing rumors that Mark Low of NOWASTEWATER is getting “divorced,” un-partnered, separated, go-separate-ways, unhooked, departing, buh-bye from Tom Murphy of AES Reclamator Co.. Mark simply confirmed the separation but offered no details. So I’ve asked him if he wanted to send me any info on the split, I’d gladly post it here. So, stay tuned.
Meantime, It’s Another Beautiful Day In Paradise
Our time here is so short, our lives so often taken up with trivia (like updating email address books), that we too often ignore the really important things in life. Like spending time with your family, time to go out to see the flowers bloom. Walk your dog. If you don’t have a dog, heard there’s a really cool greyhound mix neutered 6 mos old pup at DAS looking for a home. My greyhound mix, Archibald McDog, turned out to be an amazing critter. So, go adopt this pup THEN go walk the dog. Weather promises to be gorgeous today.
The Tribune finally got around to printing a story on the resignation of the CSD’s lawfirm, Burke-Williams& Sorenson, which firm cited potential conflict of interest in the Taxpayers Watch lawsuit, the suit that’s personally suing the CSD Board members. Naturally, the story was late and apparently a dollar short as the following email forwarded to me indicates:
“Hi Sona,
The article concerning the Taxpayers lawsuit and BWS resignation from the district contained the following statement:
“Before the former Los Osos board was recalled Sept. 27, 2005, it was involved in several lawsuits. The plaintiffs in some of those ended up winning election to the district board after the recall. “
None of the three board members elected in the district recall were EVER plaintiffs in ANY lawsuit.
Steve Senet, Chuck Cesena, or John Fouche never filed ANY lawsuit or was ever a party to any lawsuit against the district. They were not members of CCLO or any organization that filed lawsuits.
Lisa Schicker was elected in 2004, however, she was never a party or a plaintiff in any lawsuit.
Long before being elected she did introduce friends to Keith Swanson of CCLO that were attorneys. This was NOT BWS, but another firm.
She has certainly openly and actively supported CCLO’s mission for an alternative project, but was never a member of CCLO or organization that filed lawsuits against the district.
The article unfortunately is misleading, does harm, because it suggests misconduct ---(such as plaintiffs later elected and then paying their attorneys) This is exactly what has been alleged by Gordon Hensley et al, but exactly what DID NOT HAPPEN.
The Tribune has an obligation to contact the directors to confirm their status concerning the lawsuits, and then to correct the statement to present facts to your readers.
Thank you kindly for your prompt attention to this matter “
Hmmmm, Which brings us back to a question that I hope the “Trial” will answer, because the Tribune didn’t: Somebody please ‘splain just what this lawsuit is really about?
Twenty Eight gay couples get Married In SLOTown
Amazingly, neither the county nor the state fell into the ocean or was struck by lightning. Some of these couple actually got married in the church of their choice, thereby having their marriage sanctified, according to their beliefs.
So, here’s where it’s going to get interesting. If the Change The Constitution Anti-gay Marriage Initiative passes in November, the state will have to require that these folks get unmarried AND they will be told that their holy matrimony wasn’t the right kind of holy.
And what’s truly odd about that is this: The various religious conservative groups who are funneling money into the state to support this initiative would have an absolute cow if someone were circulating an constitutional amendment initiative that declared that the people of the state of California should have the constitutional right to tell THEM what’s holy or unholy and un-sanctify THEIR marriages -- as in, "Oh, Sorry, but YOUR church isn't the RIGHT kind of church and so it's sanctity isn't valid. Only OUR type of churches get to sanctify things."
It would be cowville all ‘round. Apparently they’re working under the notion that our constitution and the bedrock foundation of this country is, “Freedom and equality for ME, but not for THEE.”
GGGAAAGGHHHHH, Better I Shudda Gone To France
Which is what I’ve been saying for a few weeks as I’ve neglected this blog (not a whole lot happening on the Sewer Wars Front, thank God), while my computer got an upgrade, put in DSL, and have been endlessly fussing with both a new email program and having to re-do my email address book. GGAAAGGGHHHHH.
Eventually, it’ll all sort out all right, but in the meantime.
And Finally, Is a Divorce in the Wind?
Been hearing rumors that Mark Low of NOWASTEWATER is getting “divorced,” un-partnered, separated, go-separate-ways, unhooked, departing, buh-bye from Tom Murphy of AES Reclamator Co.. Mark simply confirmed the separation but offered no details. So I’ve asked him if he wanted to send me any info on the split, I’d gladly post it here. So, stay tuned.
Meantime, It’s Another Beautiful Day In Paradise
Our time here is so short, our lives so often taken up with trivia (like updating email address books), that we too often ignore the really important things in life. Like spending time with your family, time to go out to see the flowers bloom. Walk your dog. If you don’t have a dog, heard there’s a really cool greyhound mix neutered 6 mos old pup at DAS looking for a home. My greyhound mix, Archibald McDog, turned out to be an amazing critter. So, go adopt this pup THEN go walk the dog. Weather promises to be gorgeous today.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Dear Mr. Briggs: The Reclamator Dialogues Continue
The following email is from Mr. Murphy to Mr. Briggs of the RWQCB. Now, will somebody – a judge? Mr. Briggs? Jerry Brown? Paavo Ogren? -- please come forward and tell us what “discharge” means, what levels of coliform are allowed out of a “wastewater” pipe, what “wastewater” means, what "pollutants" and other good stuff means. OR explain why the RWQCB doesn't have to define these terms and rule on whether the Reclamator does or does not meet whatever standards and definitions are or are not defined. Or something? Somebody? (Interesting note vis a vis fecal coliform. If the surface soil around our homes was tested right now, how much fecal coliform would be found from . . . dogs, cats, gophers, mice, birds, humans? And how much can be found in our drinking water coming out of the faucet? Hmmmm
Dear Mr. Briggs,
Please see attached data of the RECLAMATOR.
Fecal Coliform is “Not Detected”. The spiral wound ultra-filtration membrane is designed to provide a “definite barrier” to fecal coliform in excess of “2” MPN/100ml. (Title 22 requirements is: Fecal/Total Coliform less than 2.2 MPN/100ml, however, Title 22 requirements only applies to public agencies and does not apply to applications on private property, which all RECLAMATOR applications are on.)
Total Coliform has no Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in itself and is:
“Not a health threat in itself; it is used to indicate whether other potentially harmful bacteria may be present5 (“Potential Health Effects from Ingestion of Water”, USEPA Safe Drinking Water Standard, pg. #3)
5 Fecal coliform and E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Disease-causing microbes (pathogens) in these wastes can cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. These pathogens may pose a special health risk for infants, young children, and people with severely compromised immune systems.” (“Sources of Contaminant in Drinking Water”, USEPA Safe Drinking Water Standard, pg. #3)
Additionally, “Coliforms are naturally present in the environment; as well as feces; fecal coliforms and E. coli only come from human and animal fecal waste.” (USEPA Drinking Water Standard)
In typical wastewater industry practices, “definite barrier” means to control Fecal Coliforms are not utilized, but only methods of disinfection of wastewater effluents using typically chlorine and UV. Fecal Coliforms will frequently pass through these types of disinfection methods without detection and presents of Total Coliforms will indicate such possibility of Fecal Coliforms passing. However, in the case of the RECLAMATOR’s physical control technology (a spiral wound back-washable ultra filtration membrane with ultimate integrity) has been employed to guarantee no such possible passage and therefore, a presence of Total Coliforms for non-drinking water applications does not pose a public health risk and therefore is not an issue.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.
As “there is no known or expected risk to health” from a presence of Total Coliforms when a “definite barrier” membrane is in place that assures NO Fecal Coliform is present in excess of “2” MPN/100ml, a Total Coliform count represents “no known or expected risk to health” and as such, is a “non-enforceable public health goal”.
Upon your awareness of this information, AES demands the Central Coast Regional Quality Control Board expediently promulgate, as is their fiduciary duty under U.S.C Title 33 Chapter 26, the requirement for the application of the RECLAMATOR, as best available control technology economically achievable as is defined within the U.S.C Title 33 Chapter 26, at each private point source discharge of each source within your jurisdiction to comply with the pretreatment requirements of such U.S.C. as the other than publicly owned treatment works (privately owned) part of a community collection and treatment project (publicly owned treatment works) within Los Osos Prohibition Zone. (U.S.C Title 33 Chapter 26 Sec. 1317 (a)(b)(c))
As the RECLAMATOR eliminates the discharge of pollutants at the source, the Community of Los Osos will not be subject to any unnecessary economic burden for a publicly owned treatment works (collection laterals with centralized treatment facilities) besides the RECLAMATOR alternative.
AES is initiating its campaign to provide discharge elimination services throughout the Los Osos Prohibition Zone this week. Without the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s promulgating the requirement of the RECLAMATOR to comply with the federally mandated pretreatment requirements in the Los Osos Prohibition Zone as per such requirements under the federal water law, AES is sure to incur additional unnecessary hardships in its marketing efforts in providing the federally compliant and county permitted pretreatment alternative RECLAMATOR resulting from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s not performing under their fiduciary duty as is require by state law.
Please promulgate immediately in the interest of the water, the environment and in the best economic interest of the public of Los Osos.
Sincerely,
D. Thomas Murphy
Inventor,
The RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Our Water”
(775) 848-8800
Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc.
President
(775) 425-0911
www.TheReclamator.com
The following email is from Mr. Murphy to Mr. Briggs of the RWQCB. Now, will somebody – a judge? Mr. Briggs? Jerry Brown? Paavo Ogren? -- please come forward and tell us what “discharge” means, what levels of coliform are allowed out of a “wastewater” pipe, what “wastewater” means, what "pollutants" and other good stuff means. OR explain why the RWQCB doesn't have to define these terms and rule on whether the Reclamator does or does not meet whatever standards and definitions are or are not defined. Or something? Somebody? (Interesting note vis a vis fecal coliform. If the surface soil around our homes was tested right now, how much fecal coliform would be found from . . . dogs, cats, gophers, mice, birds, humans? And how much can be found in our drinking water coming out of the faucet? Hmmmm
Dear Mr. Briggs,
Please see attached data of the RECLAMATOR.
Fecal Coliform is “Not Detected”. The spiral wound ultra-filtration membrane is designed to provide a “definite barrier” to fecal coliform in excess of “2” MPN/100ml. (Title 22 requirements is: Fecal/Total Coliform less than 2.2 MPN/100ml, however, Title 22 requirements only applies to public agencies and does not apply to applications on private property, which all RECLAMATOR applications are on.)
Total Coliform has no Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) in itself and is:
“Not a health threat in itself; it is used to indicate whether other potentially harmful bacteria may be present5 (“Potential Health Effects from Ingestion of Water”, USEPA Safe Drinking Water Standard, pg. #3)
5 Fecal coliform and E. coli are bacteria whose presence indicates that the water may be contaminated with human or animal wastes. Disease-causing microbes (pathogens) in these wastes can cause diarrhea, cramps, nausea, headaches, or other symptoms. These pathogens may pose a special health risk for infants, young children, and people with severely compromised immune systems.” (“Sources of Contaminant in Drinking Water”, USEPA Safe Drinking Water Standard, pg. #3)
Additionally, “Coliforms are naturally present in the environment; as well as feces; fecal coliforms and E. coli only come from human and animal fecal waste.” (USEPA Drinking Water Standard)
In typical wastewater industry practices, “definite barrier” means to control Fecal Coliforms are not utilized, but only methods of disinfection of wastewater effluents using typically chlorine and UV. Fecal Coliforms will frequently pass through these types of disinfection methods without detection and presents of Total Coliforms will indicate such possibility of Fecal Coliforms passing. However, in the case of the RECLAMATOR’s physical control technology (a spiral wound back-washable ultra filtration membrane with ultimate integrity) has been employed to guarantee no such possible passage and therefore, a presence of Total Coliforms for non-drinking water applications does not pose a public health risk and therefore is not an issue.
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) - The level of a contaminant in drinking water below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety and are non-enforceable public health goals.
As “there is no known or expected risk to health” from a presence of Total Coliforms when a “definite barrier” membrane is in place that assures NO Fecal Coliform is present in excess of “2” MPN/100ml, a Total Coliform count represents “no known or expected risk to health” and as such, is a “non-enforceable public health goal”.
Upon your awareness of this information, AES demands the Central Coast Regional Quality Control Board expediently promulgate, as is their fiduciary duty under U.S.C Title 33 Chapter 26, the requirement for the application of the RECLAMATOR, as best available control technology economically achievable as is defined within the U.S.C Title 33 Chapter 26, at each private point source discharge of each source within your jurisdiction to comply with the pretreatment requirements of such U.S.C. as the other than publicly owned treatment works (privately owned) part of a community collection and treatment project (publicly owned treatment works) within Los Osos Prohibition Zone. (U.S.C Title 33 Chapter 26 Sec. 1317 (a)(b)(c))
As the RECLAMATOR eliminates the discharge of pollutants at the source, the Community of Los Osos will not be subject to any unnecessary economic burden for a publicly owned treatment works (collection laterals with centralized treatment facilities) besides the RECLAMATOR alternative.
AES is initiating its campaign to provide discharge elimination services throughout the Los Osos Prohibition Zone this week. Without the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s promulgating the requirement of the RECLAMATOR to comply with the federally mandated pretreatment requirements in the Los Osos Prohibition Zone as per such requirements under the federal water law, AES is sure to incur additional unnecessary hardships in its marketing efforts in providing the federally compliant and county permitted pretreatment alternative RECLAMATOR resulting from the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s not performing under their fiduciary duty as is require by state law.
Please promulgate immediately in the interest of the water, the environment and in the best economic interest of the public of Los Osos.
Sincerely,
D. Thomas Murphy
Inventor,
The RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Our Water”
(775) 848-8800
Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc.
President
(775) 425-0911
www.TheReclamator.com
Monday, June 16, 2008
A Reclamator Dialogue: Is It Just Me Who’s Not Getting This?
The following emails between Mr. Tom Murphy and myself (posted with permission) are as follows: Mr. Murphy sent me and email announcing what AES was going to do. I replied, wishing him good luck (below). Mr. Murphy replied with another email, to which I commented, to which he commented on my comments. My email comments are italicized for ease in reading.
Clearly, Mr. Murphy doesn’t think I “get it.” He likely thinks I have rocks in my head. He’s right. I don’t “get it.”. When I look at the Los Osos Sewer Wars (Lo, these 24 years) all I hear is the theme song to “Chinatown.”
The Reclamator Dialogues, so far:
In a message dated 6/11/2008 9:44:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tmurphyaes@earthlink.net writes:[excerpt]
We are going to make RECLAMATOR Service Signups and Installs available this week. Upon a “person/owner” who subscribing to the RECLAMATOR Service they will be “totally” isolated and indemnified from all exposure to any liabilities associated with the Water Board and County.
To which I replied:
Well, then, good luck to all those who sign up. My hope for a judge's ruling sooner rather than later is simple: Until a judge rules on all your assertions of law, that's all they remain: assertions. And if you turn out to be mistaken, all the people who have invested a great deal of money in your service will be out all that money AND will still be under the gun to pay out a whole lot more money to hook up to the county project and/or face thousands in RWQCB fines for "discharges" after 2011. That's the problem, as I see it.
Ann Calhoun
To which Mr. Murphy replied:
Hi Ann,
Respectfully, you still haven’t gotten it.
Everyone has a choice, pay me $20K (for an innovative alternative) or pay the County $120K and the County pays me $20K (for a pretreatment technology (an “other then publicly owned treatment works”, privately owned, consisting of an “innovative alternative” to be applied at each lot PRIOR to discharging into a “publicly owned treatment works” (POTW)), it is just that plain and simple.
Why do you think the County has determined they can’t get a bond? Why do you think the County hasn’t “billed” homeowners for the assessments (as they were suppose to by Dec. 07)? Why do you think I would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars on a defamation suit against the State IF I didn’t “KNOW” what I was talking about (and the law)? Do you realize what an “easement” is? Do you realize how it TOTALLY eliminates ANY option of any Government entity from attacking a homeowner for a discharge which is no longer within their jurisdiction (as it is now in the AES private utility easement and as such, is “solely the responsibility of AES”)? Do you believe the State law (California Water Law § 13050) which says my “recycled water” is a valuable resource and if taken by any entity is subject to being purchased?
A “required hookup” by any regulatory authority would only mean a permanent revenue source for AES resulting from payment for its sustainable alternative water source by such entity which is receiving it, no matter who that might be, which works for AES. However, this will NEVER HAPPEN. Their “required hook-up” scare tactic is just that, a scare tactic intended to scare folks of the community into thinking they will STILL have to “PAY” for the County POTW, which by your comments, has been working. However, please let me attempt to dispel these fears one more time.
You (and ever other residence in Los Osos) have a choice, believe me or believe the County/State. It is only $100,000.00 of YOUR money and “permanent” loss of your water to the County at YOUR expense…forever…if you want to support the County/State “misinformation”, good luck. It really boils down to either 1) pay for the RECLAMATOR Service, or 2) pay for the RECLAMATOR Service AND the (then unnecessary) County POTW.
Their “gig” is up; it is just not going to come out they way they had planned. The project belongs to the AES “pretreatment innovative alternative technology” and we are taking it. They “named it” and AES “claimed it”, thank you very much.
Prepare for the “kick-off” as the AES Alternative Water Source Project is about to begin, with or without the support of the regulatory authorities who are required to promulgate it. This issue will be dealt with at a later date (by the citizens of Los Osos).
Tom Murphy
PS. Please see the federal law which REQUIRES Pretreatment applied at each source prior to discharging into a publicly owned treatment works. They MUST utilize the RECLAMATOR “PRIOR” to discharging into a POTW, “it is the law”. Federal laws are written in such a way that it is easy for lay people to understand, the U.S.C. is the “people’s law”, our law, just take a little time to read it if you are really wanting to understand why I am not just “talking”. Pay especially close attention to Sec. 1317 (a) (USEPA Toxic Pollutant List “nitrosamines” pretreatment requirements) Pretreatment is a requirement for any source of any of the listed toxic pollutants, nitrosamine being #50 on the list.
Ammonia (associated with domestic household waste) is nitrosamine source, therefore requiring pretreatment at the “source”, or “new source” (which means building/private property having a sewer pipe coming from it) prior to discharging into a POTW or into underground excavations (drainfields) and has been a requirement since Dec. 27th 1977. All point sources (sewer pipes) are subject to provide such pretreatment to consisting of the “best available technology economically achievable” (economically achievable means “less cost than POTW”, which in this case is substantially less), which is the RECLAMATOR. Notice in Sec. 1317 (b)(1) clarifies an obligation for pretreatment to “prevent the discharge of any pollutant through any treatment works” (this means both “other than publicly owned treatment works” (which is what the RECLAMATOR is, privately owned)), and Sec. 1317 (c) states the “standards of performance” in Sec. 1316 apply to “equivalent category of new sources” (equivalent categories means “national”, which applies to residential and commercial, and “federal”, which means industrial discharges). Sec. 1316 defines the “national standard of performance” requirements for pretreatment treatment works (privately owned) are subject to achieve an effluent limit of “maximum degree of effluent reduction” and “where possible, achieve a standard which eliminates the discharge of pollutants”. Sec. 1316 (a)(1).
Please see the USEPA Toxic Pollutant List attached below (# 50 specifically). The federal water law requires the County to require the RECLAMATOR at each home prior to discharging into a POTW. Upon this being complied with, the “pretreatment becomes an “innovative alternative” which eliminates the discharge of pollutants, therefore, eliminating any further need for a community collection system associated with a POTW:
TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER I--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--(Continued) PART 401--GENERAL PROVISIONS--Table of Contents Sec. 401.15 Toxic pollutants. The following comprise the list of toxic pollutants designated pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of the Act: 1. Acenaphthene2. Acrolein3. Acrylonitrile4. Aldrin/Dieldrin \1\--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Effluent standard promulgated (40 CFR part 129).--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Antimony and compounds \2\--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The term compounds shall include organic and inorganic compounds.--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Arsenic and compounds7. Asbestos8. Benzene9. Benzidine \1\10. Beryllium and compounds11. Cadmium and compounds12. Carbon tetrachloride13. Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)14. Chlorinated benzenes (other than di-chlorobenzenes)15. Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-di-chloroethane, 1,1,1- trichloroethane, and hexachloroethane)16. Chloroalkyl ethers (chloroethyl and mixed ethers)17. Chlorinated naphthalene18. Chlorinated phenols (other than those listed elsewhere; includes trichlorophenols and chlorinated cresols)19. Chloroform20. 2-chlorophenol21. Chromium and compounds22. Copper and compounds23. Cyanides24. DDT and metabolites \1\25. Dichlorobenzenes (1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-di-chlorobenzenes)26. Dichlorobenzidine27. Dichloroethylenes (1,1-, and 1,2-dichloroethylene)28. 2,4-dichlorophenol29. Dichloropropane and dichloropropene30. 2,4-dimethylphenol31. Dinitrotoluene32. Diphenylhydrazine33. Endosulfan and metabolites34. Endrin and metabolites \1\35. Ethylbenzene36. Fluoranthene37. Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere; includes chlorophenylphenyl ethers, bromophenylphenyl ether, [[Page 9]] bis(dichloroisopropyl) ether, bis-(chloroethoxy) methane and polychlorinated diphenyl ethers)38. Halomethanes (other than those listed elsewhere; includes methylene chloride, methylchloride, methylbromide, bromoform, dichlorobromomethane39. Heptachlor and metabolites40. Hexachlorobutadiene41. Hexachlorocyclohexane42. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene43. Isophorone44. Lead and compounds45. Mercury and compounds46. Naphthalene47. Nickel and compounds48. Nitrobenzene49. Nitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitrophenol, dinitrocresol)50. Nitrosamines51. Pentachlorophenol52. Phenol53. Phthalate esters54. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) \1\55. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzanthracenes, benzopyrenes, benzofluoranthene, chrysenes, dibenz- anthracenes, and indenopyrenes)56. Selenium and compounds57. Silver and compounds58. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)59. Tetrachloroethylene60. Thallium and compounds61. Toluene62. Toxaphene \1\63. Trichloroethylene64. Vinyl chloride65. Zinc and compounds [44 FR 44502, July 30, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 2266, Jan. 8, 1981; 46 FR 10724, Feb. 4, 1981]
To which I replied (italics) and to which Mr. Murphy responded in my text, with his replies. Even after which, I still don’t get it. That “Chinatown” theme music is still playing full blast in my head. Mr. Murphy claims I’m “pessimistic.” Likely. In addition to the “Chinatown” theme, I keep seeing that old Oliver Wendell Holmes quote flashing before my eyes:” Young man, this is a court of law, not a court of justice.”
Ann, please view the following comments in sync.
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:35 AMTo: tmurphyaes@earthlink.netSubject: Re: FW: http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/
In a message dated 6/13/2008 1:54:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tmurphyaes@earthlink.net writes:
Respectfully, you still haven’t gotten it.
Respectfully, here's what I "got" after watching the Sewer Wars for 24 some years.
1. "The State and the Feds and the Regulators" can do anything they want to. No they can’t! Fudge data, lie, ignore laws, ignore evidence, ignore anything they wish to, bend the rules, bury the rules, create loopholes, drive through the loopholes. This was “the past”, not the present. Unless you have pots of money (the Los Osos Project represents approximately $200M of revenue for AES over the next 20 years, not to mention many other projects to come on line of sugnificantly more value to AES than Los Osos. I will commit it all to assure they comply with the law as necessary) to haul them into court and force them to follow the law, (Ann, the Los Osos project is already “permitted” by the County) and even then it's likely you'll get a judge who simply defers to whatever they claim, asks no questions, demands no answers, and goes along with whatever they're up to -- the old "Well, they're the experts so we have to defer to them." routine. This is about “WATER” Ann. No judge is going to rule against a citizen owning the rights to his water when there are numerous laws, federal, state and local, which support citizen’s water rights. We have the federal law (which I personally specialize in and know/understand probably better than any attorney in the US) on our side and the technology (which I developed and hold 9 US patents on) which is required by such federal law (as “best available technology”), and a $100M project to fuel our necessary legal expenses, the Water Board is finished. The people in Los Osos, for the last 24 years, never took the time to understand the very law which the “regulators”(which “doesn’t” deserve to be capitalized) are subject to. If you had, this “sewer dilemma” would have been over 15 years ago when I came to town the first time with the solution required by federal law. You put up a good fight but just didn’t deliver the “knock-out” punches, the federal law and pretreatment technology required by the federal law. The RECLAMATOR is the federally compliant alternative technology under federal law for the Los Osos Project. Remember, we have a “permitted project”, it is done.
2. Few homeowners here in Los Osos have the will to "gamble" on you knowing that they'll likely have to spend years hassling with the RWQCB's CDOs, Jerry Brown's AG Boys, or spend endless time in court (and Federal court means going back and forth to L.A., putting people's jobs in jeopardy). A private utility easement on each property deeded to AES will relieve each homeowner of 100% of ALL liabilities relating to their discharges and fines . It’s possible the homeowner may prevail in the end, but few people are willing to spend that kind of time and money. They WILL prevail ONLY if they ACT. Their only viable option is the AES discharge elimination service. If they don’t act to sign up for the AES service, they will be subject to either the County system and/or $5,000 per day in fines. Seems like a “no brainer” to me. (Consider the Los Osos 45. 90% of this town have forgotten all about them and haven't contributed a dime for their defense. Do you really believe those same people will put their property and time and money at risk (Ann, they already have by voting in the “218”. They are obligated to pay WHATEVER the County assesses for whatever sewer project they wish to do. Again, please do research and learn what a private utility easement deed means, “no more liability for the homeowner”. of future litigation that can go on for years when they won't lift a finger to help 45 neighbors simply clarify some simple legal points? God helps those who help themselves!) NO “gamble” Ann. It is reality; if the homeowners DON’T pay AES $20K (only $15K if signed up for service by Aug 1st) for its service, they WILL pay the County $120K for a sewer…Guaranteed – No other Option!
3. The State doesn't have to win in order to win. [An added comment here: I should have said, the state doesn’t have to be “right” to win, either.]The State has already “lost”, and are about to loose a lot more if they don’t start playing my game on my terms under the “rules” of the federal water law. They have all the resources in the world, all the time in the world -- the taxpayers are paying their salaries. WRONG, WRONG and WRONG! The State is bound by the federal law. If the taxpayers are stupid enough to not stand up for themselves (especially now that I have come here to lead them and have proven I can) and allow the State (or the County) to take advantage of them, what can I say other than “they deserve it”. My Dad used to tell me, “stupid is, is stupid does”. They are then free to use that money to hammer the taxpayers forever, if needs be. All this goes away with the assignment of the private utility easement deeded to AES! If you followed the CDO mess, you'd know how traumatized so many of these people were -- and this over a rather "modest" "symbolic" CYA CDO. A serious full court press effort by the Board backed up by Jerry Brown and the full might of the AG's office would be truly terrifying for most people. I empathize with everyone in this Community as I too have been traumatized by the regulatory “Society” over the past 15 years. However, it is OVER Ann, let it go. It is time to realize and accept it and support the ONLY OPTION you and the people of Los Osos have, sign up for the service….or wish you had in five years when you don’t have a home anymore.
4. Which is why I stated that I hope you'd get some legal clarification BEFORE things get further down the line. Legal clarification has already been gotten. Remember, I have a $79.5 million lawsuit against the State Board. Now, we are giving the State “legal clarification” of the law and their obligations under the law. By the time all my lawsuits are over, the Los Osos Project will have already been done for years. You can assert (“assert”? What do you mean? I “QUOTE” the law, comply with the law and demand the regulatory authorities “conform” to operating within the boundaries of the law.) anything about the law you wish. But the law doesn't become the law until some judge somewhere actually agrees with your assertion. And the STATE can do anything they wish until a judge somewhere stops them. The County permit has ALREADY “stopped them”. (Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean anything. Sure it does when someone is there to hold you accountable. The USC is the peoples law and the people must use it. For example, you can break any number of laws and never be held to account until one particular DA decides to prosecute. (Or, in this case, the people decide to prosecute, which I already have.) Until then, nobody cares that you've broken the law, it's as if nothing ever happened -- until that DA decides that something happened. Same thing here. The Feds/State/Regulators can decide thin air is pudding and move accordingly until a judge somewhere decides otherwise. So quoting the law doesn't mean anything in the real world -- a real DA or a real Judge are the ones who decide whether the Law actually IS the Law. Such a pessimistic attitude Ann, remember…your attitude determines your altitude ) Are you suggesting there is NO Justice? Our legal system is corrupt? Sorry Ann, the “lights are on” and NO judge is going to rule against the RECLAMATOR as all eyes and ears within the entire industry are tuned in watching and listening.
In closing, AES has come in and won your fight. IT IS OVER!!! Now, let’s get on with doing the right and legal thing. Sign up for the RECLAMATOR service NOW! Reap the benefits of your 24 years of efforts and now Los Osos is the first community to totally eliminate sewage discharges and be served by an appliance which eliminates wasting of household water by 100%. Los Osos will become the first community with NO SEWAGE…and…each home will have its own Sustainable Alternative Water Source. Think about it. Get above the crap you and all the other citizens of Los Osos have been “living in” for the past 24 years and take advantage of your efforts. Claim your rewards!!! Claim your VICTORY!!!!!!!
BRIGGS IS BEATEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HIS GAME IS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The following emails between Mr. Tom Murphy and myself (posted with permission) are as follows: Mr. Murphy sent me and email announcing what AES was going to do. I replied, wishing him good luck (below). Mr. Murphy replied with another email, to which I commented, to which he commented on my comments. My email comments are italicized for ease in reading.
Clearly, Mr. Murphy doesn’t think I “get it.” He likely thinks I have rocks in my head. He’s right. I don’t “get it.”. When I look at the Los Osos Sewer Wars (Lo, these 24 years) all I hear is the theme song to “Chinatown.”
The Reclamator Dialogues, so far:
In a message dated 6/11/2008 9:44:34 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tmurphyaes@earthlink.net writes:[excerpt]
We are going to make RECLAMATOR Service Signups and Installs available this week. Upon a “person/owner” who subscribing to the RECLAMATOR Service they will be “totally” isolated and indemnified from all exposure to any liabilities associated with the Water Board and County.
To which I replied:
Well, then, good luck to all those who sign up. My hope for a judge's ruling sooner rather than later is simple: Until a judge rules on all your assertions of law, that's all they remain: assertions. And if you turn out to be mistaken, all the people who have invested a great deal of money in your service will be out all that money AND will still be under the gun to pay out a whole lot more money to hook up to the county project and/or face thousands in RWQCB fines for "discharges" after 2011. That's the problem, as I see it.
Ann Calhoun
To which Mr. Murphy replied:
Hi Ann,
Respectfully, you still haven’t gotten it.
Everyone has a choice, pay me $20K (for an innovative alternative) or pay the County $120K and the County pays me $20K (for a pretreatment technology (an “other then publicly owned treatment works”, privately owned, consisting of an “innovative alternative” to be applied at each lot PRIOR to discharging into a “publicly owned treatment works” (POTW)), it is just that plain and simple.
Why do you think the County has determined they can’t get a bond? Why do you think the County hasn’t “billed” homeowners for the assessments (as they were suppose to by Dec. 07)? Why do you think I would invest hundreds of thousands of dollars on a defamation suit against the State IF I didn’t “KNOW” what I was talking about (and the law)? Do you realize what an “easement” is? Do you realize how it TOTALLY eliminates ANY option of any Government entity from attacking a homeowner for a discharge which is no longer within their jurisdiction (as it is now in the AES private utility easement and as such, is “solely the responsibility of AES”)? Do you believe the State law (California Water Law § 13050) which says my “recycled water” is a valuable resource and if taken by any entity is subject to being purchased?
A “required hookup” by any regulatory authority would only mean a permanent revenue source for AES resulting from payment for its sustainable alternative water source by such entity which is receiving it, no matter who that might be, which works for AES. However, this will NEVER HAPPEN. Their “required hook-up” scare tactic is just that, a scare tactic intended to scare folks of the community into thinking they will STILL have to “PAY” for the County POTW, which by your comments, has been working. However, please let me attempt to dispel these fears one more time.
You (and ever other residence in Los Osos) have a choice, believe me or believe the County/State. It is only $100,000.00 of YOUR money and “permanent” loss of your water to the County at YOUR expense…forever…if you want to support the County/State “misinformation”, good luck. It really boils down to either 1) pay for the RECLAMATOR Service, or 2) pay for the RECLAMATOR Service AND the (then unnecessary) County POTW.
Their “gig” is up; it is just not going to come out they way they had planned. The project belongs to the AES “pretreatment innovative alternative technology” and we are taking it. They “named it” and AES “claimed it”, thank you very much.
Prepare for the “kick-off” as the AES Alternative Water Source Project is about to begin, with or without the support of the regulatory authorities who are required to promulgate it. This issue will be dealt with at a later date (by the citizens of Los Osos).
Tom Murphy
PS. Please see the federal law which REQUIRES Pretreatment applied at each source prior to discharging into a publicly owned treatment works. They MUST utilize the RECLAMATOR “PRIOR” to discharging into a POTW, “it is the law”. Federal laws are written in such a way that it is easy for lay people to understand, the U.S.C. is the “people’s law”, our law, just take a little time to read it if you are really wanting to understand why I am not just “talking”. Pay especially close attention to Sec. 1317 (a) (USEPA Toxic Pollutant List “nitrosamines” pretreatment requirements) Pretreatment is a requirement for any source of any of the listed toxic pollutants, nitrosamine being #50 on the list.
Ammonia (associated with domestic household waste) is nitrosamine source, therefore requiring pretreatment at the “source”, or “new source” (which means building/private property having a sewer pipe coming from it) prior to discharging into a POTW or into underground excavations (drainfields) and has been a requirement since Dec. 27th 1977. All point sources (sewer pipes) are subject to provide such pretreatment to consisting of the “best available technology economically achievable” (economically achievable means “less cost than POTW”, which in this case is substantially less), which is the RECLAMATOR. Notice in Sec. 1317 (b)(1) clarifies an obligation for pretreatment to “prevent the discharge of any pollutant through any treatment works” (this means both “other than publicly owned treatment works” (which is what the RECLAMATOR is, privately owned)), and Sec. 1317 (c) states the “standards of performance” in Sec. 1316 apply to “equivalent category of new sources” (equivalent categories means “national”, which applies to residential and commercial, and “federal”, which means industrial discharges). Sec. 1316 defines the “national standard of performance” requirements for pretreatment treatment works (privately owned) are subject to achieve an effluent limit of “maximum degree of effluent reduction” and “where possible, achieve a standard which eliminates the discharge of pollutants”. Sec. 1316 (a)(1).
Please see the USEPA Toxic Pollutant List attached below (# 50 specifically). The federal water law requires the County to require the RECLAMATOR at each home prior to discharging into a POTW. Upon this being complied with, the “pretreatment becomes an “innovative alternative” which eliminates the discharge of pollutants, therefore, eliminating any further need for a community collection system associated with a POTW:
TITLE 40--PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT CHAPTER I--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY--(Continued) PART 401--GENERAL PROVISIONS--Table of Contents Sec. 401.15 Toxic pollutants. The following comprise the list of toxic pollutants designated pursuant to section 307(a)(1) of the Act: 1. Acenaphthene2. Acrolein3. Acrylonitrile4. Aldrin/Dieldrin \1\--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Effluent standard promulgated (40 CFR part 129).--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Antimony and compounds \2\--------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ The term compounds shall include organic and inorganic compounds.--------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6. Arsenic and compounds7. Asbestos8. Benzene9. Benzidine \1\10. Beryllium and compounds11. Cadmium and compounds12. Carbon tetrachloride13. Chlordane (technical mixture and metabolites)14. Chlorinated benzenes (other than di-chlorobenzenes)15. Chlorinated ethanes (including 1,2-di-chloroethane, 1,1,1- trichloroethane, and hexachloroethane)16. Chloroalkyl ethers (chloroethyl and mixed ethers)17. Chlorinated naphthalene18. Chlorinated phenols (other than those listed elsewhere; includes trichlorophenols and chlorinated cresols)19. Chloroform20. 2-chlorophenol21. Chromium and compounds22. Copper and compounds23. Cyanides24. DDT and metabolites \1\25. Dichlorobenzenes (1,2-, 1,3-, and 1,4-di-chlorobenzenes)26. Dichlorobenzidine27. Dichloroethylenes (1,1-, and 1,2-dichloroethylene)28. 2,4-dichlorophenol29. Dichloropropane and dichloropropene30. 2,4-dimethylphenol31. Dinitrotoluene32. Diphenylhydrazine33. Endosulfan and metabolites34. Endrin and metabolites \1\35. Ethylbenzene36. Fluoranthene37. Haloethers (other than those listed elsewhere; includes chlorophenylphenyl ethers, bromophenylphenyl ether, [[Page 9]] bis(dichloroisopropyl) ether, bis-(chloroethoxy) methane and polychlorinated diphenyl ethers)38. Halomethanes (other than those listed elsewhere; includes methylene chloride, methylchloride, methylbromide, bromoform, dichlorobromomethane39. Heptachlor and metabolites40. Hexachlorobutadiene41. Hexachlorocyclohexane42. Hexachlorocyclopentadiene43. Isophorone44. Lead and compounds45. Mercury and compounds46. Naphthalene47. Nickel and compounds48. Nitrobenzene49. Nitrophenols (including 2,4-dinitrophenol, dinitrocresol)50. Nitrosamines51. Pentachlorophenol52. Phenol53. Phthalate esters54. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) \1\55. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (including benzanthracenes, benzopyrenes, benzofluoranthene, chrysenes, dibenz- anthracenes, and indenopyrenes)56. Selenium and compounds57. Silver and compounds58. 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (TCDD)59. Tetrachloroethylene60. Thallium and compounds61. Toluene62. Toxaphene \1\63. Trichloroethylene64. Vinyl chloride65. Zinc and compounds [44 FR 44502, July 30, 1979, as amended at 46 FR 2266, Jan. 8, 1981; 46 FR 10724, Feb. 4, 1981]
To which I replied (italics) and to which Mr. Murphy responded in my text, with his replies. Even after which, I still don’t get it. That “Chinatown” theme music is still playing full blast in my head. Mr. Murphy claims I’m “pessimistic.” Likely. In addition to the “Chinatown” theme, I keep seeing that old Oliver Wendell Holmes quote flashing before my eyes:” Young man, this is a court of law, not a court of justice.”
Ann, please view the following comments in sync.
Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 6:35 AMTo: tmurphyaes@earthlink.netSubject: Re: FW: http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/
In a message dated 6/13/2008 1:54:55 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, tmurphyaes@earthlink.net writes:
Respectfully, you still haven’t gotten it.
Respectfully, here's what I "got" after watching the Sewer Wars for 24 some years.
1. "The State and the Feds and the Regulators" can do anything they want to. No they can’t! Fudge data, lie, ignore laws, ignore evidence, ignore anything they wish to, bend the rules, bury the rules, create loopholes, drive through the loopholes. This was “the past”, not the present. Unless you have pots of money (the Los Osos Project represents approximately $200M of revenue for AES over the next 20 years, not to mention many other projects to come on line of sugnificantly more value to AES than Los Osos. I will commit it all to assure they comply with the law as necessary) to haul them into court and force them to follow the law, (Ann, the Los Osos project is already “permitted” by the County) and even then it's likely you'll get a judge who simply defers to whatever they claim, asks no questions, demands no answers, and goes along with whatever they're up to -- the old "Well, they're the experts so we have to defer to them." routine. This is about “WATER” Ann. No judge is going to rule against a citizen owning the rights to his water when there are numerous laws, federal, state and local, which support citizen’s water rights. We have the federal law (which I personally specialize in and know/understand probably better than any attorney in the US) on our side and the technology (which I developed and hold 9 US patents on) which is required by such federal law (as “best available technology”), and a $100M project to fuel our necessary legal expenses, the Water Board is finished. The people in Los Osos, for the last 24 years, never took the time to understand the very law which the “regulators”(which “doesn’t” deserve to be capitalized) are subject to. If you had, this “sewer dilemma” would have been over 15 years ago when I came to town the first time with the solution required by federal law. You put up a good fight but just didn’t deliver the “knock-out” punches, the federal law and pretreatment technology required by the federal law. The RECLAMATOR is the federally compliant alternative technology under federal law for the Los Osos Project. Remember, we have a “permitted project”, it is done.
2. Few homeowners here in Los Osos have the will to "gamble" on you knowing that they'll likely have to spend years hassling with the RWQCB's CDOs, Jerry Brown's AG Boys, or spend endless time in court (and Federal court means going back and forth to L.A., putting people's jobs in jeopardy). A private utility easement on each property deeded to AES will relieve each homeowner of 100% of ALL liabilities relating to their discharges and fines . It’s possible the homeowner may prevail in the end, but few people are willing to spend that kind of time and money. They WILL prevail ONLY if they ACT. Their only viable option is the AES discharge elimination service. If they don’t act to sign up for the AES service, they will be subject to either the County system and/or $5,000 per day in fines. Seems like a “no brainer” to me. (Consider the Los Osos 45. 90% of this town have forgotten all about them and haven't contributed a dime for their defense. Do you really believe those same people will put their property and time and money at risk (Ann, they already have by voting in the “218”. They are obligated to pay WHATEVER the County assesses for whatever sewer project they wish to do. Again, please do research and learn what a private utility easement deed means, “no more liability for the homeowner”. of future litigation that can go on for years when they won't lift a finger to help 45 neighbors simply clarify some simple legal points? God helps those who help themselves!) NO “gamble” Ann. It is reality; if the homeowners DON’T pay AES $20K (only $15K if signed up for service by Aug 1st) for its service, they WILL pay the County $120K for a sewer…Guaranteed – No other Option!
3. The State doesn't have to win in order to win. [An added comment here: I should have said, the state doesn’t have to be “right” to win, either.]The State has already “lost”, and are about to loose a lot more if they don’t start playing my game on my terms under the “rules” of the federal water law. They have all the resources in the world, all the time in the world -- the taxpayers are paying their salaries. WRONG, WRONG and WRONG! The State is bound by the federal law. If the taxpayers are stupid enough to not stand up for themselves (especially now that I have come here to lead them and have proven I can) and allow the State (or the County) to take advantage of them, what can I say other than “they deserve it”. My Dad used to tell me, “stupid is, is stupid does”. They are then free to use that money to hammer the taxpayers forever, if needs be. All this goes away with the assignment of the private utility easement deeded to AES! If you followed the CDO mess, you'd know how traumatized so many of these people were -- and this over a rather "modest" "symbolic" CYA CDO. A serious full court press effort by the Board backed up by Jerry Brown and the full might of the AG's office would be truly terrifying for most people. I empathize with everyone in this Community as I too have been traumatized by the regulatory “Society” over the past 15 years. However, it is OVER Ann, let it go. It is time to realize and accept it and support the ONLY OPTION you and the people of Los Osos have, sign up for the service….or wish you had in five years when you don’t have a home anymore.
4. Which is why I stated that I hope you'd get some legal clarification BEFORE things get further down the line. Legal clarification has already been gotten. Remember, I have a $79.5 million lawsuit against the State Board. Now, we are giving the State “legal clarification” of the law and their obligations under the law. By the time all my lawsuits are over, the Los Osos Project will have already been done for years. You can assert (“assert”? What do you mean? I “QUOTE” the law, comply with the law and demand the regulatory authorities “conform” to operating within the boundaries of the law.) anything about the law you wish. But the law doesn't become the law until some judge somewhere actually agrees with your assertion. And the STATE can do anything they wish until a judge somewhere stops them. The County permit has ALREADY “stopped them”. (Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean anything. Sure it does when someone is there to hold you accountable. The USC is the peoples law and the people must use it. For example, you can break any number of laws and never be held to account until one particular DA decides to prosecute. (Or, in this case, the people decide to prosecute, which I already have.) Until then, nobody cares that you've broken the law, it's as if nothing ever happened -- until that DA decides that something happened. Same thing here. The Feds/State/Regulators can decide thin air is pudding and move accordingly until a judge somewhere decides otherwise. So quoting the law doesn't mean anything in the real world -- a real DA or a real Judge are the ones who decide whether the Law actually IS the Law. Such a pessimistic attitude Ann, remember…your attitude determines your altitude ) Are you suggesting there is NO Justice? Our legal system is corrupt? Sorry Ann, the “lights are on” and NO judge is going to rule against the RECLAMATOR as all eyes and ears within the entire industry are tuned in watching and listening.
In closing, AES has come in and won your fight. IT IS OVER!!! Now, let’s get on with doing the right and legal thing. Sign up for the RECLAMATOR service NOW! Reap the benefits of your 24 years of efforts and now Los Osos is the first community to totally eliminate sewage discharges and be served by an appliance which eliminates wasting of household water by 100%. Los Osos will become the first community with NO SEWAGE…and…each home will have its own Sustainable Alternative Water Source. Think about it. Get above the crap you and all the other citizens of Los Osos have been “living in” for the past 24 years and take advantage of your efforts. Claim your rewards!!! Claim your VICTORY!!!!!!!
BRIGGS IS BEATEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HIS GAME IS OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
