Pages

Friday, February 17, 2006

On A Wing And A Prayer . . . Oh, Wait, We Forgot To Build The Wing

I attended the Feb. 15 “informational” meeting held by the Regional Water Quality Board “Prosecution Staff” for The Los Osos Forty Six, “randomly targeted citizens” who were sent Cease & Desist Orders (CDOs) and are facing a “trial” on March 23rd – the first of many, many since the entire town is targeted and will be getting CDOs as well.

I say, The Los Osos Forty Six since it started out as The Los Osos Fifty, but the RWQCB, in their haste, sent CDO letters to 5 people who shouldn’t have gotten one. Then the CSD requested and received from the State Water Board “designated” status in the upcoming Cease & Desist Hearings, thereby joining the other citizens randomly targeted.

The change in numbers for this first hearing is indicative of what I observed during the “informational” meeting: The RWQCB Prosecution Staff, the professional, “scientific/legal” staff that is preparing the recommendations and information that will be presented to the full Board is winging it, making things up as they go along, improvising. They also haven’t thought through the consequences of their proposed actions and, most interestingly, are curiously cavalier about those results. Even stranger, in a haste that is totally unjustified and historically peculiar, it appears they haven’t yet finished their homework and are shoving their ducks in a row as they pop up rather than having them in place in some coherent form before proceeding.

For example, the CDO recommendation to the full Board is that the entire prohibition zone be required to pump their tanks 6 times a year OR, on a case by case basis, homeowners can present an alternative plan to meet what appears to be a target reduction of discharge pollutions by 22%. However, when I asked one of their technical folk, “If a homeowner wanted to install one of the so-called enhanced onsite wastewater treatment units (there are many out there) what target numbers would the unit need to meet your requirements?”

Uh, they didn’t know, hadn’t thought about that and thought that suggestion would be a good idea but they would have to sit down and come up with some figures. One month away from the hearings in which a homeowner can propose an “alternative” and they don’t have any “alternative” standards set? They’ll have to think them up and get back to us on that?

Wait, it gets worse. Despite reading through all the information and sitting through 1 ½ hours of Q& A I still don’t know just WHAT the CDOs are trying to accomplish. First I’m told that the target is a 22% reduction of pollutants, but so far as I know, the Basin Plan/Resolution 83-13 sets a target of 7 mgl of nitrates for the area. So which is it? 22% reduction of all wastewater or 7 mgl of nitrates or what? And where did the 22% figure come from? The prohibition zone is under a standing cease and desist order of ZERO discharge, a number if applied to individual septics would require pumping every few days – a number that even the RWQCB staff has to know is simply undoable. So, why 22%?

As near as I can find out, that’s a guestimate, a mathematical formula that’s suppose to reduce what? nitrates? overall by 22% When I had previously emailed Matt Thompson, the staff’s Q&A Go-To Guy, to ask if there were any studies indicating that pumping a tank 6 x a year would actually reduce groundwater pollution, I was told that no studies were necessary. Even more interesting, the guestimates they’re using aren’t based on any actual water use records.

Apparently, the CSD has not released individual water use records for The Los Osos Forty Six (presumably the CSD refused on the basis of (legally unresolved) privacy issues). So everyone has been lumped into one pot and they’ll all be hanged for sheep even though they’re goats. Stranger still, IF the RWQCB were conducting these CDO hearings on a case by case basis (targeted citizens can request separate hearings and in order to preserve their rights they’d better think seriously about doing just that) and the Prosecution Staff needed those records in order to fairly fit the punishment to the crime, (i.e. a 22% reduction target based on ACTUAL water use and depth to groundwater and tank size and family size, actual total discharge numbers would result in a different pumping schedule for different people.) why didn’t they simply subpoena them?

Even scarier, if I heard correctly, one of the questions asked about what impact removing some 24 – 36 million gallons of wasteWATER a year out of our already seriously overdrafted lower aquifer would have and a staff member replied that he was unaware that Los Osos had an overdraft problem, he thought that one of the problems with Los Osos is that it had too much water, resulting in high-groundwater and flooding.

A key member of the RWQCB’s prosecution staff, the staff that’s responsible for preparing recommendations and presenting accurate, scientifically correct information to the full board, WAS NOT AWARE THAT LOS OSOS WAS ALREADY IN SERIOUS WATER OVERDRAFT? Did he not read the 2005 Cleath & Associates water report, a report that was present to Staff last year?

Furthermore, when asked about the impact such a proposed pumping scheme would have on our water supply, replied, “We’re not in the water supply business, we’re in the water quality business.” Apparently irony impaired, this Cal Poly-trained “scientist” was unaware that these issues are one in the same: No water quality, no water supply.

Be afraid, Los Osos. Be very afraid.

On a more interesting, if ironic note. On Thursday, the Bay News headline noted that the Taxpayers’ Watch group took their petitions to dissolve the CSD to LAFCo to begin the process of dissolution. The story notes, “Taxpayers’ Watch, which started the petition drive on Feb 2, wants the CSD dissolved so the county can take over the job of constructing a sewer project at the Tri W site.” And a flyer I received from the group clearly intended that the reader conflate the dissolution of the CSD and asking the County to “take charge“ with stopping the CDOs. At the RWQCB’s “informational meeting” the night before, two questions were asked and answered:

Would dissolving the CSD stop the CDOs? NO, it wouldn’t matter who was in charge, the CDOs are an entirely separate matter.

Do you (RWQCB prosecution staff) know if the County plans to build a project? NO. We don’t know of any project and have heard nothing about any county plans to build anything.

Even more interesting, while Taxpayers’ Watch claims that the CSD must be dissolved because they’re guilty of a whole litany of bad government offenses, steering committee member, Bob Crizer, is quoted in the same Bay News article as saying, “ . . . if the CSD agreed to surrender its powers to develop a wastewater project, they would not seek to have the CSD eliminated.”

And, there you have it! The real reason behind the dissolution movement: Folks behind this petition want “their” sewer plant on the Tri W site and in order to get it they’ll falsely conflate information in order to dump the very agency of home rule that many of them created in the first place. Truly a Medea Moment!

Abraham Lincoln was partially wrong – you CAN fool a whole lot of people most of the time. Especially when they’re scared and can be lied to sooooo easily.

50 comments:

Shark Inlet said...

Why 22%?

Dunno exactly, but if the average household uses 100g/day for household use and they average septic system has 1200g, pumping every other month would reduce the nitrates by about 20%. Furthermore, if we are using more water than 100g/day on average, we could probably conserve more.

In fact, if we dropped our consumption from about 150g/day to 100g/day and were pumpting some six times per year it is fair to say that the aquifer would be far healthier in terms of nitrates (a 20% reduction) as well as a reduced overdraft.

Why would the RWQCB want TriW over other possible projects? Only because it is possible to achieve it far sooner than any other project.

Anonymous said...

Water conservation doesn't reduce nitrate loading, per se. Unless you start pooping and peeing less.

If you poop once a day, and use 100g, you have 1 poop per 100 g.

If you poop once a day, and use 50g, you have 1 poop per 50 g. But the total nitrates remains the same. (that is unless your poops and pees also become 1/2 the size they were. So, the solution is obviously for everyone who works outside of Los Osos to take a dump at the lue at work before you come home.

Pollution is pollution. Water conservation is water conservation.

Shark Inlet said...

publicworks,

Thanks for correcting me. What I wrote does appear unclear.

It is the pumping that could reduce the nitrates and we could conserve enough water to more than make up for the water lost to pumping.

The CDOs are only a "bad thing" from the POV of our overdraft if we, as a community, don't react responsibly.

Whether we do is unknown, but certainly we have the opportunity to do something for the overdraft while reducing nitrates.

Anonymous said...

Also,

Pumping is actually more effective combined with water conservation, because the tank becomes more highly concentrated in poop (higher ratio of poohs to water). That is unless the tank leaks.

We should strike back by going on a pooh protest throughout the County. Start poohing in public restrooms outside of Los Osos and don't stop until the county pays for the project.

After all, Los Osos sends disproportionate tax dollars throughout the county (especially SLO), with no tax benefits coming back.

"No taxation without poopresentation"

Shark Inlet said...

While publicworks writes partially in jest, his point is pretty serious.

When you consider the way our tax dollars (property and sales, anyway) are collected and distributed, the city of SLO is gaining a whole lot of money from the sales taxes on sales to Los Osos residents. People in other communities have a far more established way of keeping their sales tax dollars local.

Perhaps the city should finally admit that and pressure the County government into doing what is right ... offering to give some 20% of all increase in Los Osos sales and property taxes directly to the Los Osos sewer problem.

For example, if a home sells in Los Osos for $500k that had been previously assessed at $200k, right now the county takes the lion's share of the gain ... 1.5% of the $300k ... about $5k per year. If just $1k (per year) were to go directly to solving the Los Osos problem, we would be far better funded.

The county would not *lose* anything, per se. They would give up some of the future tax dollars ... dollars that one could argue should be due to Los Osos in the first place. When you consider just parks, our town is the most underserved community in the region.

Just some ideas ...

Perhpas the supervisor who represents us should float some of these ideas by the City and County. Well, maybe not float ... push.

Anonymous said...

Now I'll give you the SLO and SLO county reaction to this (other than the middle finger).

'Ya don't like it, ya'll go create your own retail base. Fat chance, when you idiots can't even create a decent sewage system'.

Ron said...

Ann, that was an amazing post. What in the hell is going on out there? Nothing squares up. This is gonna get goooood.

Also, in the comments section of your last post, you said:

"Inlet's precis is so far off the mark that I've had to seriously question whether Inlet is capable of reading and understanding what I've written."

They do that to me all the time. Obviously, that tactic is intentional. Dare I say, a "behavior based marketing strategy." It keeps everyone going in circles. It's smart, if you think about it. If I wanted to counter a blog (or blogs) that has been killing my "behavior based marketing strategies," that's exactly how I'd do it too.

But they had to go and get greedy.

Memo to the people funding the people behind Shark Inlet: If that's the level of logic you are financing in a desperate attempt to counter the blogs the have been oh so devastating to your normally tight control over the local media, then I'm not too sure you're gettin' your money's worth. You might want to look up this guy.

That's why I had to reluctantly turn off the comments section at ol' SewerWatch. I'm not going to give people that I can show have deliberately misled Los Osos over the last 7 years, an opportunity to deliberately mislead.

caveat lector, indeed.

Anonymous said...

Shark, you are one scary dude.

Tri-W is dead.

You lost.

Get over it.

We don't want your dearly beloved plan...and we voted on it.

Mike Green said...

And now our merry go round is comming full circle.
Its been a wild ride.
Next stop, San Luis Obispo.
Right where we all got on.
Kumbaya ha ha
Kumbaya
Kumbaya ha ha
Kumbaya
Oh Crap
Kumbaya

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

I gather that you read my response to your previous comment (after all, you replied to Ann's reply to my post).

Do you have the ability to dig up the comments I made in your blog before you turned the comments off? The answer to your questions can be found there. As I indicated there, the ball's in your court ... if nothing else it would be nice if you can explain how that poll from 2001 shows "almost zero support" for a park at TriW (remember, you wrote that Feb 8)? I believe I explained how the wording of the poll question (thanks for posting the exact wording) would specifically not allow you to reach the conclusion you did. I figure I must have misunderstood what you meant.

As to your recent post here ... I expected more of you. It seems that you are calling me a liar and deliberate manipulator. With a touch of rhetorical flourish you are suggesting I've even getting paid (well, that was funny). It seems that you've completely misjudged me. I'm just a regular guy out there who has tried to look carefully into the issues and read carefully what each side is saying.

The fact that I just happen to disagree with you quite often is no reason to get snippy.

Perhaps it would help if I were to re-state my key motivations. I would like the cheapest reasonable sewer and WWTF. I would like the quickest one possible. I care that the previous board screwed up some things and many of their choices have brought us to this point where many pretty much mistrust anything associated with the names Stan and Gordon. Even if you are right that there was a great evil done by choosing TriW when other sites are better in every way, the best thing we can do now isn't to sumarily reject TriW. You care deeply about the park. I care deeply about the total cost and how soon the project can get done.

Shark Inlet said...

anonymous ...

are you the same anonymous as the last one ... or are you the other guy?

Why is TriW dead? If the aspects of Measure B that would appear to prohibit TriW are determined to be invalid, it is up to the board (or perhaps to us if we get a vote according to another part of Measure B), not to you. If Measure B were to be struck down, it would only be by action of the board that TriW would be killed. Simply put, if this board agrees with the previous board that we (you and me both) don't get to vote, they can make a very costly choice. That's the drawback of representatative government ... sometimes they make choices you would disagree with. However, I seem to remember this board telling us that they support the idea behind measure B ... that the people ought to be given the choice. If that is the case, why are they refusing to let us pick TriW?

If you think that as a community we voted on TriW you are very mistaken.

Measure B is a site selection ordinance, nothing more and nothing less (at least that is what Lisa keeps telling us). The text of the measure combines two key issues. Some voted for Measure B because of the idea that "the people get to choose" and others because of the "not near parks and schools" portion. If there were two measures, one on each of those two issues, I suspect that both would have lost because of the mixing of the two issues, but who knows for sure.

The recall was about the choice to replace three individuals with three other individuals. Some of the votes for the recall were because people thought that Gordon, Stan and Richard were just not listening to the community, not because the voter wanted the WWTF moved.

Face it, the Sep 27 results were not a mandate. Thinking they were is foolishness and acting like they were is a mistake on the part of this board.


As to whether I love TriW ... I actually don't. I think that if back in 2000 the CSD knew that the proposed ponding system wouldn't fly, they should have asked for input then on the issue of TriW or elsewhere. They didn't. The only reason I tollerate TriW is because it is the best option we have now when you consider all the costs involved.


Oh, by the way, politeness counts.

Ron said...

Ann's right Shark, you guys have a serious comprehension problem. What's the point of responding?

Those were the "CCC documents" you guys were referring too? Those had nothing to do with my arguments at all. Nothing.

Stop misquoting me and Ann. Stop referring to documents that have nothing to do with what I'm writing about, and stop twisting things on purpose.

If you guys want a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos with no siting rationale whatsoever, just because you think you might pay less, well, there you go. Knock yourselves out.

I prefer projects that actually have siting rationale behind them. You guys don't. That's where we'll always differ.

As for your posts on my blog, hope you saved 'em on your computers... they aren't worth reading.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron,

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Somehow you think you have a right to tell me what I can and cannot say. I don't think that I've misquoted you at all. The statement you made was quoted verbatim. Perhaps if you feel that you've been misquoted it is because I've been repeating the essence of how I've been hearing what you've been writing and using the same quotation style that Ann uses. Why do you feel that it is okay for you and Ann to put words in the mouth of various boardmembers of the past but don't think it is okay for me to take the same approach with you?

I gather from your lack of response on the poll that you are admitting that your statement that the poll shows that Los Osos residents didn't want a park at TriW is simply your unfounded opinion and not a "fact". If that is not the case, let us know.

As to whether my posts are worth reading or not, I sort of think it should be up to the reader to make that determination. Oh yeah, you don't want to let people read what others might say in response to you. From my location it looks like you don't like people questioning you.

As to your claim that you prefer rational siting, fine. Tell us where would have been better. Face it, there is no perfect site. They all have drawbacks. Sure, you've trotted out a memo that shows that Andre would cost about the same amount if even feasible. That doesn't mean that Andre should be preferred now or should have been preferred back in 2001. Unless you can show us some evidence that there was a better site than TriW, all your arguments seem to boil down to your opinion and nothing more.

Rational siting is good. Low cost is good. Eliminating pollution quickly is good. If you had to rank the three I suspect you would rank them differently than I would.

What I am wondering now is whether you even read what I've written here and elsewhere. Presumably you think that there is a reasonable likelihood that we could end up paying less than TriW somehow. If you don't mind me asking, how do you imagine that could happen? Even if you've not read my dismal comments on the money issues, presumably you wouldn't make such a statement without putting some thought into is.

I would hope you would continue to interact with us here because you've got some good insights. If you can't deal with real people having real opinions that might disagree with your own, you might avoid the comments area much like you've closed down comments on your own blog.

Hope to see you here again...

Anonymous said...

Ron My Main Man. They are signal jammers. Its gonna get worse before it gets better. The Fix may be in, but the last note has not been sung. Hooray Ann, She knows, everyone knows, that a small wealthy consortium in this town (this county) have worked very hard and have created a fine little propaganda machine,from the Times Trivial Tribune down to blogs.
Anybody out there? this is Free Los Osos calling...through signal jammers and Promis. Time to turn up the gain. 2000 signatures in less than a month...this town may never get right again. shouts to MG, 45, all the anons, what the hell...venceremos. All love to Ann and her viewpoint and her love and respect and commitment to this community & especially to her patience, in the noble name of free speech, with these propagandists...who continously and systematically take full cynical advantage of it. Shame on those who gloat at the fear of their neighbors and then feed those fears with disinformation.

Anonymous said...

Well said dogpatch. Shark Inlet is not stupid. His coments are very calculated. No disrespect Ann, but Shark Inlet does not have a comprehension problem. If you don't believe Shark Inlet's information processing is definately and deliberately off the mark, then maybe you have a comprehension problem. Shark Inlet and his/HER supporters are the evil demon seed that's trying to divide and conquer this town. What Shark Inlet fails to realize is that it's this display of sick and twisted lies that will have a backlash and be their downfall. Arrogance and stupidity on display. Like the cease & desist orders from the RWQCB. Thank you very much. Believe it or not these could be the best thing that ever happened to this town. They will expose the water board for their complete lack of scientific knowledge on our wastewater problem and expose them for not being an agency concerned with water quality but a government bureaucracy that is basing it's actions on politics and not science........ like the never seen before brainwashed or paid-off citizen???/actress at the CSD meeting the other night, who didn't state her name or place of residence and said she was hauling out buckets of poop from her backyard....it's these types of lies and misinformation that Shark Inlet is spreading that will be their downfall. Just like starting the TRI-W project before the election, these lies will once again awaken the "anonymous" of this town to rise and take back their community. We have gone passive in our September Victory. That time has long passed. An elite few are not getting the message that this town does not belong to their money. Our town is not for sale and we are not buying your lies.

Churadogs said...

Re the comment that frequent pumping allows the poop to become more highly concentrated & settle and so forth. Actually freequent pumping removes everything so poop doesn't settle, it gets sucked out into the truck. Consequently, every two months you're starting with an empty tank, which, most septic experts will tell you, cripples the bacteria needed to keep things humming, hence you end up with a poorly operating system, not an optimum one. Just another reason why this mad scheme is a poorly thought out one.

Anonymous said...

Well, it is apparent that some of the posters here are feeling threatened by rational give and take dialogue. Dogpatchy and the lastest anonymous poster only seem to vent with no substance. Why not try some substance for a change?

Sharkie and PubWorks write with facts as a basis while these later posters SHOUT about others' "arrogance and stupidity". Perhaps if they could tell us exactly what "lies and misinformation" is being spread we could better understand!

Expose us to the factual information that demonstrates the contention that the water board has a "complete lack of scientific knowledge on our wastewater problem"

IMHO, it is "facts" that are fueling this fear and thus this need to strike out. Why not calmly state you case?

Anonymous said...

At the informational meeting of the 15th, the issue of bacterial reaction was explained! It is a very slow process that takes a very long time and thus is not negligently affected by frequent pumping. Perhaps a reference to where we can find references to these "most septic experts will tell you" will enlighten us?

Anonymous said...

i guess the previous anonymous poster doesn't know how to read cause ann just posted a "fact" right before his post. illustrating your sides tactic of right in the face of a FACT, saying we have no facts......sorry it just doesn't fly.....I honestly can't wait for this to go to court and let the FACTS be heard....your bullshit isn't going to work in court......how about this fact....killing a septic tank by pumping it every two months and pumping out millions of gallons of our water and duming it in santa maria and bakersfield will actually make our water pollution and water supply problem worse......say whatever you want...say this isn't a fact......we the people of los osos aren't buying it.

Mike Green said...

OK here is a little fact, just a tiny one that nobody has challenged me on yet.
If the people of Los Osos had not bought the initial story of "faster better cheaper" and NOT created the CSD in the first place. We would not be talking about this now.
Line up all your facts right after this one and you will see quite clearly why we are here.

Anonymous said...

OK, let's review anons and Ann's comments:

'..cripples the bacterium..' & '.. you end up with a poorly operating system'

'It is a very slow process that takes a very long time..'
'..and thus is not negligently affected by frequent pumping'.

A septic system is a poor operating system to begin with when systems are placed in high density.


Nice scientific term, Ann! Cripple I've yet to see in any literature. Ann, after the pumping of the tank, what is the reduction in de-nitrification as compared to a quarter-filled tank for a 1000 gallon tank?? Please provide the specific substantiating source, if you have any.

Listen, the fact it is a very slow process also means that when you have emptied a tank, the discharges into the tank following that will be subjected to a longer process, especially if one conserves water.

The fact it is a very slow process means that the treatment level is low, and thus the benefit of pumping poorly treated septage exceeds the benefit of putting poorly treated (slightly less poor) septage into the ground.

As to the comment about the reduction in performance: when Ann provides the performance data, we can see just how negligle it is or it isn't.

So for all of you so concerned about the pumping effects, why don't you propose pumping the tank every 4-6 months instead? Why don't you propose putting in a holding tank as an alternate?

I'm assuming here y'all didn't want to stop discharging in two years when there would have been a plant to hook up to, after discharging for 18+ years in a prohibition zone. When you voted, what was your proposal to stop or reduce discharging in the interim?

No, the alternate plan presented to the voters was to continue discharging indefinitely because there was no plan offered that addressed the discharge prohibition. Ooops!

Oh, I know, go ahead and make posts about how this is misinformation, dreamer blather, I'm an agent of the Hitler youth, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, and argumentis contradictus dictalis sorceres caesar salad croutanis.

Anonymous said...

Perhaps someone could quote the fact that "ann just posted".

Anonymous said...

If the people of Los Osos had not bought the story of "no loss of SRF loan, no fines, and a plan", We would not be talking about this now.

Anonymous said...

Exactly what fact did Ann just post?

Anonymous said...

don't blame the created entity(the CSD as the CSD not the people who run it) for the dishonest and corrupt people who advocated it's creation........You're right Mike, it was not the CSD that caused the problem, it was the people in power who created the CSD that we just recalled that sold us the lie of "faster better cheaper" that caused the problem. The preoblem was NOT the CSD. It was the PEOPLE running the CSD. Why do you want to throw the baby out with the bathwater? This newly elected board wants like no other a wastewater project for our community. How is surrendering your local control over fire, water supply, and wastewater going to be helpful or save this community any money. Perhaps you don't care about this. How does turning the clock back 8 years advance us towards a wastewater solution. How does dissolving the CSD prevent the RWQCB from issuing cease & desist orders? A question was asked at the informational meeting held the RWQCB Wednesday night. "If the CSD is dissolved will that prevent the RWQCB from issuing C&D orders?" guess what the answer was...."NO". The current CSD was just granted Designated Party status......the current CSD has an interest in protecting us against these wrongful C&D orders and an interest in providing our community with a wastewater solution ASAP. Why is this something you'd want to dissolve?

Anonymous said...

how about this fact....killing a septic tank by pumping it every two months and pumping out millions of gallons of our water and duming it in santa maria and bakersfield will actually make our water pollution and water supply problem worse......say whatever you want...say this isn't a fact......we the people of los osos aren't buying it.

Anonymous said...

most septic experts will tell you, cripples the bacteria needed to keep things humming, hence you end up with a poorly operating system, not an optimum one. Just another reason why this mad scheme is a poorly thought out one.

Anonymous said...

the words 'cripple' and 'kill' keep being repeated.

Just asking for the sources (experts) and the data behind your statements. Why wouldn't you want to back it up??

My alltime favorites in Los Osos:

1) 'the Tri-W plant will have major spills' 'Storms will blow right through the plant'

According to whom, and based on what design data?

Were they going to open a door on each side of the plant to allow the storm to blow through?

2) 'We reviewed that ponding idea years ago'

Ponding systems are different.

3) 'All alternates were reviewed'

It is practically impossible to review all alternates

4) 'we're going to form a septic tank management distict'

No, only the legislature can form the septic tank management district

5) 'The Tri-W project doesn't prevent seawater intrusion'

No, but it was a start.

6) 'The RWQCB does not deal with science'

Now that's true to a large extent. They aren't the National Science Foundation. The are a regulatory agency, and they deal with REGULATIONS, imperfect as they are.

Doesn't it strike anyone as odd that the new CSD board,upon assuming office, did not immediately pass a resolution asking the RWQCB to terminate or modify the Basin plan prohibition, given all the actions and ridiculous statemens they've taken and said???



Note: The CSD has only requested designated party status.

Anonymous said...

anonymous, your post about dissolving the CSD is very enlightening.

It proves there is hope.

Your question about turning back the clock 8 years is also interesting. I would encourage you to answer your own quesion, because that is exactly what the district's new board has done, starting over again after 8 years, and having us pay $40/month for nothing (actually about $240/month for some not agreed upon yet amount of nitrate reduction).

If the CSD is dissolved, will that stop C&D orders. No. It the CSD is not dissolved, will that stop C&D orders. No.

What will stop C&D orders? Hooking up to a treatment system.

Why are the C&D orders wrongful? Based on what? Has the state used C&D orders before as a follow-up to discharge prohibitions? The answer is Yes. Have they been appealed? The answer is Yes. Have they been upheld? The answer is Yes.

I have a question for Ann et. al. What do you want to spend your hard-earned dollars on? Lawyers or a treatment system. And what do you think the lawyers are really going to accomplish (other than enriching themselves)? Think about that (along with the 'science' y'all love to spout off about).

Anonymous said...

"how about this fact....killing a septic tank by pumping it every two months and pumping out millions of gallons of our water and duming it in santa maria and bakersfield will actually make our water pollution and water supply problem worse."

This is a belief, where is "science"?

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Could I suggest again that you not allow anonymous posters here?

It would be far more convenient to keep people (and comments) straight if everyone were to simply pick a name of some sort that they could stick with.

It gets especially confusing when there are three anonymous individuals with two different opinions arguing with each other.

Y'all enjoy the weekend...

Mike Green said...

Why not just ask the anons to pick a number? I started out as an anon, but I soon learned to sign my name cause it was easier. Now I'm a world renown Blogger!
You have a good weekend too Sharkey.
I just got back from a hike down to the inlet, what a beutiful place.

Anonymous said...

Some easy weekend reading regarding "science" & "facts": The Morro Bay National Estuary Program's Report on the health of Morro Bay. Downloadable pdf. The TT was supposed to publish it a while back as a supplement.
Is Morro Bay a $165 million dollar superfund cleanup site because of immenent threat from Los Osos?? Must this community be done to this way because of all the clear, serious environmental damage it is causing?
Or have things gotten so out of proportion that only bad politics and public policy can explain it?
Follow the $$
BTW IMHO Anons should be who feel they should be. Snarkie always trying make rules. Not everybody in town brave like famous blogger M Green neither :) Besides monilers invite ridicule & some folks r a bit sensitive...
The real Shark's Inlet is an amazing spirit filled piece of the best of North America. You can hear the bulldozers as you float down middle of it. They mute the songs of Blackbirds and shorebirds.
Sometimes you see seals or otters when the tide is right. The water clarity is often 2 feet or better, which means you can see pretty much to the bottom. Bait fish darting to & fro...

Anonymous said...

"how about this fact....killing a septic tank by pumping it every two months and pumping out millions of gallons of our water and dumping it in santa maria and bakersfield will actually make our water pollution and water supply problem worse."

This is a belief, where is "science"?

Where is the science?

First of all, at the informational meeting Wednesday night, the waterboards own septic expert said that if you pump every two months you need to introduce bacteria and micro-biology that you wouldn't have to if you didn't pump it every two months.....there you have it...the board's own "expert" explaining that it messes up your septic tank to pump it every two months......watch the tape of that meeting(slospan.org) after he makes this statement he is hastily asked to step down by one of the board reps....it's a real crack-up.

OK. As for the water supply problem.......Let me explain this to you like you're a 2 year old.....you remove water for use from our water supply which winds up in your septic tank.......then you pump that water from your septic tank, ship it out of town and dump it in santa maria or bakersfield.....i guess your right, if we do this long enough it will solve our water pollution problem. we won't have any water left. zero water = zero water pollution. never mind. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how ridiculous this illconceived this (plan?) is. the water board really dropped their pants on this one......and they will be exposed in court.....

Shark Inlet said...

Dogpatch,

The reason for the sewer (in my opinion) isn't the Bay but the aquifer. We've known since ... um ... the 1970s that there are far too many septic systems/acre in Los Osos and the distance to the ground water is not enough to allow all the nitrates to be taken up into the soil. If there were fewer systems/acre and the aquifer were deeper we would all be happy. As it is, we're pissing into our drinking water which is sort of dumb. And illegal.

Actually there may be some problems in the Bay from the lack of sewer, but those problems are very small compared to the problems of our aquifer.

Speaking of monikers inviting ridicule ... calling me Snarkie is a good one.

I don't actually care if someone wants to be anonymous, but you have to admit it gets a bit confusing. Perhaps if one were to choose a moniker like "bob" or "larry" or, say, "Steve Senet rules" it would make things easier to keep track.

Shark Inlet said...

anonymous,

If more water is conserved (not pumped out of the aquifer) by Los Osos residents than is shipped to Santa Maria, we are better off than we are today. Sounds strange perhaps, but the system is not a closed one. The majority of our groundwater recharge is from rainwater (exactly how much, I am not sure, perhaps the Cleath report has this detail in it somewhere). Quite a bit of the water from our septics doesn't end up in the aquifer. If it was a closed system you would be exactly right.

If the RWQCB plant to force us to reduce nitrate loadings is really that silly, could you explain how the nitrates won't actually be reduced? Perhaps you don't like the fact that some water needs be trucked out of the county. I don't either. Maybe you should have thought this one through before electing people who would stop a project that would have allowed us to actually stop our illegal discharges.

Do you seriously think that there should be no consequences for refusing to follow a state law? Or, would you prefer an ACL hearing for each and every property in the PZ and fines for the pollution. Certainly you would have the opportunity to defend your actions, but in this case the only defense would be to prove you've not flushed since discharges were forbidden ... you would lose.

At least with the CnD orders at least the nitrate levels will drop.

Churadogs said...

To all re Inlet's suggestion that I don't allow "anonymous" postings. Uh, everyone, with the exception of Mike Green and myself are "anonymous." i.e. writing under ak nom de plume, nobody knows who they are --which, need I remind you, means that their opinions and "facts" and statements must all be taken with about a pound of salt because if you don't know who they are, you don't know how credible they are.

But, it is a good suggestion that the Anons, pick a number or some sort of identifier so if commenters wish to speak to one another they can at least respond to the right "Anon."

Fact: The CSD asked for AND WAS GRANTED DESIGNATED STATUS from the State Water Board for the CDO hearings.

Fact: a good place for "expert" info on septic systems is the National Small Flows Clearinghouse group at the University of West Virginia. Should be agle to Google them and snoop around their website.

Question for all: Instead of this mad pumping scheme, why didn't the RWQCB work with the County & CSD to revise the Basin Plan, get their own Resolution 83-12 up and running, work with Blakeslee in fast-tracking emergency enabling legislation to turn-key the CSD's Septic Management District, set acceptable targets of nitrates in pounds for the basin, etc. Then the CSD can coherently target "hot spots" in a scientifically sound manner to reduce the nitrate loads. According to the Cleath & Assoc water report, the average nitrate load from all wells is 10.4. The State levels for nitrates in drinking water is 10. The RWQCB needs to set a target for reduction for that .4. Zero? .2? What?

Mike Green said...

I'll take a shot at your last question, Ann, please allow me to paraphrase for the sake of brevity.
"Why is the RWQCB ignoring their own experts, not utilizing the government tools and entitys at their disposal, attempting to create a public panic, and in the end quite possibly harming the very resource that they were charged to protect?

I think it's because in the end the RWQCB are politicians. and to politicians winning is everything.
They are attempting to punish us and this is the only vehicle they can come up with.
The reasoning behind the bimonthly pump (fine)
is probably more to mimic what the monthly charge of a functioning TriW plant would be.
The reason behind the random choosing of the doomed is to incite fear in the populace of the ultimate power of the RWQCB.
And that is why they dont need any help from the county, or the CSD or that pipsqueek assyblyperson that they already slapped down once.

I think everyone regardless of your sewer stripe should be very concerned about a state beuracracy
that displays this kind of arrogance.

Anonymous said...

OMG,

everyone 'knows' the reason for the CDOs. Stop inventing reasons. It's simple, there's a discharge prohibition, and the fastest way to stop discharging is to do precisely what they're doing. As great as using groundwater levels sounds, it's got some real problems, meaning making 5000 precise measurements of (fluctuating) groundwater levels.

Progressive enforcement of discharging within a legal discharge prohibiton zone WILL ultimately reduce pollution. It's a sad way to do it, courtesy of a CSD. Oh, I know, it's the fault of everybody but the CSD, blah, blah, blah, blah.

thanks to Ann for the update that the designation status had been granted. I'm sure the lawyers for the CSD are jubilent, 5000 cases and more legal fees.

Ann, did you read the Bay News, and the former lawyer for CCLO rebutting Ms. Biggs statements? When are you going to do an in-depth review of actions of ALL the law firms involved and their history, the money her firm has made and will be made by the numerous planned appeals, and a review of lawyer ethics?? Actually look at the case history, not just blather on that they would have won certain cases. I'm sure it would be an interesting read. Might be a little too much work though.

Anonymous said...

Inlet: At least with the CnD orders at least the nitrate levels will drop.
Fact or opinion?
How long will it take?
How much will it drop?
how long have we been .4 over the fit all regulatory scale?
Has there been a dramatic $165 million+ worth of change since um since the 70's, more accurately since the BUILDING HALT of the 1980s??
If we we are so polluting our ground water, why can we still legallly drink from our taps??
The health of the bay and the health of the ground water are intimately connected. Read the MBNEP's report and ask yourself if any of this speculator , builder driven politiking is is warrented by the facts. $100s of millions of dollars, a broken town, 50% overbid contracts contradicting a 6 month old multi million dollar project report.. but lets bid it anyway! There is a recall election coming, they can't win, let's take the loan and start cutting trees! Whoops we lost, let's start demanding and begging the state to fine our town into submission and/or remove the local government because we no longer control it.
I know I know it s all THIS board's fault blah blah blah.
Regulations trump justice. Tri W uber alles. Call us liars and worse ok, but don't say nothing about St. Pandora. we are rude they are civil. War is peace. Democracy is only when dReamers win. Free speech is only what Stan & Rosemary's gavel says it is.
On a happier note: The Trib today actually got it mostly right, minus the the requisite hyperbole about pollution (Opinion).

Mike Green said...

Sure I "know" the underlying reason for the CDOs
But why not start with just one?
What is the reasoning of the 45?
why not all 5000 right now?
Notice I state that it's what "I" think
I may be wrong, I may be right, It's my opinion.
I make no other claim

Shark Inlet said...

Dogpatch,

Nitrate levels will drop. Imagine a bucket full of salty water in it. If you consistently add salty water into the bucket the nitrate levels won't drop. If you start add water that is less salty, the saltiness drops.

The fact that the aquifer gets most of its water from rainfall means that if we reduce the total nitrates flowing out of our septic systems, the nitrate levels will drop.

All your discussion of nitrate limits, how much the total dollar value of damage to the environment since the 70s and the rest is pretty much irrelevant to the RWQCB. As a community we had an obligation to stop discharging. When we stopped the progress on this plan they figured that it was time to call us on our crap (to use a Dr. Philism) and require us to do something to halt pollution.

Who is to blame? The people who stopped construction, the current LOCSD board.

Even if Stan and Pandora are lying sacks of weasel dung, the solution to pollution is to stop polluting, nothing more and nothing less.

If you want to have a discussion about the evils of Sylvia and Rose, I would be happy to do so, but your venting is completely irrelevant to our discussion of the RWQCB. Let me know.

Anonymous said...

Although the RWQCB's long term goal may be to reduce pollution, it is definitely not their short term goal.

Their goal right now it to scare and punish. In fact, they dont want to reduce pollution at all until there is a sewer in place.

You see, way back when... in the early 80's they set Los Osos on a path to a sewer. It still appears that initial decision was not supported very well scientifically.

But after all these years of insisting a centralized sewer is our only option... unwilling to relook at the science, the dropping nitrate levels, their past mistakes... they will do anything to make sure they were "right" and force Los Osos to build a sewer no matter what the cost.

So how do they reach that goal?? They scare and punish those that oppose them.

Of course they will never allow a septic management program.

Of course they will never allow any alternative solutions from the individual C&D targets.

Of course they will never target just the people in the nitrate hot spots.

Doing so may actually drop the nitrate levels below 10ppm and then Los Ososians may say... "Do we actually need a sewer now?"

They would never allow that.

The second key part of their plan is it's cost... whatever they require of us it MUST cost more than the sewer itself... otherwise why not just do that instead of building the sewer?

So dont ever expect them to allow any alternative that costs less than $200 per month.

So they have come up with a proposal that "appears" to fight pollution but does not. And is more costly than the sewer itself.

Mission accomplished!!!

Anonymous said...

First, I didn't say anything about Sylvia. 2nd your saltwater analogy sucks, because it doesn't account sources such as horses over a sampling well or the many cattle pastures upstream or the golf courses or the agriculture or CMC or the composition of the mineral strata under our feet. ETC! Prove the sources of the pollution and their magnitudes.
I agree the water boards have no sense of porportionality, IMHO they subscribe to the "we had to bomb the town flat in order to save it from itself" form of governance.
Third you didn't really answer my questions or maybe you misunderstood them. C'mon you're a commitee, you can come up with something. Maybe you can start with a 30 year baseline that has significantly changed over time.
Oh right, the regulators only care about compliance, not their practicality nor their justice for the comnunities they're supposed to be serving.

Shark Inlet said...

Dogpatch,

Sorry that I didn't reply to your questions. I thought I replied to the key aspects of each of the relevant ones.

Sorry you didn't like my saltwater analogy. The portions of the aquifer with the highest nitrate levels are directly below Los Osos. How it got to be so high there but not so high to the East cannot be explained other than septic density and distance to groundwater issues. While my saltwater analogy is an oversimplification I think it still makes sense. If you're going to suggest that nitrate levels won't drop you should explain how they are so high now below us if we're not the cause.

How much the nitrates will go down and how soon, I don't know. I suspect that if we're pumping 20% of nitrates forever that ultimately the nitrates below us would go down by about 20% ... it might take decades, though.

That is why a plant that would reduce nitrate loadings to nearly zero coming online ASAP is so important. The damage we are continuing to do to our aquifer by our piddling around makes it more and more likely every year than we'll have to move to state water, something I would consider an avoidable mistake.

Perhaps you don't care as much about this issue because you don't mind state water and are wealthy enough to pay the extra costs associated with the delay.

I just want to explain why I think it is good do get building as soon as possible, even if it means at the TriW site.

Anonymous said...

the problem with the waterboard is that they are acting politically and not scientifically.......all you have to do is watch their own feb 15th workshop on the C&D orders to see how lost and clueless they are....their own experts telling them that pumping every 2 months is not good......when Matt Thompson, rwqcb staffer heading up the show, was asked about the "science" of pumping every 2 months, he said "there is none. It's unheard of"....tell it to the Judge please Matt.....when asked how pumping 36 million of gallons of water out of our aquifer, that's already in overdraft, and dumping it in santa maria and/or bakersfield would affect our water supply problem, Matt said "We are not in the water suppy business. We are in the water quality business".....Good answer Matt. clean our water by stealing it and dumping it in santa maria...good answer, fix our water quality by fucking up our water supply.......i can't wait to get these guys into court...... these C&D orders are the best thing that ever could of happend. they are uniting our community and they are exposing the waterboard's actions as political actions and not scientific actions to conserve or clean and advance our community towards a wastewater solution.......by they way, incase you've missed the last few meetings, our(your) CSD is working with the rwqcb on a better solution......the CSD that you want to dissolve........

Anonymous said...

What is the rush, scientifcally speaking, if there hasn't been a dramatic change in water quality in lo these many years? Is it just possible this is like trying to kill a mosquito with a flame thrower? $165 million + $6.6 million dollars in fines. A permanently fractured community.
Worth it though to maybe to lower them nitrates .4 on a scale of 10 sometime in the future but we're not sure when... Big katrina relief style money numbers. 100s of millions More money than we provide in aid to many worthy causes. Then inlet, you go to back true form speculating on my income and backround, playing the false populist. A cheap trick for you guys who so mightly wave the banner of a cause supported and funded by builders, Big Realators & big money investors. A project that has provided easy millions to big private contractors.
State Water??
How about dewatering millions of gallons from our neighborhoods every year to get us there quicker? Cuz Rational good public policy is what Briggs is all about.

Shark Inlet said...

You are right, dogpatch. I should not have speculated on your income and background, it is not my place. What I should have written instead is that nearly all the people I know in town could barely afford the TriW plant costs but now we're talking considerably more.

Along those same lines, I don't appreciate you referring to my feelings and opinions as a "cheap trick". I honestly care for my friends. The fact that the actions of this current board have made it unlikely that my friends will be able to stay in town troubles me.

I don't know that there is any rush. If there were a rush, the RWQCB could have taken more serious action ... they could have required us disconnect our leach fields.

As we've discussed here earlier, the pumping of polluted water out of the system is probably a good thing ... after all the water is polluted. Furthermore, we could always conserve more than we are pumping out and solve two problems at once. Why not?

As to a permanently fractured community ... that may very well have happened once a few people insisted that a recall and Measure B and stopping the TriW project, no matter what the cost came on the scene. Think about it a bit ... these folks have told us that they think it would be better to pay any cost than to have a TriW plant. I know it was campaign rhetoric on Chuck's part, but it seems to have been the only campaing promise they've kept. (Maybe they've kept others as well, but I seem to remember them telling us that we wouldn't be fined, that the RWQCB could never go after individual homeowners, that we wouldn't lose the SRF, that the out of town plant would be cheaper and the like.)

Anonymous said...

SHARK INLET IS JOE SPARKS who suddenly appeared out of nowhere and is obviously a psuedo intellect plant to let the greedy developers and speculators and real estate agents get their way he is not of our community but another agent of demise as Bruce Buel was

Shark Inlet said...

I am not Joe Sparks. Joe has a far superior knowledge of the situation than I do and Julie would seem to agree. She nominated him to serve on some sort of official committee. If you don't like Joe and his point of view, take it up with Julie.

Your comments about whether he is "of our community" make me wonder whether one ought to criticize Gail and Joey for the reason that they are not from "round these parts".

By the way, in 'Merica everyone gets a vote ... even people who have recently moved to the area like Joey. Perhaps you fell asleep during civics class.