Tuesday, November 15, 2005
More great reading for Sewer Fans: The CSD's Official Response and Request for Continuance in the Administrative Civil Liability Complaint No. R-302005-0137, better known as the December 1st Regional Water Board's official meeting to consider "fining the CSD out of existence," & etc. is at the CSD office for your review and entertainment. It makes for reading that can best be described as, "verrrrry interesting." Not yet known when it'll be available on the CSD's website. I'm sure Ron over at www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com will have it linked in no time. Read it and snort through your collective noses. Then it's time to start asking some very, very serious questions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Ann - thanks for the tip. Just read through it. Do you think the RWQCB might back off? This is rich!!!
Dear Anonymous, Rich is right. I suspect that little document is just the tip of the iceberg. Not sure when it'll be posted at the CSD. site. I hope everyone will read it and also, they need to read the July 2004 (I think) RWQCB's staff report on various "remdedies & penalties" Not sure if Ron at Sewerwatch has cached that one. THAT one makes really, reeeeely interesting reading.
Here is what is funny ... the LOCSD just put up a link to the ACL compalint response but the link is dead.
Ann, you seem to be down there every so often or at least in the good graces of the people in the office, could you please let them know they should fix the link?
Okay, while the CSD can't get the document up on their webiste properly, I found
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/documents/LosOsosCSDResponsetoACLComplaint.pdf at the CCRWQCB document portion of the SWRCB website.
Enjoy...
Just 10 minutes into reading this pile something interesting jumped out.
See page 5 of the PDF. The LOCSD is still misreading the SRF contract between the SWRCB and the LOCSD. The LOCSD is still claiming they have the right to temporarily suspend work. The original contract (which the CSD is misrepresenting here ... how they think they can misquote the state and have the state not catch on is beyond belief) gives the SWRCB the right to suspend work, not the CSD.
How can the "contract guy" get this one wrong.
What are Dan and Lisa thinking?
I get the distinct feeling that they are simply grasping at straws, trying to deal with the massive ****up of the board's initial action.
Which is why this "breach of contract" issue needs to be settled by a judge before anyone does anything. Otherwise, it's lawsuit city for the next fifty years.
Post a Comment