New Math
Recalled Los Osos CSD director, Gordon Hensley, Stuart Denker and a new group of dreamers wanting to save the dream of having a sewer plant in the middle of their town and calling themselves Taxpayers Watch filed a lawsuit to stop the CSD from stopping the contractors from digging holes in the ground. Judge Hilton set Friday, Oct 7 for the “ex parte” hearing since the previous hearing was so rushed that the CSD’s official lawyer didn’t have sufficient notice to make it to the court in time.
As my previous post notes, the Taxpayer’s Watch attorney hadn’t bothered to read the contract with the various companies digging holes in the ground here in Los Osos, and was unaware that Section 15 was in the contract and had been invoked – that was a “no reason needed” stand down for up to 90 days, no harm, no foul. Quel embarrassments!
On this go round, Ms. Kate M. Neiswender of the Law Office of KM Neiswender, Ventura, presented several points, including a very interesting plea that went something like this: By standing idle, the contactors are getting paid gazillions a day to do nothing, thereby bleeding the taxpayers dry (not mentioning, of course, her client Hensley caused that very financial bleed out to commence by refusing to wait until after the election before setting everyone to work digging holes in the ground, thereby gambling with the taxpayers money – which she now claims he’s so worried about – that the recall would fail. It didn’t and all the money the recalled Directors gambled on went tumbling down the holes in the ground they ordered dug.) and her clients want this stopped so they demand that the judge intervene and force the contractors to get back to work digging holes in the ground and laying pipe. Then, while they’re busy laying pipe, the CSD can look around for another sewer plant site or consider other options, but that pipe will be popped in the ground, miles and miles of it, zipping open one street after another, hooking up laterals to house, world without end, Amen. All in an effort to SAVE MONEY.
What’s wrong with that, you may ask? Well, all the pipe that’s already been laid in the ground is gravity flow pipe of a certain size and the entire street design is laid out to run in certain directions with lift and pumping stations planned for a sewer plant that was to be located in the middle of town. If the sewer plant were magically to be moved out of town, much of that pipe might have to be dug up and fiddled with. Or if the community voted on building another type of project – say, a STEP/STEG project that utilizes much smaller bore pipe – all the pipe – miles and miles of it that Ms. Neiswender wants laid right now quick-quick would have to be dug up and replaced .
Now, can anyone explain to me how that would save money? Yes, it must be new math.
In either case, the Judge dismissed the case for a very simple reason. He didn’t feel a private party (Hensley, Taxpayers Watch, et al) had standing to bring suit to require the courts to intervene in what Judge Hilton clearly saw was a legislative and regulatory dogfight: i.e. the CSD vs the RWQCB. In short, the law gave the Regional Water Quality Control Board jurisdiction over this matter as well as enforcement options, none of which required a court to intervene. But, Ms. Neiswender was free to file again if she wished.
Of greater interest was the Tribune headline that morning, which can best be described as:
Mommy, Why Is The Tribune Acting As A Shill For The Regional Quality Control Board By Running Scary Headlines But Forgetting To Mention THE REST OF THE STORY?
The Oct 7 story took as its text a letter written by the Regional Board’s Executive Office, Roger Briggs (a staff member, not a Board member), that asks the Board (not staff) to consider fining Los Osos and threatens to ask that individual homeowners be sued, unless the CSD agrees to “support completion of THIS (emphasis mine) wastewater project” and demanded that the CSD also continue “to defend against appeal of the recent Superior Court ruling invalidating the facility location initiative.” That is, a staff officer of a regulatory body, the Regional Board, is demanding that the CSD build a certain specific project and is also demanding they do certain things regarding a voter sponsored initiative concerning the specific location of that project.
What’s interesting about the letter, and most interesting about the Trib’s story, is the several items left out.
First, it is the Board, not Briggs, that will decide what will happen at its hearing in December. Second, to my knowledge, the RWQCB is forbidden from telling a community what to build, where to locate it or how much it will cost. (This has been consistently “wink-nudge” ignored in the case of Los Osos.) Third, to my knowledge, just as Judge Hilton noted that there was no authority for him to intervene between the CSD and the RWQCB, by what authority does the RWQCB now claim they can demand intervention by the CSD between the voters and their initiatives?
Also gone missing in the Tribune’s story is this: At the Oct 6th CSD meeting, quasi-sort- of- General Manager Bruce Buel referenced for the new CSD the Time Schedule Order No. 00-131 Petition from the State Water Resources Control Board. According to Buel, this petition can “defend against fines,” for an interesting reason.
Ever since 2001, the CSD has asked for and been granted a request to hold in abeyance the original failure to meet its original time schedule and every year since that waiver was re-issued, 2002, 2003, 2004, etc. The petition was requested because “additional time will be needed to resolve remain[ing] issues relating to this petition.”
In short, for years the CSD has been unable to meet the original time schedule for a variety of real-world reasons and has been non-compliant and could have been fined gazillions at any time during that period. But it wasn’t. Why? Because it had reasonable, real-world, real-time “issues” that needed resolving. A voter initiative and a new CSD Board would certainly rank as real-world issues that would need “additional time” to resolve. So the question would have to be, since the RWQCB cannot dictate type of sewer plant or placement, all they’re left with is a time schedule and if they’ve granted extensions for years, why not now, since the intention of the new CSD is to proceed with a project, it just needs more time – exactly what the old CSD requested and was granted, year after year.
(Claiming that all these fines and threats are needed now because pollution is so serious that we’re all gonna die in the streets like dawgs, also ignores another RWQCB ruling (#83-12), made at the same time as #83-13, and that was the requirement that the CSD form a Septic Tank Management District. For years, they did nothing. And the RWQCB never demanded enforcement. Nothing. Zip. How much pollution from old, leaking, un-repaired tanks went on all these years, ignored by a Board that claims that water quality and water protection are its only goal?)
Second, regarding the Tribune’s story of scaring people to death, what also went missing was the July 9, 2004 RWQCB staff report that could be called, “Oh, Damn, Whatever Shall We Do About That ^%^$%*(* Los Osos?” Pages long, it listed the things RWQCB could do and then why those things were simply not feasible. The report was inadvertently funny because with every page a reader could sense the growing frustration of the writer. And it went from the sublime to the unintentionally silly.
For example, the RWQCB can fine the CSD gazillions. If the CSD goes bankrupt, there’ll be no money, no wastewater project, no “moving forward,” no nothing. Since the voters would have to vote to dissolve even a bankrupt CSD, that would mean more delay. Since the stated goal of the RWQCB isn’t to punish and avenge and destroy, but to get the waters clean (a goal shared by the vast majority of Los Ososians – Dreamers & Recallers alike.), bankrupting the community is counterproductive. True, it would transfer money needed to build a sewer project and put it in the pocket of the RWQCB, but that begs a question: Is the idea here just regulatory extortion? Or agency help in getting this community sewered with a project the community wants?
Even more interesting is the problem faced by retaliating against single homeowners. Unless the RWQCB has managed to suspend the Constitution of the United States, everyone in Los Osos is innocent of nitrate pollution of the upper aquifer until proven guilty. So, how would such retaliation/suing/enforcement actually be done?
Would RWQCB hire armed thugs break into your home and pour tracer die down each and every toilet in town, then drill test wells to track the water as it filtered through the ground? Would the Water Quality goon squad also take a DNA swab from your cheek -- sans search warrant -- so they could further create an unbreakable chain of evidence that wastewater B can be directly linked to criminal homeowner B?
To my knowledge, citizens cannot be swept into a bundle and prosecuted on some generalized charge (Somebody on your block robbed a liquor store so we’re jailing the entire block and charging you all with robbery.), so the RWQCB would have to prove that every home in the prohibition zone is polluting. Do they have the staff and resources needed to do that?
Weirder still, since by its own definition (30’ to groundwater) certain homes and tracts of homes in the prohibition zone are now exempt from sewering, what would happen if they found other homes that were also more than 30’ from groundwater and so weren’t polluting? Would such a house-by-house testing result in a checker-board town whose citizens could legally demand that they’ll be damned if they’ll stand by to be hanged for goats when it turns out they’re actually sheep, and so would legally be allowed to opt-out of a sewer plan thereby making a hash of any plan to sewer?
As the report continued, it got to the slightly silly: Demanding a cease and desist order shutting everyone’s toilets down. That idea didn’t go far since it noted that there weren’t enough porta-potties in the county to make that a practical solution. Plus, it was doubtful that the County Health Dept would allow such a thing since it would endanger the health and life of sick people who couldn’t be expected to traipse out into the cold to go pee.
All of the above went missing in the Tribune’s story. So, I called Bill Morem, the editorial page Editor, and asked, How come? He promised to look into those interesting documents and see if maybe the paper that can devote a gazillion pages to a movie star who’s been dead 50 years might manage to muster up the rest of the story, since informing its readers with a balanced story should be the Trib’s job, not propagandizing or shilling or sensationalizing a complex and serious issue in order to stampede people into making silly decision.
A fully informed citizenry can make good decisions. A terrorized, misinformed, spun, and gulled community is simply a sitting duck for no end of manipulation and deceit. Sheep dogs herd sheep by intimidation alone. Bear dogs need a whole different strategy.
I can only hope the Bearish Folk of Los Osos are courageous enough to ask a whole lot of follow-up questions that must be asked whenever someone says . . . IF.
If, what, then what?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
Wonderful article Ann. But I fear that going to the Telegram Trivial was a waste of time. They must be pretty puckered up eating all those sour grapes after getting dissed by the voters of L.O. I asked around and I couldn't find anybody that read the entire Jame Dean extravaganza. I did notice that they didn't publish one letter thanking them for that literary blockbuster. There were a few who wrote HUH? The TT has, in my opinion, become very complacent, It appears that nobody that works there even bothers to ask "why"fsh
"The Times Trivial". Word. This rag has been a pro developement schill since forever. No objectivity whatsoever regarding the issues at hand. For YEARS!
Yet despite all the powers that be. Los Osos has had its say. I suspect that the Boondogle's supporters will continue their ego ( and fear?)driven hypocrasies against our duly elected CSD board. I suspect that they are going to find it a bit harder now that they do not have a publicly funded propaganda machine at their disposal. I also have a suspicion that the editorial staff of the "Trivial" (LMFAO)will contnue to strive to take up that slack for them. Ann you scooped them like ice cream on the law suit...which is really not suspicious at all.
Telegram Trivial . . . Bwahahahah. Funny. No, not funny. Sad. Part of the problem is that there are no "real" reporters covering the Los Osos sewer beat and the few who do wander out here are children (bless them, I mean no disrespect) who have absolutely NO knowledge or "institutional memory" of anything about this issue so they don't know when they're leaving stuff out because they didn't know it should have been there in the first place. And as the older reporters leave, newer ones come on and they're even more clueless.
Bill Morem, on the other hand, has no excuse. He knows.
Well, we'll see if he does a follow up story on the missing bits.
I'm sure he will, look for it in the classified section, printed in swahili, or maybe on one of those horrible tear off stickers, or probably right under one, that way when you remove the sticker it takes the print off too. If they didn't have the comics page they wouldn't be worth the 50 cents.
From the lips of lambs-
Who wants to hit this slowly pitched softball? Ann? Ron?
Ann,
In your desire to spin one side of the story you are oversimplifying the situation at least as much as the TT did.
The RWQCB and the SWRB have told their staff to do what is necessary to fine the CSD if the CSD chooses to delay implementation of the solution they agreed to implement ASAP. You suggest that a new board and Measure B are beyond the control of the CSD in much the same way as various lawsuits were beyond their control. The state has already indicated that changing board membership is not something beyond the CSD's control. In other words, the CSD is a legal entity which is required to follow up on its committments. If the board membership changes, the obligations don't.
I suspect that if the current CSD board chose not to continue to fight Measure B's legality in court (so that we could determine which parts of Measure B, if any, are legal and binding on the CSD) the state would view this as evidence that the issue is not beyond the control of the CSD. That is, the CSD has the opportunity to fight B and thus make progress on the current plant ... but if they choose not to, they are choosing delay over the fastest route to the solution. In other words, it would be a choice.
I have no comment on the question of whether the state water people could, should or would fine individual homeowners.
I would argue that the RWQCB should put various fines on hold until 90 days after the construction was put on hold. This would give the new board some time to study the situation and see if they want to proceed with the current project or not.
I would argue that if the new group doesn't come up with a viable (i.e. less expensive, yet still meets RWQCB objectives) plan for "out of town", the best thing for the state to do would be to fine the CSD out of existence. If the CSD cannot cover their costs and needs to go belly-up, it would still be quicker (even with the whole LAFCO sidetrack on the way to a County project) than letting the board stumble around for two years then be recalled by yet another group which claims to be able to do it cheaper.
the board isn't going to stumble around for 100 days, it doesn't have 100 days, it doesn't have 90 days.
They got stuck with the project. They can terminate it and let the CSD get stuck with a debt it can't repay, without a bond. They can continue on 'hold' and incur even more debt that the CSD becomes less able to pay down every day. Or they can proceed with the project.
Their intentions may be noble, and people can utter nonsense about them not being responsible for a situation they didn't want - well, they ran for office, got elected - so they are responsible.
To quote Monty Python from the Life of Brian: "Always look on the bright side of life" (perhaps the 1st line in the 4th verse is especially applicable).
Along those lines, perhaps my scenario is a bit rosy.
Your point is well taken ... even if there are no fines, if the CSD cancels the current construction contracts they would need to find money somewhere to pay the state back and to pay for designing a new system. I've heard it said you can't get blood from a stone. I would submit that it is even harder to get citizens in Los Osos to vote to increase their own taxes. Things would appear better if the new board votes to continue the current construction ... but then they would have to explain why the chose to waste taxpayers money by halting things for some time and spending tons of money to confirm what we already know ... that a system out of town is not cheaper.
In my attempt to be positive, I was being somewhat unrealistic and certainly ignoring the 900 pound gorilla in the room.
Ann also asks "Now, can anyone explain to me how that would save money?" about why it would be a good idea to continue digging holes in the ground if we are going to do another project at another location anyways.
Due to the perhaps unrealistic restrictions in the premise of your question (that we will be doing another project) the answer "no" is pretty much assured.
You are trying to make Gordon's suit look sillier than it actually is. That is unfair.
I don't remember you taking to task those who filed previous lawsuits against the CSD, asking for all sorts of off-the-wall things.
In any case, you asked a question and with suitable modification, the question becomes reasonable and relevant. I will suppose you asked "Now, can anyone explain to me how forcing the current construction to continue would save money?".
Ann, I am glad you asked. The answer is simple ... because Los Osos is between a rock and an even harder place and the cheapest solution is to continue. Some would suppose that a redesign of the collection system or the plant or even a new location could save money. They've not yet shown that any money could be saved at all. Even if it were possibly less expensive, we do know that the costs of the new design, purchase of new land, new EIR and
the rest along with inflation will cause the "less expensive" solution to actually cost more per month than the current system.
So, the lawsuit, even though somewhat silly (after all, the CSD board has the right to suspent this contract, no matter how foolish), if successful, may save the community money.
What makes me amazed here is that no one on the board, that not one of their supporters, that no one at all has told us where they are going to get money to design a new collection system and plant, the one they are telling us will be less expensive.
As to Math ... Ann, what sort of Fuzzy Math are you using when you suggest that the new plant will be less expensive than the current design?
Just musing here,
statement by Sharkey:
. If the board membership changes, the obligations don't
What if it can be proven that state laws were violated in securing those contracts?
Hmmm.
I remember a restraining order issued under quite strange circumstances (oh nevermind)
What if it can be showed that making those obligations were under a precieved duress?
I'm not a writer so maybe Ann could answer better? where is Ron Crawford?
Interesting question ...
First off, without any information that shows there was something illegal, this question you raise is pretty hypothetical.
Even so, let's suppose that your unsubstantiated accusation is true. I would guess that the nature of the illegality would dictate the answer to your question.
As an example, if the contractors literally had a gun to the head of a relative of each of the previous majority before the vote, I suspect that the contracts could be voided.
On the other hand, being between a rock and a hard place ... having the bids come in over the engineering estimate yet still being required to start construction on time ... doesn't count as the sort of duress that would void the contracts.
Supply and demand along with the facts that the political situation in Los Osos was clearly unstable (as witnessed by sewer foes trying to directly contact contractors to threaten them) and that the deadline was looming caused the bids to be too high. If sewer foes didn't fight so much, the bids could have been considerably lower, both due to the fact that the bidding process would have been earlier and due to the fact that the contractors considering whether to bid or not would have viewed the situation as more typical of a government contract.
Nope, Los Osos was screwed left and right during this whole process by the contractors. In fact, the very threat of fines by the RWQCB probably raised the bids simply because the contractors knew they had a captive and desperate audience. Sewer foes didn't help one bit ... while screaming about how evil the situation was, their own actions made it worse.
Where is Ron? Since the election he's been silent. Sort of sad that one of the people who knows the most about some of the history here (even though he is as biased as they come) doesn't seem to be following the new board as closely as he was following the last board.
Los Osos was not screwed by any contractor. That's asinine.
They simply bid a controversial project, and if I were them, I would have alloted extra cost for liability and risk.
Without contractors, you can't build a project. They have just reacted to the conditions set forth by the community - that's the community's fault.
If they had been allowed to bid 12 months ago, their bids might have been $20 mil lower, and there might have been 1-2 more bids.
Part of the reason for the high bids may have been liability and risk ... but I suspect that a large part is because they knew they could get the higher bid simply because of the time deadline.
You may not have a problem with this, but please recognize this is a situation where those contractors who bid knew that even if they bid high, they were likely to win a contract, somewhat like Enron and Reliant during the CA energy crisis.
You are right that the community, through lawsuits, delayed the bids. Some would also say that the CSD delayed things back before 2001 by moving slowly or by making poor choices. I could even argue that without the RWQCB deadline, there would have been less pressure so the bids would have been lower.
In any case, the contractors got a great deal, far better than they would have for a comparable project elsewhere ... even if you factor in extra money for liability and risk.
I have to agree, Sharkey, The people of Los Osos have been screwed, but not just Right and Left, but up and down too. What always amazes me is the quick reaction of some people to demonize others while ignoring the Devil. I guess I just can't say it enough, This whole mess was NOT created by the people that live in Los Osos. It was created by the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors. They, and They alone allowed this community to grow without infrastructure. The county needs to own up to this monument of horrible government, I suspect even Shirley Bianchi is embarrased about whats gone down. Mike Green
Sure, the County supervisors created the mess by allowing a far greater number of homes/acre than should have been allowed without a sewer. Sure, they should have been very quick to build a sewer because of the fact that so many of the properties are so close to the water table and because it is mostly sandy soil (well, some areas have considerable clay as well, but on the balance, it is pretty much a horrible place to have so many septics).
However, didn't the County try to help get a system built in the 70's before the citizens of Los Osos at that time stopped the plan. Didn't the County try two more times with plans to help solve the problem?
Doesn't this absolve the County of their responsibility to some extent?
Personally, I think that because the County collects taxes from Los Osos properties and even they must admit that Los Osos is underserved by County services, they ought to devote perhaps 1% of the property taxes they currently recieve from Los Osos residents to the CSD to pay down whatever construction costs the community incurs. If any properties are re-assessed, I would propose that the Los Osos CSD should get 5% of any increase in tax revinues to the county.
With such a system the County could take some responsibilty for the mess they created but it wouldn't cause too much pain in their budgets. On the other hand, if this money went directly to paying down the construction debt it could make a considerable difference to Los Osos. Far more benefit to the community than whatever the County does for us now.
However, if the current CSD board is unable to get a project going for anything less than the $200/month that the last board got for us, I propose that anyone who voted for the recall and for measure B should pay for the difference. If these people would just put their money where their mouth is, I would be satisfied.
For Inlet, a question: If the new project comes in at $200 a month BUT has very low sludge transport charges, very low O&M costs,and a plan to, say, start Ag Exchange immediately and institute a water conservation plan immediately to stop salt water intrusion, wouldn't that be a "win" since you'll be getting more bang for your buck?
If the new project comes in at $200/month it would seem to be a win for Los Osos. The fact that we would have a plant out of town where most seem to prefer it to be located and the lower monthly costs as well would be great.
On the other hand, as has been discussed elsewhere, getting all that for $200/month per household is unlikely. It is far more likely to run $300/month. In today's newspaper article about the Blakeslee bargaining it suggested the SWRCB feared that starting over from ground zero now would possibly double our monthly bills. They are not idiots there ... they know what it costs to build plants and they know about the ravages of inflation.
Post a Comment