CAO FAQs
The following Press Release was sent by Citizens for Clean Water –PZLDF (Prohibiton Zone Legal Defense Fund). The BOS will be voting today to decide whether to send a letter to the RWQCB asking them to “stand down” so the county project can go ahead unimpeded, and I would urge all citizens who can, please plan to attend the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s hearing, Thursday May 10th, starting at 10 a.m. at their offices at 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101 in San Luis Obispo.
Public Information
Regarding
Water Board Enforcement
Prepared as a Public Service by
Citizens for Clean Water/PZLDF
Dedicated to Clean Water and Citizens’ Rightsclass
The information contained within is not intended as a substitute for information that you may obtain from legal counsel.
Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF
Dedicated to clean water and citizens rights
What is happening on May 10th?
The Water Board that will decide if your property and title will be entangled in enforcement actions is being held on May 10th .
The Board will consider the staff’s recommendation to mail every property owner in Los Osos prohibition zone a Clean up and Abatement Order (CAO) this differs from the process the first 45 residents went through. The Clean up and Abatement Order has no hearing, and if you fail to respond to the mailer it automatically becomes effective.
Why wasn’t I notified?
The Water Board mailed a ‘Notice of Violation’ (NOV) to Los Osos homeowners and businesses in April 2007. They posted the notice for the meeting on their web site April 26th.
What’s a Notice of Violation (NOV)?
Notices of Violations are the highest level of informal enforcement action. However, the Water Board did not follow their own enforcement rules, and failed to include the signature by the proper authority, or deliver them by certified mail.
Note: The NOV is one of many “progressive enforcement” steps that the water board has failed to implement properly when addressing the water quality issues since 1983. The water Board says the NOV was for information only, and no response is required.
However-the enforcement actions on the part of the Water Board now threatens every property and business in Los Osos.
What is a Clean up and Abatement Order- (CAO)
Clean up and Abatement Orders are meant for businesses and industry for urgent clean up of spills and accidental releases of pollutants that threaten water of the State. CAO’s are enforcement tools used in accidental spills or abandonment of property that makes clean up necessary. The water board steps in with extraordinary powers to contract for clean up as they deem necessary, and bill the property owner for ALL costs, or lien owners assets for payment.
The enforcement policy notes CAO’s require direct evidence of each property’s pollution, and that immediate clean up is required to protect waters of the State. CAO’s is only appropriate when the pollution is NOT a long-term permanent condition. Solutions that require costly infrastructure, and financial assistance, such as a sewer system and treatment plant should use Cease and Desist Orders. NOT CAO’S.
Clean up and Abatement Orders are not appropriate for the situation in Los Osos requiring a multi-million dollar community project.
Can enforcement cause me to lose my home?
Yes, the enforcement measures proposed are on your property, and meant to pressure your vote for a sewer. If placed on your home the orders could be used against you and lead to loss of your home.
Should I sign a settlement?
NO! Do not sign a settlement-or voluntarily accept an enforcement order on your property. The Clean Up and Abatement Order and the SETTLEMENT are nearly identical. The settlement is an enforcement order. The risk of loss of your property remain the same.
Although the settlement offer may seem benign, and a way to avoid hearings by showing the water board “cooperation,” the settlement Clean up and Abatement Orders (CAO) severely limits your ability to defend your rights, to challenge future fines, or to oppose additional enforcement. The CAO settlement could indeed lead to fines and the loss of your home.
Are CAO settlements actually worse than CDO’s?
Absolutely- Both the “Settlement” Clean up and Abatement Order, and the Clean up and Abatement Order deprive you of property rights, by declaring you a “gross polluter” and your property in need of clean up by the state.
Cease and Desist Orders do not have “emergency powers” attached that deprive citizens of their constitutional rights to due process. A Cease and Desist Order (CDO) requires at least one hearing before the full board, and a showing of proof with specific evidence before being issued, and more importantly, the order can be appealed. Any assessment of fines or liens on homes can be challenged in the courts.
A settlement places homeowners in the very worse position if the County process under AB 2710 fails. A “Clean up and Abatement Order” in the form of an agreement indicates voluntary agreement with any possible outcomes the water board chooses.
What else do Clean up and Abatement Order do?
CAO ‘findings’ list you and your properties as a known polluters. The CAO includes elements that allow the water board to conduct a “clean-up” as they see fit and you pay the bill. CAO’s can be changed by staff as condition change. They can come onto your property unannounced, and they can charge you for ALL the costs associated with a clean up and enforcement against you. You even pay the costs for the processing of a lien on your home to ensure payment.
There are minimum mandatory fines of $500 per day, and fines up to $5000 per day that can be assessed. There is a provision to charge you for replacement water if the wells near your home are contaminated. (The settlement CAO terms state staff will ‘recommendation’ lower fines of $100/day or $36,500/yr).
Why issue enforcement orders now, isn’t a sewer project in the County’s control?
Good question. AB 2701 was approved on September 18 2006. Assemblyman Blakeslee brokered an agreement with the District and County with certain enforcement input from the Water Board. The new law then allowed the transfer of primary responsibility for the project to the County. Within the six legislative elements included in AB 2701 is the “abeyance of enforcement actions.”
The Water Board has not abided by this promise, and actually escalated enforcement by prosecuting the first 45 homeowners, and tying further enforcement actions to the 218 vote outcome.
The Water Board is now threatening 4,400 more homes and businesses Clean up and Abatement Orders is counter-productive to a fair process under AB 2701, and by any constitutional measure.
What happened to the first 45?
The prosecution of the first 45 randomly selected property owners and renters began over a year ago. (January 2006) After hundreds of hours and many tens of thousands in wasted taxpayers money, most remain in appeal.
The first four cases were heard in December 2006, and seven remain to be heard. At that time several homeowners signed a settlement without understanding the full consequences or risks.
In January 2007 the Water Board heard two more cases with Shaunna Sullivan assisting in the defense. To date, the Water Board has yet to rule on these cases.
Appeals were filed by fourteen homeowners who were issued Cease and Desist Orders or who are challenging settlements. The appeal lists at least 94 reasons against enforcement CDOs and the “settlement” Clean up and Abatement Orders (CAO). The appeal is available for review from Citizens for Clean Water upon request. www.PZLDF.org or contact Sullivan and Associates sullivanlaw@charter.net.
Is my Home really illegal and I am breaking the law?
The water board amendment to the basin plan (83-13) was not intended to result in zero discharge, or condemn homes. You purchased your home in good faith and the sale was legal. There was no disclosure by any agency that your home was illegal, or that you would be breaking the law to live there, or that your home’s value was threatened with condemnation because of government failure to build a sewer.
Why am I getting Clean up and Abatement and enforcement notices if I can’t do anything about the building a sewer or fixing the water problem on my own?
The order requires you to hook up to a sewer that doesn’t exist. You are doing all you can by having a legally permitted home with a properly working septic system. You are already paying a sewer assessment on your property. You are required to hook up to a sewer system within 60 days of its availability.
Citizens for Clean Water - PZLDF considers individual enforcement to be counterproductive and abusive since you cannot build a community sewer system by yourself, and enforcement allows the Water Board to take action against your home if a 218 vote fails and you fail to cease discharge by 2011.
What is “Density”, and why was Los Osos allowed to develop without a sewer system if it was needed for the last 30 years?
Standard government code practices since before the 1970’s required a minimum one-acre parcel for development using septic tanks. The practice of the County and Water Board allowing exceptions of up to 8 houses per acre caused today’s problems.
Unfortunately, in 1983, an option to allow more density - or houses per acre - was allowed and encouraged by both the County and Regional Water Board, and since then, there has been a continued absence of Water Board oversight in the legally required agreements with governing agencies. The County Memoranda of Understanding for permitting septic tanks was the first step in the failure of appropriate planning for the past 30 years in Los Osos.
After 1983, how were even more homes and septic systems permitted, built, approved, and resold if the discharges were” illegal”?
There is still a legal question about our septic systems being legally approved yet now discharge is being characterized as illegal. All septic systems are legally permitted and homes are fully approved. There are disputed findings as to the extent of pollution from the septic systems, the origin of high levels of nitrates, and the best solution for the septic discharges.
A septic tank maintenance district was required by code (83-12) to monitor the septic impacts upon the water quality and prevent poor development practices. This was never implemented to conduct water monitoring and prohibiting building. The discharge of nitrates is the only constituent within the septic tank discharge that is not in compliance according to the basin plan. This is what the water board contends is “illegal.” However, the recent enforcement actions have expanded the scope to prohibit discharge of any kind within the prohibition zone of Los Osos.
A moratorium established in 1988 appears to have increased County fees and property taxes, but failed to prevent over-development in the Los Osos basin. Overdraft of the water supply and salt water intrusion is another result of poor County development practices which has become a much more serious concern than nitrates.
Why wasn’t a Sewer System built years ago?
A project was proposed in 1983 based on development projections for a population of 30,000. The County government did not build the plant, but allowed nearly 1000 more homes to be built. Yours may be one of these. Ongoing complications in providing a satisfactory project through the 1990’s culminated in the Community Services District formation in 1998.
What responsibility does the County, the Regional Water Board, and, most recently, the Community Services District have in this situation?
No government agency has ever admitted they failed in providing the Los Osos community with a community sewer system. The Community Services District was established in 1998, but it was unable to develop an affordable and technically adequate project of the size and complexity required. The project costs quadrupled, the location was opposed, and the CSD directors was recalled, however, they indebted the community by starting the controversial project just prior to the recall election.
The County has several options for lower cost systems which are available to Los Osos. Perhaps the most important piece of any system is a water management plan. Previous plans failed to address and fund this important benefit. They also did not consider the “sustainability’ of a project-the ability for citizens to pay future costs.
Can they fine me if a 218 vote isn’t passed?
Both the CDO’s, the blanket CAO”s and the Settlement CAO’s are poised to fine you if a project does not move forward. However, Water Code 13360 states the Water Board does not have the authority over what kind of project the community chooses.
“. . . no discharge requirement or other decree of a regional board or the state board or decree of a court issued under this division shall specify the design, location, type of construction, or particular manner in which compliance may be had . . . . ”
Further, it is illegal for the Water Board to use enforcement to drive a certain project, such as the mid-town one already rejected. The County is working to develop an acceptable project, to implement a 218 assessment vote to approve funding, and to ultimately deliver an acceptable project.
If you have an enforcement action in the form or a CDO or settlement in place, you will have until July 2008 for a project assessment vote to be passed by the County. If that fails, you must provide the Water Board with a plan for compliance to stop discharge from you home by 2011.
Might enforcement actually be illegal “electioneering” through intimidation?
The RWQCB is allowed to present truthful information regarding facts pertinent to a vote for or against a proposition. However, it must be fair, impartial, factual, and funded by explicit legislative authorization. The 218 vote is simply a funding assessment. It is clear the community must determine the project without coercion or intimidation. In this case the water board has developed enforcement consequences based on a vote, because the enforcement actions are tied to the 218 vote to reach compliance, PZLDF contends that enforcement against the 45 individual residents, as well as the Notices of Violation, could be considered coercion of voters through intimidation. That is illegal. Further the expenditure of public funds to intimidate voters is unethical and forbidden. For more information, go to the FPPC Ethics Training website (http://www.fppc.ca.gov/) for State Officials.
"Enforcement ends with compliance...compliance is dependent upon a project...and a project on a fair process..."-----Citizens' for Clean Water-PZLDF
What options does Los Osos property owners and residents have to comply with the Water Board?
First, the County 218 assessment vote is NOT A DOOMSDAY VOTE for your property, and the County is not presenting it as such.
Regulatory compliance can be achieved in several ways. 1)By the County, 2) by the Los Osos CSD, 3) by a Private corporation, 4) or individually through advanced onsite systems.
1. Right now the community is working through the County led project.
2. If the County fails in delivering a project for any reason, the project will transfer back to the District.
3. Should this occur, as provided in AB 2701, the LOCSD would likely implement the district’s plan before the County transfer. This was to proceed with Ripley Pacific’s project proposal (http://www.losososcsd.org/wwp/index.html) which would also require a 218 vote.
(The project identified should currently be among County selection options.)
4. Another option available immediately to the community is to pursue a privatized project plan. One company was presented to the LOCSD in October of 2006 by Orenco Systems Inc. http://www.orenco.com/
(As a public-private partnership, and should currently be among County selection options.)
5. If there is no community project on the horizon after July 2008, property owners will be required to install an onsite treatment systems that meet the Water Board waste discharge requirements.
There are several commercially available systems which are permitted in California which cost between $15,000 - $40,000 per home. Neighborhood associations could contract with private firms to build common systems.
For those interested in onsite system compliance, you can get more information on approved systems from the water board or www.cowa.org or Citizens for Clean Water PZLDF.org who can provide additional links and contacts.
What can I do to protect my rights?
1. SEND MAIL AND EMAILS TO THE WATER BOARD in response to the Notice of violation and proposed enforcement CAO’s-to Jeffery Young c/o m.thomas@waterboards.ca.gov copy to t.doduc@swrcb.ca.gov
Tell them the actions are counter productive and to vacate the enforcement against the 45, not to pursue blanket individual enforcement against the community, and to support the County process and the community to develop a successful project.
2. CLEAN UP AND ABATEMENT ORDERS –Attend the Water Board meeting on May 10th
Speak out against blanket enforcement CAO’s and counter productive electioneering, and coercion.
DO NOT SEND OFFERS TO SIGN AGREEMENTS OR SETTLEMENTS (CAO’s) this could adversely affect your ability to defend yourself and property in the future.
3. Keep abreast of the county’s progress toward an acceptable project. http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/PW/LOWWP.htm
4. Participate in the process and let your wishes be known concerning an acceptable project, type, acceptable costs and location.
5. Protect the process from the county’s actions being influenced by water board enforcement- coercion and intimidation tactics. Notify the county you want a fair process-Your representative for district 2 is Bruce Gibson. email: .gibson@co.slo.ca.us
6. Contact your representatives about your concerns.
District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson
Room D-430, County Government Center
San Luis Obispo, California 93408 (805) 781-1350 Fax
(805) 781-5450email: .gibson@co.slo.ca.us
Assemblyman Sam
Blakeslee
Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Phone (805)-549-3381-1104
Congresswoman Lois Capps
San Luis Obispo 1411 Marsh Street, Suite 205 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Phone: (805) 546-8348 Fax: (805) 546-8368
Peter J. Visclosky (IN), Chair
Dixon Butler, Subcommittee Clerk Room 2362-B Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, DC 20515Phone: (202) 225-3421
7. Learn more about your rights, the regulations and legal help available.
Contact
Pacific Legal Foundation3900 Lennane Drive,Suite200Sacramento,CA95834(916)4197111(916)4197747(fax)plf@pacificlegal.org
ACLU of So Ca.
Executive Director:Ramona Ripston
1616 Beverly Blvd.
Los Angeles, Ca 90026
213/977-9500
8. Attend PZLDF informational meetings on Monday evenings at 7:00 pm at Washington Mutual Bank.
9.Join Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF. Donate to fund the Legal actions either to PZLDF or directly to Sullivan & Associates.
10.Protect your property rights by being proactive, and by donating your time, money and resources.
COME TO MEETINGS
HELP WITH FUNDRAISING
STAY INVOLVED!
Pages
Calhouns Can(n)ons
About the Can(n)ons
Calhoun's Can(n)ons was originally published in 1990 in the (now defunct) Morro Bay, CA, Sun Bulletin, and since 1992 has continued in the various resurrections of the Los Osos, CA. Bay News, Bay Breeze, Bay News, Bay News-Tolosa Press. A few years ago, the Can(n)on was added to the Central Coast NewsMission blogsite. Ann Calhoun lives in Los Osos. You can email her at Churadogs at gmail dot com
To be persuasive, we must be believable. To be believable, we must be credible. To be credible, we must be truthful.
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Edward R. Murrow
It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; the essential is invisible to the eye.
Antoine de Saint-Exupery
The Little Prince
No one is exempt from talking nonsense; the misfortune is to do it solemnly.
Montaigne
Followers
Posts
Calhouns Can(n)ons
Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons
Adopt a Dog or Cat Today
Local Bloggers and Friends
Blog Archive
-
▼
2007
(186)
-
▼
May
(14)
- Hey, Where’s My Waiver?The following email was sen...
- Sewer Tales Redux, Again, Some More, SighDagnabit!...
- The Writ is WroughtNow, it remains to be seen if a...
- Calhoun’s Cannons ,The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA for...
- So The Phone Rings About 12:50 a.m. Last Night And...
- Oh, For God’s Sake, Al, Why Didn’t You Listen To M...
- 1. Some Thoughts After Attending Tuesday Night's ...
- Look, Mommy, It's The Market Based Yellow Brick Ro...
- Yooooo Hoooo, Hellooooooo ....The county's 121-pag...
- Hold Onto Your Hair, Maudie, I Think I Feel a Gust...
- Calhoun’s Cannons, The Bay News, Morro Bay, CA, fo...
- CAO FAQsThe following Press Release was sent by Ci...
- Helloooooo, Yoooo Hooooooo, Anybody Home? As menti...
- Oh My Ears And Whiskers, Does Anybody In The Regio...
-
▼
May
(14)
Central Coast News Radio
Central Coast NewsLinks
CCNM Disclaimer: Calhoun's Can(n)on content copyright wholly owned by Ann Calhoun. Central Coast NewsMission site name and branding images, content and customization copyright © 2005 - 2009. Images courtesy page author, Ann Calhoun, and CCNM editor, Greg McClure; sponsors; and public domain. All writers are responsible for their articles. Permission granted to quote articles herein on a fair use basis, please credit the writer.
74 comments:
From the FAQ:
"5. If there is no community project on the horizon after July 2008, property owners will be required to install an onsite treatment systems that meet the Water Board waste discharge requirements."
What's the source on that? I don't think that is accurate (unless something changed recently that I missed). But if it is... told ya so.
I don't even see why that has to be "required." If I owned a vacant lot in LO (or if I signed all my correspondence, "San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper"), I would have started looking up about 10 composting toilet manufacturers five seconds after I read that link above, and I would have purchased my "advanced" on-site system months ago -- a system that the RWQCB has already said "will" clean the area's groundwater, and a system that reduces a HOUSEHOLD'S water use by half -- and my septic tank-less house would be half-way built by now, at a fraction of the cost, and everything "sewer" would be in my rearview mirror.
You will note the press release that Ann included from the McPherson group is not signed. Are they afraid of being sued for misinformation?
"I would have started looking up about 10 composting toilet manufacturers five seconds after I read that link above, and I would have purchased my "advanced" on-site system months ago..."
Ron,
How many times do you have to be told that composting toilets are currently illegal in San Luis Obispo County. Who gives a damn if the Regional Board "likes" them. Until the County codes are changed, we can't use them, so why do you keep harping on this?
You really are a one-trick jackass.
11:37 a.m.
What does:
Public Information
Regarding
Water Board Enforcement
Prepared as a Public Service by
Citizens for Clean Water/PZLDF
at the top of the document mean to you?
That someone or some group has an agenda to delay me getting to hook up to a sewer asap so I can move on with my life and see litigation in my rear view mirror...
First my question for Ann ... should we take your silence on the question of how one should reasonably interpret your past quotes as tacit admission that you were being critical of TW for trying to stick the County with their bills? I would think that if you don't want us to see it that way you might want to explain your words and show us where you voiced support for TW's appeal of the amount back last November. Heck, if you're going to say that I'm not very good at reading carefully you could at least point out how you wanted us to read your words at the time.
"That someone or some group has an agenda to delay me getting to hook up to a sewer asap so I can move on with my life and see litigation in my rear view mirror..."
Sounds right to me, Anon 1pm.
Next, a semi-off-topic comment (in Los Osos where all sewer related comments are at worst semi-off-topic)...
I'm recently been thinking over the argument that the post-recall board financially hamstrung by the actions of the pre-recall board. The only way this comment makes sense to me is if the one making the argument identifies the hamstringing action. You see, there seem to be two separate sets of actions which are commonly held as evidence of hamstringing. Let's consider both the decision to start construction just prior to the recall and the decision to choose TriW in the first place. I believe that any other possible hamstringing could be viewed as largely like one or the other.
First, the decision to start construction a month before the recall election. Certainly costly, but not a hamstringing by any sense. The decision to start construction brought an infusion of cash into the CSD's coffers. Without that money, the post-recall board would have run out of cash even sooner than they actually did. One could even say that the decision to start construction at TriW, while quite costly, actually helped the post-recall board because it gave them considerably more resources to work with to achieve their goal.
Now let's consider the choice of TriW in the first place. The selection of TriW back in 2000 (or so) was based in part on the idea of using a ponding system and having a park incorporated into the plan. Not necessarily wise choices, but ones the community favored at the time. This is evidenced by the passage of the 218 bond vote in 2001, and the election of candidates (in 2000 and 2002) who promised to continue with the Solutions Group conceptual plan. In any case, by the time CCLO and LOTTF and the rest really had any traction at the polls (think 2004), their lawsuits and other delays (only some of which were CCLO and LOTTF related) had driven up the costs considerably. Once the initial site selection had been completed, the costs for choosing other sites would be considerably higher (both from delay and from the cost of studying those sites for feasibility). Similarly, once the design work had been done, the costs of other sites would yet again be considerably higher due to delay and the need to come up with yet another design.
Was the earlier board's decision back in 2000 and 2001 to continue with the conceptual plan a hamstringing of the current board? I don't think a reasonable person would view it as such but instead a desire on their part to move forward with what they felt the best plan was. No matter.
Now the frustrating part ... whatever the identified hamstringing ... to even argue that it happened is a simultaneous argument that the recall board should have known in advance that the decision to stop TriW would be so costly that they would be forced into bankrputcy. Essentially the post-recall board should have darn well understood that to simply "move the sewer, no matter what it costs" would be so expensive that they should have foreseen the need to borrow more money just to pursue their out-of-town ideal. Their choice not to borrow when they should have known they had a need to borrow was the source of their bankruptcy or it would have been, even if they hadn't spent so much money on WilDan and BWS.
ps - one more technical note. Some have said that TW was the group doing the hamstringing with their lawsuits and their dissolution request. If one feels that way, one should add up the total legal costs associated with those two or three issues and compare it to the total legal costs related to issues involving CASE and CCLO. Even if put on an annual basis, there is no comparison ... CCLO and CASE have done far more financial harm to the LOCSD board than TW ever has.
pps - this comment is for Ron and Mike who both pestered me to do my own blog. I'm not ready yet, but I figure that Ann is willing to host comments and this is the best blog for facts and discussion, so I'll put my thoughts here.
11:37
You charged that PZLDF didn't sign the press release when they identified themselves at the top of the page. You accused them of not wanting to put a name to the document to avoid being sued for misinformation. The group's name is at the TOP of the document. Is that not sufficient i.d. of the fact that PZLDF stands behind the document? What else did you miss in your reading of it??
So what happened at the BOS meeting? Did they vote to support the letter asking for a "stand down"?
Yes, the BOS voted to send the letter to the RWQCB, but did not comment on issues raised about the letter by people during the public comment.
One issue that was raised but not addressed was that the BOS stated in the letter that they didn't think the RWQCB was doing any kind of illegal electioneering. Hmmmmm.
I have a question for Mr. Inlet:
If the prior CSD board (with Pandora) were so ready to form the CSD and build the plant (getting the county off the hook) at the Tri-W location -- WHY DID THEY NOT CHECK WITH THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD FIRST? If the RWQCB wouldn't accept ponds, that would have ended things right there. If there wasn't enough land, well, Pandora and group should have known that right up front too. What's the deal on that??
A CSD shouldn't have been formed until after a sewer was built. A CSD was apparently never able to build the right sewer - it should have been the county all along.
Maybe CCLO etc. cost the community money, maybe this current board were a bunch of dumb shits or had an agenda to move the sewer for Jeff, but the old board cost many millions by screwing up from day one.
BTW, I believe it was Richard who read an old statement from Pandora at the BOS today that was quite interesting...
The town is being run by a lunatic (Gail) a deranged maniac who has done the community harm that may never be un-done, and you act as her public relations agent, Ann, so what does that make you?!
5:45 Anon
It would be irresponsible of the BOS to publicly denounce the actions of the RWQCB. Their job is to help us build a project, and that job requires a political balancing act. They must hold their opinions in check and do what is best given their powers and responsibilities.
Let the courts decide on the legal issues. (This is not an anti-sewer stand, but a pro-democracy stand.) The courts will determine if the RWQCBs have the right to trample on the constitution. Justice takes time. We need a solution now. But our efforts will protect another town from this abuse of power.
Great question.
The Solutions Group should have done a bit more homework before moving forward with their plan. They also should have communicated their findings quite clearly to our community before any vote took place.
Perhaps they were remiss. Maybe they weren't but the RWQCB simply changed their mind about the whether a ponding system would be acceptable. (Ron Crawford writes quite effectively that they should have known in advance that the RWQCB would say "no" ... but because his take on recent events seems so skewed I'm hesitant to take his version of history as gospel.) I won't argue here the either position is right.
It is good that you're noticing the similarity between both the solutions group board and the cclo/lottf board ... certainly if one is going to criticize the earlier board for not doing their homework or for assuming the RWQCB would just go along with the new plan, it should be even more clear that the recall board was in the exact same (if not more damning) situation.
You're definitely right that missteps by both groups have cost us horribly ... only a few in Los Osos have been "smart" enough to have voted against both the formation of the CSD and against the recall.
I'll see your outrage and raise you one. Not only should the County have been in charge all along, they also should pay some of the costs of cleaning up our groundwater ... after all it is because we have too many septics per acre that we're in trouble now and it was the County who made the choice to allow such development even when similar density development was not allowed elsewhere for public health reasons.
I do appreciate that the county has at least two or three times stepped up to the plate and invested some money (millions) to fix the problem, but essentially they are the ones who dropped the ball and because they didn't fix things way back when it would have been reasonable to have done so, they are the group I see with the most moral culpability out there. After that, CCLO/LOTTF and the Solutions Group.
To Anon at 7PM,
The BOS could/should have removed the line in the letter about electioneering. That's not taking any kind of a political stand (but it is clearly taking a stand for the RWQCB.)
The BOS, Paavo and crew have worked with Pandora, Richard LeGros, Gordon Hensley, Sam Blakeslee and the RWQCB all along -- and since well before the recall. Don't you remember any of that??!!
I don't get how some can be so niave, and being niave will cost you and the rest of us a lot of money - a lot of money for the big pipe system that isn't appropriate for Los Osos.
Trust the county, ... right ... just like trusting the people running our country, spending our money to now to tax us out of our homes.
I guess you really think the county will give us a good affordable sustainable project too. Why in the world then did the county and Blakeslee take our project away from us when we were well on our way with Ripley??!! I'll give you a hint, it wasn't for an affordable project!
I'll tell you something else, the county could have picked the project before the 218 with a price, so no matter what, we will not know what the project will be until after the 218!!! They county did this for a reason too!
I guess Gail was right when she said the people in Los Osos fell off the turnip truck.
So hop right back up on it, have another snort and hurry your scared ass out of town as fast as you can.
To 7:44,
What did happen to Ripley, and why would the CSD spend $500,000 for nothing??
For that matter, why has the current board spent money like they were printing it in the back room? Why didn't they fire Julie Biggs, who apparently advised them they could spend all that SRF loan money and are still spending the last $2 million to this day?? Just asking...
"the county took the project away from us"
another Los Osos myth
Los Osos took the project away from itself by Board mismanagement - plain & simple
Had there actually been a plan, then no need to take the project away.
To Mr. Inlet:
What I think may have happened is that the county couldn't figure out exactly how to pay for the sewer.
I heard recently that the county (secretly) put liens on homes in the early 90's and then along came Proposition 218 in '96! I guess the county had to do something else.
A Los Osos wastewater system should have been a county public works project (like all others in the county) and paid for by all. We pay for public works projects throughout the county and always have. Right?
To Anon 7:44
In no way did I idicate that we should have blind trust in the county. We need to constantly stay on top of the direction of the project, letting our voices be heard. I am saying that the county will serve us best if they stay out of a direct conflict with the RWQCB. If the County is really going to give Los Osos a choice in projects, they will need to be in a position deliver. Every previous project was destroyed by RWQCB meddling and the project morphing.
I believe that the post recall team (can't even think of them as a CSD) destroyed all projects, including the Ripley, and did it deliberately to price any project out of reason and straight into litigation for Federal assistance.
"I heard ... the County (secretly) put liens on homes in the 90s.."
Uugggh!! Los Osos Myths, no wonder we're so screwed.
God - Los Osos should all become Hollywood scriptwriters there is no end to the imagination.
In regards to what Anon said at 8:39 PM, the LOCSD destroyed all projects because Gail McPherson instructed them to do so. While she is providing semi-researched documentation on alternative wastewater systems, she's truly seeking gravity collection at Tri-W. Why? AB2701 would legitimize the once-permitted project by establishing a 218 vote: something the previous board declined to provide.
Unfortunately, this is not a conspiracy theory as many of you would assume as she had called Montgomery-Watson Harza about "revising" their initial proposal to accommodate Los Osos' current needs in addition to calling the Santa Maria dumping facility (where the partially treated biosolids would be disposed).
Inlet sez:"If one feels that way, one should add up the total legal costs associated with those two or three issues and compare it to the total legal costs related to issues involving CASE and CCLO. Even if put on an annual basis, there is no comparison ... CCLO and CASE have done far more financial harm to the LOCSD board than TW ever has."
In listing the various lawsuits, you forgot to mention the EXTREMELY costly settlement brought about by the previous CSD suing to stop Measure B BEFORE the election. The settlemnt was extremely costly but way less than it would have been mandated by a judge had the CSD carried that ill-considered case forward and lost, which it surely would have, given the history of lost pre-voting cases on the books, once brought and lost only months before the previous CSD's own efforts. That bill was a whopper that could/should have been totally avoided.
As for the breach of contract suits and the suit against WMH, those are suits that really, really need to be carried forward. Would anyone love to be a fly on the wall during discovery?
As for TPW sticking the county with the CSD's debts by demanding dissolution, by what stretch of the imagination is the County responsible for the CSD's debts? The county is certainly responsible in part for a lot of this sewer mess for various failures on their part, ditto the RWQCB, but. . . Also, in a recent viewpoint signed by members of TPW it notes that Stan, Gordon and Richard were "advisors" to the dissolution efforts. This, of course, begs the question of Medea and calls into question any efforts of TPW to portray themselves as disinterested concerned citizens, etc.
As for Inlet getting his own blogsite. Hey, go for it.
anonymous sez:"One issue that was raised but not addressed was that the BOS stated in the letter that they didn't think the RWQCB was doing any kind of illegal electioneering. Hmmmmm."
In the letter, Supervisor Gibson notes that there doesn't seem to be any illegal electioneering but notes concern over the PERCEPTION of electioneering. This is critical. As I've said a gazillion times, Perception IS reality and the electioneering laws are very broad and being broad can be taken into court, so if you're smart you won't do anything to trigger a court case since people don't have to actually win in court, they only have to delay things. So, why would the RWQCB want to give anyone even the appearance of electioneering and coercion etc. as an opening? Since there is no point to the CDOs and CAOs except electioneering, everybody better ask themselves, is the RWQCB's action smart if they want a project built without delays? Or is what they're mindlessly and pointlessly doing only going to offer openings for filing a federal electioneering case, hence triggering delay? And would that be ironic? The RWQCB being responsible for delaying the very project they say they want without delay.
To: 9:30PM 5/8
If you think all this stuff is myth or made-up, think again.
I saw the paperwork for the liens. I heard about it and checked it out myself. The county did lien homes without ANY notification to the homeowners (which is illegal.)
You like to "look away" from the truth, but the truth will come back a bite you!
P.S. We are so screwed because of dumb blind followers like you! .. not because of what you call myths!
In Response to Anon 8:11PM and 9:30PM--
The County did not have liens placed on Los Osos properties without carrying out the full legal process. Prior to Prop 218 passing in 1998, the Assessment District Acts required formal protest hearings prior to the establishment of assessment districts and liens for public projects. Those hearings were held. I attended the one in the early 90's that was held in the Fremont Theatre in San Luis Obispo.
Not only were the liens legal, but when the CSD abandoned the County's ready-to-go project in 1998, several property owners had prepaid their County project assessments. While the County was not required to repay those amounts (because they had used the money for it's intended purpose--the design and permits for the project) the County still repaid the prepaid amounts plus interest from the County General Fund. Can you say the same for our CSD with the prepayments that they collected for a project that will not be built?
The County is not the nefarious agency that you claim, and I am glad that they are in charge of development of a project.
As for your comment about the County paying for other sewer projects, are you kidding, or ignorant? Whenever the County was involved in a sewer project in the past (Atascadero, Cambria, San Luis County Club-these are just the ones that I know of) assessment districts were formed, bonds were sold, the property owners paid assessments to repay the debt for the project that benefitted their property, and, except for the County Club, Cities or CSD's eventually took over the operation and administration of the systems. This is how it should have happened here.
You need to be more responsible in the statements that you make.
The opening sentences for this blog piece:
"Public Information
Regarding
Water Board Enforcement
Prepared as a Public Service by
Citizens for Clean Water/PZLDF
Dedicated to Clean Water and Citizens’ Rightsclass
The information contained within is not intended as a substitute for information that you may obtain from legal counsel."
May be the best advice in the entire "spin"!
I hope the Trib didn't hurt their arm patting themselves on the back.
In today's story, Cuddy writes:
"The correspondence (the Supervisors' letter to the RWQCB), first publicized in a story in Sunday’s Tribune..."
Really? First, huh? Give me a sec... I need to go check something.
Yea, that's what I thought.
Ann wrote, on SATURDAY, May 05:
"The letter was from the BOS to the Regional Water Quality Control Board. I’ve copied it and am posting it below on the “real” blog. "
Tribune, the Scoop Nazi says: "No scoop for you!" (But nice attempt at manufacturing one.)
Anon:
"How many times do you have to be told that composting toilets are currently illegal in San Luis Obispo County."
What's the source on THAT (other than an anonymous poster in the comments section of a blog)? And if that's the case, then why did the staff of the RWQCB consider requiring them?
Shark's 2:20 post is just an awful, inaccurate mess, and it's that kind of crap that has been costing Los Osos and the State millions since 1997.
"The selection of TriW back in 2000 (or so) was based in part on the idea of using a ponding system and having a park incorporated into the plan."
Of course, that is not accurate. According to Solution Group documents, the ponding system (at Tri-W, selected in 1997) only allowed for "future recreational opportunities." A park was never part of that plan. Just "future recreational opportunities."
"Not necessarily wise choices, but ones the community favored at the time...
Again, inaccurate (well, the first part is accurate, minus the "necessarily" part, of course). The community favored a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75." There is no evidence whatsoever that the community favored a multi-million dollar park in their sewer plant. None, obviously. I mean, c'mon, think about it. What community favors that?
"This is evidenced by the passage of the 218 bond vote in 2001..."
Quick show of hands: All Los Ososans that thought they were voting for a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75" when they passed the 218 vote in 2001, raise your hand.
Yea... that's what I thought.
"... the election of candidates (in 2000 and 2002) who promised to continue with the Solutions Group conceptual plan...
The Solution Group's conceptual plan was a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75."
"... by the time CCLO and LOTTF and the rest really had any traction at the polls (think 2004)..."
Two months after Three Blocks was published. Coincidence? Methinks not.
"... their lawsuits and other delays (only some of which were CCLO and LOTTF related) had driven up the costs considerably."
What drove up the cost considerably was the initial LOCSD Board quietly switching from their original ponding plan to their SECOND project at Tri-W, the MBR project that cost waaaay more than their original plan -- a plan that was never going to work anyway, according to a bunch of really smart water quality types in 1998, BEFORE the election that formed the LOCSD on the back of "better, cheaper, faster."
"Once the initial site selection had been completed...
Site selection for which project? The ponds (50 -70 acres needed) in 1997, or the MBR (5 -7 acres needed) in 2001?
"... this comment is for Ron and Mike who both pestered me to do my own blog..."
I don't remember saying that, but if you did, I'm sure you would get ones of readers.
"... this is the best blog for facts... "
It sure is. Too bad you don't supply any.
Anon wrote:
"If the prior CSD board (with Pandora) were so ready to form the CSD and build the plant (getting the county off the hook) at the Tri-W location -- WHY DID THEY NOT CHECK WITH THE REGIONAL WATER BOARD FIRST? If the RWQCB wouldn't accept ponds, that would have ended things right there. If there wasn't enough land, well, Pandora and group should have known that right up front too. What's the deal on that??"
The deal on that is LO got screwed, big time, in 1998 by the Solution Group's "behavior based marketing." (I wrote about all that here) The RWQCB hated the ponding plan, and there was/is a ton of excellent evidence that showed it was never going to work. The question is, "Why did Briggs allow them to waste two very precious years chasing a project that he knew was never going to work."
"BTW, I believe it was Richard who read an old statement from Pandora at the BOS today that was quite interesting..."
Yes, that was quite interesting. What blew me away about that was the date: 1990! She was suing the county in 19-freaking-90 to stop the sewer project. Pandora -- the ULTIMATE obstructionist.
Shark:
"... the RWQCB simply changed their mind about the whether a ponding system would be acceptable"
Again, inaccurate. The RWQCB hated the ponding system from day 1, and there's a ton of documents that shows exactly that. Go fetch.
"Ron Crawford writes quite effectively that they should have known in advance that the RWQCB would say "no..."
Finally, Shark got something accurate.
"It is good that you're noticing the similarity between both the solutions group board and the cclo/lottf board"
I'll notice a similarity the moment the Coastal Commission calls the post-recall board "bait and switchy." Think that'll happen anytime soon?
Anon:
"... and being niave will cost you and the rest of us a lot of money..."
It has, and will.
Ron Wrote:
"Tribune, the Scoop Nazi says: "No scoop for you!" (But nice attempt at manufacturing one.)
It's even worse than that, I posted both of those letters on the Triv's discussion board on May 4th
Helooo! Anybody Hoooome?
Hi All,
As I read this blog, all I see is "shoulda', woulda', coulda'".... in essence nothing more that bloggers comtemplating their navels at the expense of not facing REALITY. Speculation of the intent or actions of past groups is a waste of time as it diverts your energies from resolving todays situation.
What is today's situation?
Los Osos continues to pollute at the rate of 1 million gallons a day (violating many environmental laws), our CSD is insolvent with its services on the verge of collaspe while the County controls the process for Los Osos to come into compliance with the law and avoid the RWQCB's enforcement actions.
We should be focusing our energies on today's reality and how to get a WWTP constructed for Los Osos. The process towards that goal has been implimented by the County. If you want a WWTP, there is no other choice than to support and approve the County's process. The success of the County will guarantee the building of a WWTP AND that the RWQCB will never have to impliment enforcement actions against your homes and businesses.
I repeat, there is no other choice than to support and approve the County's process.
Ann,
Glad to have you back and more fully participating.
First off, let's address the red herring. You mention the Measure B settlement and want us to conceptually put those costs in the pre-recall board's column ... yet it is interesting to note that it is the post-recall board who authorized that settlement. Furthermore, the has been some question about whether the various BWS charges are legitimate. The grand jury has said as much. Many have suggested the post-recall board settled with CCLO/BWS just so they could hire BWS to be counsel. I am sympathetic to that point of view because I don't believe the settlement or the settlement amount was reasonable. I'm not a lawyer but the rationale for the settlement given my McClendon made no financial sense. He said that we were paying a lot to settle so that we could avoid the possibility of paying even more later ... but that would only make sense if the likelihood of the LOCSD losing the appeal later was high. Yes, that whopper of a bill could have been avoided ... by simply not paying BWS off.
No matter ... whether you count these figures or not, the LOCSD costs associated with firghting TW have been far surpassed by the LOCSD costs associated fighting CCLO. Even on an anualized basis, Julie has been hamstringing the LOCSD far more than Gordon ever has. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Now to the primary issue I raised. Ann, you seem to again not be addressing the question directly. How was it wrong of TW to have asked to have their bill lowered? You criticized them last November for doing so.
Your tangential question is an interesting one, however, so let's pursue it for a bit. You ask about whether it is legitimate to stick the County with LOCSD debt by a dissolution. According to the LAFCO rules, yes. If the district is dissolved, the County "owns" everything of the CSD's, both good and bad. Whether those debts were caused by the pre-recall board's choice to start the project before the election of by the post-recall board's choice to stop the project, the CSD is essentially a division of the larger County. They are supposed to be a self-supporting division, but if not, the costs must be paid somehow. Would I feel bad for my friends in Morro Bay who would have higher taxes or lower services? Yes, but if the debt were about $30M, it could be about $6000 per household in Los Osos or about $350 per household when spread across the whole County. I'll argue it is morally right to tru tp spread those costs across the whole County because the rules allow for us to do so, because the County helped create the mess and because, like insurance, we all benefit from when unexpected costs are spread across larger groups of payers.
Does anyone know if public comment will be heard on May 10 at the RWQCB? If so, what time?
Ron,
Let's just chalk this up to you have your opinion and I have mine. I'll leave it to the readers to figure out which of us has a more accurate take on things.
To help those readers out a bit, I'll suggest that that $38.75 figure wasn't used in 2000, 2001 or 2002 when the various votes I mentioned were held but only in 1998 vote when the LOCSD was formed.
As to Ron's parting "bait and switchy" comment it is fair to say that the Los Osos voters have every right to feel this way about the recall candidates who told us they had a $100/month plan that was ready to go. Have the achieved that goal? Will they?
Why, Ron, do you not criticize the recall candidates for promising us $100/month as loudly as you criticize the solutions group for promising us $38.75/month?
Urban Legend:
"Big Pipe" technology has bigger pipes Step collection.
FACT:
both collection pipes are made out of PVC and may end up the exact same size and/or a couple of inches difference depending on which end of the system they fall on.
Let's wait for fine screening to clarify O&M and I/I
Ultimately my 218 decision will be based on cost, not location or technology. I think that represents the bulk of the community. Which group is going to start the lying first? CCLO,PZLDF,CSD? Hopefully the people will be representing the people because our activists have failed miserably.
Let us all end this nonsense over Tri-W and put that project up for a 218 vote.
When it comes to the County's 218 vote, I hope the BOS place restarting the Tri-W project for a seperate vote of the property owners....something like this
1. Do you vote to assess yourself "X" number of dollars to restart Tri-W. (Y N)
2. If the 218 vote is not to restart Tri-W, will you assess yourself "X" number of dollars for an alternative project A, B or C
(Y N)
This type of 218 vote would be clean, simple and end once and for all as to which way the Los Osos property owner wishes to proceed with a waste water project.
Anon 1;26,
The reason it can't work that way is because if a 218 vote for ONLY TriW is passed then there wouldn't be a reason for a advisory vote later.
Like it or not, an advisory vote will be critical in order to make the process livable for everybody, not just the property owners. Not doing this has caused the wreck we all are trying to clean up now.
Putting the 218 vote ahead of the advisory vote insures a funding stream sufficient to cover whatever the county chooses, eliminating the need to complete EIRs and such for each different project and saving lots of time and money.
If you are a big TriW fan you will get your chance at the advisory vote, you will also have all the ammunition that you will need from the TAC as TriW has to pass the fine screening along with the alternatives. A (we hope realistic) estimate of costs will be included.
The best we can do is to stay informed, talk to our neighbors and write to our representatives for additional funding.
Oh and again, If anyone wants to know what the PZLDF Sullivan Brief says, click on my name and go to LOviews, I know it's kinda hard to read but thats the way blogspot formats it.
Anon 11:25
The May 10-11 agenda sent to the 45 does not contain any mention of public comment, but it is possible that they deleted it from our copies as they felt that they have heard more than enough from us:)
To 9:18,
The liens were placed on the homes and stayed on the homes in the 90's, what WAS illegal is the fact the homeowners are to be notified by the county when liens were put on, and they weren't.
"The May 10-11 agenda sent to the 45 does not contain any mention of public comment, but it is possible that they deleted it from our copies as they felt that they have heard more than enough from us:)"
They never listened in the first place, why change now?
Hi Mike,
I disagree with you post on the 218 / advisory vote.
There is nothing wrong with dividing the 218 vote into two parts or giving Los Osos residents the choice on if Tri-W is to be restarted or not. In the past, I have heard Julie, Lisa, Steve, Chuck, John, Gail, and many others all say (to the old board) to place Tri-W up for an up/down vote. Well, here is the chance. Let the property owners decide once and for all if Tri-W is to be built. If not, then Los Osos has decided to start a new project while accepting the fact that jettisoning Tri-W will throw away the 26 million spent on that project.
Realize that the COUNTY determines the process. The need for an advisory vote is not predetermined by law or AB 2701. If the BOS wants to set up the 218 this way, then so be it. Also, if the Tri-W project is voted off the table and Los Osos votes to fund an alternative oproject, then the BOS may still set an advisory vote on which alternative is supported.
Last, if Los Osos decided via a 218 vote to restart the project, then there is no need for an advisory vote for the 218 IS THE ADVISORY VOTE.
"Last, if Los Osos decided via a 218 vote to restart the project, then there is no need for an advisory vote for the 218 IS THE ADVISORY VOTE."
BRAVO! Whatever the PROPERTY OWNERS approve in the 218 SHOULD BE the advisory vote.
Renters have already had far too much influence in the sewer process. If they want a vote about the sewer, let them buy a house in the PZ. If they aren't willing to do that then they can all shut the hell up!
How exactly can one trust the county when Paavo said at the TAC meeting on 4/23 that if there were an earthquake it would have an impact on either system (step or gravity) dismissing any potential diaster for gravity. And putting gravity on the level playing field with step when (as we know) Step would leak only effluent and Gravity would be RAW SEWAGE!!!
That's indisputable evidence of bias. There is no "fairness" like the county keeps saying. Paavo is the gravity salesman.
I DON'T TRUST THE COUNTY AND WHEN YOU DON'T TRUST THE COUNTY YOU BEGIN TO SEE THE MANIPULATION AND LOS OSOS IS THE PERFECT VICTIM! THAT'S WHY BAIT AND SWITCH HAS WORKED SO WELL IN THE PAST, YOU CAN TELL THEM IT'S ONE THING AND SWITCH IT TO ANOTHER, AND BEFORE THEY CAN FIGURE IT OUT, THEY'VE GOT SOMETHING THEY NEVER WANTED OR ASKED FOR. IT'S HAPPENED BEFORE AND IS HAPPENING AGAIN. THEY REFUSE TO GET IT RIGHT, THEY REFUSE TO REALIZE THAT UNTIL THEY GET IT RIGHT IT'S GOING TO BACKFIRE.
Can someone document this one million gallons of pollution per day? It's been said over and over again to push for the TriW project. What report and from what agency does this come from?
TO: Anon 1:26
The 218 will have a list of projects and prices, but we will only be voting to fund a project.
We will have no way of knowing what the project will be at the time we are voting on the 218 (and that's the problem!)
The county (BOS) can pick the highest dollar amount project and probably will. The other charges will be deferred costs i.e. the hook-ups, the O & M, etc. and won't be included on the 218 and is not required by law to be on the 218.
Anon 6:29, please explain why you think the county will pick the highest dollar amount project.
And Anon 6:14, I swear, pound for pound, you give me the most enjoyment every night. Here's shouting right back at 'ya: YOU ARE BATSHIT INSANE!!!!!!!
He's been into the Schnapps pretty early tonight. I love your SHOUT back. Not only is he drunk, but deaf also.
To anon 6:17
I am betting that this is an estimate of the total daily water usage in LO, including irrigation. Irrigation may be considered an illegal discharge now. The RWQCB has change the rules so much over the past year that I can't keep up with the BS. I gotta work to pay the mortgage on a house that I may lose..... What a wonderful life
Anon 5:23
If the question was only up to the property owners you would have a good point, but like it or not, that is not the case. And that is exactly why we don't have a sewer now.
We have to deal with the type of democracy that we have, not necessarily the one we want.
The county IMHO finally sees this glaring problem and has devised a process that will bring in the majority of residents (voters) through a perception of completeness and fairness, perception is reality.
It's not the nuts and bolts or even the cost that will succeed in a positive 218 vote,
It will be the sale.
Right on, Mike. You nailed it brother.
Million gallons per day? Two hundred gallons per household per day times five thousand households gets us there. In fact, the number of households in the PZ is slightly lower and the water discharge patterns by those in the PZ is more than two hundred gallons per household per day, so it is fair to say that we put more than a million of gallons per day into our ground.
Sharkey! please, that is not a hard number and you know it!
If there was a million gallons a day of untreated septic effluent going into the upper aquifer the nitrate readings at all the test wells would be the same as the effluent. It's not.
There is some de-nitrification going on. just not enough.
I sure get tired of hearing about some ecological disaster thats causing death and disease throughout Los Osos talk about urban myth
Sharkey,
If there were a million gallons going in there would have to be some documention on that. Where is it? Where's the proof of this??
So what is YOUR number Mike Green?
Shark's number has been used for the last 3 years that I'm aware of.
Just where do you think 200 gallons per day goes once it flows out the sink faucet, shower & toilet? Does it magically separate into clean, slightly soapy and uggy effluent as that water flows down the drain into the septic tank? Sounds like something Ripley would have us believe could happen.
By the way, 200 gal/day is a conservative estimate!
OK, think about this,
You wash your dishes and pour the water on your plants outside
You take a shower and the water goes on your lawn
You wash your car on the front lawn
The clothes washer irrigates the veggie patch with biodegradable soap.
Now you flush 200 gallons a day down your toilet.
What part of this is doable and what part is pure fantasy?
Sharkey,
Also, the sand filters out before going into groundwater. We live with unique sand here. That's what some experts say anyway.
It's been said many times that Gordon Hensley and group greatly exaggerated the pollution (way back) to get federal monies (and they still use this today) so talk about Myths! The county and RWQCB are well aware of this and the SWB has done the same in other communities, where they cry pollution (with little to no proof of pollution with septic tanks) to put in a large sewer projects (even though EPA say septics and cluster plants do the job right and for less money.)
It's illegal to run shower water outside your house. Contains soap, urine and feces.
You could go all the way and not have a car to wash, no landscaping either. Paperplates and disposable eating tools. Stop washing your clothes. Buy the Ron Crawford compost toilet and wipe with straw.
It's all do-able. I just don't intend to live that way, but hey, if that floats your boat.
OH, MAGIC SAND! Wow, Los Osos truly is the Land of Oz! MAGIC SAND! Now who's exaggerating!
Our septic tanks with step/steg to a treatment facility would be a wonderful, low-impact solution for our community. Combine that with some lovely wildlife-attracting wetland ponds and you've got what we need. I don't understand why everyone doesn't support this. If we were all in agreement the agencies would be more likely to support us. When we are disjointed we look like we don't know what we want. Well, I know what I want and I've just said it.
Feces in the shower water? What kind of lifestyle do you live?
Dream on...ain't gonna happen within this community of free thinkers with no common sense!
Look, I don't want anybody thinking that I don't want a sewer.
I just want people to look at the data,
Go read the Ripley report, the water data is not in dispute. read the report from the water board. Cleath did a good job.
It's not about water as much as it's about State standards and laws.
I support the county because IMHO It's the best way to comply, and what other choice do we have?
Maybe your shit comes wrapped in saran wrap, but most of us are not as perfect.
What other choice do we have? How about AB885's new standards for septic tanks? It would cost at least 1/3 less of what the big Tri-W gravity would cost!
If the county refuses to TRULY to look at step/ponds then I will opt to buy a new septic. By listening to all Paavo's remarks at the TAC meetings, I can see he's quietly selling big pipes...listen carefully and you'll see that too.
That's what choice we might have!
To 8:37,
What don't you be brave and state your name (if you really believe what you say) and let's put you up against the experts to talk about our unique sand in Los Osos...how about that?
Let's have a debate! I dare you!
Anon 8:37,
If we can get that for about the same price as TriW even Shark would buy it,
Good post, honest.
Mike,
Please don't think I am suggesting that there isn't some benefit of the septic tanks or that all those nitrates go directly into the aquifer ... they don't.
Septics work great when there aren't too many per acre and they aren't too close to groundwater. In the PZ essentially these two conditions are both violated with regularity ... in some places far worse than in others.
As for the "proof" of this ... I suspect that you would only be happy with a meter on every septic tank in town as proof.
However, a rough argument for the 200 gallons per household per day goes like this. Across communities we see a strong correlation between water usage per household and total sewer needs per household. The relationship would be affected, of course, by the location ... for example, in Paso the ratio of total water used to sewage generated would be higher than in Pismo Beach because of irrigation usage.
There is also a standard amount of water used per person for indoor things such as bathing, dishes and the like.
What it boils down to is this ... no one knows exactly how much of what we use goes down the drain and how much goes for irrigation ... but if you're asking us to believe that it is less than 200 gallons per day per household, you've got to explain why our yards aren't far more lush and green.
But essentially this is a distraction. Whether it's a million gallons per day, only 800,000 gallons per day or a more likely 1,250,000 gallons per day, its a heck of a lot. On an annualized basis, a million gallons per day would be enough to cover the entire PZ about six inches deep. If one views this as similar to precipitation, one fourth of the input to our aquifer is in the form of partially treated sewage.
Inlet sez:"I'm not a lawyer but the rationale for the settlement given my McClendon made no financial sense. He said that we were paying a lot to settle so that we could avoid the possibility of paying even more later ... but that would only make sense if the likelihood of the LOCSD losing the appeal later was high. Yes, that whopper of a bill could have been avoided ... by simply not paying BWS off."
If you had listened to McClendon, he was very clear. The courts have a long record of punishing people who try to block voters from voting, no matter how cockamamie the initiatives is. The courts have ruled repeatedly that you vote first THEN knock the thing out in court after the vote. If memory serves, McClendon'd firm had just won a huge case agains Wal-Mart, I think, that sought to block a vote on zoning. Heck, I'm not a lawyer either and I knew that court tradition. For years I've wondereder why they didn't set up some kind of vetting system that could pre-review some initiatives and save everyone time. But we haven't done that. The decision to file that blocking case was a costly one and the gamble was settle now a X or face a court-mandated formula that likely could go 3 times as high. The misfortune was the previous board should never have filed that case in the first place. IMHO, doing that and cutting down the trees and gambling and losing gazillions by starting work before the election cost them the election AND ensured the community would be financially punished for their choices. Bad deal all around.
I have no interest in a "debate." Sorry. I was hoping some might agree with me and apparently some do. It seems like we should be able to do it for the cost of TRIW. That project was really expensive. For that amount of money we could build a nice facility with wetlands and such.
Ann,
I listened to McClendon. Yes he was clear. He was clearly trying to sell you a line of manure and you bought it.
Did you even bother checking with other lawyers to see if what he told the public was right? Did you bother comparing the Wal*Mart case with the Los Osos situation to see if they were, indeed, comparable?
Note that even here you've not backed up your claim that "the courts have ruled repeatedly that you vote first THEN knock the thing out in court after the vote." Where did you get this information? McClendon? Biggs? Lisa or Gail?
Furthermore, the damages could be costly argument turns on two issues. First, you're presuming that Measure B would be ruled legal. If ultimately it is ruled illegal, the damages would be zero. (Just a quick question on that one ... what was the most recent ruling on Measure B? I'm not sure you've mentioned it here yet.) Second, you're assuming the way damages work for government organizations is the same as for private entities like Wal*Mart. Different rules typically apply.
We've also discussed here before the likelihood of the LOCSD losing the suit had they wanted to continue it. I'll again argue that it seems like they settled for two reasons. First, they liked Measure B and wanted to drop the appeal even though they would have won it. This required a settlement check. Second, they wanted to hire BWS and they couldn't if BWS was currently representing someone involved in litigation with the LOCSD.
Face it ... some have claimed it was a pay off and in your response to those claims it is rather clear that you haven't even bothered to do your homework. Had you presented something more than what was served up to you, pre-chewed and pre-digested for you by Dan Blesky, Gail, Lisa, Julie, Jon McClendon and Julie Biggs we could have some confidence that your analysis is at least thought out.
Just because you like the general goals of Julie, Lisa and the recall boardmembers doesn't mean that it is wise to simply trust their analysis. Just look at their claim that they had a $100/month plan. Was that claim truthful?
You also suggested that the decision to file suit to block Measure B before the election was a gamble. Let me ask you about whether they hadn't bothered to challenge Measure B until after it had passed ... if the recall had failed but Measure B had passed, there would be a whole new set of legal battles and delays. Either decision would have been a gamble and one has to weigh all the potential consequences and the likelihood of each before making a decision. To suggest that there would be no ill consequences of allowing a fatally flawed and confusing law to be passed is oversimplification at best.
I'll close by noting that yet again you seem to be quite willing to address some issues but you seem to keep bringing up other matters than the one I would yet again ask you to address. If you weren't being openly critical of TW last November when you accused them of trying to duck their bills, how should we have reasonably interpreted your words back then? On the flip side, if you were being openly critical of them, don't you think it reasonable to now apologize for your mischaracterization of their actions?
I agree with Shark Inlet that Julie Biggs had to settle so she could then be hired. Gail told at least two people that she was the one who brought in BWS and Julie Biggs (both from Riverside) but Julie Biggs denied that.
Julie Biggs and BWS did nothing but drain money out of the CSD. They gave bad advice, and brought in McClendon (who did what exactly??) It was said that Julie Biggs approached Al Barrow in front of Ralphs initially which was unethical to begin with. The CSD would have been better off with Jon Seitz or ANY other local attorney. Los Osos lost and BWS gained a lot of money.
Do you know if McClendon is still being paid by the CSD?
Inlet sez:"If you weren't being openly critical of TW last November when you accused them of trying to duck their bills, how should we have reasonably interpreted your words back then? On the flip side, if you were being openly critical of them, don't you think it reasonable to now apologize for your mischaracterization of their actions?"
Uh, was I mistaken when Gordon stood up before the BOS and requested the cost of the dissolution be waived? On account of how they were citizens doing a duty to protect other citizens etc? And if you ask for a total waiver, after previously signing an agreement that you will cough up $$, would that be an unfair characterization to say that was "ducking?" When that request was shot down, the group later wanted to dispute some of the charges, some of which I certainly agreed with since LAFCO was dragging this whole thing out and charging TPW for it. I also wondered if the CSD would send TPW a bill for their costs as well. (still don't have an answer to that)
Ann,
Asking for the dissolution costs to be waived because they were doing public service (whether you agree with Gordon's contention or not) is quite different from the "we waz broke" reason you attributed to their request in last November's blog entries.
You've just told now us that you supported TW in their request to have their bills lowered yet back last November you were quite critical of them for that same request.
Let's just say that to me it appears that you were going out of your way to be snarky when it wasn't necessary. You set up a straw man TW that you knocked down with ease. Perhaps this is because you feel that TW was doing harm to our community and so they deserved to be skewered. Perhaps this is because you couldn't resist the irony of TW telling one group they didn't want to pay yet at the same time, spending lots of money on a campaign.
Whatever the case, It was unfair and such rhetorical devices don't help our community heal or move forward. In short, you are part of the problem you are decrying.
Perhaps you should do a more thorough job checking to see if there are facts sufficient to back up your opinion.
I would like to yet again put forward what Thomas Mann of Brookings said about basic respect and civility on NPR last week or the week before. He said "You have to be able to accept the legitimacy of the motives of those with whom you disagree, and you have to be willing to engage seriously in their arguments". When we each try to do our best to understand the point of view of others in our community and when we grant their viewpoint the validity it deserves, we have the ability to help our community heal. When we say things like "you lost, get over it" or when we ridicule those we disagree with it doesn't help any healing occur.
Certainly when we look nationwide we see that folks tend to be reluctant to be members of either party (no offense to Greens or Libertarians) because both groups are so darn willing to be just plain nasty. Randi Rhodes (though I think she has a great take on lots of things) has the same problem as does Bill O'Reilley ... an unwillingness to make it clear that she respects those she disagrees with.
Getting back home, one of the reasons I tend not to bother posting in the Trib forum is that many of those there aren't just snarky but choose to be rude. Even if I agree with lots of those folks, their willingness to be mean is painful to me.
Ann, that is one of the reasons I like your blog ... no only do you provide a good jumping off point for discussions, the folks here tend to be far more fair. (Some could still do much better ... probably I am one of them.)
Ann, I apologize for going after you so doggedly on this matter. I suppose it is because something rubbed me the wrong way and I wanted to be sure that we got to the bottom of it. Thanks for being willing to continue to pursue the issue.
As we've discussed before, LAFCO made their decision based on the wrong criteria entirely. They chose to stall to protect the County and that isn't appropriate. If the judge has money riding on the outcome of the trial, another judge should be brought in.
Post a Comment