Calhouns Can(n)ons

Friday, March 03, 2006

Tree Man, Part Duh

The following email arrived from Joey Racano. The quasi-end game of his Tree Sitting Caper. Seems the tree he was sitting in wasn’t even on CSD property so he, uh, wasn’t trespassing . Oops. Arrest that tree for harboring an anti-Tri-W-sewer activist! Oh, wait, we can't. It was cut down in its prime! Call CSI!

~S.L.O. LAW!~ maps vindicate activist!

Before a packed San Luis Obispo courtroom, Judge Charles S. Crandel accepted a D.A. motion to have trespassing charges dismissed against activist Joey Racano for a July 7th, 2005 tree 'sit' in Los Osos, California.

"Your honor, due to new information, we move to dismiss the charges", said Deputy D.A. Nancy Fede.

"So moved", said Judge Crandel, "Mr. Racano, you're free to go".

"Thank you your honor", said I.

"And may I add that I am aware of your career accomplishments and it has been an honor to come before your bench" I said.

Judge Crandel, arguably the numero uno Clean Water Act lawyer in the world before being seated on the bench, was the lead lawyer for alaskan fisherman against Exxon, represented Earthcorps against San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and represented Ballona Wetlands Action Network against Playa Vista!

"Thank you" he modestly replied.

Also in attendance was world-famous activist Mandy Davis, fresh from war in Antarctica against the Japanese Whaling Fleet on board the Sea Shepherd Society's ship 'Farley Mowat', now back to rejoin the battle for Morro Bay Estuary!

Public Defender L. Anthony Lucero simplified the entire case by demanding official maps of the 'Tri-W' area, which showed -to the surprise of many- the tree in which I perched was not on Los Osos Community Services District property after all.

Last July, the former LOCSD held a phony 'groundbreaking' for a sewer plant that would have brought financial and environmental disaster upon the community of Los Osos. My tree-sit helped garner much-needed media attention to the issue.

The majority of that CSD were recalled in disgrace on Sept. 27th in a razor-thin election! Big fun!

The new CSD has now re-populated committees left intentionally vacant by the former CSD (so they could 'accept' a 135 Million Dollar bid for a 46 Million Dollar project by contractor friends) and, in spite of being attacked by a corrupt Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, are now putting sewer plans through a proper 'vetting' process.

In interviews today with THE BAY NEWS and NEW TIMES, I made clear my responsibility to activists, who must be allowed to exercise constitutional rights of free-speech without fear of incarceration.

Next: ~Litigate, SEWERGATE!~love, your pal Joey xoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxoxooxxoxooxoxo

23 comments:

Mike Green said...: I'm puzzled, as usual, if the tree wasn't on CSD property, who's tree was it?
And when did it become CSD property that led to it's demise?; 7:47 AM, March 03, 2006
Anonymous said...: The Queen Anne tree was a victim of easements, yet another delightful, but seldom discussed aspect of the Boondoggle: Public easement v. private property...; 11:17 AM, March 03, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Joey,

Here's my question ... what do you think that Judge C. Steven Crandall's take is on the whole LOCSD/TriW situation?; 11:25 AM, March 03, 2006
Anonymous said...: A little break from sewerville. This reminds me of another interesting - but totally unrelated - story proving just how blind justice can be. Some of you may recall 1970 in Isla Vista was a time of fairly energized anti-war protesting which was very aggressively countered by imported heavies from the LA police department just itching to get into battle. It wasn't pretty. Over three days more than 3,000 people representing ~10% of the population of Isla Vista were picked up (off the street, out of their yards and from within their homes), arrested, cuffed, carted off to jail, booked and held in jail for as much as a week. While sitting in a overly crowded holding cell awaiting booking I struck up a conversation with another young man looking as confused and out of place as all the rest of us. While watering flowers in his fenced yard he had been picked up, accosted, hand-cuffed and brought in for arrest without any opportunity to identify himself. We chatted about the weirdness of it all until we were taken away for booking. He never told me who he was but he was clearly uncomfortable being there. I never saw him again until weeks later at my arraingement when I looked across the courtroom to see he was the prosecuting Assistant DA busily earning his keep by bringing all the rest of us to trial. Oh ironies of ironies, do they ever taste so sweet? I was a poor college student and had no resources for legal counsel. I was just one of thousands of poor un-represented cattle being shuttled through the chutes of justice. Imagine the smile on the face of one of the many young lawyers offering pro bono services to those such as I when I told him about how and where I first met the DA. During a break in proceedings we sauntered over and introduced ourselves to the Assistant DA. He wasn't nearly so glad to see me again as I (and my new lawyer) were to chat with him. Turns out charges against quite a few kids that day were suddenly dropped 'in the interest of justice'. Justice is indeed best when it is both blind and clueless.; 1:27 PM, March 03, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Just because it'll piss Dogpatch off I'll give a few opinions.

It seems to me that this issue has been with Los Osos for some time now and that both sides have reasonable and good points.

Good points from Lisa's Side
0. The "science" behind the whole prohibition zone was somewhat sketchy at best.
1. The solutions group (SG) should have known in advance of their election that they would need to sewer the whole town and that step-steg was a no-go.
2. The SG Board chose to give some weight in the site selection process to having public recreation space associated with the WWTF.
3. Once the ponding system was rejected as not good enough for us to get the SRF loan, the SG Board should have re-evaluated the site choice.
4. Who the hell wants a WWTF in the middle of town anyways?!
5. The TriW project would not provide a complete solution to all water problems (waste, salt and ground).
6. $200/month is far too expensive

Good points from Stuart's Side
0. It is too late to fight the state on the definition of the PZ or even whether a sewer is needed.
1. The Recall Board should have known before being elected that step-steg is a no go and that an out of town WWTF is more expensive.
2. Any site selection discussion that precludes TriW is flawed because TriW has some huge cost advantages, namely the fact that it is fully designed and permitted.
3. "Out of town" means more expensive.
4. Even if TriW is imperfect, delay will make our saltwater, groundwater and wastewater problems worse.
5. The tendency to litigate to get out of problems is expensive and it is far from clear that it will be successful.

I am clearly more sympathetic to Stuart's postition because I have too many friends who will be hurt by costs rising even higher.

It is fine to cheer on the LOCSD's desire to fight the state at every turn, but please admit that it will be expensive. If you want to build a plant out of town, fine, but please admit that it will cost more.

Some look back on 2000 and say the goal of getting a park predetermined TriW ... and that we should go back and pick a site without the blinders of the park. I would say that if it will cost us too much money to start over, it is better to work with what we've got.

I'm sure that Dogpatch will claim that I'm spinning everything left, right and center at a million miles an hour ... but I'm just giving my opinion. If Dogpatch (or anyone else) wants to discuss the issues, however, I think it would be worthwhile...; 3:53 PM, March 03, 2006
Mike Green said...: WOW, Thank you Sharkey!
That was the most heartfelt post I've ever read from you except for the time you asked me about a car problem!

And ya, I expect Doggie will try to bite you, even I saw a little journalistic slant here and there.

But overall I'm impressed except for one thing- no mention of the onsite argument.

Do you realy have an "opinion" that it has no merit?

I'm kind of asking the same question you asked me before about your car, just my question is about what you seem to know lots better than me.

If you wanted to build an onsite system and needed help from regulatory agencys, who do do talk to?

Any help would be greatly appreciated

If you take this in anyway other than a honest question you are mistaking me.

Mike Green; 9:28 PM, March 03, 2006
Anonymous said...: BTW, in keeping with the thread,
CONGRATULATIONS JOEY!
Yet another example of fine decision making by Mr. Buel & his LOCSD board...; 9:43 PM, March 03, 2006
Mike Green said...: To Anon, and clueless:
Sorry, I just had to do that, I reccomended a while ago becuase there were so many anons that we call them by the last two words they write. It didn't catch on so good, unlike some of my other weak assed humor, Hit some miss some.
I loved your story,
Thanks; 9:44 PM, March 03, 2006
Mike Green said...: Oh Ya!!! Congrats Joey!!! I hope you make em walk the plank!; 9:49 PM, March 03, 2006
Churadogs said...: Inlet's comments from above with mine added in caps:

Good points from Lisa's Side
0. The "science" behind the whole prohibition zone was somewhat sketchy at best.
1. The solutions group (SG) should have known in advance of their election that they would need to sewer the whole town and that step-steg was a no-go.

NOT "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. . ." THE SOLUTIONS GROUP DID KNOW BEFORE THE ELECTION FROM REPORTS THEY HAD ALREADY RECEIVED FROM THE STAFF OF THE CC AND RWQCB. IT'S THE COMMUNITY THAT DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION BEFORE VOTING FOR THE CSD AND THE PONDS OF AVALON.
2. The SG Board chose to give some weight in the site selection process to having public recreation space associated with the WWTF.
IF YOU READ THE PROJECT REPORT, REPEATEDLY SITES ARE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE CENTRALLY LOCATED AMENITIES. THAT PARK ELEMENT WAS CRITICALLY WEIGHTED, NOT MERELY "SOME" WEIGHT.
3. Once the ponding system was rejected as not good enough for us to get the SRF loan, the SG Board should have re-evaluated the site choice.
COULDN'T AGREE MORE.BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED AND NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY NOT.
4. Who the hell wants a WWTF in the middle of town anyways?!THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE NOW ARGUING THAT THEY LOVE HAVING A SEWER PLANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR TOWN.THEY'RE SO IN LOVE WITH IT THEY'RE WILLING TO DISSOLVE THE CSD TO GET IT.
5. The TriW project would not provide a complete solution to all water problems (waste, salt and ground).
6. $200/month is far too expensive IF $200 A MONTH IS TOO EXPENSIVE AND SINCE THE TRI-W DID NOT ADDRESS SALT WATER INTRUSION, IMPORTED WATER, AND THE $200 A MONTH DID NOT INCLUDE THOSE COSTS OR THE ESCALATING O&M&R COSTS THEN TRI-W WAS always COMPLETELY UNAFFORDABLE AND THE $200 WAS MERELY A BASE-LINE FIGURE.

Good points from Stuart's Side
0. It is too late to fight the state on the definition of the PZ or even whether a sewer is needed.WITHT HE ADVENT OF SB885, NOW IS A PERFECT TIME TO RECONSIDER THE BASIN PLAN AND RELOOK AT THE PROHIBITION ZONE AND THE ENTIRE WATER PLANS. THE PROHIBITION PLAN RIGHT NOW IS GOING TO END UP BEING TOO RESTRICTIVE AND TOO SMALL.
1. The Recall Board should have known before being elected that step-steg is a no go and that an out of town WWTF is more expensive.ACCORDING TO DARRIN POLHEMUS, THE NON-NEGOTIATION NEGOTIATOR, POSSIBLE SAVINGS WERE POSSIBLE WITH AN OUT OF TOWN SITE, ESPECIALLY IN THE REALM OF O,M & R.
2. Any site selection discussion that precludes TriW is flawed because TriW has some huge cost advantages, namely the fact that it is fully designed and permitted.
3. "Out of town" means more expensive.NOT ACCORDING TO POLHEMUS AND ADD IN TRI-WS DEFERRED COSTS AND THERE'S NO WAY IT WOULD END UP BEING LESS EXPENSIVE.
4. Even if TriW is imperfect, delay will make our saltwater, groundwater and wastewater problems worse.ACCORDING TO CLEATH AND ASSOCIATES, THE TRI W PLANT "WON'T CURE SALT WATER INTRUSION" AND IT WOULD TAKE YEARS AND YEARS TO HELP OFFSET THE NEED FOR IMPORTING WATER.
5. The tendency to litigate to get out of problems is expensive and it is far from clear that it will be successful.THE OLD CSD BOARD NEEDED TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE THEY ATEMPTED TO STOP THE MEASURE B ELECTION AND POUNDED GAZILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS INTO THE GROUND. AND ARRESTED JOEY ROCANO FOR "TRESSPASS" UP A COUNTY TREE SO IF HE SUES THE CSD AND THE COUNTY FOR UNLAWFUL ARREST, WILL A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WILL THEN BLAME THE NEW CSD FOR "YET ANOTHER LAWSUIT" & ETC.?

I am clearly more sympathetic to Stuart's postition because I have too many friends who will be hurt by costs rising even higher.

Mike Green said...
I'm puzzled, as usual, if the tree wasn't on CSD property, who's tree was it?
And when did it become CSD property that led to it's demise?

7:47 AM, March 03, 2006

IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE TREES WERE ON COUNTY PROPERTY AND WERE PART OF THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CSD TO PAY FOR 1/2 THE RAVENNA ROAD (THE DEVELOPER OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WOULD PAY FOR THE OTHER HALF.); 6:47 AM, March 04, 2006
Churadogs said...: Inlet's comments from above with mine added in caps:

Good points from Lisa's Side
0. The "science" behind the whole prohibition zone was somewhat sketchy at best.
1. The solutions group (SG) should have known in advance of their election that they would need to sewer the whole town and that step-steg was a no-go.

NOT "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. . ." THE SOLUTIONS GROUP DID KNOW BEFORE THE ELECTION FROM REPORTS THEY HAD ALREADY RECEIVED FROM THE STAFF OF THE CC AND RWQCB. IT'S THE COMMUNITY THAT DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION BEFORE VOTING FOR THE CSD AND THE PONDS OF AVALON.
2. The SG Board chose to give some weight in the site selection process to having public recreation space associated with the WWTF.
IF YOU READ THE PROJECT REPORT, REPEATEDLY SITES ARE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE CENTRALLY LOCATED AMENITIES. THAT PARK ELEMENT WAS CRITICALLY WEIGHTED, NOT MERELY "SOME" WEIGHT.
3. Once the ponding system was rejected as not good enough for us to get the SRF loan, the SG Board should have re-evaluated the site choice.
COULDN'T AGREE MORE.BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED AND NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY NOT.
4. Who the hell wants a WWTF in the middle of town anyways?!THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE NOW ARGUING THAT THEY LOVE HAVING A SEWER PLANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR TOWN.THEY'RE SO IN LOVE WITH IT THEY'RE WILLING TO DISSOLVE THE CSD TO GET IT.
5. The TriW project would not provide a complete solution to all water problems (waste, salt and ground).
6. $200/month is far too expensive IF $200 A MONTH IS TOO EXPENSIVE AND SINCE THE TRI-W DID NOT ADDRESS SALT WATER INTRUSION, IMPORTED WATER, AND THE $200 A MONTH DID NOT INCLUDE THOSE COSTS OR THE ESCALATING O&M&R COSTS THEN TRI-W WAS always COMPLETELY UNAFFORDABLE AND THE $200 WAS MERELY A BASE-LINE FIGURE.

Good points from Stuart's Side
0. It is too late to fight the state on the definition of the PZ or even whether a sewer is needed.WITHT HE ADVENT OF SB885, NOW IS A PERFECT TIME TO RECONSIDER THE BASIN PLAN AND RELOOK AT THE PROHIBITION ZONE AND THE ENTIRE WATER PLANS. THE PROHIBITION PLAN RIGHT NOW IS GOING TO END UP BEING TOO RESTRICTIVE AND TOO SMALL.
1. The Recall Board should have known before being elected that step-steg is a no go and that an out of town WWTF is more expensive.ACCORDING TO DARRIN POLHEMUS, THE NON-NEGOTIATION NEGOTIATOR, POSSIBLE SAVINGS WERE POSSIBLE WITH AN OUT OF TOWN SITE, ESPECIALLY IN THE REALM OF O,M & R.
2. Any site selection discussion that precludes TriW is flawed because TriW has some huge cost advantages, namely the fact that it is fully designed and permitted.
3. "Out of town" means more expensive.NOT ACCORDING TO POLHEMUS AND ADD IN TRI-WS DEFERRED COSTS AND THERE'S NO WAY IT WOULD END UP BEING LESS EXPENSIVE.
4. Even if TriW is imperfect, delay will make our saltwater, groundwater and wastewater problems worse.ACCORDING TO CLEATH AND ASSOCIATES, THE TRI W PLANT "WON'T CURE SALT WATER INTRUSION" AND IT WOULD TAKE YEARS AND YEARS TO HELP OFFSET THE NEED FOR IMPORTING WATER.
5. The tendency to litigate to get out of problems is expensive and it is far from clear that it will be successful.THE OLD CSD BOARD NEEDED TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE THEY ATEMPTED TO STOP THE MEASURE B ELECTION AND POUNDED GAZILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS INTO THE GROUND. AND ARRESTED JOEY ROCANO FOR "TRESSPASS" UP A COUNTY TREE SO IF HE SUES THE CSD AND THE COUNTY FOR UNLAWFUL ARREST, WILL A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WILL THEN BLAME THE NEW CSD FOR "YET ANOTHER LAWSUIT" & ETC.?

I am clearly more sympathetic to Stuart's postition because I have too many friends who will be hurt by costs rising even higher.

Mike Green said...
I'm puzzled, as usual, if the tree wasn't on CSD property, who's tree was it?
And when did it become CSD property that led to it's demise?

7:47 AM, March 03, 2006

IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE TREES WERE ON COUNTY PROPERTY AND WERE PART OF THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CSD TO PAY FOR 1/2 THE RAVENNA ROAD (THE DEVELOPER OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY WOULD PAY FOR THE OTHER HALF.); 6:47 AM, March 04, 2006
Anonymous said...: Ah Ann, fight misinfo with more misinfo:

Ann:
NOT "SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. . ." THE SOLUTIONS GROUP DID KNOW BEFORE THE ELECTION FROM REPORTS THEY HAD ALREADY RECEIVED FROM THE STAFF OF THE CC AND RWQCB. IT'S THE COMMUNITY THAT DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION BEFORE VOTING FOR THE CSD AND THE PONDS OF AVALON

The community KNEW details of the plan. The plan had details. They KNEW the proposal of sewering less than half the town. They KNEW or were STUPID since they live in the community which at that time was under a Basin Plan over a decade old PROHIBITING all discharges. They made their decision accordingly. Why did Ann and the community buy a pig'n'poke, not just in 1998 but in 2005?

ANN:
IF YOU READ THE PROJECT REPORT, REPEATEDLY SITES ARE DISMISSED BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE CENTRALLY LOCATED AMENITIES. THAT PARK ELEMENT WAS CRITICALLY WEIGHTED, NOT MERELY "SOME" WEIGHT.

Ann is absolutely right. The public endorsed the project in 2002, over a year after the completed project report.

Ann:
COULDN'T AGREE MORE.BUT THAT NEVER HAPPENED AND NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN WHY NOT.

Ann answered her own question above. They did re-evaluate sites, and used amentities as a weighting factor. Asked and answered. Admit it Ann, you're just not satisfied with the answer. I don't like the answer either, but that's the ANSWER.

Ann:
THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE NOW ARGUING THAT THEY LOVE HAVING A SEWER PLANT IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR TOWN.THEY'RE SO IN LOVE WITH IT THEY'RE WILLING TO DISSOLVE THE CSD TO GET IT.

Please show me quotes of people 'in love' with the Tri-W site. The issue I have seen dissolvers argue is to get a treatment plant and avoid further enforcement in 2010? Some people believe it is more probable with the County running the project, some believe less with the CSD. Right now, it appears there's about a snowball's chance in hell the CSD can meet that deadline. And if property gets sold, there's probably a snowball's chance in hell of the County meeting that deadline. In fact, litigation either way means there's a snowball's chance in hell of meeting that deadline. Prediction: there will not be a plant to hook up anytime before the summer of 2011.

Ann:
IF $200 A MONTH IS TOO EXPENSIVE AND SINCE THE TRI-W DID NOT ADDRESS SALT WATER INTRUSION, IMPORTED WATER, AND THE $200 A MONTH DID NOT INCLUDE THOSE COSTS OR THE ESCALATING O&M&R COSTS THEN TRI-W WAS always COMPLETELY UNAFFORDABLE AND THE $200 WAS MERELY A BASE-LINE FIGURE.

$200/month is too expensive. In fact, anything over $100/month is too expensive for people of limited means in my opinion. That means severe consequences to at least 500 households, in my opinion. The term completely unaffordable is a meaningless expression. $200 was a baseline, with the minimum about $175 and maximum about $225. Predicting any cost out 20 years is ludicrous. The capital costs went away after 20 years, so the monthly bill could have been $100/month in 20 years, depending on O&M. Tri-W DID address salt water intrusion, but did not completely cure it. It is false infomation to suggest Tri-W did not address saltwater intrusion. Imported water is a separate, but related issue to any wastewater project, because there is a development facet to it.

Ann:
WITHT HE ADVENT OF SB885, NOW IS A PERFECT TIME TO RECONSIDER THE BASIN PLAN AND RELOOK AT THE PROHIBITION ZONE AND THE ENTIRE WATER PLANS. THE PROHIBITION PLAN RIGHT NOW IS GOING TO END UP BEING TOO RESTRICTIVE AND TOO SMALL.

Based on what, Ann? Why is the prohibition zone too restrictive/small? Are you saying that if the prohbition zone had proper treatment, the groundwater would remain impaired? You have NO basis for the statements you just made, other than political beliefs, in my opinion.

Ann:
ACCORDING TO DARRIN POLHEMUS, THE NON-NEGOTIATION NEGOTIATOR, POSSIBLE SAVINGS WERE POSSIBLE WITH AN OUT OF TOWN SITE, ESPECIALLY IN THE REALM OF O,M & R

Ann is right, POSSIBLE savings. He also testified he believed savings were not likely due to delays.

Ann:
NOT ACCORDING TO POLHEMUS AND ADD IN TRI-WS DEFERRED COSTS AND THERE'S NO WAY IT WOULD END UP BEING LESS EXPENSIVE.

So Ann, without a comparison of all costs, how do you make such a statement? The comparison made in the negotiations and testimony showed possible savings and possible increases, and they included deferred costs.

Ann:
TO CLEATH AND ASSOCIATES, THE TRI W PLANT "WON'T CURE SALT WATER INTRUSION" AND IT WOULD TAKE YEARS AND YEARS TO HELP OFFSET THE NEED FOR IMPORTING WATER.

Correct, it takes years and years to correct years and years of pollution, regardless an any plan. The Tri-W plant did not cure SW intrustion, but it addressed it. The water plan addressed it by importing water. The water plan allowed for ag exchange but did not quantitatively add it in, so it was possible under the Tri-W plan to not import water, with a an ag exchange program that was, IN FACT, part of the water plan.

Ann:
THE OLD CSD BOARD NEEDED TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE THEY ATEMPTED TO STOP THE MEASURE B ELECTION AND POUNDED GAZILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS INTO THE GROUND. AND ARRESTED JOEY ROCANO FOR "TRESSPASS" UP A COUNTY TREE SO IF HE SUES THE CSD AND THE COUNTY FOR UNLAWFUL ARREST, WILL A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WILL THEN BLAME THE NEW CSD FOR "YET ANOTHER LAWSUIT" & ETC.?

The old board did not arrest anyone, the sheriff's did. A complaint was made, (by the GM?). If Mr. Racaeno sues, we can all blame Mr. Racaeno for suing - but it's everyone's right to sue - it's a badge of honor in Los Osos.
Ann is absolutely right, the old board committed to the project before the election. For some unexplained reasons, the new board, recall supporters, and a certain journalist ALL did not warn the community of the financial and legal consequences of what they were advocating - dare I say they LIED to win an election.

Now Ann, how can you tolerate anyone that would lie to win an election?; 10:16 AM, March 04, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

Let's consider a few of your modifications to my list.

In the same way that the SG knew, in advance, that they would need to sewer the whole community, the current board knew before the election that the SRF was "site specific" yet they still told us we would not lose the loan if we were to attemt to move the site. They claim that Darrin P told them so. The SWRCB boardmembers themselves, however, made the point clear in both January and November ... site specfic. Either both groups were liars ... just to get elected ... or they were simply hopeful that they could convince the higher authorities (whether CCC, RWQCB or SWRCB) to change their minds.

The sentence you are giving us from one report is only a description of some aspects of the site selection procedure. There were weights given to several different aspects of each site, much like this current board intends to do. It is not as if the only difference between Andre and TriW is the park ... there are also cost issues, environmental issues, Ag issues, etc. If the park was "critically weighted", the weighting would have been higher than it was (less than 20% ... as opposed to cost at about 40% of the total). When you keep pumping Andre as better than TriW you forget that there is a lot of uncertainty about that site (or those sites) because of the need to cross the creek and because of proximity to a possible wetland.

It seems like you are just plain disagree with me about whether TriW would do something for aquifer recharge and saltwater intrusion. The Cleath study says that the Broderson disposal site is about as good as we're ever going to get if we're going to use centralized disposal. If we're going to have a WWTF and send the greywater back to properties for irrigation, the costs will be considerably higher. I think we can reject that option right off the bat. Broderson is best for disposal. Other sites will not be as good for recharge and saltwater intrusion. The choice to delay is the choice to continue pollution of the aquifer and continue saltwater intrusion.

Furthermore, you're just saying I'm plain wrong about the costs. Your only evidence is Darrin's discussions with Lisa and Dan during the "negotiations". Darrin himself said, under oath, that the costs could have been a bit lower but would likely have been higher. Furthermore, when you add inflation to the mix (it wasn't included in the comparrisons) the choice is clear ... TriW is less expensive and "out of town" is out of town.

About the lawsuits ... are you serious that you view the previous board as more litigious than the current board? If so, you should probably read the newspaper or even the LOCSD agenda sometime.; 10:32 AM, March 04, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

Because you keep saying that Darrin told Lisa that there would be savings by moving the plant, let me refer you to the transcript of the December ACL hearing http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/Board/Meetings/documents/12-01-05LosOsoshearingtranscript2of2.pdf . See page 175 of the document (it will be labeled page 167 ... go figure) plus some of the context on either side. Darrin is very clear. He talked with Lisa, Dan and Rob. He and Rob took at face value a few numbers that Rob guesstimated and they penciled out some cost figures on the back of an envelope. Sure, they would save some on O&M ... but other costs would be higher and at best, the "out of town" cost would be about the same as TriW. Furthermore, Darrin testified that time delays would tip the scale significantly.

When I claimed that out of town would cost more, you wrote: "NOT ACCORDING TO POLHEMUS AND ADD IN TRI-WS DEFERRED COSTS AND THERE'S NO WAY IT WOULD END UP BEING LESS EXPENSIVE."

I guess you remembered his testimony incorrectly or you know something about the deferred costs that the rest of us don't know. What are the deferred costs and how much are they?; 5:31 PM, March 04, 2006
Churadogs said...: Some deferred costs: Imported State Water, (Bruce wouldn't even give a guestimate as to that cost) higher costs of "wetter" sludge removal" due to the switch in sludge presser machines, higher energy costs for running a plant that uses high energy, replacement costs for MBR technology higher than, say, a ponding system, cost to "fix" salt water intrusion which the sewer plant "wouldn't cure," are just some of the "deferred" or unkown costs that come to mind.; 8:58 AM, March 05, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

The costs of "fixing" saltwater intrusion (and perhaps ag exchange) would be the same whether TriW or some other location.

Your deferred cost list that is TriW specific is essentially the cost of trucking "wetter" sludge and higher energy costs. Those costs run about $10/month (well, that is what Lisa told us back in November). Is it worth spending $70 more every month to save $10 every month?

Some of us would say that it is not.

Why you think it is a good idea is beyond me.; 4:35 PM, March 05, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Oh yeah,

About State water ... the longer we delay in getting a plant online the more likely we'll need to take State water. If your goal is avoiding State water and the sort of growth that our community would face if we take State water you should support the TriW plant.

On the other hand, I am not sure of what your goals are in this debate. It seems like you just plain don't like the TriW site and those who proposed it. If that is the case, I believe your antipathy for Stan and Pandora has blinded you to the faults of the new board.; 9:02 PM, March 05, 2006
Anonymous said...: "On the other hand, I am not sure of what your goals are in this debate. It seems like you just plain don't like the TriW site and those who proposed it. If that is the case, I believe your antipathy for Stan and Pandora has blinded you to the faults of the new board."
13500 rpm, easy; 9:09 PM, March 05, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Dogpatch,

Mike was right.

Mike,

I didn't mention onsite because I don't really understand it all that well. Steve Paige seems to think he's got it all figured out but I'm not so sure ... some of what he wrote seems to disagree with our buddy Chuck who told us it was the soil that removes the nitrates.

I do think the LOCSD board should tackle the onsite issue head on. If we are pawns caught in pissing contest between the LOCSD and the RWQCB, at least the LOCSD should provide us an umbrella of sorts. If onsite is a viable option that won't cost too much the LOCSD should get something going and offer us onsite services. They could take care of the install, regular checkups and file all paperwork with the RWQCB ... for a fee, of course.

Even so, I don't really see onsite as an area where the Lisa faction disagrees with the Stuart faction. I see both groups worried about the CDOs. The Lisa faction is all angry about how wrong it is for the RWQCB to finally enforce an order that is already 18 years old and the Stuart faction is all angry about why the LOCSD board forced the hand of the RWQCB. (There is also Ann on the side who is angry that a few Dreamers wrote to Roger and asked for bad things to happen to the community ASAP.); 10:06 PM, March 05, 2006
Churadogs said...: Shark Inlet said...
Ann,

The costs of "fixing" saltwater intrusion (and perhaps ag exchange) would be the same whether TriW or some other location.

You asked for deferred costs. Those were just a few I thought of. The price of $200-205 a month you are adamently fixed on did not -- to my knowledge - include the cost of "fixing" the salt water intrustion,or the cost of Ag exchange, versus importing state water, or what would happen when the further testing of the upper aquifer was completed IF they found "nasty stuff" in there that would need additional treatment to remove & etc.. Those were all things that were going to be looked at later and added onto the basic cost of TriW sewer plant operations. So far as I know, that constitiutes "deferred." (I can only hope that all those same "deferred costs" will be added into any new Updated Project Report update on any "out of town" system. They can then also be added to the "known" baseline price of Tri W and then we'll see how it all pencils out. (Something, need I point out, should have been done years ago??); 8:46 AM, March 06, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

Perhaps I misunderstand what you write. It seems that you are saying that we should price out the cost of fixing saltwater intrusion, doing some sort of ag-exchange and state water before moving forward with any WWTF construction. Here's what's sort of funny. These costs are pretty much the same whether we go with TriW or some other location.

Are you really saying that we need to cost out the price of milk in three years before we go shopping for bread today?; 11:52 AM, March 06, 2006
Churadogs said...: Shark Said: "Perhaps I misunderstand what you write. It seems that you are saying that we should price out the cost of fixing saltwater intrusion, doing some sort of ag-exchange and state water before moving forward with any WWTF construction. Here's what's sort of funny. These costs are pretty much the same whether we go with TriW or some other location."

EXACTLY!When you have those figures and add in O&M&R, then add that onto the "new" plan's treatment plant capital costs, AND then add all those to the TRI-W plan, THEN you'll have a accurate bottom line figure to compare the two projects. (Something that should have been done years ago.); 7:41 AM, March 07, 2006
Shark Inlet said...: So maybe I misunderstood you when you earlier told us that we need to know these deferred costs before we can fairly compare TriW and "out of town". If the costs are going to be the same, we can compare just P&I plus O&M and see which is more expensive.

You're not making a convincing argument that waiting is a good thing. Losing the SRF, the extra costs of designing a new plant plus time to start construction and inflation in construction costs have more than killed off any O&M savings you would hope to get from the new plant and location.

This is all to say ... TriW is far less expensive than out of town. Now we know that you agree.

The question here now is why didn't those running for the Recall tell us their plan would end up costing us more money? The only two possibilities I can figure is that they aren't very good at accounting and they didn't know their plans would cost us more or perhaps they just plain decided to cover up what they knew, just to get elected.

In either case, I am not impressed.; 1:56 PM, March 07, 2006

Pages

Friday, March 03, 2006

23 comments: