Thursday, October 20, 2005
Speaking of Open Letters...
Ron Crawford at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com has just posted his open letter to Roger Briggs, chief of staff at the Regional Water Quality Control Board office. More history lessons from Ron. And you know what Santana says about "forgetting history. . ."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
You know what Napoleon Bonaparte says about history:
“It is not necessary to bury the truth. It is sufficient merely to delay it until nobody cares.”
Bwa-hahaha. that's wonderful. And, alas, true. And when dealing with governmental rules, it's often only sufficient to bury the truth until the legal "window" to comment or change directions or bring information to officials has closed. Then, no matter what awful lie you uncover or how much evidence you have of fraud or "mistakes," it's too late to legally do anything about it, either in a court of law or before a regulatory Board.
Then everyone has to stand around and watch the train wreck and say, "Gosh, wonder how THAT could possibly have happened?" The answer? Step by step.
Hopefully Churadog, Ron or somebody else can help me out. I've been monitoring the Los Osos sewer drama since early last summer when I passed thru on vacation and decided I wanted to live there. I was so innocent back then. I fell in love with the Los Osos charm and wondered what all the little signs were about. I'm older and wiser now. Before moving to your burg and buying a home I decided I best wait to see how the great sewer brouhaha evolved. Its been fascinating - albeit frightening - reading ever since. For a newbie it all seemed so complex and often confusing. I've found these blogs to be a great source of current information, past history and realistic perspective. Thanks. So I'm pretty much up-to-speed on the current events and how we got here. But I still need a little help. The Tri-W option is clearly seriously flawed in almost every way. Assuming there is still an option to reconsider other alternatives what are those alternatives? Can somebody point me to documentation describing what the other options might be and where they might belocated? For example, I read the comparative analysis of the SLO County Plan versus the Solution Group's Plan (linked off of Ron's SewerWatch blog) but that document doesn't describe where the proposed county facility would be located. It sounds as if the Broderson site would serve as the effluent disposal area for both plans but where did the county propose to place the sewer facility? Clearly nobody knows exactly how things might shake out but is the county plan completely dead? What are the alternatives that the new CSD board would consider if they are given the chance to do so? And exactly where would these alternatives be located? Any help or guidance to other sources is appreciated.
TIA,
The county plan had flaws, too.
Proposals to either put ponds at Broderson or use the injection method of disposal had questions as to their viability & reliability.
I believe the county plant was to be located at Pismo,(ironically near residences and schools).
The andre site is not necessarily that great. It affects coast views. The terrain is not perfect, although better than Tri-W, and there will be a land-use debate over it.
All these other sites east of town are ag conversion, and that will be an issue with the county.
The interesting thing when you read all these old plans and reports; Questa, the project report, etc. is that it really illustrates the less than perfect conditions you have to put a system in Los Osos, which is related to the simple fact that you are putting in a major project in a built of urban town - the town itself is not rural.
That's why no matter what you do it will be expensive.
The Questa report indicates the trade-offs with STEP-STEG, and the inferences about how much cheaper it would be are simply off-base.
It could have been possible to save $15-$25 million off the current collection system by using STEP-STEG, but the trade-off would have been up to $20 million in private property expense for new Septic infrastructure, as well as easement issues for access to Septic tanks and management costs for the collection system.
There would still be solid disposal issues long-term as well.
The benefit would have been to save a lot of electric pumping costs.
The question today is really a financial question, not a technical issue.
Is it worth paying $10-??? million in termination costs, $5 million in design costs, $?? million in fines, $>$20 million in financing costs, $?? million in future inflation costs for the possibility of saving $20-$30 million for another design, especially when it would realistically take probably at least 6 months to a year to have more definitive answers, especially when you have no funding mechanism available except for more bonds by the obligated taxpayers, who weren't the ones to vote in the last election.
Do you really think this town is prepared to approve more funding at this moment in time. Most of the recall supporters will end up screaming bloody murder if that were attempted, and the anti-recall people would just laugh at them.
The other irony of the election is that all the taxpayers outside the prohibition zone have voted to tax themselves for all the losses that are occuring!
Well, if Ann is right and more SRF money will be available and if the SWRCB will sign off on the new group's system ... then the extra in financing costs may partially disappear. On the other hand, inflation will still hit us hard. This is why I support continuing the current project now. Even with the issues it has, I don't think there is much hope that we'll save money by moving the project out of town.
Last Thursday's board meeting was interesting. The key topic seemed to be "how can we justify pushing some of the costs onto people outside the prohibition zone?" The argument was that because they will benefit from cleaner groundwater, they should pay some of the costs. The board was talking as if they were going to ask for a new assessment zone to be created for this purpose.
If, for whatever reason, the RWQCB decided that those inside the prohibition zone are causing the problem, shouldn't those inside the prohibition zone pay for the solution? This new board doesn't seem to think so.
The new board doesn't understand how difficult it is going to be to fund anything, and get taxpayer approval for that funding.
Ann is not right about the SRF loan, she sees the word Revolving in it, and then makes naive statements about how that means you just get back in line.
It doesn't work that way, the Revolving refers to the revolving nature of funds being payed back into it.
There is intense COMPETITION for funds, with agencies throughout the state having to compete for those funds. Our region is small section compared to those from LA, SF, and the Sac/SJ Valleys. The amount LO received required a lot of lobbying to fund a project.
And it's not just applying and getting in line, if you apply when there's a lot of other projects, it gets more difficult. There's a huge number of projects applying RIGHT NOW for funding in the next 2-4 years, and if this loan is lost, LO is going to have difficulty getting funded.
Also, regarding getting people outside the prohibition zone to pay, that has actually just occured by virtue of the district decision to stop the project - those costs get to go to the entire district - because stopping costs cannot be applied solely to the prohibition zone.
I wonder if some of those voters outside of the proh. zone thought about that when they voted to essentially tax themselves by stopping the project. If they did - they'll get what they deserve.
Regarding the Revolving Fund, Public Works forgets that Los Osos is tagged as "high-priority" because of the seriousness of the project,so it's not about to be stuck back at the end of the line. (Unless the SWB wants to delcare that Los Osos water problems aren't serious?? And considering that the latest numbers of the average nitrate levels of the upper aquifer are 10.4 and the state allows 10, one has to wonder why we've been told that if we don't sewer WE'LL ALL DIE IN THE STREETS LIKE DAWGS EEEK! Point 4 as plague? Pretty funny)
As for the folks outside the prohibition zone: When the new state laws pass regarding bringing septics in a compromised watershed under the control of the RWQCB, then the folks now outside the zone are going to be faced with some expensive decisions. As for paying their fair share for cleaning up their water? Why not?
I do agree with Publicworks: This is aces of Follow the Money. There's many ways to skin this cat -- it's not rocket science -- and there's trade-offs with each plan. That's the tragedy here. It was entirely feasible to run, let's say, three side by side plans, then let the voters decide which they wanted to buy. But that could only be done if the people running those plans were HONEST and did not have a dog in the fight so they would have no reason to spin anything one way or the other.
Indeed, one of the most disturbing things about Gary Karner's 1999 date and Ron Crawford's rebuttal (not 1999 but 1998)is exactly that. The CC and RWQB staff had both evaluated and costed out the Ponds of Avalon BEFORE the CSD formation election, but I sure don't recall hearing a peep about those reports, do you? So, it was presented to the community as a choice between the $35 million Ponds versus the $85 million county plan -- NOT the evaluation's $78mil vs. the county's $85 mil. 78 vs.85? What a difference that would have made. There's your tragedy and your question: Why was the community not told this?
The Solutions Group was told that their "cheap" plan would likely not fly by the same group who told the current CSD that they would be fined and lose the SRF money if they stopped construction.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
You've answered your own question very nicely before ... you believe the Solutions Group CSD (SGCSD) to be liars. (You've not yet suggested a good motive ... having one would make your argument more compelling.)
My question is why you are going to hold the one group accountable for being hopeful but not the other. Why shouldn't we blame the out-of-town CSD (OOTCSD) for refusing to listen to the RWQCB and SWRCB?
Dear Inlet, it's not a question of being "hopeful." It's far worse than the solutions group's being told their plan likely wouldn't "fly," but they were "hopeful."
The 1998 Ponds evaluation by the RWQCB and the CC clearly put the price tag at $78 million. The Solutions Group therefore had to have known going into the election, their $35 mil couldn't be honestly justified. Not even close. (If it were the matter of a few million either way, that'd be fine since there's always a certain percentage of leeway, but nearly double?)
As for motivation to lie, that's for you to figure out.
So, what was the motivation of Julie, Lisa, John, Chuck and Steve for the fibs they told us?
They told us that we would not be fined.
They told us that they would move the sewer, no matter what the cost.
They told us we would keep the SRF loan.
They told us they could build a sewer and plant for less than the previous board could do.
They told us that Measure B would give the people a choice even though it restricts our options.
What was their motivation?
In reality, I don't think it is fair to accuse either group of lies ... in fact, that is my point exactly. To accuse someone of lying and make it look like you, the accuser, are anything less than a partisan you need to present ironclad evidence. It is not enough to say that they must have sen a document that claimed $80M ... you need to prove they decided not to reveal this information even though they believed it was true. I claim that my hypothesis that they were simply hopeful is more generous and matches the data just as well.
Along those same lines, the current group is hopeful. I believe they are hoping for something unrealistic and something they've been warned can't work and something that will be more expensive. The people who told the previous CSD that their plan was too expensive are the same people who are telling the current group, just as clearly, that the current group's hopeful plan is unrealistic.
Let's see, so you think the water board is obligated to give more time to a community that was misled in 1998 (which by the way, it is perfectly legal for politicians to not dwell on the negative aspects of their proposals during an election - i.e., as in the current board didn't trumpet the severity of the ensuing legal and financial mess during the election - and it is a severe mess that they actually did have a choice to avoid). In fact, it's also legal to flail around after an election and try to find a way to make or amend a flawed plan work fiancially, legally or other wise. Ya gotta give it to those Los Osos voters - they are astute!
Collectively, the bottom line is that Los Osos has not demonstrated by means, method, or operation that it can provide a wastewater solution - period.
So one will probably be forced upon it either individually or by another entity that can - with the usual smattering of accompanying lawsuits.
Good stuff for budding journalists everywhere.
Dear Inlet, your "list" of things you claim Julie et al have "told us" illustrates perfectly the problems I laid out in my last posting in the previous comment section. You believe your list is correct and accurate and truthful. It isn't.
Fair 'nuff. I wasn't being exactly fair to the current board. I was just venting that they things they seem to support and seem to say don't match up very well with that I see occuring.
I should have said that those who were campaigning at my doorstep for the recall said all those things.
It is probably unfair to ask folks running for political office to keep their campaigners honest and "on message". No one would promise such things that they cannot control.
Dear Ann,
I didn't 'forget' that LO has a high priority rating. You should know better as a journalist than to assume. The negotiating process you're watching unfold could actually result in the loss of the SRF funding permanently, regardless of the rating.
It's interesting that the high priority rating is due to the classification of LO groundwater as impaired. And then we watch as board members and some of the public proclaim the pollution is minimal and there's no need to rush.
Can't have it both ways, buddy.
Dear Public Works, I find it extremely interesting that the average nitrate level was 10.4. The acceptable state level is 10. Do you believe that public entities (and politicians) gin up data in order to make a case so as to scare people into doing something -- hurry hurry -- when, in fact, the world is not coming to an end and there is time to do-do it right. Or that Data X is rapidly morphed into Data Y in order to better suit some entities wishes and need? I've seen it happen often.
Dear Ann,
They are bureaucrats, and no, I don't agree, because the problem started before it got to 10.
I think you actually give too much credit to the 'gin up' abilities of public entities.
The fact that it's 9.86 or 10.15 is not relevant to the issue that once it approached 10, the problem was identified, and that was over 20 years ago. All the data that's been collected supports that, even as some wells seem to report better over time, and some report worse. It's been flat for 15 years, because of the bldg. moratorium - so that PROVES the action of the RWQCB was beneficial to stop the increase in the pollution, but does not fundamentally resolve the pollution.
THAT can only be done by putting low nitrate treated water back in.
Of course organizations use statistics to plead their case. Al Gore bored himself out of the presidency with statistics. Los Osos is a prime example. The greater than 10 levels are used to push a sewer, but at the same time are used to provide funding. The opponents used the close to 10 levels to argue not to rush.
It comes down to making an acceptible decision in an imperfect world, in order to achieve a goal. But ropagating the illusion that the decision rests, or even should rest, solely with Los Osos ignores the jurisdictions of the state, the county, the RWQCB, the coastal commission, funding, the courts, and probably God almighty.
Post a Comment