Calhouns Can(n)ons

QUICK NOTE.

Regarding my previous posting, a press release from PZLDF listing a link to the Insider Exclusive program, one particular poster on this site claimed that PZLDF paid producer Steve Murphy to be on the show & etc. This false rumor got some traction in the comment section, with much huffing and phony self-righteous posturing going on. Below is a forwarded reply from Mr. Murphy, Executive Producer of the show, regarding the matter:

“PZLDF did not pay the Insider Exclusive to produce this show. We [Insider Exclusive] represent many law firms who pay us to produce and broadcast TV and Radio shows in the media.”

[I presume the "many law firms" should be refered to as . . . sponsors?]

There was also some posted commetor’s huffing and puffing about the show’s not discussing sewers. In case anyone bothered to notice, this particular program was about LEGAL issues raised by PZLDF’s legal case. The interview focused on LEGAL issues that dealt with civil rights and property rights and due process rights violations being visited on The Los Osos 45 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

ANOTHER NOTE:

Over at Ron Crawford’s site, www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com, Ron’s posted another article that gets, once again, to the key question that still needs to be ‘splained. “What Ought To Be A Law, Part II (Oh, wait, it’s already a law.” Oh, Looooocy . . . . .


Reclamator Rises Again From The New Times

There’s a recent story by Kylie Mendonca in this weeks’ New Times (Dec 6, 07) on Tom Murphy of AES and his proposed onsite Reclamator. When preparing the story the reporter naturally had a lot of questions about Mr. Murphy’s system. The following email was sent to Kylie by Mr. Murphy and cc’ed to me. The email gives some further details on how the Reclamator is supposed to work. The New Times story quotes Harvey Packard of the Regional Water Quality Control board as saying that “he has never seriously looked at Murphy’s technology and can’t validate or disprove claims that the machine will virtually eliminate waste. 'But it doesn’t matter,'Packard said. 'If a resident wanted to hook up to the Reclamator right now, they would still be in violation, and as soon as the sewer is built, they would be ordered to hook up.'”

And there is the most interesting wrinkle of all that somebody needs to ‘splain. If you’re not polluting anything, what’s the beef and why would you need to hook up to anything? During the CDO “trials,” the RWQCB staff was repeatedly asked if they had any actual evidence that Citizen X was polluting the ground waters of the State of California and the repeated answer came back: No. Even more interesting, Harvey claims that there will be ZERO discharge allowed in the PZ, but had already issued a DISCHARGE permit for treated wastewater to be dumped back into the PZ for disposal from the defunct Tri W sewer plant. Zero discharge for Mr. Homeowner but lots of discharge from a ginormous community collection pipe?

Well, in the NT story, Mr. Murphy claims he’ll buy a house in Los Osos, install a Reclamator then wait to see Harvey in court. That’ll be interesting, indeed, since both Murphy and Packard assert things. But it will remain to be seen whose assertions will prove to be enforceable. And/or what the County decides as well. If it all comes down to what the meaning of “is” is, i.e. how are the words “discharge” defined, or “pollutants,” or,” zero” or whatever word Harvey Packard wants to use, then I suspect all of this will have to end up in court with some judge somewhere deciding what “is” means.

(Posted with permission from Mr. Murphy)


[in response to a Q from Kylie] You asked, "Can you give me an idea as to how many Reclamators there are inservice currently? Did you say that there are several in Los Osos? And hasthe Reclamator been EPA approved, or does it have any other "official" typecertification?"The RECLAMATOR is a product of over three years of design and engineeringwhich carries a California registered Professional Engineer's Stamp ofCertification. In 1994 the patented "biological" process technology used inthe RECLAMATOR underwent a third party Technology Evaluation at which timeit received an NSF Certification. (See attached) Until now, no othertechnology has demonstrated to consistently remove nitrogen pollutants to anaverage of less than 10 parts per million (ppm) with an average of only 3.9ppm, in fact, the highest level of all nitrogen which is called "totalnitrogen" was only 7.1 ppm, well below the limit for drinking water of 10ppm. The addition of the membrane didn't change the performance of thebiological process, only guarantees a particular quality of water as per thespecifications of the membrane. Just like the County sewer project, the only "approval" is a ProfessionalEngineer's Stamp certifying it to work as designed. There are no EPAapproval programs for such a device as the RECLAMATOR. Frankly, there arenone needed as the RECLAMATOR has the membrane which guarantees its waterquality. The membrane provides the "performance guarantee" as a "definitebarrier" to the "discharge of pollutants". It is very simple; it isimpossible for water containing pollutants to leave the RECLAMATOR becausethey can't get through the holes in the membrane.We do however claim the RECLAMATOR is EPA compliant as it meets the criteriadefined in the Clean Water Act which the EPA is required to administer. Theprimary criteria the RECLAMATOR complies with is it "eliminates thedischarge of pollutants". What determines a pollutant and what isn't apollutant? This question is answered by the USEPA treated drinking waterstandards, the first being the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) which arelevels of "pollutants" and then the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG)which are levels of constituents that are considered "non-pollutant". Theseare the only two measures in the industry which define if a level of aconstituent is still a "pollutant" or not. Several of my engineer associates and I, after a substantial amount ofresearch, deigned the RECLAMATOR just for Los Osos specifically so as toprovide an onsite technology which would reclaim and repurify the householdsewage stream to a level which meets the US EPA MCLG Standard which isreferred to as "non-polluting" and is additionally defined as a"non-enforceable public health goal". Non-enforceable means "not subject toapproval or requiring a "discharge permit" as the water the RECLAMATORproduces, because it meets the USEPA MCLG Standard, is not subject toneeding any endorsement by an "enforcement entity" such as the Water Board.To engineer and design the RECLAMATOR to produce such a "water quality" wasaccomplished on purpose as it became clear to us that the Water Board, eventhough they were required to approve and promulgate the previous BESTEP-10technology as the solution for Los Osos because it eliminated the nitratedischarge, just weren't going to because they wanted a "sewer project",period. Because we needed Water Board "approval" and "permitting" toinstall the previous model, the BESTEP-10, it became obvious after over 10years, we were never going to get it. If we were going to be able toprovide the people of Los Osos a compliant economical solution as isrequired by federal law, regardless of the Water Board agenda, we were goingto have to develop an onsite water repurification technology which produceda "non-enforceable" quality of "water", i.e. permeate, which we did.The RECLAMATOR (BESTEP UF-900 is the actual Model) has an Ultra-Filtration(UF) Membrane which has been designed into it that is very much like aReverse Osmosis (RO) Membrane like is used for drinking water purificationthat a lot of people install under they sinks in their home. Thisspecifically designed UF Membrane WILL NOT allow water having levels ofpollutants any greater than that level defined in the MCLGs to pass throughit. The water produced by the RECLAMATOR is "beyond tertiary" quality and isreferred to as "permeate". Permeate is water after it passes through amembrane after having left the pollutants on the other side of the membrane.Those pollutants stay in the RECLAMATOR until they are removed approximatelyonce every 5 years. The UF Membrane is the guarantee of a "0" pollutant(which is the level defined in the MCLG). Please see the attached copy of atest result from my prototype RECLAMATOR at the Shaddox residence. Pleasecompare the level of constituents (pollutants) to the USEPA MCLG Standard(http://www.epa.gov/safewater/mcl.html#listmcl) for yourself. The USEPA MCLG Standard even thought there are still "trace amounts" ofpollutants, isn't subject to enforcement and isn't classified as a"discharge" or "discharge of pollutants". The USEPA MCLG Standard is thestandard which your tap water in your house must meet. This is the samequality of water the RECLAMATOR produces. Look at "Definitions" to see itis a "non-enforceable public health goal". "Non-enforceable" means notsubject to Water Board control provided it is on private property, which itwill be.Maybe Mr. Packard is referring to the previous model the BESTEP-10 whichproduces "tertiary" quality water but still has levels of pollutants whichfall into the US EPA Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) Standard which defineslevels of pollutants in water which still poses a public health threat andis considered "polluted" and is still referred to as an enforceable"discharge". (Note: The word "discharge" means "discharge of a pollutant ordischarge of pollutants"). However, he has received the submittal on theRECLAMATOR which proves otherwise and is stamped and certified by aregistered professional engineer verifying it.For Mr. Packard, Henry Ford couldn't have said it better, "it is difficultto get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his notunderstanding it".In closing, I want to explain that I am not "selling" the RECLAMATOR. If Iwere, I would have to jump through many hoops just like I have had to nowfor many years attempting to convince obstructionist of what I had. To getaround these "progress killing" obstacles, I have designed the RECLAMATORfor my own use to provide the service to my clients of eliminating theirdischarge of pollutants as is required by federal law to be done providedthe technology is available, which it is. I, as the continued owner of theRECLAMATOR, don't require any endorsement or approval as I know what it isand what it does in order to use it in providing such service. I don't needa "third party" to tell me if it works or not, I am the inventor holding 9patents on my RECLAMATOR technology. As each homeowner signs up for mydischarge elimination service, each of them are relieved of anyresponsibility for their discharge as I am receiving it into my RECLAMATORand I then become the responsibility part for eliminating their discharge asI am the owner/operator of the RECLAMATOR which is receiving theirdischarge. It then, by law, becomes my responsibility. I would be glad to meet with you again if you wish. I have been copying youon several emails that give more information. I hope you have beenreceiving these.Thanks,Tom Murphy


And Speaking of Emails

The following email exchange [posted with permission from the participants] was the result of some sort of email-chat “thread” zipping around God Knows Where. I responded to an email from Mark Low (who’s working with Tom Murphy & AES ) and before you know it, some “anonymous” poster chimed in[ a group calling themselves the Baywood Beach Crew to smack Mark & Tom upside the head, then Ron (Sewerwatch) Crawford chimed in, then Tom came back to smack the Baywood crew upside the head, and so forth, then Gail McPherson of PZLDF added information about the issue of “Best Technology,” to which I replied, then Julie Tacker included a critical missing issue – water reuse and recharging the lower aquifer . . . and so forth. Makes for some interesting – if long -- reading, especially Ron’s observations about “accountability.” And also a reminder that emails, especially those posted on various threads sent to everyone, including God, are really public bulletin boards and anything you say to anyone will show up anywhere, often out of context, so caveat everybody.

Mark Low writes:

He states "Despite your claims, the RECLAMATOR does discharge waste is
subject to Water Board regulation.", when in fact the RECLAMATOR does not
discharge waste but rather produces PERMEATE.

Ann Calhoun beautifully captured the essence of this in her piece- Humpty Dumpty meets Humpty Dumpty.

The Los Osos Project is very contentious and was so, long before I became involved.
Add in the "ground breaking" technology that the RECLAMATOR represents
and the balance of "control" shifts from the WaterBoard back to the People
and will resolve the CDO's and NOV's at the best possible price.

There is allot at stake for Los Osos and beyond.
C26 calls for BADCT. Technology rules!

Calhoun replied, in part:

Hi, I got a cc of this. Hopefully, the correspondence will help Shauna illustrate to La Barbara (or the appeals court, more likely) that the people of this community have been trapped into a true Catch 22 and/or Hobson's Choice dilemma.

That said, however, the point of my Humpty Dumpty analogy is that nothing Briggs or you or Tom assert has any meaning until and unless a court of law steps in (or maybe the County asserts something during the due diligence phase and then they'll get to go head to head with Briggs or your company).

My guess is that NOTHING will change without a court ruling on just what the meaning of "is" is. If the county agrees with Briggs' assertions, then no onsite systems within the PZ will be considered. You will then have to sue the County and go argue in court against them. Or you can go to some sort of court now and argue about what the meaning of "is" is, and you may get a ruling one way or the other.

But until this happens, as near as I can see, this "war of words" is a waste of time. You, Briggs, Tom and Paavo can assert anything you want until the cows come home. Nothing will change.

As for this being a contentious project long before you came along. I have written previously that this train wreck was set in motion by a BAD initial basin plan followed by an absolute refusal to fix a BAD basin plan. From that one "poisoned" tree has come so much BAD fruit. And I have seen absolutely no effort on anyone's part over the years to try to go back to fix the original failure. Instead of updating with new data, shifting priorities to ask and answer a few critical Basic Questions, or make changes based on new, better information (i.e. water overdrafting), everyone, from the SWB to the RWQCB to the County on down to the CSDs just keeps stupidly trying to slap different coats of paint on a house foolishly built on swampland that's sinking further into the bog due to the weight of all those coats of paint.

It's nuts. But there you are.

And then Mark chimed in and I replied (in italics) . . .

Mark Low writes:

Following the laws as written is all that need and indeed should be done,
past local Bureaucratic WaterBoard interpretations and decisions, aside.

My point. "past local Bureaucratic WaterBoard interpretations and decisions" are NOT "aside." They're not even "past." Until you take them into court and put them aside.

The County is still permitting polluting septic tanks with the tacit approval of the
WaterBoard. Why? That is a bigger question which needs to be addressed, by those
elected, legal and regulatory government officials who may read this correspondence,
without losing sight of the Los Osos "thread" of course.

There, of course, is the most interesting point of all. WHY? And why haven't those "other" elected, legal and regulatory government officials" who must know about this mess, stepped in to correct this damage? Likely because so many of them have already been involved in creating the mess and now don't want any accountability, so turn away. "Not my problem," they murmur, washing their hands and then scuttling out the door.


There has never before been the level of technology used, that is currently "in play".
People who did not know about the Los Osos "plight", or the RECLAMATOR three
months ago, know about them both now.

There also is the great tragedy. There is more information and better technology now than ever before, but if the regulators, the county, the feds the state all insist on sticking with the same old house sinking in the quicksand, then that's what this community will get stuck with. Plus, ya gotta follow the money. Big engineering firms build big projects because (1) that's what they're trained to do and (2) because that's where the big money is.

The guy sitting in the house that's sinking in the quicksand, of course, doesn't matter. He's just the guy who will get stuck with the bill.

Then some the Anonymous Baywood Beach group chimed in . . .

Everybody,
Lets air a dirty little secret here first for all to read: Mark sent this email to over 200 additional people, kind of like spam, invisible to you, the To: & Cc: recipients, since Mark Bcc'ed the rest of us. The origin of Mark's large list of email addresses is likely from a an email sent to Paavo on 9/7/07 (Re: CRWQCB Letter - June 27, 2007). Now we are clear there are many eyes on the emails Mark sends to his new best buddies...

And I replied . . .

Since everyone's apparently forwarding and cc'ing and bcc'ing , with emails all flying around To & From and By . . . who knows? may I ask , Who's the Baywoodbeachcrew ? Another "anonymous" new Los Osos Sewer Group? Wheeeee!

In all these flying emails to and from Mark or Tom or whoever, I hope that folks will keep in mind why I posted on my blog the observation that both Mark, Tom, AES and the RWQCB are Humpty Dumptys. If you recall, Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland's Through the Looking Glass, sniffed in a rather scornful tone, "When I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Those of you who sat through the RWQCB's appalling Morphing Mad Hatter Kangaroo Court Tea Party & Grand Auto de Fe ("More tea! More tea! Move down! Move down!" will understand the reference immediately. Ditto the various assertions made by Mark and Tom & Co.

Until and unless a court of law somewhere decides what the meaning of "is" is, this will remain nothing but entertaining Humpty Dumptys asserting whatever they wish to assert.

So, Caveat emptor.


Which, of course, brought in – Ta-DA! Ron Crawford’s more than apt comments. As with all things Sewerish, what’s gone so missing is . . . accountability . . .

Ann wrote (below):

"And why haven't those "other" elected, legal and regulatory government officials" who must know about this mess, stepped in to correct this damage? Likely because so many of them have already been involved in creating the mess and now don't want any accountability, so turn away."

I have come across that so many times in my reporting, since Three Blocks was published in Sept. 2004.

Consider the SWRCB, when their Division of Financial Assistance (DFA) chose to fund, with the SRF loan, the millions of dollars of park amenities found in the Tri-W project, even though the SRF Policy so brilliantly states: "Ineligible for funding: decorative items." They erroneously considered the amenities "mitigation," and made the decicion to fund them, but they weren't mitigation, they required mitigation... a lot of it. And if the staff of the DFA didn't make that illegal decision, then Tri-W COULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED, because as I've reported on many times: No park amenities, no Tri-W.

That single mistake -- and let's make no bones about it... that was a gigantic mistake -- had a huge hand in creating this mess. So, of course, these days, since they have ALL the authority, that will NEVER come out. Completely buried. Hidden away in some dark filing cabinet, in a dusty corner in the office of the SWRCB's Division of Financial Assistance.

And, by the way, both Darrin Polhemus and Barbara Evoy, the two state officials that made the decision to fund the park in the Tri-W project with the SRF loan, are no longer with Division of Financial Assistance.

The RWQCB also had a huge hand in creating this mess, when Briggs didn't do a thing, enforcement-wise, from early 1999 to late 2000 when the LOCSD futilely chased the Oswald plan that everyone, including Briggs, knew was never going to work. He was the ONLY person that had the authority to prevent those wasted two years, and he didn't do anything.

And what the LOCSD did to him in that time period? That is flat-out embarrassing. I wrote about that here: http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/10/briggs-blown-opportunities.html

(Paavo, as Interim GM for the LOCSD a good chunk of that time, you might find that link interesting.)

So, again, since the RWQCB has all the authority, except for a oversight by the SWRCB -- that ALSO had a huge hand in creating this mess -- the truth will NEVER come out -- well, other than SewerWatch, of course -- and Los Osos will be stuck shouldering all of the State's screw ups.

It's absurd.

I give details on all of those screw-ups, and more, at this link:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/10/putting-sue-in-sewerwatch-_116166032494217646.html

(And if the county REALLY wants to cut the cost of the project, then they should take up my recommendation, and sue the State for the SWRCB's Division of Financial Assistance decision to fund, with the SRF loan, the millions of dollars of park amenities found in the Tri-W project, BECAUSE the SRF Policy so brilliantly states: "Ineligible for funding: decorative items." The county would win that, and that could shave tens of millions of dollars off the project.)

Ann's right when she says that the law that has the SWRCB overseeing the RWQCB, and no one overseeing the SWRCB, needs to be changed, badly. There are no checks and balances whatsoever. They can screw up all they want and they have each other's backs, as Los Osos clearly shows.

And I'm right when I say that elected officials that are facing recall shouldn't be setting their own recall election dates. That is just asking for problems, and that horrible law never disappoints.

Imagine what Los Osos would be like today if those laws had been on the books since 1999. If Ann's law had been around, Los Osos never would have come to a recall election, and if my law had been on the books in 2005, the ESHA at Tri-W would not be ripped up, millions of dollars of State funds would not have been needlessly pounded into the ground, and the Governor's signing message on AB 2701 would not exist.

BOTH of those laws "Ought to be laws."

Ron Crawford
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

And then, Tom Murphy stepped in to smack the Baywood Beach group upside the head for their reply to Mark with a reply of his own. [first up, an excerpt of the Baywood group’s email reply to one of Mark’s bcc’d emails, then Mr. Murphy’s reply)

Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:38 PM Subject: Re: Enforcement and water board consideration of alternatives
Mark,
Good to see you are still in town trying to sell us your fancy septic system. Also good to see you are no longer using your modernhunter meat-by-mail email address, the new one is much more professional.

Everybody,
Lets air a dirty little secret here first for all to read: Mark sent this email to over 200 additional people, kind of like spam, invisible to you, the To: & Cc: recipients, since Mark Bcc'ed the rest of us. The origin of Mark's large list of email addresses is likely from a an email sent to Paavo on 9/7/07 (Re: CRWQCB Letter - June 27, 2007). Now we are clear there are many eyes on the emails Mark sends to his new best buddies...

On to the subject matter at hand:
There seems to be an almost righteous tone to Mark's insistence that he, and he alone, holds the cure to the ills of Los Osos with his septic solution. The odd thing is that Mark's insistence seems to be based on his views of The Law, and that it is a simple matter of The Law to see that the AES system (BTW, you all do know that Mark is the AES sales rep, right?) is the only solution acceptable to the community.
Mark: Please cite court opinions specifically directed toward the AES solution's applicability to Los Osos.

We find it odd that there has so far been no disclosure of how well the AES system works in a community such as ours - could it be that AES has not actually deployed any significant number of these miracle devices? Could it be that AES wants Los Osos to be a guinea pig for their system? We have seen the words from Mark: "proven technology", but nowhere does Mark show us the use cases, the longevity data, the short and long term maintenance story, in a real world community implementation.
Mark: Please cite data showing AES solution use cases that provide real world community data on system longevity, the short and long term maintenance needs, and real end user costs.

Lastly, lets follow the money - Mark has cited that there will be Federal grants for those who purchase the AES solution, reducing the system cost significantly. However, nowhere has Mark been able to show a letter in hand stating that grants have been approved for the AES system. Next, has anybody read the AES proposal to the county? Thee is an interesting section that is basically a cut-n-run clause. with 30-day notice, AES can skip town and hand over system services & support to a 3rd party. Wow. Take the money and run! [An added note here: According to Section 10;1, sent to me by the Baywood Beach group, “10.1 SERVICE PROVIDER reserves the right to assign or transfer its rights hereunder, provide that in such event, SERVICE PROVIDER shall file with the SLO COUNTY AND/OR LOCSD Clerk written notice of any contemplated sale, transfer, assignment, or lease of such agreement or any part thereof, or of any other rights or privileges acknowledged hereby, 30 days before such sale, transfer, assignment or lease is to become effective. No such sale, transfer, or assignment or lease of such agreement, or any part hereof, shall be effective until and unless approved by the SLO COUNTY AND/OR LOCSD which consent and approval shall not be unreasonably withheld.” Clearly, if any community-wide onsite system like this were to be put in, it would have to be overseen by some sort of government agency ready to step in if a private company was sold or went out of business or whatever.]

Mark: Can you provide real $$$ amounts an end user expects to pay for your system? Over time? How much AES expects to profit from this adventure? Can you provide guaranteed Federal grant $$s approval? Lastly, what up with the 30-day escape clause?

Yes, lets follow the money - seems there are enough people out there wanting it pretty badly.
Regards,
Citizen of Baywood Beach

And finally, Mr. Murphy’s reply to the Baywood crowd.
[ . . . . ]
Shame on “U” who ever you are that is such a “coward” to attack the integrity of someone such as Mark Low and not even “sign” your name!!! Obviously it isn’t YOU that justifies my response as I believe that everyone should know the “truth”, thank you for spurring on the opportunity to tell all about Mark.
Mark has never done anyone in this community any harm, he only has tried to educate each of you to what 1) the most economical method of solution for the Los Osos waste management is, 2) what the federally compliant method is, 3) the best method consisting of the best available technology is, 4) solves the discharge issue of each individual homeowner. (Please, any other issue isn’t the citizens’ problems at this point as it doesn’t pose a current public health threat, especially now that the RECLAMATOR is available) Mark has done nothing except make a strong effort to befriend each and every one of you as the result of his own heart felt desire!
I had only met Mark Low one time prior to him electing to rally with me here to introduce the RECLAMATOR “again” to the County as the affordable, sustainable and common sense solution for Los Osos. With Mark, it is always more “heart” than money, even thought we all hope for economical opportunities. For those of you that don’t know, Mark Low is an heir of a family owned beef company and fortune.
Mark Low is ONLY here because he wants to be here. Maybe some of you are confused by some of the media but Mark Low is my associate and friend. Mark Low isn’t an AES employee, local or national. Mark is here because he knows what the RECLAMATOR represents to the future of water and the future of wastewater management. Because he has been in the wastewater industry, he has seen the “extortion” that is occurring and allowed by our regulatory authorities, and chose to try and do something to stop it; after all, it is the right thing to do, isn’t it?
Mark hadn’t been in the industry long enough to realize we have a governmental controlled force that is “preventing” the solution to preserving our water supplies as apposed to “promulgating” the solution as they are required to do per federal law until now. I have been in the industry for 35 years (the same age as the Clean Water Act amendment) since 1972; I have been a part of the onsite sector that has been totally suppressed just to keep this “extortion” movement by the engineering/regulatory community alive and well, at our expense. Technology has been around to meet the law in 1972 that would have eliminated this “discharge” problem in Los Osos if it had been “required” as per federal statute mandates. If you wish to gain a great understanding of the law, aka the Clean Water Act, which is in actuality the US Code, I will be glad to share my annotated working version which is 2MB and about 350 pages, just request a copy. You, as well as certian regulatory authorities, could obviously use it. It may also be able to be seen at www.nowastewater.com.
If you have a problem with my technology, my companies, or my integrity, please be either “man enough” or “woman enough” to contact me directly leaving your name. Of course so that everybody knows the one who has such a “founded” disposition about an individual who simply is sincere in their purpose for supporting the Community of Los Osos to do the RIGHT thing which will represent a community savings of over $200 million plus dollars? If you can’t trust this guy, who would one trust?
As I said before and will say it again, those of you who want to pay the County for their sewer project, please feel free to do so. However, as for me and my clients, we will use the RECLAMATOR and will file a class action suite against anyone who attempts to assess our properties with a tax to pay for a publicly provided non-mandatory sewer utility when there is no law which requires a home owner to 1) produce sewage, and 2) pay for any utility of option which he has no need for. The RECLAMATOR clients have no need for a sewer connection as we have no sewage as we are reclaiming/repurifying 100% of our own water which we have right to 100% consumptive use of. Any “required hook-up” would only result in a great expense to the County as I will charge for my water if it crosses my client’s property boundary to the County collection system. It is the law, California Water Code 13050. The water produced by the Reclamator is my resource of value that I have dedicated back to my client for his beneficial reuse applications as needed. Anyone besides my client will purchased if taken from my client’s property, no matter who it is.
The big bad wolf just keeps a huffin and a puffin threatening to force a hook-up. However, the RECLAMATOR produces “water” not “waste”, just fact. A ”forced hook-up” wouldn’t be a bad thing for AES or its clients, it would only be a bad thing for the County. The money AES would charge the County for its “new water” produced by the RECLAMATOR would enable AES to provide free service to its clients, works for us.
I will be glad to address your every question. You must leave your name though.
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy
PS. Shame on “who ever you are”!
AND, I would love for you to accept an offer to debate your issues in public with me. Got it in ya? I have the media who would love to cover it…………waiting………
... but be sure to send away the man who is ashamed of his name. ...

And now, a note about Best Technology from McPherson . . .

Unfortunately the Best available technology represented by the firm is equating "BEST" to "the one and only" thus saying his widget has to be selected, and this is just plain wrong. BAT consists of many technology solutions in the market place to meet the waste discharge requirements (WCR) which has (among others) numeric limits. The best available technology that is selected is determined on a case by case basis taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts, as well as ease of implementation or modification of existing technology in place.

There is absolutely no law that the Reclamator has to be selected over other technologies that also meet the WDR simply based on the fact that it removes greatest level of pollutants. The waste discharge requirements are established to fully protect the designated beneficial uses, and these limits include several levels of safety factors when established and applied to the watershed and receiving water. Again, only the level that is determined as fully protective to the beneficial uses is required. The Reclamator cannot be forced on the customer, because it goes beyond the WDR, whether it be a government wastewater agency, or private citizen----- period.

AES can demonstrate that it is in fact one option to meet a WDR, and then the customer has the right to choose among others that also meet the WDR. Again this is determined on a case by case basis taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts, as well as ease of implementation or modification of existing technology in place. If the WDR became more stringent, as they do from time to time, then the selection would again be determined by that criteria, and not beyond it.

Hope this helps clarify.


While Julie Tacker added this into the mix

Mark and Tom,
I have asked this paramount question before...how does your system get the farmers off the basin? The farms are using 800-950 afy and it is a community/sustainability goal to see them using treated waste water instead of fresh water from the lower aquifer (aka "in lieu recharge"). Your on site system does not pipe treated water out to the farms. Estimates are $3-$5 million in pipe alone, pumping, distribution and management i.e. incentives = money are also not included in your plan.
Los Osos is not necessarily building a waste water system for "clean up" or for the RWQCB, Los Osos needs a system for basin management. Capture the waste water, treat it and utilize it throughout the basin.
Again, as I've also stated before, your system does not factor that Los Osos landscapes are ONLY using 30% of the water pumped (still too much, in my opinion) but, your reuse scheme leaves too much for outdoor use. We do not want to encourage artificial habitats with additional water.
Your reuse scheme does not recharge the LOWER aquifer. The lower aquifer is what is in jeopardy. There are only select locations within the basin that treated waste water can be introduced back to the lower aquifer, how does an on site system get it to those places (distribution/managemenet = money)? It doesn't. Thus, I continue to support a central collection system over decentralized/on site systems.
Julie Tacker



To which, I can only observe,
Under the County’s “process,” the community is supposed to be given a professional, scientifically valid “survey” as to which system being brought forward we want to “buy.” For the sake of argument, let’s say somebody somewhere finally ruled that on-site systems in the PZ actually were legal and allowed and did not require any permit under whatever laws are applicable, providing they met certain “discharge” criteria. And let’s also suppose, for the sake of argument, the county could not legally force someone with an onsite system to hook up to the sewer if they had an onsite system that wasn’t “discharging,” whatever that means, what then?

The collection pipe is the costliest component of all, so if the community were checkerboarded with Wanna Hook-ups next to Don’t Wanna-Hook ups, the price tag for the Wanna Hook-ups would be astronomical – truly unaffordable. Now that would be a really weird scenario.

But then, let’s suppose it came down to choosing between an onsite system that didn’t require RWQCB “permits” (which can be made to be waaaaayyyy more expensive than even the most expensive, gold-plated community collection system), and several community systems,-- i.e. STEP or gravity-- and a majority of the community surveyed said, “Naw, don’t want onsite for $200 a month. I want gravity for $300 a month because I hate septic tanks.”

What then? Would the Board choose an onsite system (cheapest) or go with a community system?

Suppose it were reversed, and the survey showed the majority saying, “Gimme that onsite system for $300 a month. Beneficial reuse of my own water pencils out to about equal costs anyway, so it’ll will end up about the same, so I don’t want to tear up the streets for nothing. Don’t want any community collection system for $200 a month.”

And, of course, how would an onsite system recharge the lower aquifer without some kind of deliberate effort to move water to various sites where it could get down there? Which would mean well drilling and water pipe laying to move the water which would mean mo’ money.

Gets crazy, doesn’t it?

Well, at this point, all this is moot. Until a judge somewhere rules on the assertion that the Reclamator (or other onsite systems) don’t “discharge,” or that the PZ is artificially nuts and the word Zero Discharge is equally nuts when the plan was always to DISCHARGE wastewater back into the PZ aquifers, & etc, then the county evaluation will chug ahead on a community wide system and the alternatives will also get a hearing, i.e. Pio Pico’s Purple Pipe Cluster system and/or Murphy’s Reclamator & etc. .

And the War of the Words will continue. Aren’t “public” email threads, uh, fun? You never know who’s reading them or who’s writing them, or where they’ve been or where they’re going or where they’ll end up.

And, once again, when dealing with “Anonnymice,” caveat everybody. While this debate plays out, I hope everyone will keep their eyes on the ball. There’s lots of slips between cup and lip and it’s critical than nobody make any missteps.

And stay tuned.