Why Los Ososians Are Getting Grey
If you ever wonder why so many people who pay the least attention to what’s going on in Los Osos end up crossing their eyes and grinding their teeth so often, Geoffrey Evan’s January 25th letter to the Editor is a case in point. Mr Evans, a member of the Los Osos/Baywood Park Property Owners Association, wrote in response to a Jan 15 Tribune story about the various legal bills piling up for the new CSD.
Alas, like so many people discussing The Hideous Los Osos Sewer Wars, what Mr. Evans does is conflation: put apples next to oranges and hope everyone will see pears.
For example, he notes that “since 1999 [a period that covers when the OLD board was in charge] the total expenses for legal costs including outside legal fees to combat the many lawsuits brought against the Los Osos CSD by some of the very people currently serving on the board, has been $700,000.”
Wow! That’s a lotta pears, isn’t it. But what Mr. Evans DOESN’T tell you is that a good chunk of that money involved the Cal Cities lawsuit, brought against the OLD board by Cal Cities to protect their assets -- the water they sell to the community. Another chunk of that amount involves various personnel matters having nothing to do with the NEW board or the Sewer Wars, a gender bias lawsuit against the previous fire chief and on-administrative-leave general manager and so forth.
And the biggest chunk of the most recent expenditures was caused when the OLD board went into court to try to stop the recall election. That piece of folly cost the taxpayers a bundle but also saved them a bundle when the NEW board settled, since had they not settled, the law was soooo clear on the penalties and consequences for attempting and failing to stop ballot measures before an election that I’m amazed that the new group claiming “concern” over expenditures, Taxpayers Watch, doesn’t sue the on-administrative-leave OLD board attorney for malpractice for advising the OLD board to start that lawsuit in the first place.
So, when you remove the [old] apples from the [new] oranges, what do you end up with? Something that isn’t pears at all.
But that’s the game – conflation, spin, missing information, distorted “facts.” And now that Taxpayers Watch is starting a drive to dissolve the very CSD that some of them helped create, keep your hat on. The wind from the spin will be ferocious!
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(179)
-
▼
January
(9)
- The Regional NON-Water Quality Control Board Rides...
- Why Los Ososians Are Getting GreyIf you ever wonde...
- Nice Work If You Can Get It . . .Ah, sweet! Little...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, the Bay News, Los Osos, for J...
- SEWERVILLE RULESIn his January 18 letter, Baywood ...
- And Now, Let's Hear From Our Other Guest . . .The ...
- Broke BackOne of the interesting things that’s gon...
- KumbayaRegional Water Board member Gary C. Shallcr...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)on, The Bay News, January 4, 06Old...
-
▼
January
(9)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
52 comments:
Ann,
Your statement: "That piece of folly cost the taxpayers a bundle but also saved them a bundle when the NEW board settled, since had they not settled, the law was soooo clear on the penalties and consequences for attempting and failing to stop ballot measures before an election", does NOT constitute conflation?
What is the law that is oh "soooo" clear? Is this the start of "The wind from the spin will be ferocious!" dialogue? Good double speak!
Ann,
Good and Bad.
Good point ... the Cal Cities lawsuit costs should not have been included in the amount Evans cited. Here's my question ... how much was it? (Even if it was $200k, that still puts the new board as spending ... in 3 months ... more on legal issues than the previous boards did in seven years.)
Bad point ... because there seems to be issues with Measure B it is out of line for you to fault the old board for trying to resolve those issues. This new board has taken the approach of pretending there are no problems with B. They paid money to settle. They will now pay more money to defend Measure B against more lawsuits. Was that wise? To pay money just to invite more legal costs?
Sop to Dogpatch ... yes, I sometimes oversimplify. If you feel that any particular oversimlification is unfair or would cause confusion on the part of any reader, please point it out and we can discuss the issue and if it appears that I was wrong I would be happy to correct any misstatements.
Dear Anon, the courts have ruled repeatedly (and, if I understand correctly, apparently the Supreme Court again ruled as recently as the August prior to the recall election on a case, ironically, a case that McClendon was involved in -- Walmart vs city of something or other -- presumably an initiative that would limit Walmart's siting of a store?) that they are loath to interefere with initiatives and referrendums and recalls & etc. BEFORE an election. The clear court thinking is, and has been for years of State initiatives, that unless the measure is DEMONSTRABLY unconstitutional (i.e. Let's make slavery legal!) -- not arguably, but demonstrably -- it should be allowed to go to a vote THEN be tossed out. (This always comes up at elections that are filled with various initiatives, i.e. why bother voting for something when folks are telling you it'll be tossed out, but there they sit on the ballot anyway) For some reason, the old CSD ignored that history and information and went ahead with this suit. Bad decision.
Inlet: Re Measure B. If you heard McClendon's explanation of why they settled, you'd understand that the CSD was being prudent since if they had gone ahead, they most assurredly would have been smacked even harder under the formula that would have resulted in them getting smacked for even higher settlement fees than they did.
As for "defending" Measure B, if I understand correctly, they're obliged by law to defend the measure. If you want to complain about expending money defending the measure, you might want to take that arugment up with the new TaxpayerWatch group. They're now in court, which will cause the CSD to spend money there. Instead of going to court to get measure B tossed out (costly, expensive appeals, etc) why didn't they circulate an initiative to rescind or amend Measure B? From what I understand, that very probably could have ended up on the November ballot, WAAAAAAY cheaper than a court battle and WAAAAAAyy faster.Unless, of course, their strategy isn't to change Measure Bu but to help bankrupt the CSD so they can argue for it's dissolution -- a strategy akin to the guy who kills his parents then flings himself on the mercy of the court because he's now a poor orphan.
As for asking about how much the Cal Cities suit cost, I remember being in a CSD meeting (old board) when Tacker was trying to get the breakdowns of various cases and their costs and being told that the CSD's computers didn't allow for that kind of separation. I was dumbfounded. Huh? They spent pots of money on a New! Improved! computer system and it doesn't allow the break-out of, say, billable hours, on each case? How can that possibly be?
Before computers, I worked at an ad design studio and temped in a huge attorney's office. The designers and lawyers kept simple (paper) client cards listing the case/job number and logged their time in 15 minute increments to each case/job. In no time you could tally exactly what each job was costing. But centuries later in the era of computers we're told by our previous CSD general manager they can't separate out billable hours per case?
HUH????? Hello? somebody's got some 'splainin' to do.
I don't get it.
If the CSD cannot argue against what they consider to be problems with a measure before the election but are required to defend the measure after the election, how would a board who has a problem with some aspect (like the vote portion or the not near a park portion) of the measure argue against it at all?
It would seem that the CSD should have the right to speak to the issue somewhere. If they can't do it before and after the election, when would you suggest?
As to McClendon's argument that they settled because they could have been forced to pay even more ... it is an oversimplification that is designed to confuse the issue. If you have a 99% chance of winning $100 but a 1% chance of losing $1000 it would seem like a good bet. After all, the expected value is a gain of $89. Sure, there's a chance you could lose, but if you play the odds and the expected value you'll be up. What was missing from McClendon's comment is how likely it is that the CSD would lose the case on EVERY arguemnt. If the CSD has a reasonable chance (say 75%) on a single point it would be unwise to settle and pay Al's lawyer.
Yeah, when people refuse to answer questions that would seem simple, questions like "how much have we agreed to pay the contractors for each day they don't work?" it seems a bit suspicious.
Ann, a couple of questions; which board was McClendon working for? Do you have your facts straight on the case and where/whom did you get them from? Are ALL the facets of the referenced case really relevant, or just some, or none? Do you believe everything he tells you?
You said yourself, 'As I understand it'. Could your understanding be wrong by any chance?
Ann, did you believe everything the Solutions Group told you back a long time ago? Think, think?
You must be on the right track Ann, 'cause shoot, if the election results had been different, then the CSD wouldv'e still lost all the cases?!! Right!?
No matter what system goes in, would disposal in the aquifer have to be litigated?
BWT Ann, didn't you just recently reference previous Solutions Group members Semonson & Freiler in reference to on-site systems? Are you believing them AGAIN?!!
To Inlet, my understand is that once an initiative becomes law, the elected officials must follow the law and "defend" it when someone challenges it. Exactly the same way the old CSD Board had to go into court to "defend" it's actions regarding the Prop 218 lawsuit (still not settled) and so forth. If a Board has a problem with some law . . . good question. Do they speak out as a Board, i.e pass a resolution saying they don't like this or that law? Or do they "defend" the law and wait for the people or the legislature or whatever change the law they don't like?
Re settling on the pre-election challenge to put Measure B on the ballot, that should have been a non-starter. Case law and previous rulings and the August Supreme court ruling make that a very probably 99.99% loser. It should never have been filed in the first place.
ToPublicworks, my referencing Semonson & FRieler's comments on On-Site was just that, referencing their comments. If you had been reading, I have a caveat about on-site that basically says IF -- IF it works, IF it's allowed, IF it's cost is accurate, IF< IF< IF. Those are big ifs.
As for my "understanding" being wrong, Sure. Just as yours can be, too.
Are you really sure about the 99.9%? Again, what are ALL the facts about the case? Where the issues in the August case similar enough? Jeez, Ann, I thought you were an investigative reporter?! Oh, that's right, the references you use were given to you by, the lawyers, of course.
Okay, now I'm pissed.
Over at sewerwatch, Ron has turned off the comments. Perhaps this is because he really doesn't want people commenting on what he writes or doesn't like the chitter-chatter. Maybe he just doesn't like the off-the-wall comments that are really nonsense (maybe he even views me as one who makes these comments).
What bothers me is not that the comments are turned off but that the fact that the comments that have already been made are no longer accessable. Because Ron directed our comments here, perhaps he'll read this frustration and again allow people to at least see what the comments have been made there or perhaps he'll take the opportunity to explain why he feels it is better to close off the ability people have to read what others have said in response to his writings.
Okay Ann,
Now it seems that you've just gotten in line to drink the kool-aide. Please get out of line before it's too late.
Listen to yourself. You've said that it is illegal for the CSD to oppose Measure B before the election and to oppose Measure B after the election. If the CSD disagrees with some aspect of a ballot proposition, when are they allowed to voice their opinion in the courts? Or do you believe that the CSD should have no rights to an opinon on a matter that relates to how they must run things.
What is funny as hell to me is that I thought you were a muck-raking columnist. Rather than digging and looking carefully it seems that you are simply parroting back the same sort of tripe the CSD is dishing out. (And frankly they are dishing out tripe the exact same way the previous CSD was ... but the fully think there is that Lisa and Julie were indignant about the spin from other past boardmembers but they are very willing to do the exact same thing themselves ... they've become the evil they've complained about.)
Ron, I hope you continue to comment here. All respect to you & Ann. Been out of town a couple of days. Things getting a little snotty? IMHO dReamers scared of y'all cuz you're looking for the truth like journalsts are supposed to do. Despite the well oiled propaganda machine behind the old TRI W plan (a HUGE dynamic of of this whole mess), the truth will out. They're afraid they will be outed. Grassroots begins with truth seeking. There are so many questions here. $165 million dollars worth of pollution?? Really?? So much money. So little real science. Such bad public policy and administration. So little justice, so far.
So many of the same names, over & over again. Questions worth asking. Keep asking them. Whatever it takes for you to keep up that effort is all right with me.
Inlet: Ann, Julie, & Lisa are not evil and are loved by many in this community. None of them are investment real estate brokers, builders, speculators, career state functionaries, or crack pot wannabes. They are community advocates committed, Ann unelected, to bringing a just solution to this disaster of 7 years of near uninamous LOCSD council policy, which ended in their duly voted upon recall.
Question: How many elected officials, nay, boards do you think are recalled in the USA per anum, by the public?
I'll bet if you divided $165 million between them all, they'd all be rich enough to cover for their incompetence and/or corruption and/or criminality; such being the most common symptoms of recallitis...
Dear Inlet, my,my, you're getting testy for some reason. I did not say it was "illegal" for the CSD to go to court to try to stop a pre-election initiative, merely unwise, given the history of the courts in refusing to support such blocking. And once an initiative is passed, it becomes law and the elected officials have to follow it and "defend" it until and unless the courts deem it unconstitutional and toss it out.
As for Ron turning off his "comment" section, that's his decision; his blog, his rules. Mayhaps people were getting too rude? Or silly? I'm delighted to have a spce for public members to comment, again, providing they get a grip . . . Jeeze.
(I hesitate to think what will erupt later today when news gets out of the RWQCB's LIST OF 50 who will be getting cease & desist orders in their mailbox today. Looking at the map on the website (www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast) interestingly, not a single flag is planted on the entire bayside of Pasadena street and none that I can see on Mitchell Drive, not even on the low lying inlets. But there are a whole bunch of flags planted in the higher reaches of Baywood park and the area that jokingly is refered to as The Dogpatch and way up on 16, 17, 18 st. etc. Very, very interesting. I shall head down to my mailbox shortly. I wonder if certain vocal critics of the RWQCB will be targeted? Plus, it will be interesting to see what "science" these Fifty are based on. Can't be proxmitity to the Bay.
Dear Inlet, my,my, you're getting testy for some reason. I did not say it was "illegal" for the CSD to go to court to try to stop a pre-election initiative, merely unwise, given the history of the courts in refusing to support such blocking. And once an initiative is passed, it becomes law and the elected officials have to follow it and "defend" it until and unless the courts deem it unconstitutional and toss it out.
As for Ron turning off his "comment" section, that's his decision; his blog, his rules. Mayhaps people were getting too rude? Or silly? I'm delighted to have a spce for public members to comment, again, providing they get a grip . . . Jeeze.
(I hesitate to think what will erupt later today when news gets out of the RWQCB's LIST OF 50 who will be getting cease & desist orders in their mailbox today. Looking at the map on the website (www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast) interestingly, not a single flag is planted on the entire bayside of Pasadena street and none that I can see on Mitchell Drive, not even on the low lying inlets. But there are a whole bunch of flags planted in the higher reaches of Baywood park and the area that jokingly is refered to as The Dogpatch and way up on 16, 17, 18 st. etc. Very, very interesting. I shall head down to my mailbox shortly. I wonder if certain vocal critics of the RWQCB will be targeted? Plus, it will be interesting to see what "science" these Fifty are based on. Can't be proxmitity to the Bay.
Ann, there you go again. More conspiracy. Where are the majority of residences? - the areas you mention, and if you don't believe it, go look at the vote district totals from the election.
I would agree I did have a similar reaction, but more on the order of, 'great, I can see the conspiracy theorists revving up on this one'. Guess I'm right. Just a suggestion Ann, maybe you should take a statistics class - and then tell us if the distribution is not unordinary.
Here's a clue, Ann, the density of houses along the bay is actually a lot less than inland. Here's another fact, there's high groundwater in inland spots as well.
You're suggestive question was amusing, to say the least. While I wouldn't wish one of those on anybody, at least if an ex-Director or you know who has got one, it'd shut up the speculation that you just wrote about.
Don't worry Ann, I'm sure in another two months, there be a couple hundred more flags on there to even things out, so maybe you'll be ecstatic as the map is filled in.
I'm not feeling too testy. So, perhaps you could explain how the CSD could fight against a portion of Measure B that the feel is illegal if it is unwise to do so before the election but illegal for them to do so afterwards. Clearly the CSD lawyer (Seitz) thought there was a valid reason to argue the issue. When should they do so?
Doesn't make sense to suggest they can't.
Maybe it was people being rude ... maybe it was because he felt nailed by some postings there which cited original documents which don't match his pet theories. Who knows unless he tells us.
As to the addresses selected by the RWQCB ... their website tells us how they selected the sites ... at random. I suppose that they felt that random was better than attempting to justify some sort of likelihood of pollution measure ... certainly it is less open to subtle biases.
I would suggest that once more and more homes are added to the list, the feeling that the CSD must change will grow. If a dissolution doesn't occur, I suspect that our three new guys will be out in November.
Better to get a new board than dissolve the CSD, IMHO. What are the chances of getting this board back to Tri-W? Any? Question to all: Won't those who receive C & D orders who didn't vote for the recall be able to argue (at the hearing) that they wanted Tri-W and that they supported a sewer and they shouldn't be punished for something they didn't have anything to do with? I mean, I can see those who supported the recall having to admit that it's time to give it up. By the way, if the County takes over will they go back to Tri-W, expensive plant, etc. or will they go back to their original sites, plans, etc? Anyone know? If the County went back to, say, Pismo, then that would be the answer, right? Out of town and all that? What the original CSD should have done YEARS AGO!? Is anyone with me on this?
Chances of getting this board back Tri-W are slim and none.
2nd Question, the answer is no. It's already been asked. Nothing the CSD does changes the fact you're a legal polluter regardless of how you voted. In a democracy, there are no remedies for bad decisions by the electorate! Except in Los Osos, there's always the opportunity to make more bad decisions by the electorate.
IF the county takes over, Tri-W is the most likely candidate to put in a plant. It will also likely cost at least 25% more than it would have. But it's not a given, if new approvals are needed, it opens the door to new legal challenges on the EIR, etc.
The Pismo site is so out-of-date on the engineering, it is unlikely to be resurrected.
Remember, there is no funding, there is a design for Tri-W, some piping in the ground, and an ordinance that is of unknown legality. There is an outstanding lawsuit from the previous project. There are new lawsuits with the CSD. Other than that the situation looks pretty good.
Selective enforcement. Strong Arm tactics. 50 properties being prepared for sacrifice to what???
Families to be ruined. For what??
Someone today said that the map looks like a bombing run. Old people in tears. If you support this action, in any way, look to your soul, look to your humanity. What in the hell is wrong with you? Nobody in Los Osos deserves this, not even dReamers. The State run Amok. Is this the kind of governmental action that we are to accept in our country?? Insanity. Without morals or legitimate rationale. Now the fight has become one of survival.
Spctator said:
2nd Question, the answer is no. It's already been asked. Nothing the CSD does changes the fact you're a legal polluter regardless of how you voted. In a democracy, there are no remedies for bad decisions by the electorate! Except in Los Osos, there's always the opportunity to make more bad decisions by the electorate
I'm sure he ment "illegal poluter"
Well, Mr Spectator, I think you speed in your car, I saw a lot of people speeding today on LOVR, Therefore I'm going to call the cops to enforce the law, of course, since they didn't see you but they know that a lot of law breaking is going on, they are going to send tickets randomly to everyone in Los Osos. you mak get your car confiscated or not.
I am going to agree with Dogpatch!
It's getting real close to tevolt time!
Sorry, I ment Publickworks, and please excuse my bad spelling, I was in a hurry.
apologies to Spectator,Mike Green
I have always wondered what could possible compel someone like Timothy McVeigh to park a bomb in front of a Government building. I never could comprehend it... until now.
Now it starts to make a little sense... I can now see a little glimpse into his head.
How can things get so bad that someone would see that action as reasonable?
One has to look no farther than what is happening in Los Osos... Regional Water Board members run out of control.
Hopefully the Water Board comes to it's senses, and remembers this is America, before they create another Timothy McVeigh.
There is no Excuse for Tim Mcveigh. Understand him all you want, but there is no excuse for what he did.
There are lots of ways to revolt.
My personal heros include:
Sarah Parks
Ceasar Chavez
Mahatma Ghandi
Martin Luther King
I wonder what they would think about us?
People in Los Osos have made democratic decisions and changed course in the process many times.
Mike, it's your right to call the cops and ask them to cut down on speeders. And they do enforce speeding randomly, they just don't catch everyone.
What I meant was, legally you are a polluter. That simple fact has been contested, and lost by the way. The pollution is real, it's been going on for over 20 years.
When I read the above posts, there is no resemblance in Los Osos to any civil rights - what a joke. It's an insult to MLK and blacks who had 2 centuries of violence and torture to compare a community that simply didn't get it's act together.
I have no desire to throw away dollars on pumping my septic. But do you simply expect the waterboard to not take action to reduce the pollution? - that would be asking the cops to not 'catch speeders'. Should Los Osos be given 3 more years, 6 more years, 13 more years? I don't like it, but the voters of Los Osos made a choice to continue in violation of discharging. It's not complicated.
What are you going to revolt against? The Porter-Cologne Act? Revolt against people that voted for a treatment plant - yeah, that's a good one.
Give one good reason why pumping should not be required? Really, give one. Because someone might not afford it? Then why don't you propose a local tax to help them out. Why don't you state exactly how much more time should be given. Do you mean to say that Pismo Beach should never have been fined for illegal discharges and delays in improving a treatment system?
Dear Publickworks:
If I offended you by by my MLK comment I apologise, I see your point.
I did it with somewhat a tounge in cheek, and also in alarm of the previous post.
perhaps bad taste, I'm sorry .
But my question remains,
Police do not pick people randomly,
They need proof beyond a reasonable doubt, dont they? In the case of speeding they have to "catch" you don't they
What gives the "water gods" more authority than our law enforcement?
I would wholeheartedly accept a tax to pump the problem septic tanks if it would get the watergods off our backs!
But I want testing that it works too!
There has to be a point where a solution becomes too big for a small community to bear.
How far away can that be?
I know Mike, the previous post was getting way out of line.
They enforce speeding randomly. Getting caught speeding (which I know about unfortunately) is inherently unfair (hey, what about the guy in front of me who was going 90!).
The "water gods" don't have more authority, they have a different authority.
publicworks said:
"Give one good reason why pumping should not be required?"
I'll give you one... because it won't do anything to stop pollution. It will most likely increase it.
The only reason to make people do it is to be punitive. I'm all for having it pumped once... and get it inspected for leaks/breaches, etc. at the same time. Should have been done a long time ago. If anything abnormal is found make them repair or replace it. Should've been done a long time ago.
But to pump it just for the sake of punihsing them financially is rediculous. Its as if noone at the water board knows how a septic tank works. And I'm beginning to belive that's true.
A properly operating septic tank does not need to be pumped very ofton, and to disrupt the process forcess more pollutants into the leech field. So the RWQCB is actually creating more pollution with their CDO's.
THey claim to want to issue CDO's to the entire prohibition zone... what happens when we max out the capabilities of the septic pumpers and the accepting facilities. If there's noone available to pump then what??
Does the RWQCB think there wont be a lawsuit over this? The fewer people they issue CDO's to the more selective the enforcement and the more likely they will be ruled illegal in court. The more CDO's they issue, the more people to share the cost of the defense... and the more likely this will be litigated. Sounds like a catch22 to me.
Does anyone down at the water board think about these things? It's becoming more and more apparent they are a bunch of nit-wits. No wonder Los Osos is so screwed.
In what court would this be tried? Criminal or Civil?
What else is there?
That's an interesting comment. The waterboard states it'll reduce nitrates by 22%. It will reduce loading into the leach fields, but you're right about the pollutant content. It'll be interesting to see their analysis, but be careful what you wish for. Suppose it only reduces it 10% every other month, they might require pumping every month!
No one in their right mind would litigate against the RWQCB, they'll lose, just look elsewhere in the state.
It's not selective enforcement, so long as it's random. That's like saying it's selective enforcement to put a DUI checkpoint on only a couple of streets. Or do a random check of liquor stores for underage selling.
We'll get more lawyers now. Some suing the CSD. Some suing the RWQCB.
Publicworks, slow down you hot rod!
Mike, it isn't a 'problem septic tank ' issue. It's a cumulative septic tank discharge issue.
Basically they are going to reduce the discharges by about 8-10% (still not sure how they came up with a 22% reduction in Nitrates).
Look at the bright side. Tri-W was going to cost $200/month. Pumping a septic every other months averages to $150/month. And we get until 2010 to put a facility in. He basically just gave the CSD a 2 1/2 year extension on the TSO. Who said Briggs wasn't a nice guy?
Mike, you stated, "there has to be a point where a solution becomes too big for a small community to bear"
Unfortunately, you are wrong. #1, we really are not a small community. #2, other communities have self-destructed with pollution issues, although I know of none where it was as self-inflicted as ours. #3, there simply is no easy community way out of situation like ours. #4, unless this CSD rolls out a treatment facility, individuals who can hire an engineer, get the permits, fund it, and put an on-site system (probably will start around $25k, and may be up to $40k) will occur. Those that can't, they'll sell. It's as simple as that.
So, how about we start a consortium of "on site buyers"?
Thanks anon. Thanks Mike. I would like to have seen what MLK or Chavez would have to say about anything going on in this f'd up country today. What would John Muir say? Franz Kafka? Thoureaux?
I saw the elderly cry today. I saw brave advocates stiffen their backs. I saw sneers on the faces of those who claim to love this town, yet begged this totalatarian board to fine us.
I pray they don't create another McVeigh. I pray they don't force families from their homes. I pray that the investment driven speculators in this town see flames from below licking at them in their dreams. Does Briggs dream of hell?? Does he and his punkass staff have any idea the fear & pain they are needlessly bringing on our little town. If the real tears of the elderly, the pregnant, the disabled, the "just making it although they have been for last 30 years", since they were 55 or 25 or 15 does not break you down, or break this down to its unjust core. Then look to your soul. Sold out for 11.4 vs 11 on a government made scale.
Bless the current LOCSD board, they and Belsky are ON this as I write. Support them. Cowboy up, this fight is on.
Hold on, dogpatch.
You are asking us to support this board because ... why?
Based on their actions in in the last four months you've seen old people cry today. Briggs was pretty clear before the election. The RWQCB and SWRCB were pretty clear before the election about what they said they felt compelled to do by state law.
Those running for the LOCSD board chose to ignore the warnings.
Who is to blame here?
You would say that some guy named Roger who was doing his job and following State law is to blame. You would blame the RWQCB members who have begged and pleaded with Los Osos for some ... um ... 30 years to get this done.
Get real.
The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of this CSD board and those who elected the new guys and those who voted for Measure B.
Not my fault, my friend, not Roger's fault and not Bruce's.
Publickworks said:
Mike, you stated, "there has to be a point where a solution becomes too big for a small community to bear"
"Unfortunately, you are wrong"
I beg to differ
There is the word "impossible"
It exists and is provable
Unfortunatly the word dose not exist in our political dictionary.
All for one and everyman for himself!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for everyman for himself. My point is, only Los Osos can solve this problem.
It's not about fines, it's not about blame, it's not about lawsuits. It's about funding and designing a wastewater system, which this board has made about an inch of progress on.
Why not be for "Everyman for himself"?
What evidence do you have that would leave you to believe that "Los Osos" could solve this problem?
Shark Inlet:
"You would say that some guy named Roger who was doing his job and following State law is to blame. You would blame the RWQCB members who have begged and pleaded with Los Osos for some ... um ... 30 years to get this done."
How long has the LOCSD existed?
How long was Nash=Karner'sregime in power?
You try to make this board & its supporters into scapegoats at every opportunity imaginable. You have an amazing lack of compassion. Were you laughing today? Did you feel vindicated? Briggs isn't a public servant "just doing his job", he is the worst sort of governmentofficial, a petty Tyrant. You'd stick up for this bastard? Of course you would, because you are part of the machine. I'm wih Dogpatch & the others.
And you, my anonymous friend, would stick up for the people who are bringing pain on the most vulnerable in our community.
I hope you are proud of your desire to force the poor and middle class out of our community.
Considering Briggs was given an order by his boss, the RWQCB, to start the CnD orders, how is he acting tyrranical?
If you are going to pull a "good german" or My Lai reference out to back up your disdain for Briggs you had better first show how the Porter Cologne act is in error and how it is wrong for the State to insist that polluters clean up the mess they make.
As to your suggestion that Pandora is to blame for everything ... bull pucky. The TriW plant was under construction and it would have cost us (per month) only a little more than what the pumping charges will cost us. It was not Pandora who forced this board to stop construction, to incur fines and the RWQCB to thus start enforcement actions.
Sharkey said:
The TriW plant was under construction and it would have cost us (per month) only a little more than what the pumping charges will cost us.
Well Sharkey, I thought that was what mattered most.
Sometimes that cartinulagenos (sp?)
backbone dose cause a slight twist.
What? pump or build
Regards,
The problem, Mike, with pumping as a "solution" is that right now the pump every other month will only cost us a bit less than TriW. But we still don't get a sewer for these additional bills. The cost of any solution seem to keep going up. Anonymous doesn't want tme to blame the board that took the actions that raised the bills, so I'll let you reach your own conclusions.
As of Jan 2010 people will be required to disconnect the leach field entirely and to pump some five times/month which will be far more expensive than any sewer plant.
If the "gizmo" only would cost $20k upfront and $100/month it would seem that within two years it would cost less than pumping ... if the RWQCB would allow it. I suspect they just might.
The problem with pumping is that it does nothing about salt water intrusion and re-charge. The Tri-W project addressed that, in part.
But get used to pumping, it's going to happen until 2010. Now, that's the key, if there is not a project to hook into by 1/1/2010, the CDOs are going to be a pleasant memory, and it will be very, very ugly. Does anyone actually think the RWQCB is being mean by having us pay about $150/$200 for temporary mitigation? What a joke, they probably set the requirement, in part, because it reflects the cost we would incur if we had a plant, which our new board so artfully killed.
As to a "gizmo", people better get a grip about some of the numbers being tossed out by so-called on-site gurus. And, if on-site is what people want, then it's time to dissolve the CSD and cut out the middle-man. With on-site, there's no need for a CSD. You run the show, you report to the RWQCB, so cut out the overhead. But be forewarned, it's gonna be an ugly situation for the poorest people going that route. All, these same yahoos who tout on-site I'm sure will be the first to clamor for the CSD to take care of them for an on-site system and
As Shark said, the key date is 1/1/2010. That means construction must start no later than 1/1/2008 (probably 7/1/2007 to be safe). That means 17 months, guys, to make a choice between Tri-W and another alternative. There's not time for 30 alternatives. There's time to get 1 - 2 sites, and MAKE A FRIGGEN FINAL DECISION LOS OSOS. Oh, unfortunately, there will be lawsuits. And there will be no SRF loan. Fuhget about it - it's gone, Ann can go back in line all she wants, the money will not be there. Why? It's been/being reallocated, and by the time Los Osos gets in line, it'll be a miracle if even $50 mil is available for us.
It's time for Ann to start asking questions of the new board, like, what have you done for me lately?
Some would suggest it is time for Ann to start asking questions of herself, like, "In my desire to show the previous board to be full-of-spite have I misrepresented the situation in Los Osos in any way which may have swayed voters to vote for this new group of yahoos who have effectively given us bills comparable to what the sewer would have been ... all the while doing nothing to provide a solution?"
Re Inlet's question about the "gizmo" the onsite systems. In Dec 4 I wrote Matt Thompson at the RWQCB to ask some simple questions, one of which is "who signs off on such technology and how do they go about it? To date, I've gotten no answer to that. So if people are looking at various onsite systems, I think they'll have to wait a looooooong time to get any clear answers. What I got from Briggs (to whom the first letter was address) was tautology, (it is because it is) and so he foisted me off on Matt, and I'm still waiting for an answer. It's possible that the RWQCB is waiting for the draft of AB885 be completed, since THAT document will supposedly spell out the parameters of any onsite system they'll allow when every spetic in the state within an "impaired" watershed comes under their control. So, we may all have to wait until AB885 gets in final form or the RWQCB invents an answer or something. Either way, we're waiting on "regulators" who may or may not have any answers.
Not sure AB885 will have anything to do with the prohibition zone. Don't believe the densities prescribed by AB885 will not be applicable to the prohibition zone.
I don't think the regulators have an answer for on-site in the prohibition zone, it would require changes to the basin plan to allow for it. Right now, it'd be a case by case basis - you'd have to propose a system with data to the RWQCB and work out the waste discharge requirements with them. So go ahead, spend $1000 on an engineer for a proposal to give to them. Then there's the county permit as well. Tell us all how it goes.
And, regardless of the data you provide, they may come back and require you to have 1000 sq. feet of yard space to properly discharge, period - then what do you do if you don't have they space? It's the old 'you can design it any way you want, but' song the previous board dealt with.
Publicworks has put in a nutshell what's so bad about what the regulators are doing -- utter confusion, lack of direction, nobody seems to know nuttin', the old, well, build it THEN we'll decide whether you can build it. It's an amazingly stupid way to run things and really begs a question: If these guys don't know what they're doing, they shouldn't be allowed to run with scissors, let alone inflict enormous econcomic ruin on people while they fiddle around and dither in the dark. As the screenwrite William Godman said of Hollywood: Nobody knows anything. Scary business, to be sure.
Ann,
In a serendipitous event, my eyes saw the middle of your comment first, the part which read:
"It's an amazingly stupid way to run things and really begs a question: If these guys don't know what they're doing, they shouldn't be allowed to run with scissors, let alone inflict enormous econcomic ruin on people while they fiddle around and dither in the dark."
and I had to ask myself "huh? Did Ann change her opinion on the current LOCSD board?
Here's what's funny. Perhaps you don't even see how what you wrote applies perfectly to the current LOCSD board?
You're taking my statement out of context and twisting it to make a point but it won't work well because a)I was refering to the RWQCB. b) What the RWQCB does affected (adversely) BOTH the old board and the new board. Case in point, you remember the video clip of Rose Bowker during the ACL hearing? The look of dismay on her face when she's told they have to pick a site within 10 days and she said, but we don't have adequate information to make a sound or scientific judgement? And she's told by Buel, Too bad, you've got to decide now.
THAT's what I'm refering to -- mindless regulations or TSO's or hidden agendas or unscientically sound "findings" that do not allow for real-time, on the ground changes that are a part and parcel of ANY project by ANY board. That idiocy kept the old board on a bad track until they were threatened, intimidated, forced off the cliff. In context, that was what I was refering to -- regulators run amok and the results are train wrecks. THEY walk away, heedless that it was their rules (often unscientific and unsound) that caused the wreck, but for which they will take no responsibility.
another case inpoint, people are now asking about New! Improved! onsite systems but they cannot get any clear information or direction from the RWQCB until AFTER they install one (very expensive) THEN they're told, Uh, oh, we won't allow it and we won't tell you why we won't allow it, just that we won't allow it. THAT's the kind of idiocy I was speaking of when I said these people shouldn't be allowed to run with scissors.
That you would misunderstand that tells me you may have a problem reading things in context. Or that you deliberately misread and misunderstood just to make your partisan point. Either possibility is discouraging in the context of a "dialogue" about various issues.
Here's the problem.
You seem to keep saying that we need more science to tell us what is best all the while ignoring the science that says that any delay is so bad that further studies to determine the best of all possible choices is itself worse than picking a pretty good choice today.
Sometimes life demands we make choices in situations with imperfect or incomplete information. The people who determine catch limits and the length of fishing seasons cannot wait until we know everything about the biology of fish and they environment they live in before they set limits. If people violate the catch limits that are based on the best information available at the time they were set are violating the law (even if later science shows that the limits were set a bit imprecisely) and should face the consequences.
Your argument, if pushed to its logical extreme would have us still studying the "best" solution in another ten years (because there will always be some new method and there will always be another possible site to discuss) and the pollution between now and then will take a century or longer to clean up.
Choosing some approach and working toward it is far better than any delay at this stage ... and that's just when you consider pollution. If you want to start talking money the argument is just that much stronger.
This board's choice to stop construction and delay the project by four or more years is impossible to defend on environmental or financial grounds. If you would like to argue another point (democracy should allow us to chart our own course, for example), you may have a good argument, but the RWQCB would certainly be justified in penalties and perhaps even pumping orders.
The problem with discussing "science" in the case of the RWQCB is that I don't have any confidence in them vis a vis "science." For example, take the Mad Scheme Of the Cease & Desist Orders." If your aim is to reduce the overall nitrate loading on a particular area, do you: a) take a look at the topography/well-data maps and carefully target the "nitrate hot spots" with pumping or b) randomly toss darts at a map and require the random tanks, some of which are clearly on sites 30 - 50 feet from ground water, get pumped 6 x a year, willy-nilly?
Then, in a water basin in serious overdraft already, do you transport those tankers full of wastweater (1,000 a pop x 6 x year x 50 homes, soon to crank up to 4,000 homes) to another county and dump them, thus removing the water from the Los Osos basin forever? (Versus leaving it in place with its .4 over legal limit nitrates, but still available for denitrification and blending and reuse & recharge etc.)
Please tell me what kind of science is at work here? Because I'm missing it entirely.
Ann, The problem with using 'hotspot' data and science is that an actual model of determining how the hot spots develop and contribution from sections of the town could itself take years to complete. That is why a prohibition zone based on density, while not perfect, is a practical method to use to create a regulation to clean up pollution. That is what we have, and waiting for science and regulations to perfectly agree means waiting for seawater intrusion to continue indefinitely.
Just assuming more science will be helpful in this case may be a stupid civic decision - that's reality.
The RWQCB is put in the position they are, because there are no standards for high density septics. I doubt they have the staff or authority to make them, without any specific legislation providing exceptions from the state. That's a legislative issue, and that means uncertainty.
Using the 'polluted' water has the following drawback.
1) there's practically an unlimited amount of polluted water to blend (pollution perpetually refills as the septic disharge replenishes it and polluted water is sucked to the bay or is drawn for use, no mater where it might be reused). So while it might help stem seawater intrusion, it will not fundamentally address pollution. You are refering to a water project, not a wastewater project.
No septic maintanaince program will address pollution, unless it specifically proposes waste discharge requirements from the septic to the leachfield. And such a requirement will impose a huge cost burden on the property owner, and I doubt if there is one septic tank/system in Los Osos today that would meet any meaningful nitrate reduction and disinfection requirement that would meet a scientific or meaningful regulatory standard.
Again, be careful what you wish for.
Picking 50 a month (or later 100 per month, 200 per month or more) to add to the list is just fine. There is no bias in such a scheme. Soon enough, all homes will be hit and all homes will be pumping every other month or face HUGE fines for not doing so.
With an estimate of the rate of using water and an estimate of the size of septics across the town we could estimate the reduction in nitrates.
As to the overdraft issue ... presumably it is bad to pump more water out of the aquifer than one adds back in through recharge. The question is which is worse ... keeping as much water in the system as possible, but it will be polluted water ... or lowering the pollution levels but losing some of the water in the system. Dunno myself which is best.
I do know that to simply say that the mehtod wasn't thought out and isn't scientific doesn't make it so. I would imagine the a large fraction of the aquifer recharge comes from rainwater. If this is the case, lowering the nitrates by (say) 20% by the pumping could have a sizable impact on the aquifer but only at a cost of lowering the water put in by a small amount, say 2%.
You seem to have the bias that the "New! Improved!" LOCSD is good and right and that everyone else is bad. Perhpas I am wrong, but your continual picking on the RWQCB for lacking "science" but refusal to address the LOCSD's lack of sound science before making their decision to abandon TriW is suggestive.
Post a Comment