Calhouns Can(n)ons

I OBJECT!

In which Los Osos 45er, Beverly A. De Witt- Moylan, submitted Procedural Objections to the RWQCB at their May 11th procedural hearing. Bet you and all normal people in Los Osos, living your busy lives and going to work and raising your families, thought the CDOs and all things CDOish had been postponed pending getting a new prosecution team & etc. Bwahahahah. Nope. That’s how government agencies go about fooling all the people all of the time, when they wish. It’s called “fine print bureaucratic argle-bargle” and if you don’t understand it, you can have your rights slipped right out from under you and when you complain you’re told, “Oh, too bad, please see page 922, sub paragraph 27A, you had a chance to comment or amend or submit procedural matters but you didn’t show up so it’s now too late, heh-heh.”

Bev noted in an email that she, like most everyone else, also didn’t understand that the meeting was still on and so had to rush in her objections. Wrote Bev, “According to Bill, [her husband], Jeffery Young tried to get him to stop, but Bill continued to read my objections till he was done. Bill said about 35 people were in attendance . . . If I had more time,” said she, “I would have thought of more.” Duh.




RWQCB HEARING

PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS


-I OBJECT TO THE RWQCB’s UTTER FAILURE TO PROPERLY NOTIFY ME OF A PROPOSED CDO, MAILING IT INSTEAD IN A PLAIN MANILA ENVELOPE THROUGH REGULAR MAIL WITH NO INDICATION THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT AND NEEDED TO BE OPENED IMMEDIATELY.

-I OBJECT TO BEING THREATENED WITH FINES OF $1000 PER DAY FOR NOT REVEALING THE NAMES OF EVERY RESIDENT AND TENANT ON MY PROPERTY WITHIN 5 DAYS OF RECEIPT OF THE PROPOSED CDO.

-I OBJECT TO BEING DENIED MY RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS BY BEING DENIED AN INDIVIDUAL HEARING

-I OBJECT TO BEING GIVEN NO MORE THAN 15 MINUTES TOGETHER WITH MY HUSBAND TO PRESENT OUR DEFENSE, WHEN THE DOCUMENTS WE RECEIVED STATED THAT EACH CDO RECIPIENT WOULD HAVE 15 MINUTES TO PRESENT THEIR CASE.

-I OBJECT TO ANY TIME LIMITATION ON OUR PRESENTATIONS GIVEN THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF CONVICTION, NAMELY THAT, IF NO WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM IS AVAILABLE ON JANUARY 1, 2010, “YOU WILL HAVE TO VACATE THE PREMISES.” –Matt Thompson, April 28, 2006

-I OBJECT TO THE CHAIRMAN’S RULING THAT THE PROPERTY IS THE CDO RECIPIENT AS A JUSTIFICATION FOR COMBINING PRESENTATIONS BY SPOUSES. ACCORDING TO THE DOCUMENTS, THE PROPERTY IS NOT THE DEFENDANT, THE PROPERTY IS NOT THE POLLUTER, THE PROPERTY WILL NOT BE PAYING FOR BIMONTHLY PUMPING, THE PROPERTY WILL NOT “HAVE TO VACATE THE PREMISES.”

-I OBJECT TO THE GENDER BIAS BEING DEMONSTRATED BY THIS BOARD IN THAT ALL CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE RWQCB IS ADDRESSED TO MY HUSBAND ONLY. IN THE EVIDENCE I SUBMITTED PRIOR TO THE APRIL 5, 2006, DEADLINE I IDENTIFIED MYSELF BY MY FULL, LEGAL NAME. AT THE APRIL 28, 2006, HEARING I IDENTIFIED MYSELF AT LEAST THREE TIMES FOR THE RECORD BY MY FULL, LEGAL NAME. I HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED ONLY BY MY HUSBAND’S NAME, AND THE TWO MOST RECENT COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE RWQCB TO OUR PROPERTY HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED TO MR. BILL MOYLAN ONLY. NOT ONLY AM I COMPLETELY OVERLOOKED AS A CO-OWNER WITH MY HUSBAND OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THE RWQCB STAFF HAS ALSO DROPPED THE USE OF MY HUSBAND’S LEGAL NAME, AS WELL.

-I OBJECT TO BEING CALLED AWAY FROM MY JOB SERVING BLIND AND VISUALLY IMPAIRED CHILDREN IN THIS COUNTY, BEING UNABLE TO GET A SUBSTITUTE BECAUSE OF THE SPECIALIZATION OF MY CREDENTIAL, YET SUFFERING THE PENALTY OF FORFEITING ANY DEFENSE IF I DID NOT APPEAR.

-I OBJECT TO BEING ADVISED THAT MY HUSBAND COULD REPRESENT ME IN THE EVENT I COULD NOT APPEAR, WHEREAS, WHEN MY HUSBAND TOLD THE CHAIRMAN THAT HE WOULD BE OUT OF TOWN WERE THE HEARING TO BE CONTINUED INTO THE FOLLOWING WEEK, THE CHAIRMAN AGREED THAT WE COULD PRESENT AT THE BEGINNING AND DID NOT ASK HIM IF I WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO REPRESENT HIM. THE DOUBLE STANDARD FOR ONE SPOUSE REPRESENTING ANOTHER IS EVEN MORE EVIDENCE OF GENDER BIAS ON THE PART OF THE RWQCB IN DEALING WITH MARRIED COUPLES.

-I OBJECT TO BEING DENIED MY RIGHT TO EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW IN BEING SINGLED OUT AS A TEST CASE FOR PROSECUTION WITH 44 OTHER FAMILIES WHO WILL HAVE TO PAY OUT MORE IN PUNITIVE COSTS, IF ANY ARE IMPOSED, THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE PROHIBITION ZONE AND WHOSE SEPTIC SYSTEM WILL BE MORE ADVERSELY AFFECTED BY PUMPING THAN ANYONE ELSE IN THE PROHIBITION ZONE.

-I OBJECT THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN OFFERED THE SERVICES OF A PUBLIC DEFENDER.

-I OBJECT TO BEING REQUIRED TO DEFEND MYSELF AGAINST UNSUBSTANTIATED CHARGES AND BEING CRIMINALIZED FOR LIVING IN A SECTION OF LOS OSOS ARBITRARILY DEFINED BY THIS BOARD AS THE AREA WHERE THE POLLUTERS LIVE WHILE EVERYONE ELSE OUTSIDE THIS ZONE IS DEFINED AS CLEAN.

-I OBJECT TO THE AMOUNT OF MISINFORMATION, CONFUSING COMMUNICATION, CONFLICTING COMMUNICATION, REVISIONS TO COMMUNICATIONS, AND INCONSISTENCIES IN COMMUNICATIONS FROM THIS STAFF, INCLUDING OUR INABILITY TO GET A SIMPLE, CONSISTENT ANSWER REGARDING THE DATE THAT EVIDENCE WAS DUE IN SACRAMENTO.

-I OBJECT TO DISINGENUOUS STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PROSECUTION STAFF IN ITS REBUTTAL TO THE EVIDENCE THAT THEIR DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE WERE AVAILABLE DURING BUSINESS HOURS AT THEIR SITE. THE DELIBERATE INCONVENIENCE AND LACK OF AVAILABILITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS WITH NO CITATION OF RELEVANCE OF INDIVIDUAL DOCUMENTS FORCED CITIZENS TO TAKE TIME OFF WORK OR AWAY FROM FAMILY RESPONSIBILITIES DURING BUSINESS HOURS TO REVIEW IN LIMITED TIME THOUSANDS OF PAGES STORED IN A BACK ROOM IN A CARDBOARD BOX. AT THE SAME TIME PROSECUTION STAFF REQUESTED THAT OUR DOCUMENTS BE SUBMITTED IN PDF FORM, OSTENSIBLY SO THAT THEY COULD PERUSE THESE DOCUMENTS AT THEIR LEISURE.

-I OBJECT TO AND AM DISTURBED BY THE RWQCB SUBMITTING REVISED CDO’S ON THE DATE OUR EVIDENCE WAS DUE, WHICH WE DID NOT RECEIVE IN THE MAIL UNTIL APRIL 11, 2006.

-I OBJECT TO THE RWQCB’S SUBMISSION OF FURTHER REVISIONS TO THE CDOs, WHICH WE RECEIVED BY COURIER ON APRIL 26, 2006, LESS THAN TWO DAYS BEFORE THE HEARING, AND TOO LATE FOR US TO RESPOND TO, SINCE ANY EVIDENCE WE MIGHT HAVE PROFERRED WAS DUE NO LATER THAN APRIL 5, 2006, AND NO REVISION TO THAT DATE WAS FORTHCOMING.

-I OBJECT TO RECEIVING THE RWQCB OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE BY EMAIL TRANSMISSION LESS THAN 24 HOURS PRIOR TO THE HEARING AND BY HARD COPY THE DAY OF THE HEARING. RULES OF EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING IN WHICH 45 LEGALLY UNSOPHISTICATED FAMILIES WOULD BE PRESENTING THEIR EVIDENCE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CLARIFIED UPON ISSUANCE OF THE CDOS. SENATOR SUSAN COLLINS OF MAINE RECENTLY STATED THAT “THE FIRST OBLIGATION OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PROTECT OUR PEOPLE.” IN THEIR ZEAL FOR PROSECUTION THIS BOARD HAS COMPLETELY FORGOTTEN THAT THE CITIZENS LIVING IN THE PROHIBITION ZONE ARE “OUR PEOPLE.” THIS BOARD HAD AN OBLIGATION TO THE HARD-WORKING CITIZENS OF LOS OSOS WHO HAVE HAD TO MOUNT A DEFENSE IN WHATEVER SPARE TIME THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD BETWEEN WORK, FAMILY, AND COMMUNITY OBLIGATIONS. THIS BOARD OWED THE CITIZENS OF THE PROHIBITION ZONE THE COMMON COURTESY TO PROVIDE THEM WITH CORRECT INFORMATION AT THE OUTSET OF THIS ACTION, SO THEY WOULD NOT SPEND TIME ON EVIDENCE THAT WOULD BE REJECTED BECAUSE OF ITS SOURCE OR FORMAT.

-I OBJECT TO THE USE OF BIMONTHLY PUMPING AS THE REMEDY OF CHOICE WHEN, ACCORDING TO A PROSECUTION STAFF STATEMENT AT THE INFORMATIONAL MEETING IN FEBRUARY, THIS CONCEPT IS “UNHEARD OF.”

-I OBJECT TO THE WATER BOARD’S RECOMMENDATION OF A SOLUTION WHICH, IN THE WORDS OF ITS OWN STAFF, HAS NEVER BEEN TRIED AND YET IS BEING PROPOSED WITH CONFIDENT VEHEMENCE BY THE PROSECUTION AS THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY TO KEEP UNSCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN POLLUTION FROM CONTINUING TO AFFECT THE GROUNDWATER.

-I OBJECT TO THE LANGUAGE IN THE RWQCB REBUTTAL ON PAGE 7 OF THE LEGAL OBJECTIONS STATING THAT “TAKING ENFORCEMENT ACTION IS APPARENTLY THE ONLY WAY THE WATER BOARD CAN PROTECT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY IN THIS CASE, GIVEN THE COMMUNITY’S “RAMPANT AND LONGSTANDING DISREGARD OF THE PROHIBITION.” THIS HYPERBOLE IS QUITE THE OPPOSITE OF THE WATER BOARD’S POSITION IN ITS STAFF REPORT FOR REGULAR MEETING OF JULY 9, 2004 IN ITS BACKGROUND SECTION WHERE IT CITES NUMEROUS CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH PUT OUR TIMELY CONNECTION TO A WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM OUT OF OUR HANDS. ON PAGE 2 OF THIS DOCUMENT THE RWQCB INDICATES THAT, “PROJECT DELAYS, AND NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE TIME SCHEDULE ORDER, ARE CLEARLY BEYOND THE LOS OSOS CSD’S ABILITY TO CONTROL”. ON PAGE 3 “INDIVIDUALS HAVE VERY LIMITED MEANS OF EFFECTIVELY CEASING DISCHARGES UNTIL A COMMUNITY SEWER SYSTEM IS AVAILABLE.” AND ON PAGE 4 “IT SHOULD BE NOTED, HOWEVER, THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF VOTERS IN LOS OSOS HAVE SUPPORTED THE PROJECT AT EVERY STEP.” I OBJECT THAT IN 2004 THE WATER BOARD REASONABLY AND PRUDENTLY ACKNOWLEDGED THE MANY OBSTACLES PREVENTING BOTH THE CSD AND INDIVIDUALS FROM SUCCESSFULLY IMPLEMENTING A WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY, YET JUST TWO YEARS LATER RESIDENTS OF THE PROHIBITION ZONE ARE DRAMATICALLY CHARACTERIZED AS HAVING DEMONSTRATED “RAMPANT AND LONGSTANDING DISREGARD OF THE PROHIBITION.” THIS STATEMENT IS OFFENSIVE AND PATENTLY UNTRUE.