Calhouns Can(n)ons

I Said Whaaaaat? Or How the RWQCB’s Phony Straw Man Meets Mr. Science Guy

In their “Responses to Technical Evidence and Comments submitted in Regards to Cease and Desist Orders, Los Osos,” April 19th document I was amazed to find on page 6, second paragraph, that the staff had written:

“Another commenter, Interested Party Ann Calhoun, said that Dr. John Alexander has an effective on-site nitrogen removal system that has been proven to the “RB staff’s satisfaction.” Staff met with Dr. Alexander a few years ago and he indicated that his system would not be applicable to residential use. Staff understands that the system is not commercially available. Approximately 15 years ago, Dr. Alexander pilot tested his galvanic agglutinator at the Morro Bay/Cayucos Wastewater Treatment Plant. The system did not function properly Dr. Alexander claimed that that particular failure was due to the limited size of the project (pilot test was conducted with a 55 gal drum.) Contrary to Ms. Calhoun’s claim, the system has not been proven to “staff’s satisfaction.”

Contrary to Ms. Calhoun’s claim? Really?

Here’s what I actually wrote in my Feb 21 “Interested Party” letter: “Furthermore, if your interest in the interim nitrate reduction of the basin (until a new sewer plant is built and running), I would urge your Board to require that your Staff certify acceptable enhanced on-site systems for interim use. For example, Dr. Alexander of Cayucos, has stated that he has a $4,000 until that he claims will remove 98% of nitrates from septic discharges. He further claims that he has proven his tested results to the RWQCB staff’s satisfaction. IF THAT IS TRUE, then Dr. Alexander’s system would be a scientifically better alternative for removing nitrates than your pumping scheme , but it would not be financially better UNLESS you waive your $900 a year “discharge” and testing fees. In short, IF Dr. Alexander’s system actually works, the community would have a much better alternative, but ONLY if your Board made it financially viable

“So the choice again comes down to a simple question: Do you want the community to simply waste money and resources or do you want them to dramatically reduce the nitrate load of the basin while the new sewer plant is being built?” (Italics, bold and capitalization in the original.)

You see the difference between the two? Good, I thought you would. Yet the RWQCB’s mischaracterization of my comment is in their official “reply.” It is also a false Straw Man.

Interestingly, in their reply, I noted that they did not address the point of my comment: The target nitrate reduction for the pumping scheme is about 20 – 22%. Since writing my Interested Party Letter, the Prana system has been installed at the Firehouse and we’ll see what the testing meters will say in a few months.

However, the RWQCB’s Technical Response noted that while there were dozens of various onsite systems, “only 14 of the 37 technologies for which performance data were available are rated to treat domestic wastewater to less than 10 mg/L total nitrogen – the minimum performance necessary to eventually restore Los Osos’s groundwater to drinking water standards.”

Ah, but you see the problem there? The pumping scheme is supposed to be a temporary “fix” to reduce the nitrogen load by about 20-22% -- NOT a permanent solution of the “less than 10 mg/L” which is the target for any sewer system.

Do any of these 14 technologies reduce nitrates by about 20% and do it onsite without removing millions of gallons of water out of the basin and are any of them economically feasible as an interim solution, as cheap or cheaper than pumping? I asked the designer of the Prana system and he said he was sure he could meet that 20% target goal (we’ll see when the numbers come in) and at $4,000 per unitl, it’s certainly within the cost parameters .But what about any of the other 14 systems studied and rated? Who knows. The Technical Response document doesn’t say.

My original comment pointed to that very question. But, to date, I have received no answer. Just this Official misquoted and mischaracterized Phony Straw Man set up in order to support a preordained decision.

Hey, We’re the RWQCB! Science, and technology and common sense need not apply.