The Perils of Sewerville Sue, The Sweet Flower of the West, Part 1.
You must pay the rent! Eeeeeee, I can’t pay the rent. You must pay the rent! Eeee, but I can’t pay the rent! Bwa-hahahah, I’ll have the rent, my pretty!
Oh, Dear. Sewerville Sue,The Sweet Flower of the West, is tied to the railroad tracks and, what’s this? Yes, it’s a train a-comin’ in the form of the State Water Board’s demand that Los Osos repay $6.5 million in State Revolving Fund money by 3:30 p.m. today. Oh, what shall our dear girl do?
Well, if it were me, I’d grab my attorney and head into bankruptcy court to have a judge take a look at the original loan because, being amazingly stupid, I’m really, really having a tough time figuring out how in the world that loan (which also involved federal monies as well and so has to follow a slew of federal rules and regs regarding its disbursement) ever got to this town in the first place.
Please consider:
I go into my local bank and sit down across from Mr. Prudent Banker Guy and say, “Gimme a hundred million dollars because ah’m gonna build me a hundred million dollar house.” And Mr. Prudent Banker Guy says, “Sure, whatta ya got for collateral?” And I say, “Well, nothing except I got this old beat up Honda Civic. Got 125,000 miles on her.”
And Mr. Prudent Banker Guy says, “Well, how will you pay the loan back,” and I say, “Waaaalll, I got my job and I’m also fixing to rent out a couple of rooms of my hundred million dollar house once it gets built .” And Mr. Prudent Banker Guy says, “Uh, is the location zoned for that?” and I say, “Uh, not really, and I do have a slew of my neighbors suing me right now over that plan, but heck, pay no attention to them. They’re just a bunch of looney-tunes.” And Mr. Prudent Banker Guy says, “Well, in that case, SURE THING! NO PROBLEM! You can repay the loan once you get the house built and those rooms rented out,” and hands me a couple of suitcases stuffed full of the long green.
So, a few years go by and I find out that all the bids to build the house are 50% over estimate so I accept the bid contracts anyway and go back to see Mr. Prudent Banker Guy and say, “Gimme forty million MORE dollars. I ran into a little cost overrun there. Oh, and by the way, the stockholders of my company are fixin’ to vote in a few months to decide whether to downsize the company I work for and put me out of a job.” And Mr. Prudent Banker Guy says, “SURE THING! NO PROBLEM!” and hands me another couple of suitcases stuffed full of the long green.
Which I proceeded to pound into the ground as fast as I possibly could before – yep, you guessed it – the stockholders voted and I lost my job.
And now – NOW?? -- Mr. Prudent Banker Guy’s whining that he can’t work with me on a compromise deal concerning changing the site for my house because the money he gave me was public money and he has a responsibility to the taxpayers to safeguard all the loans he makes, to make sure they’re secure and prudent and now suddenly he’s worried that I might not be able to pay it back so he’s gonna kill the whole amended deal I thought we had negotiated and demand the money back, including the millions I pounded into the ground as fast as I could before losing my job? I mean, what’s up with that?
Yes, methinks a bankruptcy court would have a fine time with this whole deal. Of course, the CSD could sell the Tri-W site (It was totally pounded into a big mess by the recalled-3 CSD majority only weeks before the election, so it’s already been trashed vis a vis its ESHA requirements, which might make it a dream for any developer – pay a cheaper price for it since its been rezoned from residential to “industrial” and its ESHA has already been broken) and the Broderson (greenbelt) disposal site, which is really, really protected habitat so the cost to put houses up on that hillside would carry a steep development price, but they’d also command big, big bucks once built. Oh, what to do?
Well, stay tuned. The Perils of Sewerville Sue are just getting underway. Will the train arrive before some guy in a white hat gallops up on his trusty horse, Ralph, to save the day?
On a more serious note, there was a letter to the editor this morning from someone in Atascadero that perfectly illustrates one of the most serious problems this issue faces: How to get real, true, actual, FACTS to the public instead of spin or just plain wrong information. The author states, “While people debate about a better location to place the plant, the level of nitrates in the groundwater continues to rise.” According to the 2005 Cleath & Associates groundwater studies, this is simply not so. The levels have stabilized and in some cases are dropping. Yet our Tribune reader in Atascadero “knows” that the nitrates are “rising.” Just like people “know” that millions of gallons of sewage are running into Morro Bay from all Los Osos septic tanks, and etc. Now, where do you suppose those folks could have gotten all that “knowledge” from? Letters to the Editor, filled with misinformation? The Tribune’s own often muddled and context-missing stories? Local TV? Comments made by the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s staff?
One of the most disturbing things I saw at the Dec 1, Regional Water Quality Control Board’s hearing was a staff member, under oath, giving a presentation to the Board and using out of date data on his slides. The result was the Board, which is charged with making some serious decisions affecting real pocketbooks and real lives, was left with a totally misleading picture of the nitrate/water situation in Los Osos. Later, when CSD Engineer Rob Miller presented the up-to-date data from the 2005 Cleath & Associates water study, you could tell at least one Board member had figured out he’d been deliberately spun by his own staff. Not good. Especially since the RWQCB’s staff had the 2005 study in hand well before the meeting was even set so there was absolutely no excuse for what happened. More embarrassing, the RWQCB’s executive director, Roger Briggs, who knew better, was sitting right next to our mis-informer, yet said not a word.
And that, of course, is the perennial problem. How do you inform people when media, elected officials, regulators, etc. are busy mis-informing them? And what can you do with people who refuse to get informed, but simply latch onto a handy myth because it’s simple. Nationally, we’ve seen an administration that has artfully and repeatedly used conflation to mislead the nation as to the 9/11 – Iraq connection. So artfully was that megaphoned via various news media that even today it’s taken on the style and form of an Urban Legend, with a good sized percentage of people still firmly believing it.
Ditto with the Urban Myths and opinions pretending to be Facts that continue to swirl around my Beloved Bangladesh By the Bay. I have said before and will say it again: The wastewater/water issues aren’t rocket science. But solving the issues absolutely depends on clarity, honesty and accurate information – no spin, no hype, no urban myths, no hokum, no egos, no hidden agendas, no happy ad sloganeering. Just the facts. They’ll be complicated (and simple) enough without the hooey.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
The nitrate monitoring reports, (now reduced to twice a year from quarterly a few years ago; cuz they don't change much), are a requirement of that very water board who so effectively spun the LOCSD supplied data. RWQCB, with scary red globs placed on maps of LO, depicts a basin that looks aflame with spooky (naturally occuring) nitrates. Over the eyars those slides have been paraded in front of Supes, Coastal Commissioners, RWQCB Board members, and even included in the glossy "Save the Dream" (still on their website?) campaign, distort the facts and leave the impression that dispite the halt in developent over the last 15 years, nitrates were rising. When in fact, only a few pockets (generally high groundwater areas, where septic systems have little chance to do a thorough job) are above the drinking water standard of 10 mgl. And the trend has leveled out.
December 15, the new LOCSD finally hired Cleath to further test the aquifer for the real scary stuff, emerging contaminants that change DNA in fish and frog, i.e. medicine, estrogyn, shampoo, etc. to see what is really in that water, can it be used as a drinking source, and what further treatment would it need to use in our homes, or blend into our pristine shrinking supply? Is it safe to bring toilet water to the tap (as the sewer plan depends)? Alas, the $30,000 study that was authorized by the old Board in Feb. 2004, unexplainably halted until reapproved this past July by the mixed Board, will now be done and results will be ready within the next six months. Finally we'll know what level of treatment a sewer plant should meet (can you say "back-ass-wards?).
Dear Anon, back asswards is right. It is beyond comprehension to me that a Regional WATER Quality Board wouldn't have insisted UP FRONT on doing accurate, complete, water studies FIRST before putting a gun to our heads and screaming into our ears NEVER MIND ANY STUDIES JUST BUILD SOMETHING ANYTHING WE DON'T CARE IF IT DOESN'T WORK BUILD!BUILD!BUILD!and threatening to shoot all our dogs and fine us all back into the stone age unless we raced blindfolded off a cliff.
One of the saddest images at the Dec 1 hearing was an old video of the late Rose Bowker being told by Bruce Buel the Board had to "pick a site" in a week when it was absolutely clear from her remarks that the Board DID NOT HAVE the data meeded to make a scientifically valid and defensible decision. The look on her face was one of pain and bewilderment from an incredibly smart woman trained as a scientist who is told, Don't bother with science, just toss a dart on a map, like oh, whatever. It was awful to watch. But incredibly revealing of just how badly this entire project has been off track from DAY ONE.
Ann, I'm so glad I found your blog! Now I can get the truth about the sewer ;) Even with the sewer being shoved into the middle of town, it's still a nice place and I miss it (lived in Sunset Terrace, 1984-2000).
I read it too and felt prety much the same. You have to wonder why that person went through the trouble to write the Triv. Remember the old rule of politics, "If you tell a lie often enough, people will believe its true"
I also have a feeling that even if several people wrote in with the obvious rebuttal, they would't get printed, or even worse, they would pick the weakest one and print that. The real trouble is human nature. We tend to remember the bad things we hear, it becomes a culminative effect.
How do you combat this?
There is only one way I know, you have to make our problem theirs too.
We need to broaden the interest.
We need some people camping out at Able's and Lois's and Sam's
A little public protest would do nicely.
What does an effigy of a State Water Board look like?Mike Green
"...you could tell at least one Board member had figured out he’d been deliberately spun by his own staff." Specifically how is this determined? Sounds like more spin!
Dear Anon, I could tell by the look on his face as he asked Briggs, uh, do WE have the CDs and information Mr.Millar was using and it was made clear that oh, yes, his staff had all that updated information and swell slides and etc. and then that look, . . . the message of which was, Well then, duh, why wasn't that presented BY OUR OWN STAFF instead of having to find this out from the CSD????
One of those little embarrassing moments, methinks. And obvious, to boot, since the RWQCB's staff was charged with giving -- under oath -- an accurate overview of the nitrate/wastwater history and clearly, that history wasn't up to date even though the staff had all the newest data. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that one out.
What the Board and the public were left to ask is, Why?
How does one present a "look" as evidence in a court of law?
Al videotape? and if the camera weren't focused on the Prez face, his voice is on tape asking his staff if they had Rob Miller's cds etc. He was told yes, they had it, which leaves hanging the question, Then why didn't you use the up to date info?????
Under cross examination on Dec 02,2005, Rob Miller answered the question "Do you dispute the need for a waste water treatment plant for Los Osos" with "no, ma'am".
Not the point. The point is, Why did the RWQCB's OWN STAFF member, under oath, use out of date information to present the overview and history of the nitrates in the upper aquifer (basis of #8313) when he had the 2005 Cleath & Assoc latest studies? Miller's presentation (up to date) painted a far clearer picture of what's happening in Los Osos than did the RWQCB's staff presentation. IF the Board is charged with voting on a subject that may involve millions of dollars, shouldn't they have the best and latest and most accurate information? And if they weren't given it, I, for one, am curious as to just why they weren't.
Ann,
You appear to be saying that the fines should be lower because the nitrates are lower. Fair 'nuff.
However, to argue that there should be no fines for our community which has refused to put in a sewer for more than 20 years, just because the nitrate numbers are just "bad" not "awful" ... is simply silly.
You say that the RWQCB staff should be chastized for inaccurate info.
I say that the key question of the ACL hearing is "has Los Osos made the progress they agreed to make?"
In that light, the fines would be very reasonable. I suspect something less than $11M. However, if one extrapolates from the City of SLO fine and the Monarch Grove HOA fine to the LOCSD fine (in terms of estimated gallons of nasty stuff leaked directly into the environment) please realize that the fine should be in excess of $100M.
Some would say "would the fine help water quality?" My answer is ... HELL YES. Even if the LOCSD isn't convinced to make progress immediately (well, they dug a hole so deep they can't even see the light at the top, so we all know that's not gonna happen), other communities in the State will take more care to follow through on their committments to the SWRCB.
Suppose you are in the position of Pismo ... if the LOCSD is fined out of existence, don't you think you'll take more care to get your plant up to snuff ASAP? Yes, you would.
Before anyone starts buying tickets to the public hanging of Los Osos show, you may want to review what Steve and Mr. Seitz have said, They can fine us till the cows come home, but the only way they can send us the bill is through a sewer bill. The only way we can get a sewer bill is through a prop 218 vote. Otherwise they will have to fine us one at a time, heh heh, that should be fun. Another thing, other communitys have never been subjected to this kind of (way too expensive) mandate, we are the record holders. The magnitude whats happening is going to give them all a pause. I smell a litigation feast cooking. This may take a while
We're also the record holders for violating a discharge prohibition. Whether or not we're fined $11 mil is irrelevant - it's how and when any fines are applied that's important. More litigation is the last thing that's needed - they need to settle on applying fines towards clean-up of groundwater.
My water is provided by an independant (pirate by god) water provider. not beholden to the whiles of landlubber sealawers. so what if they try to cut off my water? lots of old water trucks for sale, might go in with a few of my neighbors. A hearty Merry Christmas to you all!
Re Spectator's comment about dog urine: Interesting question. How would a year's worth of dog pee compare with just ONE application of lawn fertilizer vis a vis "nitrates" being applied to the soil? Or to a golf course, for example? Or to our community park? I don't have a lawn, by the way, and most of the stuff growing around the house are native and or hardy species that don't require much fertilizer anway, so I was just wondering.
Post a Comment