Monday, February 27, 2006
For SewerPhreaks, please go back to the main page and click onto the Los Osos Views Link and read the Saturday, Feb. 25, 06 posting. Very interesting. Especially in light of the Mad Waste WATER Pumping Scheme being proposed by the RWQCB. That proposal, being put forth under the Cease & Desist Orders and coming up for a hearing March 23, sure makes you wonder what happened to Science & Sense. I suspect it was the first victim in our Great Hideous Sewer Wars. Too bad.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
10 comments:
I don't get it.
If the costs of O&M at TriW would have increased some 300%, what will happen to the cost of constructing the "out of town" plant that this board is committed to?
Steve's other ideas are fun and nice and I would encourage him to submit them to the RWQCB once he gets his CnD order. If it flys, let me know.
You do have a good point about the RWQCB being reluctant to allow new technologies. On the other hand, they also have a good point about Los Osos seeming to try to wiggle out of a legal mandate for some 30 years.
Maybe if Los Osos as a community were to act responsibly rather than running from excuse to excuse ... maybe if the CSD got behind a few research ideas, like Steve's here or Dr. Alexander's and tried to see if they could fund a research project that the RWQCB would approve of ... maybe then the RWQCB would listen.
The problem here is that no one in our community has come up with a real solution to the nitrates that the RWQCB would accept. If the LOCSD wants to really explore alternatives they should do so. Imaine what a $1M research program would buy us. If there is any hope in any of these systems, the LOCSD will have spent the money necessary to verify this by 2010.
I think the RWQCB would appreciate such an effort rather than the continued bitching and whining from Lisa, Dan and Gail.
My first glance at this article caused a raised eye brow. I don't know anyone that actually uses a garbage disposal with their septic system? Would this not invalidate the entire premise of this article?
After one more look, I am really confused about Steve's idea. Like I comented to him over there, I don't understand how his fancy system will reduce nitrates. Maybe I am wrong, but I thought it was soil that does this with a septic system and I don't recall him adding a nitrate filter of any sort to his system, so all the the nitrates will still enter the soil through a leach field. No solution at all.
I am open to being corrected about both any misunderstandings I have of how nitrates are removed from wastewater or about what Steve is saying. However, until someone explains how the hell this could work, I'll just work on the assumption that the "hey kids, let's build a nitrate reducing filter for our septic system" approach won't work the way he's promising us.
Oh, over at sewerwatch Ron's beating a year-old dead horse and still hasn't figured out that this new board is doing the same cr*p that he's accused the old board of doing.
Read it for fun.
Just a quick observation here, probably without merit.
I already have in my house three water treatment systems that remove nitrates,
My fish tank uses a revolving wheel that exposes water to air. works great, those fish are quite happy and the water is clear and I haven't changed the water in over two years,
My hot tub. I maintain water quality through carefull testing and treating with chlorine and ph balancers, depends on use, but it seems that I change water about every four months because the hardness gets to be too high, Its still clear and has no smell.
Of course the last one is the undersink R.O. nuff said about that.
I've always liked the idea of individual solutions, I'd sign up for Steves Gizmo tomorrow if I could escape the Water Gods.
I realize that aside from the fish tank nobodys excreting in the water, but none of these systems need soil, so maybe it is possible.
Of course I would love to know more.
One thing that's gone missing is the issue of What's Best and What's Easiest -- for the RWQCB. For example, if the RWQCB gets a town to sewer with a traditional gravity collection, treatment plant, etc. they end up with one pipe. The water from that one pipe is easy to monitor. They also have one person (the systems operator) to find and fine if the water coming out of the one pipe doesn't meet their standards. In short, traditional sewer plants are EASIER on the RWQCB to manage and oversee.
But, according to the EPA, such huge collections sytems are NOT necessarily better (just more familiar) and the feds are encouraging communities that don't already have gravity systems in place, to consider other methods.
So we get back to this: Is the reason the RWQCB has "not allowed" different systems because their science proves they don't work (watching the RWQCB staff's "science," I'm extremely leery of that explanation) or because traditional single-point discharge sytems are EASIER for the RWQCB to oversee?
The reason the RWQCB essentially vetoed step-steg (in the mind of the previous board) is that the cost to our community was too high. Checking all septic systems and replacing them would be expensive. Furthermore, the ongoing O&M costs for the pumps made the total bill too high. When reporting from the "negotiations", Lisa told us the same thing. Step-steg wasn't a cost saver at all.
Nope, not a lack of science.
You are right that sometimes they make decisions based on other factors as well as science and quite often those other factors take the 1st chair at the discussion table. Actually I don't like this at all, but I recognize that the part of this regulatory board's job is to enforce regulations.
Again, considering the RWQCB has only two tools, fines and CDOs to enforce rules and considering the fact that discharges have been forbidden (in other words, not allowed at all ... in any way) for 18 years, how do you suggest they enforce this order.
Presumably you would prefer they not enforce it at all.
However, suppose they do want to enforce the order to get Los Osos to take some action. After fifty seven thousand years of no action the RWQCB might reasonably believe that Los Osos won't actually get a sewer unless prodded. Lisa's words of "we are committed to build a sewer" don't exactly match up with the board's action of stopping the only construction to date without another plan already in place.
So, then, do you prefer fines to the CDOs?
Please remember that the CDOs allow for a property owner to propose an alternative ... if you want to do some fancy onsite system you are welcome to propose that to the RWQCB. You're complaining that Matt T can't tell you in advance that they'll approve. Perhaps he doesn't know the details of what you'll propose using. Perhaps the RWQCB staff doesn't have the time to evaluate all the possible solutions and give you a list of the acceptable ones.
You've got the job of determining the state regs and finding a system that will foot the bill. If you do, they'll approve I bet.
OK, I'll bite. I'll sign up for a toilet gizmo, anybody know how?
Heck, the worst that could happen is I lose 12-15k I've lost lots more than that in the stock market.
Bring it on, I'm serious.
Call me a spinner! Feh!
I asked the RWQCB Staff Mr. Science Tech Guys what the discharge target numbers were for such "alternative" systems, i.e. perameters of what would be acceptable in general in order to eliminate "gizmos" that don't meet that target, and I was told they don't have thoe numbers, that it was a good question and maybe a good idea if they had those numbers and so they'd think about figuring out what those numbers should be.
One month before the CDO hearings, which include "alternatives" and the Scientific Staff DON'T HAVE TARGET NUMBERS for "acceptable" discharges via "alternative" systems.????? Setting target numbers is NOT my job. It's there's and they haven't done it.
Post a Comment