MISC Notices & Press Releases
Fundraiser Supports community targeted for water board enforcement
“Support your Neighbors” BBQ on Aug. 19
A drive-through chicken barbecue on Sunday, Aug. 19 is a community fundraiser for all property owners sent notices of Violation in May, and those randomly selected by the water board for enforcement.
All proceeds from the “Support Your Neighbors” event will benefit the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund (PZLDF) enforcement appeal filed May 25th.
Chicken dinners are $10. Tickets are on sale now for the “Take Out” barbecue, which will be held between 3 p.m. and 6 p.m. at the South Bay Community Center, 2180 Palisades Ave. Call 534-1913
Individual’s homes and businesses still face a significant threat of enforcement based on the water board issuance of individual Cease and Desist Orders as recently as May 10, 200, and threats of further enforcement action against the rest of the community pending the outcome of the 218 vote. “The enforcement threat looms for the rest of the community as large as ever, according to Chris Allebe, and like those of us with the misfortune of being arbitrarily selected; it’s a real and ever-present part of our lives and does not go away.”
The event is organized through Citizens for Clean Water. The group, which spearheads the legal defense fund, is dedicated to clean water, regulatory compliance, and protection of property rights.
For those unable to attend the event, donations to the legal defense fund may be dropped off at Coast National Bank or mailed to PO Box 6095, Los Osos CA 93412. Checks may be made payable to PZLDF. Or donate online at www.pzldf.org.
For more information, call 534-1913.
# # #
ALSO
There'll be the regular TAC meeting, Monday July 30, 7 – 9:30 pm. in Los Osos Community Center.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Friday, July 27, 2007
Tell Me, Daddy, Was That Masked Man Robin Hood, Or Just Playing Him On TV?
So, I’m reading the latest Bay News, and there’s Jack Beardwood’s front page story, “Deer Killed With DFG’s Blessings,” complete with photo of a dead-as-a-doornail doe on the ground with an arrow sticking out of her neck.
O.K, so it turns out that a doe and her two fawns (along with, no doubt, other deer) have been coming down out of the hills for din-din in the Pecho Road area of Los Osos to raid various farms and, continues the story, “Other businesses in the area have had deer eating into their profits too. Hope Merkle, manager of the neighboring Los Osos Valley Nursery, said they have suffered about $5,000 in losses since February, due to the activity of five or six deer. Losses include $700 in avacdao plants, peas , petunias, geraniums, and apple trees. The deer also destroyed 40 rose bushes just before Mother’s Day. Price was $26 apiece. Despite their losses, she said they decided not to pursue a depredation permit.”
However, there are “commercial agricultural operations” out in that neck of the woods, full of “fruit trees, tomatoes and asparagus [that] had been eaten heavily by deer,” and the story implied that an [unnamed landowner] was the one who asked for and was granted a “depredation permit,” that is, a permit by Fish and Game that would allow the person in question to kill the deer that are munching up his crops.
Still O.K. Too bad, but, O.K. It happens. As the story notes, “When wildlife loses its fear of humans, there are harsh consequences, said F&G warden Lt. Dean] Hileman. For that reason, it is unlawful to feed deer and other wildlife. Deer attract mountain lions – their natural predators – and bucks that are no longer afraid of humans can become dangerous.”
“What I want to do is educate people on how important it is to keep our wildlife wild,” he said. “When we start making pets out of wildlife, whether intended or not, this will ultimately result in their demise. It is very unfortunate that wildlife has to suffer because of human interaction. We don’t want the two fawns stranded because their mom got shot.”
All too true, Lt. Hileman, all too true. But, then I get to this part in the story, the part about “an arrow embedded in [the doe’s] neck,” and this capper: The shooter apparently “used dogs to track the injured [doe, the one with the arrow in her neck] but gave up after it escaped to vacant land to the west of the nursery.”
Uh, so, let’s see if we have this straight; landowner gets fed up with depredations by deer, in this case a doe that apparently had fawns, said deer, that may or may not have been the crop muncher out of, apparently, a bunch of deer in the area that have gotten used to showing up because the humans didn’t make a point of shooing them away, fencing them out, or are growing edible stuff that hungry deer can’t resist, so the fed up landowner gets a depredation permit then goes out with a bow and arrow and shoots the doe through the neck, the doe runs because it wasn’t a clean shot, suffers God knows how long until she likely slowly bleeds to death and the shooter can’t find the body, even with dogs, and apparently doesn’t know about the fawns, and the doe finally dies?
Now, the questions: How many people do you know are dead shots with a bow and arrow? How many people do you know who THINK they are dead shots with a bow and arrow, fashion themselves Robin Hood, go shoot a deer and miss the clean kill-shot (hint: It’s not the neck, try lower down and towards the rear and hope your arrow doesn’t bounce off the ribcage?) so the animal end us with an arrow sticking out of it, runs away, thrashes around and dies slowly?
Right. I know a lot of Robin Hood wannabes, but very few who can make the cut to being the real thing.
So, do we need to be asking Fish & Game whether allowing civilians to hunt down deer with bow & arrows is actually a humane way to go? Lord knows, having some Los Ososian wandering around with a high-powered rifle is even creepier, but . . .
For now, the fawns are apparently old enough to forage on their own, but with no mom, they’ll likely run into trouble and end up either road kill or dinner for a hungry coyote or mountain lion. As Lt. Hileman said, “there are harsh consequences” when wildlife lose their fear of humans.
The story notes that F&G, “In anticipation of a public outcry caused by the killing of the deer” . . . “would hold a public meeting to address concerns. No date has been set but it would likely be held at the South Bay Community Center.”
Oh, goodie, can’t wait for THAT meeting. You thought Sewer War Meetings got lively, I can only imagine what that one will be like.
One serious question I will have is this: Since there are actually very few dead-eye dicks in the world, and even fewer Robin Hoods, instead of issuing “depredation permits” to people of, uh, unproven bushcraft skills – especially for use of bow and arrow, a notoriously sloppy weapon in untrained hands – would it have been safer, easier, and more humane to call in a F&G trained tracker/hunter for, at least, a clean kill?
Yeah, I know, too expensive, I’m sure.
Well, if nothing else, the meeting may be able to educate people out of their Disney Mind Frame – it’s not Bambi, Mother Nature is not kind, and the Law of Unintended Consequences are always in play.
So, I’m reading the latest Bay News, and there’s Jack Beardwood’s front page story, “Deer Killed With DFG’s Blessings,” complete with photo of a dead-as-a-doornail doe on the ground with an arrow sticking out of her neck.
O.K, so it turns out that a doe and her two fawns (along with, no doubt, other deer) have been coming down out of the hills for din-din in the Pecho Road area of Los Osos to raid various farms and, continues the story, “Other businesses in the area have had deer eating into their profits too. Hope Merkle, manager of the neighboring Los Osos Valley Nursery, said they have suffered about $5,000 in losses since February, due to the activity of five or six deer. Losses include $700 in avacdao plants, peas , petunias, geraniums, and apple trees. The deer also destroyed 40 rose bushes just before Mother’s Day. Price was $26 apiece. Despite their losses, she said they decided not to pursue a depredation permit.”
However, there are “commercial agricultural operations” out in that neck of the woods, full of “fruit trees, tomatoes and asparagus [that] had been eaten heavily by deer,” and the story implied that an [unnamed landowner] was the one who asked for and was granted a “depredation permit,” that is, a permit by Fish and Game that would allow the person in question to kill the deer that are munching up his crops.
Still O.K. Too bad, but, O.K. It happens. As the story notes, “When wildlife loses its fear of humans, there are harsh consequences, said F&G warden Lt. Dean] Hileman. For that reason, it is unlawful to feed deer and other wildlife. Deer attract mountain lions – their natural predators – and bucks that are no longer afraid of humans can become dangerous.”
“What I want to do is educate people on how important it is to keep our wildlife wild,” he said. “When we start making pets out of wildlife, whether intended or not, this will ultimately result in their demise. It is very unfortunate that wildlife has to suffer because of human interaction. We don’t want the two fawns stranded because their mom got shot.”
All too true, Lt. Hileman, all too true. But, then I get to this part in the story, the part about “an arrow embedded in [the doe’s] neck,” and this capper: The shooter apparently “used dogs to track the injured [doe, the one with the arrow in her neck] but gave up after it escaped to vacant land to the west of the nursery.”
Uh, so, let’s see if we have this straight; landowner gets fed up with depredations by deer, in this case a doe that apparently had fawns, said deer, that may or may not have been the crop muncher out of, apparently, a bunch of deer in the area that have gotten used to showing up because the humans didn’t make a point of shooing them away, fencing them out, or are growing edible stuff that hungry deer can’t resist, so the fed up landowner gets a depredation permit then goes out with a bow and arrow and shoots the doe through the neck, the doe runs because it wasn’t a clean shot, suffers God knows how long until she likely slowly bleeds to death and the shooter can’t find the body, even with dogs, and apparently doesn’t know about the fawns, and the doe finally dies?
Now, the questions: How many people do you know are dead shots with a bow and arrow? How many people do you know who THINK they are dead shots with a bow and arrow, fashion themselves Robin Hood, go shoot a deer and miss the clean kill-shot (hint: It’s not the neck, try lower down and towards the rear and hope your arrow doesn’t bounce off the ribcage?) so the animal end us with an arrow sticking out of it, runs away, thrashes around and dies slowly?
Right. I know a lot of Robin Hood wannabes, but very few who can make the cut to being the real thing.
So, do we need to be asking Fish & Game whether allowing civilians to hunt down deer with bow & arrows is actually a humane way to go? Lord knows, having some Los Ososian wandering around with a high-powered rifle is even creepier, but . . .
For now, the fawns are apparently old enough to forage on their own, but with no mom, they’ll likely run into trouble and end up either road kill or dinner for a hungry coyote or mountain lion. As Lt. Hileman said, “there are harsh consequences” when wildlife lose their fear of humans.
The story notes that F&G, “In anticipation of a public outcry caused by the killing of the deer” . . . “would hold a public meeting to address concerns. No date has been set but it would likely be held at the South Bay Community Center.”
Oh, goodie, can’t wait for THAT meeting. You thought Sewer War Meetings got lively, I can only imagine what that one will be like.
One serious question I will have is this: Since there are actually very few dead-eye dicks in the world, and even fewer Robin Hoods, instead of issuing “depredation permits” to people of, uh, unproven bushcraft skills – especially for use of bow and arrow, a notoriously sloppy weapon in untrained hands – would it have been safer, easier, and more humane to call in a F&G trained tracker/hunter for, at least, a clean kill?
Yeah, I know, too expensive, I’m sure.
Well, if nothing else, the meeting may be able to educate people out of their Disney Mind Frame – it’s not Bambi, Mother Nature is not kind, and the Law of Unintended Consequences are always in play.
Wednesday, July 25, 2007
Yes, We Have No Water, So Go Right Ahead And Build That Mega-Mansion With Four or Five Bathrooms And Lots Of Non-Xerescaping, No, No, It’s Fine, Take All The Water You Want, Pay No Attention To Those Annoying People Whining That You’re Sucking Up THEIR Water While They’re Stuck In A Moratorium, Bwa-hahahah, Tough Luck Suckers!
Well, ya gotta laugh at the mixed message the BOS sent yesterday. Just prior to voting in all kinds of recommendations to put in place a Severity III Water Shortage Plan (the highest level short of a complete lock-down), the Supes refused to put the kibosh on a controversial mega-mansion a-building outside the PZ here in beleaguered Sewerville. They also refused to listen to LOCAC’s recommendation for a temporary building moratorium until the various water measures can be verified as actually working.
Nope, it’s build first, THEN when the wells run dry, everybody can stand around and say, Well, Dang!
Some other interesting tid-bits at the BOS meeting, and later that night the TAC meeting, concerning both Sewer & Water:
-- A snippet of tape from the recent RWQCB hearing in Watsonville was played. Seems the Board didn’t know what the status was of The Los Osos 45, you know, the 45 homeowners who were singled out for a year of hell and were finally issued CDOs and CAOs. Board thought in some way that these orders were merely “in abeyance,” but weren’t sure, that the Notices of Violation recently sent out to everyone in the PZ were simply notices, that there were no consequences associated with the NOV, (Really? No consequences? So why bother to send them out?), then they chatted about how they couldn’t rescind those 45 CDO/CAO orders without a hearing – a hearing? Oh GAWD, don’t let’s go there, you mean, actually open that can of worms again? – obviously it was an idea that fell with a resounding silent thud – but, oh, well, not to worry, what-ever, it didn’t really matter since that was, like, so yesterday . . . Move along, move along, more tea! More tea! Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the 45 with a legal CDO/CAO on your home, but then you don’t count in this sick game, anyway. You never did.
--The Tri W Permit from the Coastal Commission is now looking slightly weird. First, it’s still not clear to me just who “owns” it – the county? The CSD? One of the things constantly touted about the Tri W project is that it’s “permitted,” but clearly, with closer study by the TAC and the new regs on water reuse, the new rules that may pertain to the Bay now being designated as a State Marine Reserve, the ongoing questions raised by Ron Crawford about “bait & switchy,” the rescinded Statement of Overriding Considerations (no documentation for the “community held values” of having a sewer plant in the middle of town so a park could be attached to it), it’s becoming clear that that permit may now be turning radioactive: Is the Old Project still the Old Project, or has time and regulations morphed the Old Project into something resembling a New Project, which would have to be reviewed by the CC-- Oh GAWD, don’t let’s go there, you mean actually open that can of worms again? – and so forth.
-- Some speakers asked if there could be a split 218 assessment vote – a $2 -3 million assessment to allow for CEQA studies to be done, then a follow up “real” 218 vote for a final project, with known site, size, price tag, etc.
Paavo made it clear that that won’t fly for a couple of reasons: Funding for “studies” would be a “special tax” that would require 2/3 vote. Two-thirds is really hard to get for any project, whereas the regular 218 assessment would only require 50% plus 1. Much easier. So, a mini CEQA ain’t gonna happen.
-- During the due diligence phase (after the 218 is passed) everything that’s on the TAC table and/or on the County table (i.e. companies like Orenco and Pio Lombardo’s Purple Pipe Plan using decentralized plants) are supposed to be due diligenced along with the generalized work done by the TAC, i.e. general STEP, GRAVITY, PONDS, BIOLAC & etc. If everyone keeps their thumbs off the table at that point, and keeps working with solid numbers – beware of GIGO -- there’s a good chance the right project will rise to the top.
When the BOS meeting switched to the Level Three Water Severity portion of the program, a few things popped out:
--First, and most important, it appears that the water purveyors are making good progress in their adjudication process. Golden State Water Co, for example, will be going before the PUC to get rate increases to cover their costs of new wells – moved so as to reduce pumping to the west so as to decrease salt water intrusion, and other plans to utilize the upper aquifer better, again so as reduce over pumping) S & T Mutual (Sunset Terrace) water company was again urged to consider installing water meters on the homes they service (I know, surprising that in this day and age of water scarcity, there’s meterless homes???), and all the water purveyors are moving to structured rates so as to make more water use really, really expensive, so as to encourage conservation.
But the most interesting item, for me, that came out of the BOS meeting, came later that night at the TAC. It became clear that the cost for a Level I water benefit from any sewer project was nearly identical with the costs for a project that delivered a Level II water benefit, so the TAC consensus was, let’s not even waste time with any project that only delivers a Level I.
Furthermore, with full participation of the water purveyors, the county’s various water saving/ retrofit Severity III plans, and by separating out the sewer assessment benefit to be paid to those within the PZ and the water benefit, to be a general benefit assessment to be paid for by all those outside the PZ, (who are getting the benefit of clean water) it may be possible to bring in a project that delivers a Level III water benefit of balancing the basin, but do it at a Level II cost.
So, that’s something to keep an eye on as the process moves along.
-- Also of interest to me, were the folks who are part of “FAIR,” which is composed of vacant lot owners who came to the BOS to urge passage of this water plan. The “FAIR” folks are also going to be an interesting bunch to watch because it’s not known at this point whether or not they’ll get a vote on the sewer assessment – i.e. why be assessed for something you may NEVER get the benefit of, i.e. be able to build a home on your lot even after the sewer is installed because there’s no water. Which also raises other questions: The county allowed homes to be built outside the PZ, homes that have been sucking water out of the aquifer shared by all. Don’t know what’s “fair” about that, except it’s certainly a perfect example of how damaging and short-sighted the PZ was in the first place – a water basin is a water basin. It pays no attention to lines on a map.
Also unknown, if the PZ moratorium is lifted, how will new building permits be allocated? First come, first served? And what happens if people outside the PZ have reduced the resources available to those within the PZ thereby putting some PZ residents permanently out of business? Again, there’s that inherent unfairness with what the RWQCB did with those PZ lines.
--One nice thing about water saving in general, is it’s nearly impossible to get ahold of fixtures that aren’t water saving, unless you go to Canada or somewhere and smuggle in an old gazillion-gallon-a-flush toilet. So whenever anyone builds, remodels or upgrades, they’ll end up improving the situation.
--Another question that really should be looked at: According to the County’s figures, 70% of all water use is indoors, with 30% for outdoor use. Can the county and the RWQCB agree on some kind of safe, effective greywater system that would be allowed for Los Osos that could be installed NOW by homeowners who want to start saving that 30% immediately? Pio’s Purple Pipe Plan promises to do just that, but his proposal won’t be looked at by the TAC, to my knowledge. Let’s hope the County takes a serious look at it before moving ahead, and answers the question, how quickly would an immediate 30% outdoor water use reduction effect salt water intrusion . . . and at what cost . . . compared with the other plans now being looked at.
-- And, of course, the most obvious question that remained hanging in the air: How is it possible that Los Osos went through water severity Level I, then Level II and nobody did anything about it and here we are, ka-boom, Level III and only now is anyone lifting a finger. How is that possible? .
Answer: Silence
And, finally, at the TAC meeting, the Finance Committee held up a bar graph that indicated that when comparing capital costs for any combination of STEP/GRAVITY/and/or/Ponds/Biolac/ OxidationDitch, all those combinations were within a reasonable hailing distance of each other (with STEP being slightly cheaper)
But if you compared those cost combinations with TRI W, TRI W flew off the chart. Waaaaaaaaaay more expensive.
Which once again prompts me to say, “Oh Lucy, Jooooo Gotta Lotta ‘Splainin Toooo Doooo……”
Oh, and almost forgot: The July-August edition of The Rock (www.rockofthecoast.com) is out, with interviews with several Sewer Experts & Citizens.
Well, ya gotta laugh at the mixed message the BOS sent yesterday. Just prior to voting in all kinds of recommendations to put in place a Severity III Water Shortage Plan (the highest level short of a complete lock-down), the Supes refused to put the kibosh on a controversial mega-mansion a-building outside the PZ here in beleaguered Sewerville. They also refused to listen to LOCAC’s recommendation for a temporary building moratorium until the various water measures can be verified as actually working.
Nope, it’s build first, THEN when the wells run dry, everybody can stand around and say, Well, Dang!
Some other interesting tid-bits at the BOS meeting, and later that night the TAC meeting, concerning both Sewer & Water:
-- A snippet of tape from the recent RWQCB hearing in Watsonville was played. Seems the Board didn’t know what the status was of The Los Osos 45, you know, the 45 homeowners who were singled out for a year of hell and were finally issued CDOs and CAOs. Board thought in some way that these orders were merely “in abeyance,” but weren’t sure, that the Notices of Violation recently sent out to everyone in the PZ were simply notices, that there were no consequences associated with the NOV, (Really? No consequences? So why bother to send them out?), then they chatted about how they couldn’t rescind those 45 CDO/CAO orders without a hearing – a hearing? Oh GAWD, don’t let’s go there, you mean, actually open that can of worms again? – obviously it was an idea that fell with a resounding silent thud – but, oh, well, not to worry, what-ever, it didn’t really matter since that was, like, so yesterday . . . Move along, move along, more tea! More tea! Unless, of course, you happen to be one of the 45 with a legal CDO/CAO on your home, but then you don’t count in this sick game, anyway. You never did.
--The Tri W Permit from the Coastal Commission is now looking slightly weird. First, it’s still not clear to me just who “owns” it – the county? The CSD? One of the things constantly touted about the Tri W project is that it’s “permitted,” but clearly, with closer study by the TAC and the new regs on water reuse, the new rules that may pertain to the Bay now being designated as a State Marine Reserve, the ongoing questions raised by Ron Crawford about “bait & switchy,” the rescinded Statement of Overriding Considerations (no documentation for the “community held values” of having a sewer plant in the middle of town so a park could be attached to it), it’s becoming clear that that permit may now be turning radioactive: Is the Old Project still the Old Project, or has time and regulations morphed the Old Project into something resembling a New Project, which would have to be reviewed by the CC-- Oh GAWD, don’t let’s go there, you mean actually open that can of worms again? – and so forth.
-- Some speakers asked if there could be a split 218 assessment vote – a $2 -3 million assessment to allow for CEQA studies to be done, then a follow up “real” 218 vote for a final project, with known site, size, price tag, etc.
Paavo made it clear that that won’t fly for a couple of reasons: Funding for “studies” would be a “special tax” that would require 2/3 vote. Two-thirds is really hard to get for any project, whereas the regular 218 assessment would only require 50% plus 1. Much easier. So, a mini CEQA ain’t gonna happen.
-- During the due diligence phase (after the 218 is passed) everything that’s on the TAC table and/or on the County table (i.e. companies like Orenco and Pio Lombardo’s Purple Pipe Plan using decentralized plants) are supposed to be due diligenced along with the generalized work done by the TAC, i.e. general STEP, GRAVITY, PONDS, BIOLAC & etc. If everyone keeps their thumbs off the table at that point, and keeps working with solid numbers – beware of GIGO -- there’s a good chance the right project will rise to the top.
When the BOS meeting switched to the Level Three Water Severity portion of the program, a few things popped out:
--First, and most important, it appears that the water purveyors are making good progress in their adjudication process. Golden State Water Co, for example, will be going before the PUC to get rate increases to cover their costs of new wells – moved so as to reduce pumping to the west so as to decrease salt water intrusion, and other plans to utilize the upper aquifer better, again so as reduce over pumping) S & T Mutual (Sunset Terrace) water company was again urged to consider installing water meters on the homes they service (I know, surprising that in this day and age of water scarcity, there’s meterless homes???), and all the water purveyors are moving to structured rates so as to make more water use really, really expensive, so as to encourage conservation.
But the most interesting item, for me, that came out of the BOS meeting, came later that night at the TAC. It became clear that the cost for a Level I water benefit from any sewer project was nearly identical with the costs for a project that delivered a Level II water benefit, so the TAC consensus was, let’s not even waste time with any project that only delivers a Level I.
Furthermore, with full participation of the water purveyors, the county’s various water saving/ retrofit Severity III plans, and by separating out the sewer assessment benefit to be paid to those within the PZ and the water benefit, to be a general benefit assessment to be paid for by all those outside the PZ, (who are getting the benefit of clean water) it may be possible to bring in a project that delivers a Level III water benefit of balancing the basin, but do it at a Level II cost.
So, that’s something to keep an eye on as the process moves along.
-- Also of interest to me, were the folks who are part of “FAIR,” which is composed of vacant lot owners who came to the BOS to urge passage of this water plan. The “FAIR” folks are also going to be an interesting bunch to watch because it’s not known at this point whether or not they’ll get a vote on the sewer assessment – i.e. why be assessed for something you may NEVER get the benefit of, i.e. be able to build a home on your lot even after the sewer is installed because there’s no water. Which also raises other questions: The county allowed homes to be built outside the PZ, homes that have been sucking water out of the aquifer shared by all. Don’t know what’s “fair” about that, except it’s certainly a perfect example of how damaging and short-sighted the PZ was in the first place – a water basin is a water basin. It pays no attention to lines on a map.
Also unknown, if the PZ moratorium is lifted, how will new building permits be allocated? First come, first served? And what happens if people outside the PZ have reduced the resources available to those within the PZ thereby putting some PZ residents permanently out of business? Again, there’s that inherent unfairness with what the RWQCB did with those PZ lines.
--One nice thing about water saving in general, is it’s nearly impossible to get ahold of fixtures that aren’t water saving, unless you go to Canada or somewhere and smuggle in an old gazillion-gallon-a-flush toilet. So whenever anyone builds, remodels or upgrades, they’ll end up improving the situation.
--Another question that really should be looked at: According to the County’s figures, 70% of all water use is indoors, with 30% for outdoor use. Can the county and the RWQCB agree on some kind of safe, effective greywater system that would be allowed for Los Osos that could be installed NOW by homeowners who want to start saving that 30% immediately? Pio’s Purple Pipe Plan promises to do just that, but his proposal won’t be looked at by the TAC, to my knowledge. Let’s hope the County takes a serious look at it before moving ahead, and answers the question, how quickly would an immediate 30% outdoor water use reduction effect salt water intrusion . . . and at what cost . . . compared with the other plans now being looked at.
-- And, of course, the most obvious question that remained hanging in the air: How is it possible that Los Osos went through water severity Level I, then Level II and nobody did anything about it and here we are, ka-boom, Level III and only now is anyone lifting a finger. How is that possible? .
Answer: Silence
And, finally, at the TAC meeting, the Finance Committee held up a bar graph that indicated that when comparing capital costs for any combination of STEP/GRAVITY/and/or/Ponds/Biolac/ OxidationDitch, all those combinations were within a reasonable hailing distance of each other (with STEP being slightly cheaper)
But if you compared those cost combinations with TRI W, TRI W flew off the chart. Waaaaaaaaaay more expensive.
Which once again prompts me to say, “Oh Lucy, Jooooo Gotta Lotta ‘Splainin Toooo Doooo……”
Oh, and almost forgot: The July-August edition of The Rock (www.rockofthecoast.com) is out, with interviews with several Sewer Experts & Citizens.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
I Demurrer, You Demurrer, We All Demurrer
Yes, it’s Alice in Wonderland Time again, time for more tea and some Funny Juice and Riddles: How is a raven like a writing desk? How can a judge review an administrative record that isn’t there? Does he seek it here? Does he seek it there? Does he seek it everywhere, that Damned Elusive Pimpernel? And just when did RWQCB’s Roger Briggs get downgraded from “critical” to . . . Roger Who?
Your Attorney General at work. Makes one feel all warm and safe, knowing that he’s on the job protecting the rights of citizens from run amok regulators, doesn’t it?
Press release from PZLDF:
Attorney General Office Files Demurrer in Response to Enforcement Appeal
The demurrer is a legal pleading by a defendant that says “you have not pled enough facts to support a lawsuit.” That is the response to the lawsuit filed May 25th that asks the courts to overturn enforcement actions placed on some of the 45 randomly selected homeowners in Los Osos.
The water board, represented by the State attorney general's office, without admitting or denying the allegations made in the appeal, is telling the court that the petition is not sufficient to warrant the court's time.
The demurrer is a tool often used by the water board to delay and defend against a strong case. The Attorney General's challenges to the Petition include attempts to: reduce the number of petitioners and respondents, to eliminate any CDO recipients who wish to preserve their promised anonymity, to limit any review beyond the administrative record which the agency has refused to produce since November of 2006.
The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund, Gail McPherson says . "the Demurrer' and Motion to strike is a weak attempt to get the Judge to Gut the case before a hearing. The pleading seeks to confuse issues, and raise irrelevant claims in order to remove legitimate arguments from the lawsuit. "
If the State can "slice and dice" the appeal, such as denying review of the regulations, which are the very basis for the enforcement, or remove the parties to the action, it is worth the shot. By tossing in irrelevant commentary in as “facts” some issues might be removed. If these are critical points, the State can develop an advantage before a Judge ever hears the case.
One example is the water board says the Court cannot require the water board to produce the administrative record. Then with circuitous logic states. "until this court has reviewed the administrative record, it should not grant Petitioner's relief (including their prayer requesting preparation of the administrative record)".
Another example of obfuscation is a writ filed by Sullivan and Associates in November 2006, on behalf of the homeowners, in which the Attorney general's office argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to review the water board's proceedings until after cease and desist orders were issued. Now they argue the Court has no jurisdiction to declare that the challenged enforcement actions are unenforceable, and violate Petitioner's constitutional and statutory rights.
The same writ previously asked for key witness Roger Briggs' presence at the enforcement hearings in December 2006. At the beginning of the enforcement hearings, the water board attorney, Lori Okun, characterized the executive officer, Briggs to be a critical witness to the prosecution case, yet he was not available to the defendants for depositions or testimony at the enforcement hearings. The attorney general's office argued and the court ruled this could be brought up after the board hearing.
Now the demurrer claims their actions were already found constitutional and the court still can't review Water Board orders.
Morongo v RWQCB [excerpt below]
On April 28th 2006, A motion to dismiss was filed by Steven Onstot, attorney defending the Los Osos Community Services District in the individual enforcement hearings. This was based on a higher court decision that the water board attorney could not serve to advise both the prosecution and the hearing board.
The Board denied the motion, but Lori Okun was removed from the case based on a possible procedural conflict in May 2006. Recently the decision that was the basis for the motion to dismiss was upheld by the courts, and its principles still apply.
The water board has made it clear that the enforcement could cost Los Osos residents their homes if a 218 vote is not passed and a sewer system build by 2011. Those with the enforcement orders believe both the basis for the enforcement (Resolution 83-13 that limited construction of homes built after 1988), as well as the procedural violations to due process and civil rights are subject to judicial review.
The response to the demurrer and motion to strike is August 9, 2007, and the demurrer will be argued before the Judge Aug 22, 2007.
For more information
Citizens for Clean Water PZLDF Gail McPherson 805-459-4535 or 805-534-1913
Intro excerpt from Morongo v RWQCB:
Is a water right holder facing license revocation by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) deprived of due process of law when the revocation is being prosecuted by the same attorney who simultaneously acted as legal advisor to the Water Board in an unrelated administratiave proceeding? The trial court answered this question in the affirmative. Relying on Quintero v. City of Santa Ana (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th. 810 Quintero) as conttrolling prescedent, the court issued a writ of mandate ordering the disqualification of Water Board Attorney Samantha Olsen as a prosecutor in the case.
The Water board appeals, claiming that (1) Quintero was wrongly decided and should not be followed by this court, and (2) Quintero is distinguishable and did not require disqualification of Attorney Olson from acting as prosecutor in the revocation proceeding.
We decline the Water Board's invitation to part company with Quintero. We also conclude that the trial court correctly allowed Quintero and other precedents in ordering Attorney Olson disqualified. We shall affirm.
Yes, it’s Alice in Wonderland Time again, time for more tea and some Funny Juice and Riddles: How is a raven like a writing desk? How can a judge review an administrative record that isn’t there? Does he seek it here? Does he seek it there? Does he seek it everywhere, that Damned Elusive Pimpernel? And just when did RWQCB’s Roger Briggs get downgraded from “critical” to . . . Roger Who?
Your Attorney General at work. Makes one feel all warm and safe, knowing that he’s on the job protecting the rights of citizens from run amok regulators, doesn’t it?
Press release from PZLDF:
Attorney General Office Files Demurrer in Response to Enforcement Appeal
The demurrer is a legal pleading by a defendant that says “you have not pled enough facts to support a lawsuit.” That is the response to the lawsuit filed May 25th that asks the courts to overturn enforcement actions placed on some of the 45 randomly selected homeowners in Los Osos.
The water board, represented by the State attorney general's office, without admitting or denying the allegations made in the appeal, is telling the court that the petition is not sufficient to warrant the court's time.
The demurrer is a tool often used by the water board to delay and defend against a strong case. The Attorney General's challenges to the Petition include attempts to: reduce the number of petitioners and respondents, to eliminate any CDO recipients who wish to preserve their promised anonymity, to limit any review beyond the administrative record which the agency has refused to produce since November of 2006.
The Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund, Gail McPherson says . "the Demurrer' and Motion to strike is a weak attempt to get the Judge to Gut the case before a hearing. The pleading seeks to confuse issues, and raise irrelevant claims in order to remove legitimate arguments from the lawsuit. "
If the State can "slice and dice" the appeal, such as denying review of the regulations, which are the very basis for the enforcement, or remove the parties to the action, it is worth the shot. By tossing in irrelevant commentary in as “facts” some issues might be removed. If these are critical points, the State can develop an advantage before a Judge ever hears the case.
One example is the water board says the Court cannot require the water board to produce the administrative record. Then with circuitous logic states. "until this court has reviewed the administrative record, it should not grant Petitioner's relief (including their prayer requesting preparation of the administrative record)".
Another example of obfuscation is a writ filed by Sullivan and Associates in November 2006, on behalf of the homeowners, in which the Attorney general's office argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to review the water board's proceedings until after cease and desist orders were issued. Now they argue the Court has no jurisdiction to declare that the challenged enforcement actions are unenforceable, and violate Petitioner's constitutional and statutory rights.
The same writ previously asked for key witness Roger Briggs' presence at the enforcement hearings in December 2006. At the beginning of the enforcement hearings, the water board attorney, Lori Okun, characterized the executive officer, Briggs to be a critical witness to the prosecution case, yet he was not available to the defendants for depositions or testimony at the enforcement hearings. The attorney general's office argued and the court ruled this could be brought up after the board hearing.
Now the demurrer claims their actions were already found constitutional and the court still can't review Water Board orders.
Morongo v RWQCB [excerpt below]
On April 28th 2006, A motion to dismiss was filed by Steven Onstot, attorney defending the Los Osos Community Services District in the individual enforcement hearings. This was based on a higher court decision that the water board attorney could not serve to advise both the prosecution and the hearing board.
The Board denied the motion, but Lori Okun was removed from the case based on a possible procedural conflict in May 2006. Recently the decision that was the basis for the motion to dismiss was upheld by the courts, and its principles still apply.
The water board has made it clear that the enforcement could cost Los Osos residents their homes if a 218 vote is not passed and a sewer system build by 2011. Those with the enforcement orders believe both the basis for the enforcement (Resolution 83-13 that limited construction of homes built after 1988), as well as the procedural violations to due process and civil rights are subject to judicial review.
The response to the demurrer and motion to strike is August 9, 2007, and the demurrer will be argued before the Judge Aug 22, 2007.
For more information
Citizens for Clean Water PZLDF Gail McPherson 805-459-4535 or 805-534-1913
Intro excerpt from Morongo v RWQCB:
Is a water right holder facing license revocation by the State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) deprived of due process of law when the revocation is being prosecuted by the same attorney who simultaneously acted as legal advisor to the Water Board in an unrelated administratiave proceeding? The trial court answered this question in the affirmative. Relying on Quintero v. City of Santa Ana (2003) 114 Cal. App. 4th. 810 Quintero) as conttrolling prescedent, the court issued a writ of mandate ordering the disqualification of Water Board Attorney Samantha Olsen as a prosecutor in the case.
The Water board appeals, claiming that (1) Quintero was wrongly decided and should not be followed by this court, and (2) Quintero is distinguishable and did not require disqualification of Attorney Olson from acting as prosecutor in the revocation proceeding.
We decline the Water Board's invitation to part company with Quintero. We also conclude that the trial court correctly allowed Quintero and other precedents in ordering Attorney Olson disqualified. We shall affirm.
Friday, July 20, 2007
REMINDER
Monday, July 23 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington Mutual Bank on Los Osos Valley Road, Rob Miller and/or Paavo Ogren are supposed to be presenting information and answer questions on the proposed 218 sewer vote.
Tuesday, July 24, 2:00 p.m. in the board of Supervisor's chamber, downtown SLO, the BOS will be discussing the water severity situation in Los Osos. Since the Hideous Los Osos Sewer Wars are all about WATER (or lack of same) this will be a critical meeting.
Tuesday, July 24, 7:00 p.m. South Bay Community Center, Los Osos: TAC meeting on the Viable Project Alternatives (Chapter 7)
Actually, hope you'll plan to attend all meetings, since they're certainly linked. It's getting interesting in the assessment considerations as to what will happen to property owners of empty lots: if there's no water, they can't develop those lots. Will they get a 218 vote even though they get no present "benefit," and possibly may never get a benefit and never get to develop? Or do they get a vote and thereby get to influence a vote to get a sewer built, then with the sewer moritorium lifted, push for imported water (at additional $$) so they can develop? And are there alternative systems being looked at that get to the heart of recharge/stopping saltwater intrusion/purple pipe?
All of which goes to the heart of . . . water, water, nowhere, nor not a drop to drink.
Monday, July 23 at 7:00 p.m. at the Washington Mutual Bank on Los Osos Valley Road, Rob Miller and/or Paavo Ogren are supposed to be presenting information and answer questions on the proposed 218 sewer vote.
Tuesday, July 24, 2:00 p.m. in the board of Supervisor's chamber, downtown SLO, the BOS will be discussing the water severity situation in Los Osos. Since the Hideous Los Osos Sewer Wars are all about WATER (or lack of same) this will be a critical meeting.
Tuesday, July 24, 7:00 p.m. South Bay Community Center, Los Osos: TAC meeting on the Viable Project Alternatives (Chapter 7)
Actually, hope you'll plan to attend all meetings, since they're certainly linked. It's getting interesting in the assessment considerations as to what will happen to property owners of empty lots: if there's no water, they can't develop those lots. Will they get a 218 vote even though they get no present "benefit," and possibly may never get a benefit and never get to develop? Or do they get a vote and thereby get to influence a vote to get a sewer built, then with the sewer moritorium lifted, push for imported water (at additional $$) so they can develop? And are there alternative systems being looked at that get to the heart of recharge/stopping saltwater intrusion/purple pipe?
All of which goes to the heart of . . . water, water, nowhere, nor not a drop to drink.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
