Calhoun’s Can(n)ons ,The Bay News, Los Osos, CA For Dec 7,2005
Shut Up And Eat Your Gruel, Los Osos! What do you mean, Nuh-UNH?
I have long believed that the world can be divided into two nearly equal basic groups: Adults & Children, or, if you prefer, Wolves & Sheep, or Good Children, who obey & Wicked Children, who disobey and make rude noises with their tongues.
Society runs smoothly because, for the most part, we humans mind our P’s and Q’s, and do as we’re told. There usually is no need for dire threats and our rules and laws and enforcement mechanisms range from polite frowns to bullets in the brain.
Indeed, you can see how perfectly the typical enforcement mechanisms work by watching a Border Collie run a band of sheep. There is no need to nip at a hock. All the dog needs is The Look, and the sheep will panic and run. It’s simple.
I was thinking of this while reading the “Central Coast Water Board Prosecution Staff Rebuttal” to the CSD’s request for a continuance of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Dec. 1st hearing to determine whether Los Osos will be FINED!FINED!FINED!WE’RE ALL GONNA DIE INNA STREETS LIKE DAWGS!
Amidst the legaleze, there on page 10 & 12, was the curiously human heart of this regulatory dance: Los Osos must be decimated as an example for others who might challenge the power of the RWQCB, question the premise that without enforcement you won’t have compliance, and because the citizens of Los Osos, instead of behaving like repentant sinners, are behaving like Wicked Children and are making rude noises with their tongues, so an example must be set, no matter how self defeating or pointless.
In short, the RWQCB’s “Look” had not spooked these particular sheep. Indeed, these wretched ingrates, instead of coming cap in hand (“Oh, Mummy, pleeeeeze, don’t spank, we’re sorry, we won’t do it again.”), these rotten little children from The Dogpatch, disheveled denizens from my Beloved Bangladesh By The Bay, a town with millions and millions of gallons of raw sewage pouring daily down the middle of its unpaved streets, all gushing into Morro Bay where it is killing small children who dare set foot in the deadly water, these unwashed wretched snots had the temerity to affront the dignity of the Regional Board and Staff by coming out with all guns blazing, questioning our authority, questioning our staff’s behavior, questioning our out-of-date facts, challenging our previous decisions, and threatening our majesty and power? Why, the absolute gall!
In a Tribune “Viewpoint,” Andrew Christie, chapter coordinator for the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club, notes something that may have gone missing in all the chest-thumping noise: “The citizens of Los Osos perceived a potentially better solution than the one they had been told they had to accept, and they voted for it.” He then goes on to ask some question of the Board members: “How is a ballot measure that’s voted into law an avoidable delay, how would a fine guaranteeing bankruptcy clean up the estuary, and how would an administrative agency justify attempting to cancel and reverse the results of an election.?”
What the RWQCB may not understand is that sometimes the only way forward is a step back. From day one, the effort to solve Los Osos WATER and wasteWATER problems has zigged and zagged in fits and starts and stops, hit dead-ends, backed up, met unavoidable delays and then more re-starts, but always it has moved forward towards a resolution with the help and hindrance of the RWQCB—hindrance at its refusal to understand how its threats forced a project to be designed and sited before critical studies could be done, and helped because it repeatedly gave both the County and then the various CSD Boards enormous leeway for years for a variety of reasons. Until now, until this Board, this election, this time.
Yet this time, nothing has changed except a missing component has finally been added, a component that should have been in place years ago – a Proposition 218-like assessment vote and/or a Measure B-type vote on a completed plan – either of which will allow this community to choose the final act they want to close this long-running drama.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Ann,
Good of you to mention Christie's Trib viewpoint. You and he have a good point that to have the "best of all possible worlds" plan we have to take a step back and revise our current plan.
However, if we keep taking another look, just to make sure that things are perfect, we'll keep delaying the project. Far be it from me to say that your "we're all gonna die in the streets like dawgs" line is getting tiresome, but ... um ... if we've stopped two projects in the last decade just because we want to do the best for the environment, hasn't the cumulative effect of our stoppage been to harm the environment? Some would say that we need to take a long term approach and that fixing the water right in 10 or 20 years from now is better than a cheap fix now. I would disagree if we are talking about saltwater intrusion. Once the aquifer is gone it is gone. Your "let's continue to delay just so that we can study it one more time" approach is maddening because it makes things worse.
Here's another, perhaps more important question ... when the big news of the day is about the LOCSD's lawsuit against the SWRCB, why is your article primarily about the RWQCB fines instead?
Well, on to the SWRCB lawsuit issue.
My opinion: possibly brilliant but likely the stupidest thing this board has done to date.
Why possibly brilliant? Because it staves off any possible RWQCB fines for some time. If, for some reason (why, I can't imagine, I'm named "Lisa") the LOCSD could appeal the fines to the SWRCB ... but if the LOCSD has a lawsuit against the SWRCB it would seem that the SWRCB isn't in a good place to fairly judge the LOCSD. Hence an appeal.
Why stupid beyond belief? Because if the chance of getting another SRF wasn't already too low, we've just reduced it to zero. Because if we are now going to have to borrow money on the open bond market, we've just bought a higher rate. (Do you know many banks who would loan money to someone suing another bank over a loan issue without come sort of increase in the rate?) A quick analysis says that if we were borrowing $100M at 8.5% instead of 6.5% we would have to now pay an additional $29M in interest over a 20 year period ($18M in real terms for a 5% inflation rate). In monthly terms you we are talking about $25/month per household.
Okay, not the absolute stupidest ... that was taking actions that ultimately lost us the SRF ... stopping construction far too quickly. (I've suggested that they should have sent the SWRCB a letter indicating that because of Measure B they were going to continue to work but change the ordering of the jobs a bit while they fought Measure B in the courts.)
Perhaps their choice to campaign for Measure B was the stupidest thing. Who knows.
Conclusion ... raising the stakes yet again. Presumably this board thinks that the state is not as determined to win as they are. Here's the problem with this strategy in the poker game ... the state has nearly all the chips already and if they want to win, they will win. The LOCSD is essentially gambling that the state will eventually be compassionate and say "okay, have it your way." I would suggest that this is like a criminal telling the judge what to do and hoping the judge says "you are right, your family will be hurt if you are imprisoned, okay, no worries, you don't have to go." Judges typically don't say that but instead "you should have thought about that before you chose to drink and drive." I suspect that when this case is ultimately heard by The Supremes in Ca they will note the SWRCB's oversight errors but will tell the LOCSD that "you should have thought about that before you made your choice to drive drunk."
Dear Inlet, If you had bothered to read the small header at the top of today's Blog entry you would have seen it's the Can(n)on from the Bay News. My deadline for the paper is usually the previous Friday, proof on Monday. This means the paper is put to "bed" before late breaking stories and I won't "jump" ahead of my print deadline here on the blog.
As for commenting on the latest "lawsuit," which was in the new this morning, I believe the report said a judge would rule on it shortly, so we'll see. . . .
So the judge has ruled. The ruling said pretty much "are you freaking kidding me? no way!".
Post a Comment