Calhouns Can(n)ons

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Quick, Get Me Rewrite! No, Get Me An Editor! No, Get Me Some Dramamine; This Spin Is Making Me Sea Sick!

Despite being busy with Christmas, I hope everyone noticed the absolute dead silence from the Tribune on the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Holy Inquisition & Captain Kangaroo Court Trial Of The Los Osos 45 on Dec 14 &15. Didn’t read a peep about it. Then, got so busy with Christmas that the Tribune’s Dec 24, 06 story on the hearing darned near slipped past my notice.

Of course, it probably slipped past much notice by anyone in Los Osos because it was spun and framed in such as way as to be unworthy of any notice. I mean, consider the headline: “Some Los Osos homes told to end septic use.” “Water quality regulators send cease and desist order to 14 residents.”

Gee, why would anyone, even Los Osos folks, even bother to read further? Sounds like some run-of-the-mill matter affecting a small number of people, no need to anyone in town to pay attention. Turn the page.

Not a peep about how these people have been put through a year of hell, moved goal posts, an Alice In Wonderland forest of changed and constantly changing rules, changed dates, tossed out paperwork, stress that put some of them in the hospital, their lives in total disarray, all totally unnecessary. Nope, not a peep. Just a bland reference that the Board will require the 14 “. . .to hook up to a community wastewater treatment facility within 60 days of availability.”

See? No problems here, no need to inquire further, ask no questions, move along, move along, nothing to see here.

Every time the Tribune does this sort of “blanding” and diminishment of a story, (aka “spin”) I always have to ask myself, Why? Why does the Editor want the residents of Los Osos to think that this hearing only affected 14 people, that everything’s fine, that they don’t need to read further, turn the page. (This is the same paper that puts on the front page a domestic squabble that ended up with one person wounded. But a whole town threatened with a disruptive administrative “trial” that could result in them losing their homes gets blanded and whitewashed and diminished into Snoreville.)

Why?

Meantime, the CSD’s Thursday meeting will consider whether the CSD can commit seppuku. Or just allow the County to kill it off while leaving no fingerprints and claiming no responsibility (Nuh-huh, wasn’t me. It was Miss Scarlet in the Library with a Candlestick). Alas, I have a long-standing, unbreakable commitment to be in another place at that time, so can only try to get there late in hopes that the deed is not already done and thereby miss what may well turn out to be an important meeting, with important issues to be resolved.

The most important of which is this: IF the CSD dies, will that make recalled Board member, Gordon Hensley, happy . . . at last?

23 comments:

Ron said...: Here's the link to the story Ann refers to.

My favorite part of that story is this little nugget buried at the bottom:

"According to Harvey Packard, division chief at the regional water board, the agency has not determined when it will target more residents but expects to consider the issue in January or February."

Notice that is not an "if it will target..." but a "when it will target... ."

As for that Thursday meeting... Good riddance LOCSD! As I've been writing for years, the LOCSD has always been as legitimate as the Solution Group's "Community Plan," which was ALWAYS illegitimate. The moment that lemon flamed out in mid-2000, the LOCSD should have committed seppuku right then and there... buh-bye... sure would have saved everyone a lot of time and money and headaches... but nope, instead the initial board thought it'd be a good idea to play "bait and switchy" so they could cover up their massive mistakes, and continued to jam a square peg (translated: sewer plant) into a round hole (translated: downtown, environmentally sensitive, expensive location). But I know. I know. Los Osos is the current board's fault. Rrrrriiiiiiight....

Helluva job, guys.; 8:33 AM, December 27, 2006
Anonymous said...: Ann said: "IF the CSD dies, will that make recalled Board member, Gordon Hensley, happy . . . at last?"

The answer is NO!!

I will not be happy unless I get to kill the CSD myself!!!

Regards,
Gordon Hensley; 9:17 AM, December 27, 2006
Anonymous said...: Ron is correct. The solution groups plan was illegitimate. The discharge did not live up to RWQCB standards. Now there are still people chasing a ponding solution out of town as legitimate without farther treatment to more than tertiary standards. Replacement of all septic tanks, etc.

Seems lame to me. Let's put a conventional plant out there, pipe the sewerage to and the discharge back to recharge the aquifer. Cost? Who knows?

Let the LOCSD die the slow death that certainly will occur. They have not fulfilled their purpose. Put the "sewer stopper board" in jail and fine them.; 10:37 AM, December 27, 2006
Mike Green said...: I love this quote from the (f)article:
"However, officials unanimously agreed that "regardless of fault, there is no sewer system and that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own waste."
I wonder if those "officials" conciderd the logic here. using this argument all on site systems that achieve the requirements should be allowed.
None are allowed of course, because that would negate the need for the WWTF
that has been proven that Los Osos is incapable to build, but aparenty is required by the interpretaion of the law.
The irony here is that for sure said "officials" enjoy infrastucture that was funded by the whole populace to benefit a few, namely their jobs.; 7:52 PM, December 27, 2006
Anonymous said...: Ann,

Too much egnog has made you dyspeptic.

Any ultimatims issued by the state have long been heralded. This is nothing new, just exactly what the state said they would do.

Had the horse's asses on the Lisa Board left well enough alone, the WWP would be more than half way done. But, nooooo, they had to reinvent the wheel, by not understanding that Los Osos IS subject to the rules, laws, regulations by state and federal agencies who have jurisdiction OVER dinky, stinky Los Osos!!

THIS is something that not a damned one of you naysayers can seem to reconcile within your own little pea-brains.

Los Osos is not an entity unto itself! Los Osos cannot dictate the rules. Los Osos cannot decide they want to "start over" like some silly game of hop-scotch, where their liger landed on the line.

Los Osos has no leadership, no direction. Just a bunch of neo-Don Quixote-types, thinking that if they puff up enough, the state and feds will run away, covering their faces and saying, " No NO! NOT the dreaded LOS OSOS evil eye!"

Well, guess again.

And to stupid Ron:

You continue to cling to the "bait and switchy" comment made by ONE Coastal Commissioner. And, that ONE Commissioner was voted down. So, "Ron" you need to get over yourself. You and your one 15 minute of "fame", some damned article that was so many YEARS ago, that it doesn't even get top billing in the bottom of birdcages, for God's sake.

You don't even LIVE is Los Osos. You cling to Los Osos like some damned fungus. You say you have few contacts with Los Osos, so why the hell don't you get another hobby? We are none of YOUR concern.; 9:26 PM, December 27, 2006
*PG-13 said...: < sigh > Seems there are many new bloggers recently. Many with seemingly little awareness of much that has gone before on this blog. That's cool. That's the nature of blogs I guess. We take the upsides AND the downsides of this new medium. Still, as one who only relatively recently joined this blog myself I wonder if any of these other new participants felt any need to at least read a few months (or maybe more?) of this blog before jumping in? Or is it sufficient enough to just jump in and start wailing? I'm curious. Where are these new anonymooses suddenly coming from? Please tell. Where are you coming from and what are your angles? Please feel free to sign on with tags so we can better understand and track your commnentary.

Now back to the thread:

Mike Green > I love this quote from the (f)article: "However, officials unanimously agreed that "regardless of fault, there is no sewer system and that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own waste." I wonder if those "officials" conciderd the logic here. using this argument all on site systems that achieve the requirements should be allowed.

One step beyond my appreciation of '(f)article' (I love it!) can I ask what options might exist for creative solutions beyond the classic centralized WWTF infrastructure? It's becoming clearer and clearer that the probability is diminishing of anybody in this community, much less this great county, can analyze, design, gain populace approval for and build a sewer. In our lifetime. For a sensible fee. Given that, are there any acceptable solutions for citizens to design their own solutions? Look, getting rid of waste & sh** is not rocket science. If they're gonna charge me $5000/day for non-compliance I assure you I can design a household system that will not pollute. I can live simply with awareness and well designed systems with zero discharge and defy the county or anybody else to prove I am adding one nit to the pollution problem. I relish that opportunity. Give me that option! Does such opportunity exist?; 10:16 PM, December 27, 2006
Churadogs said...: An anonymous sez:"Anonymous said...
Ann said: "IF the CSD dies, will that make recalled Board member, Gordon Hensley, happy . . . at last?"

The answer is NO!!

I will not be happy unless I get to kill the CSD myself!!!

Regards,
Gordon Hensley

9:17 AM, December 27, 2006 "

Ah, but isn't that what Gordon's been trying to do from the moment he voted with the old board majority to start pounding gazillions into the ground by starting the project before the recall election, then voted to put the recall date as late as possible (wierdly while saying that he would abide by what "the people" wanted as in, well, whatever the people decide is fine with me, ho-ho) and voted to file a lawsuit to stop Measure B from getting on the ballot, which precipitated a huge expensive mess that could have been avoided altogether, etc.etc.etc. Seems to me Gordon's already been working soooo hard with his own little hands to kill the CSD off himself. or did this anonymous poster mean kill the elected Board members personally? With a candlestick in the Library with Miss Scarlet?

Mike sez:"I wonder if those "officials" conciderd the logic here. using this argument all on site systems that achieve the requirements should be allowed.
None are allowed of course, because that would negate the need for the WWTF
that has been proven that Los Osos is incapable to build, but aparenty is required by the interpretaion of the law."

Ah, yes, Hobson's Choice. Individuals are responsible for their own waste HOWEVER we will NOT permit ANY onsite treatment system within the PZ. (unless you live on 3/4 acre or so, of which there are very few properties inside the PZ matching that.) The usual game of bureaucratic "gotcha."

anonymous sez:"Anonymous said...
Ann,

Too much egnog has made you dyspeptic."

Moi? Heck no. But YOUR whole post was so dyspeptic, if you weren't anonymous, we could get our posting regulars to send you a case of Rolaids or something.

PG13 sez:"If they're gonna charge me $5000/day for non-compliance I assure you I can design a household system that will not pollute. I can live simply with awareness and well designed systems with zero discharge and defy the county or anybody else to prove I am adding one nit to the pollution problem. I relish that opportunity. Give me that option! Does such opportunity exist?"

The game is this: I'm sure some kind of quasi-"zero discharge" system could be developed and installed in most homes in the PZ. 25' lots would have to band together to buy some extra acerage, or maybe work with the county to use rights of way for discharge & etc. (There's all kinds of way to do this IF people had a mind to do it-- that's the real catch). HOWEVER, if the regulators don't want a certain system or solution to be built it will never be built. If they can't stop it via making impossible, ever-changing discharge hurdles, they'll slap unlimited "inspection fees and monitor fees" & etc,on whatever project you design that would make it simply unaffordable. All the while, of course, denying that they are in any way interfering with your choices -- again Hobson's Choice at work.

Again, more irony. The RWQCB is, without any evidence, which they've repeatedly stated under oath, no evidence, claiming Property X is polluting aggregate aquifer Y. They have been told that using well testing data to make claims against an individual property is bad science and just a bad idea. They have been told by the CSD's attorney, that using aggregate data to require an aggregate solution IS proper, but they refused to listen to that and proceeded with the individual CDOs. If they are not careful, they may trigger individuals to say the hell with all this and they'll start moving towards individual solutions which -- in the aggregate -- often turn out to be Not Good, since regulating individuals is much, much harder than regulating a whole system with a responsible operator. If enough people get lazy or fail to properly maintain their individual systems, pretty soon you have an aggregate problem . . . again.

From what I can see of how the RWQCB's behaving and continues to behave, the word "incompetence" comes to mind. Not smart. I also have to be concerned by Boardmember Press's hand-wringing statement about how "helpless" the Board feels. Helpless? If they really feel that, then something's very, very wrong here. Does Porter Cologne need a re-write to give regulators more options? More, Better, option? Smarter options? Something? Clearly, what this Board has done through the years is not scientifically defensible, from the absolute failure to consider the Basin as a whole, the absolutely REFUSAL to revist and change the Basin plan & etc, to Ron's complaint that Briggs let the Ponds of Avalon waste two years when he had already vetoed the whole thing, etc. What I see now is dysfunction and a kind of blockheadedness at work. The old, We're hip deep in the big muddy and the old fool says, Push on" mentality at work. Also not good.; 6:32 AM, December 28, 2006
Anonymous said...: Ann,

I have recieved copies of a comment/comments (?) proporting to be from me.

Absolutely not!

Sorry to inform you all that I DO NOT participate in these blogs. I believe I sen tyou one response many many months ago. But like this one, only following some outrageous post forwarded to me from those who are interested in exchanging barbs with you and your readers.

While I'm here. let me also point out another continuing error. Taxpayers Watch is not a creation of mine or any of the former Board members. Taxpayers Watch formed sometime during the recall and/or pre-recall campaign. After the recall Joyce and others asked several of us to advise them - which many of us do.

So goodbye. I will return to the task of pursuing the fastest possible resolution of the serious water pollution violation in Los Osos as well as continuing to assist TW's efforts to lessen the financial disaster brought on since the recall.

Gordon R. Hensley
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper; 9:44 AM, December 28, 2006
Ron said...: PG-13 wrote:

"I can live simply with awareness and well designed systems with zero discharge and defy the county or anybody else to prove I am adding one nit to the pollution problem. I relish that opportunity. Give me that option! Does such opportunity exist? "

The answer to that excellent question is, "Yes." According to documents, the only requirement of the government agency handling the sewer is to bring a sewer lateral just off your property for you to hook up to. You, according to documents, are under no obligation whatsoever to hook up to it. And if you aren't hooked up to it, you don't have to pay for it. Your only obligation is to decommission your septic tank to achieve zero discharge to comply with Order 83-13. So, what options would you have? How's this for a start:

"These will have facilities like web surfing and mobile telephony, environment-friendly hi-tech toilets, large windows and longer coaches that seat more passengers.

About 8,000 coaches with zero-discharge toilet system similar to that used in airlines will also be made during the next five years."
-- Source

or this:

" In the mid-1990s, it was observed that the pit latrines
on the islands were seeping bacteria and nutrients into the surrounding waters,
damaging the coral and other aquatic life and posing a
health threat. The Republic of Palau contracted the
Ecological Engineering Group (EEG) to design a
zero-discharge toilet system that would not pollute the
waters yet would be easy to maintain for the park staff .
Fourteen toilets were installed on seven Rock Islands,
and one system was provided to be duplicated by a local
fabricator as an enterprise.
Project Description
EEG engineered a large-capacity waterless compost-
ing toilet system using Carousel composters. Liquid
(leachate) drains to Wastewater Gardens, specially engi-
neered aerobic planted beds that stabilize, treat and use
up wastewater.
The contents of the composters are removed every
few months with simple tools. The composting toilets
were well received by the park staff, who find them easy
to maintain, with few disagreeable tasks. Installing the
toilets became a public program with which Palau
Community College’s Environment Club assisted. Local
biologists helped choose tropical plants for the
Wastewater Garden."
-- Source

Which poses an unbelievably awesome question: What happens if the monthly sewer cost ends up coming in at something ridiculous like $300+ per month in a few years, and property owners decide that it is more cost effective to opt for an individual solution? Remember, all you're after is "zero discharge." What happens then? A mega sewer is built, and no one hooks up to it? Who pays for it then?

If I owned property in Los Osos, I'd be lobbing off a call to the Ecological Engineering Group to find out what my options are.

By the way, major props to the Republic of Palau for REAL "out of the box" thinking.; 10:20 AM, December 28, 2006
*PG-13 said...: Ron > According to documents, the only requirement of the government agency handling the sewer is to bring a sewer lateral just off your property for you to hook up to. You, according to documents, are under no obligation whatsoever to hook up to it. And if you aren't hooked up to it, you don't have to pay for it. Your only obligation is to decommission your septic tank to achieve zero discharge to comply with Order 83-13.

Thanks Ron, that's exactly what I wanted to know. And where I was headed. Although I can't help but think there's gonna be more involved than just complying with Order 83-13. Living off-grid within the infrastructure of the community is an anathema to the system. Most people wishing to live that way have to move to the boonies to be allowed to live off-line. The system doesn't like people not plugged in to the system. As Ann alludes the rules are stacked against creative small-scale solutions. But the systems I'm suggesting like the one's you cited are not just smaller multi-dwelling systems which will never pass muster. And probably properly so. They are true zero-discharge on-site systems. I've lived with such systems. It takes some good effort, lots of awareness and a near insane willingness to make it work but such systems do work. Such systems are as much a lifestyle as they are technology. Its not a bad lifestyle. And its certainly not a life-style for everyone. But I learned to appreciate it. No, more than appreciate, I relished it. You don't hafta go to Palau find such solutions. They are here. Now. And yes, there are always going to be things that need to be monitored, managed and controlled. I've used some composting toilets I wouldn't want to live down-wind from or next door to. But I've also used many you wouldn't even know were there if you weren't sitting on them. Gray water disposal is probably the most challenging issue. The key word there is challenging. Not impossible. To continue living in Los Osos and not have to pay $5K a day I could solve that problem. But would the laws allow me to do so? I gotta believe the RWQCB would rather gnaw off a leg than let people live in Los Osos that way. I wonder what real legal options are open to us? Anybody have any knowledge or experience with this?; 11:40 AM, December 28, 2006
Churadogs said...: Somebody claiming (again) to being Gordon Hensley sez

"Anonymous said...
Ann,

I have recieved copies of a comment/comments (?) proporting to be from me.

Absolutely not!

Sorry to inform you all that I DO NOT participate in these blogs. I believe I sen tyou one response many many months ago. But like this one, only following some outrageous post forwarded to me from those who are interested in exchanging barbs with you and your readers.

While I'm here. let me also point out another continuing error. Taxpayers Watch is not a creation of mine or any of the former Board members. Taxpayers Watch formed sometime during the recall and/or pre-recall campaign. After the recall Joyce and others asked several of us to advise them - which many of us do.

So goodbye. I will return to the task of pursuing the fastest possible resolution of the serious water pollution violation in Los Osos as well as continuing to assist TW's efforts to lessen the financial disaster brought on since the recall.

Gordon R. Hensley
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper

9:44 AM, December 28, 2006 "

Once again, somebody claiming to be Gordon Hensley posted both posts above. Same thing happend with someone pretending to be Richard LeGros. As I noted before, will note again: NOBODY posting comments on this blog can be asssumed to be anybody at all, EVER. So, caveat emptor, everyone.

To the posting above, whoever it is, I would only add one factual correction to that last sentence, " . . .lessen the financial diaster brought on by my voting to start this project weeks before a recall.. . ."

I mean, let's keep it honest, folks. Nails, shoes, horses, riders, they're all linked to that nail.

PG-13 sez:"But would the laws allow me to do so? I gotta believe the RWQCB would rather gnaw off a leg than let people live in Los Osos that way. I wonder what real legal options are open to us? Anybody have any knowledge or experience with this?"

The RWQCB has just posted their Notice of Continued Hearing and Notice of Panel Hearing.(instead of convening the full Bord to try and behead the remaining few CDO recipients, they're going to use a "panel," which will then have to report up for another vote, hence more delay). Anyway, they've changed the rules again and on page 4 it states: "The Water board dos not have to find that discharges from subsurface disposal systems within the prohibition zone are causing or contributing to conditions of polluti9on or nuissance in order to issue Cease and Desist Orders for dishcarges of waste that violate the prohibiton."

In other words, it doesn't matter whether you're causing any kind of pollution whatsoever. That's of no importance. Simply discharging anything at from a "disposal system" is illegal. You could install a brand new septic tank, run fresh drinking water through it and whatevfer came out the pipe (i.e. clean, fresh drinking water ) would be declared illegal and prohibited. Don't have to pollute the waters of California any more. Nope. Even discharging clean water will do the trick. After all, it's all a matter of semantics and the Red Queen is the one making up words and changing definitions and moving goal posts. The Red Queen wants a traditional sewer plant built and what the Red Queen wants, the Red Queen will see that everything will be bent, manipulated, shifte, changed and re-defined to end up with exactly that -- all the while denying that she's doing any such thing. Wheeee!; 6:33 AM, December 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: Geez.... Then anyone can claim anything on this warm and fuzzy blog. Doesn't that sound like this is nothing more than a worthless execise in creating a need for more toilet paper?

Why is anyone trying to help poor misguided Los Osos? Those on this blog are not helping, merely spewing their bile.

If you don't own property in Los Osos, you have no say, you are only making the County's resolve stronger. Does anyone believe the LOCSD is being honest and willing to work with the County?

Mrs.Tacker says enough for all to see how disfunctional the CSD really is. Is this blog nothing but another form of the Tacker tactics of creating enough delay to make the final cost of any sewer too expensive for most property owners?; 7:08 AM, December 29, 2006
Ron said...: Pg-13 wrote:

"I wonder what real legal options are open to us? Anybody have any knowledge or experience with this?"

According to the RWQCB, composting toilets are a legal option, and they considered "forcing" them on you, but their "con" was the toilets were too expensive. What happens when they become less expensive, and PZ property owners choose to use them? Which you could do right now, and come into compliance with 83-13. The septic system handles the shower water, etc., as mentioned in the RWQCB staff report linked above. CDO recipients could do that today, achieve "zero discharge," and then tell the water board to jam their ridiculous CDO up you-know-what.

And that would be one less property owner sharing the cost of the sewer, which means everyone else would pay more, which means there would be even more incentive for the other property owners to do the same thing, and so on, and so on, until everyone is in compliance and there is a $200 million sewer sytem that no one needs to hook up to. Wow.

An Anon wrote:

"If you don't own property in Los Osos, you have no say..."

Do you realize that the Solution Group/LOCSD has cost California taxpayers somewhere in the neighborhood of $50 million (and if a good source were to tell me that that number is closer to $100 million, I wouldn't even blink). Trust me homeboy/girl, they have a say.; 9:36 AM, December 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: Hey Homey.... Where do you live? Own any property in Los Osos?

If you are so sure the Solutions Group and the LOCSD have cost the California Taxpayers any amount, then why haven't you been all over the Attorney General to get involved and throw someone in jail?

So far the SLO DA has kept his hands out of the sewer in fear of not being re-elected, maybe Jerry Brown is willing to roll up his sleeves to play in the community sewer.

One thing for sure, you and all the blogs and cutesy Calhoun sayings are NOT getting anything constructive done to solve the pollution problem or the community rift. You are just inflaming a bunch of extremists to further delay and create even more costs for the affected property owners. The common property owner wants to get on with an affordable sewer. We know it won't happen as long as any CSD tries to plan and construct this major public works project.

Instead of spitting in the wind, why don't you try working with and for the support of the County developing an honest, affordable project plan? Or do you just want to see your name in print and foster further delay and added cost?; 10:40 AM, December 29, 2006
Ron said...: My homey Anon wrote:

"why don't you try working with and for the support of the County developing an honest, affordable project plan?"

How's this:

I was just reading that RWQCB staff report I linked to above (yea, I know... but, hey, it's the slow time of year, and that's an interesting document), and in it, it reads:

"Another approach would be to reduce the scope of Cease and Desist Orders to prohibit only black water discharge to/from septic tanks. That is, grey water from showers, washers, etc., could still be discharged to septic systems, but higher strength toilet wastes would be prohibited. Residents would be forced (if they didn’t violate that Order) to use outhouses, or toilets outside the prohibition area (not very feasible)."

Two comments on that:

1) Could someone please tell me if the scope of a Cease and Desist Order prohibits only black water discharge to/from septic tanks, or does it also include grey water?

and;

2) Notice how when they say, "residents would be forced (if they didn’t violate that Order) to use outhouses, or toilets outside the prohibition area (not very feasible)," that they didn't add other "zero-discharge" methods, like composting toilets, when later, in that same document, they say this:

"Advanced treatment units (for improved effluent quality), portable toilets and/or composting toilets (for reduced discharges, as discussed in previous section regarding prohibiting black water discharges) could be required." [all bolding mine]

Then it says this:

Pros: For those existing discharges where such alternatives are implemented, water quality improvement will occur.

Then it says this:

Cons: Widespread implementation of this alternative would result in more costly waste treatment and less effective water quality protection than that offered by the community sewer. However, it remains one of the few alternatives, which can result in water quality improvement and is not subject to Coastal Commission approval.

That's a "CON"?!

Some takes:

They say, "(Alternative waste disposal methods are) less effective water quality protection than that offered by the community sewer."

Huh? How is that possible? What part of "zero discharge" am I not getting? Zero is zero, right? How can alternatives be "less effective?"

They also say, "Widespread implementation of this alternative would result in more costly waste treatment..."

Says the RWQCB! If you don't mind guys, I'd like to get a second opinion on that one.

And what happens if a property owner in the PZ says, "So what if it costs more? The alternative method is more environmentally friendly, and it assures I won't have a sewer plant in the middle of my beautiful coastal town."

Is that such a stretch?; 10:53 AM, December 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: Better..........

at least not some fire brand, extremist blather.

I do live in Los Osos, or is it Baywood Park, and have lived here some 30 years, so I can actually say it's "my" home. There is no "town" of Los Osos or Baywood Park. There is no "middle of any town". It is more on the coast than Paso Robles, but less than Cayucos, most of Los Osos does not have a bay or mud flat view and much less of an ocean view. So don't try to describe this as "my beautiful coastal town". It's an "ok" community, it has no industry or object of tourism, the good folks who own and live here are now so divided over a damn sewer that half don't talk to the other half.

As to the environmentally friendly toilets, you really should do some construction retrofit research. Ask how can I install this commode without tearing out the floor and creating some access for cleaning and maintenance? Ask just how much room is required? Ask when will the joy of assuring a sewer won't be built be overcome by the realization that the retro-fit costs and maintenance are not as attractive as the old conventional sewer connection?; 11:13 AM, December 29, 2006
Ron said...: Quick shout-out to my homies at Composting Toilet World.

Composting Toilet World?

Who knew?; 11:14 AM, December 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: Oh, yes. I can see the separation of grey water. I bet most of the people who voted to stop the sewer pee in the shower. I bet their kids do the same. And then there are people that wash diapers in their washing machines. Then there are the incontinent. Grey water?; 1:05 PM, December 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: Excellent source of information for a composting toilet.

Unfortunately there seems to be a lack of installation information and it would be handy to have a "capacity chart". The info seems to skirt all around the USA acceptance for use in a suburban enviroment. The price would appear to be in the range of US$5,000 each. and is there an additional "digester" required?

We are all waiting to hear your glowing report of how well the composting toilets are working in your home. Please tell us that you as the vanguard of sewerless communities have legally installed at least two and have had them a year or more before encouraging the purchase of some 10,000 units for the Los Osos PZ homes.; 3:07 PM, December 29, 2006
Mike Green said...: Here is a appoved system already installed http://loviews.blogspot.com/; 9:28 PM, December 29, 2006
Anonymous said...: Anon 9:26 PM, December 27, 2006:
For Everyone's Information:
"Bait and Switchy" is a April 14, 2004, quote from Commissioner Potter...there was a UNANAMOUS Commission who voted that day to find "Substantial Issue" with the project. Meaning the appellants would be heard de Novo (all new), and they were, where they lost in August 2004 the District recieved "Approval" for their Coastal Development Permit, it was 12 months and 8 days (and millions of dollars) later that the permit was "Issued".; 12:17 PM, December 30, 2006
Ron said...: An Anon wrote:

"We are all waiting to hear your glowing report of how well the composting toilets are working in your home. Please tell us that you as the vanguard of sewerless communities have legally installed at least two and have had them a year or more before encouraging the purchase of some 10,000 units for the Los Osos PZ homes."

Please keep in mind that the alternative zero-discharge methods are not my idea. The composting toilets that "will" improve water quality, are the RWQCB's idea... they considered "requiring" them in Los Osos. However, I do plan on popping out a very interesting report on this subject early in the new year.

Also, keep in mind, that if just a small percentage of property owners choose to go the composting toilet route, all of the other property owners WILL HAVE NO CHOICE but to follow, because if a small percentage goes composting toilet, then the monthly sewer bill for everyone else, just so they can have the luxury of flushing with water, will go through the roof.

My prediction for 2007?: By the end of the year, Los Osos is going to be a model community on how to handle sewage as the entire community installs composting toilets. PZ property owners won't really have a choice. Economic realities will dictate it, unless, of course, the die-hard Tri-Dubbers want to pay $1000 a month just so they can flush with water... and get their industrial strength, mid-town sewer plant built.

Cottage industries will sprout up, and profit from the compost. It's going to be beautiful.

I'm really looking forward to following that story over the next few months.... should be great.

Paying attention said:

" "Bait and Switchy" is a April 14, 2004, quote from Commissioner Potter...there was a UNANAMOUS Commission who voted that day to find "Substantial Issue" with the project."

That's exactly right. "Bait and Switchy" had serious fall-out. It's not like Potter just threw up his arms and said this whole things smells "bait and switchy"... oh no, no, no. The entire Commission agreed with him... because he was 100-percent right.

"Bait and switchy" had serious consequences... and it cost everyone, in and out of Los Osos, a bundle. Just ask the June 17, 2004 LOCSD meeting.; 11:22 AM, December 31, 2006
Ron said...: An Anon wrote:

"We are all waiting to hear your glowing report..."

Here ya go.; 6:47 PM, January 01, 2007

Pages

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

23 comments: