Calhouns Can(n)ons

And Now, Your Saturday Poem

Billy Collins is a fine way to start out a Saturday morning. As a poet, he’s readily accessible, often wry or droll, but always with hidden hooks to catch your breath and snare your heart.

This one is from the Feb 4 issue of The New Yorker. Collins has a lot of his collected poems out in paperbacks. I would urge you to go to your local bookstore and order some. He makes fine reading, indeed!

THE FUTURE

When I finally arrive there –
and it will take many days and nights –
I would like to believe others will be waiting
and might even want to know how it was.

So I will reminisce about a particular sky
or a woman in a white bathrobe
or the time I visited a narrow strait
where a famous naval battle had taken place.

Then I will spread out on a table
a large map of my world
and explain to the people of the future
in their pale garments what it was like –

how mountains rose between the valleys
and this was called geography,
how boats loaded with cargo plied the rivers
and this was known as commerce,

How the people from this pink area
crossed over into this light-green area
and set fires and killed whoever they found
and this was called history –

And they will listen, mild-eyed and silent,
as more of them arrive to join the circle
like ripples moving toward,
not away from, a stone tossed into a pond.


Warning! Accordions In Use. Proceed Cautiously

Café Musique is arriving Saturday Feb 9 at Trinity United Methodist Church, 490 Los Osos Valley Rd. 4 pm. ($5 donation at door) to give a concert celebrating their new CD.

They’ll give a second show at 3p.m. at the Cambria Presbyterian Church, 2250 Yorkshire Dr. That show will benefit the Cambria Children’s Music Scholarship Fund and tickets are $10.

Café Musique features some wonderful local musicians on violin, bass, percussion, accordion and guitar, playing a grandly weird mélange of gypsy, klezmerish, tangoish, folk music. When I hear their work I’m immediately transported to a smokey basement club on the Parisian left bank ca. 1937. I expect Humphrey Bogart to walk in looking for Ingrid Bergman.

Plus, what can I tell you. I’m a sucker for the accordion. Which prompted a friend of mine to remind me that she had once seen a bumper sticker that said, “Play the accordion. Go to jail. It’s the law!”

Well, you have been warned. Great group. Don’t’ miss it.

And also don’t miss any of The Red Barn series, held the first Saturday of the month at the Red Barn on Los Osos Valley Road ($10 donation, pot luck supper 6ish – performances at 7) , with other performances tucked in when possible. .Cascada de Flores is coming up on the 23rd. Amazing group, reminds me somewhat of the Buena Vista Social Club’s music.



And if you want a splendidly funny evening, catch "Send Me A Tenor" at the SLO Little Theatre. That theatre group just keeps getting better and better.

On Another Matter, Thank You Duane Sumrall

I had posted my letter to the editor here previously, noting that the movie, “Charlie Wilson’s War,” was about our nice little, heedless adventure into Afghanistan, the blowback of which led directly to 9/11. Duane Sumrall wrote a response that I think he thought would “correct” my assertion, but instead ended up, ironically, proving my point exactly. But I’m not sure he was aware of it, which makes it all kinda funny, but thanks anyway. Here’s Mr. Sumrall’s letter: (1/31,08)

Stretching the truth

It is interesting to note the ways a glimmer of truth can be stretched into a full-blown conspiracy scenario. Witness the letters of W.R. Cole Jan 15) and Ann Calhoun (Jan 23)

Somehow Mr. Cole sees Hitlerian tactics in the precautions made against terrorism by the Bush administration. Kudos to Jackson Forney (Letters. Jan 23) for pointing out the holes in that analogy.

Then Ms. Calhoun sees the Al-Aqida attack of Sept 11 as the result of actions by Charles Nesbit Wilson. History points out that Wilson-inspired help given to the mujahedeen between 1980 and 1990 was directly responsible for the expulsion of the USSR from Afghanistan, leaving a “puppet” government in place. The Taliban didn’t become a noticeable entity until the 1996 implosion of the “puppet” government and the resultant anarchy. Afghans reverted to tribal Sharia government and supported Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaida.

It appears that the United States’ decision to quit interfering was premature, and by such inaction no viable Afghan government was established, leaving the ancient feudal systems to thrive and bringing the well-known civil rights tribal war problems of today.

Kudos to you, Mr. Sumrall, that’s called “Blowback,” and you’ve done a good job illustrating my original point exactly: that bright, shining trail led directly from Wilson to 9/11 to the ginned-up justifications for going to war with Iraq. It’s what happens when you use a country as a “cats paw,” then grow bored with the whole “great game” and leave behind a power vacuum. Ironically, we learned nothing from what we did and failed to do in Afghanistan and so we repeated the mistake in Iraq. In Afghanistan it was: Russians gone? Problem solved. In Iraq it was: Saddam gone? Problem solved.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Problem un-solved, that’s when blowback commences.


I Know, And You Thought We’d Get Through This Without Any Mention of Sewers . . . Sigh

The following email exchange is another salvo in the war of words, this time between Mr. Murphy & the County. The issue at hand will be covered in the latest TEC MEMO on Onsites & Low Pressure Systems, which will be discussed at Monday’s TAC meeting at 7 pm. at the Community Center. As Mr. Waddell notes, the latest “onsite” TEC MEMO is a “draft.” So , is it now time for somebody – pluueeeze – to define some terms – officially? Mr. Briggs? Mr. SLO County Attorney? The State Water Board? Hellooooo? Somebody? Anybody?

Dear Mr. Waddle,
Your statement: "the Onsite Treatment Tech Memo provides an overview of onsite treatment processes, but does not evaluate any specific company's product" is false.
The "Nitrex" and the "RECLAMATOR" are both a "specific company's product".
As certified in the professional engineering draft report of October 15th on the RECLAMATOR technology delivered to you on October 30th by Mr. Mark Low and Mr. Allen Martin which confirmed, certified and stamped by a professional engineer registered in the State of California, the RECLAMATOR does not "DISCHARGE". The County is aware of this fact and knowingly publicized false and defaming information in reference to the RECLAMATOR’s demonstrated and certified performance capabilities.


The County’s "Technical Memorandum Onsite Treatment Final Draft of January 2008" generated/produced by Carollo Engineers and publicly posted/displayed by the County of San Luis Obispo ("statement") and which had NO certification or stamp by a professional engineer registered in the State of California and is an obvious product of the County’s consultant who negligently failed to review the RECLAMATOR Engineering Report provided to him by the County states:
· "The Central Coast Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) prohibits all discharges from individual onsite systems. Residents of Los Osos considering your technology should know that using the Reclamator does not relieve anyone of the obligation to comply with the Basin Plan discharge prohibition and does not relieve them of the obligation to comply with the requirement to hook up to a community system when it is available or use some other option with no on-site discharges."


The County’s statement claims the RECLAMATOR "DISCHARGES", i.e. discharges pollutants/waste, a resource of no value. This statement is not true. The professional engineering report on the RECLAMATOR and its performance capabilities provided to the County on October 30th verified the RECLAMATOR does not "discharge" (definition of "discharge" per United States Code Title 33 Chapter 26 Section 1362(16), (USC 33/26/1362(16)) but rather produces recycled “water” which is a "valuable resource" as defined in California Water Code § 13050. Such recycled water is suitable for a direct and/or an indirect beneficial reuse application. The Carollo Engineer’s statement is the result of an obvious neglect as a professional engineering firm to review the RECLAMATOR Engineering Report and promulgate the true facts accordingly. I would say, as the result of publishing and releasing to their client such a false and defaming statement, the professional and business ethics of Carollo Engineers is in question.


The County’s statement refers to the RECLAMATOR as an "individual onsite system which treats wastewater for disposal". This statement is not true. Again, the profession engineering report on the RECLAMATOR defines its performance capabilities and has verified the RECLAMATOR as an innovative and alternative waste management control method consisting of an advanced process technology and innovative control technique, i.e. "privately owned alternative treatment works" (USC 33/26/1292(2)(A&B) and USC 33/26/1311(k)). The RECLAMATOR has been certified to ESTABLISH the national standard of performance, provide for the maximum degree of effluent reduction and achieve a standard that eliminates the discharge of pollutants at the source thereby accomplishing the objective of achieving the National Goal as set forth in the United States Code Title 33 Chapter 26 and as such best available demonstrated control technology is required by such statutes (and has been for the past 30 years) to be applied at each sewer pipe (point source of pollution) coming from each building built nationally since 1977 as a pretreatment alternative control technology of domestic wastewater (sewage) streams consisting of ammonia/nitrogen, the source of the toxic pollutant nitrosamine (In the human body nitrates consumed in drinking water can be converted to nitrites and then to nitrosamines, several forms of which have been classified as potential human carcinogens), prior to such domestic sewage stream being discharged into a publicly owned treatment works (USC 33/26/1317(c)). All sources (buildings, i.e. houses, commercial establishments, etc., sources of domestic wastewater) which have been established since 1977 have been subject to the effluent limitation as defined in U.S. Code Title 33 Chapter 26 Sec. 1316 through required application of the best available pretreatment innovative and alternative control technology as defined in U.S. Code Title 33 Chapter 26 Sec. 1317 Toxic and Pretreatment Effluent Standards (See USEPA Toxic Pollutant List attached). States or other political subdivisions of authority are required to enforce pretreatment standards and required application of pretreatment subject to the requirements of USC 33/26/1316(c). (See attached Master C26 for your reference)


Furthermore, no publicly owned treatment works may be provided and receive raw sewage “discharge” without pretreatment being provided at each building (source of pollutants) having a sewer pipe (point source) or septic tank (point source) discharging sewage, a source of toxic pollutants, into any publicly owned treatment works. All sources of nitrosamine, a toxic pollutant listed on the EPA Toxic Pollutant List, are required to be served by such pretreatment alternatives. Sources of nitrosamine are 1) untreated domestic wastewater streams, 2) primary treated (septic) domestic wastewater steams, and 3) secondary treated domestic waste streams requires "pretreatment" at the source (each building discharging sewage) to provide pretreatment of such source's point source discharge (the sewer "pipe") prior to discharging into any publicly owned treatment works.


The County’s statement suggests the RECLAMATOR produces a discharge that does not comply with the Basin Plan. This statement is not true. The Basin Plan is required under U.S. Code Title 33 Chapter 26 Section 1288. Area Wide Waste Treatment Management (b)(1)(A), to contain the best available demonstrated control pretreatment alternatives to serve all point source discharges as pretreatment prior to any discharge occurring into any publicly owned treatment works.(See additionally USC 33/26/1281/1288/1311/1312/1313/1314/1316/1317)
The County’s statement suggests Residents of Los Osos specifically who consider and/or would be already using the RECLAMATOR to eliminate their discharges would incur an additional economic burden resulting from the County requiring a hook up to their community system. This is not true. Please be advised the RECLAMATOR is not an "individual onsite system" that discharges waste for disposal. The RECLAMATOR is a device that reclaims water suitable to be recycled for direct or indirect beneficial reuse applications. Such device complies with the "basin plan" as it provides for ultimate water conservation by reclaiming 100% (provides for a comprehensive conservation and management plan (USC 33/26/1330(g)(2)) of all household water used, achieving the maximum reduction of unnecessary water consumption, is a method of reducing total flow of sewage in order to reduce the cost of and requirements for waste treatment services (USC 33/26/1254(o)), reduces the demand on and withdrawal of the public drinking water supplies (USC 33/26/1252(a)) and provides a sustainable alternative water source (USC 33/26/1300(i)(1)) to meet critical water supply needs (USC 33/26/1300(b)).
Such reclaimed water produced by the RECLAMATOR, when serving a property required to hook up to a community system when it is available, as a valuable resource is subject to being purchased. The statement in your report: "does not relieve them of the obligation to comply with the requirement to hook up to a community system when it is available or use some other option with no on-site discharges", is misleading to the public as it suggest the public would incur additional expenses as the result of a required hook up, as opposed to the County then being obligated to purchase the customers valuable resource of water as per definition in California Water Code Sec. 13050. For the County to make this statement in this context without qualification is misleading to the public and to not correct this misleading information upon them being made aware of such misleading information as it has been publicized in the County website, would be an intentional act to commit criminal extortion by the County aimed toward the Citizens of Los Osos. For the County to continue with this practice would be a gross misuse of the County’s authority and obligations under law and would be doing so in violation with all pertinent public policy that I would be aware of.


The County’s statement defames the RECLAMATOR. It suggests the RECLAMATOR isn’t a viable option for application in Los Osos which is within the County’s jurisdiction of authority when, by law, it is the only compliant option and as such, the County is mandated by the very authority they have received under the USC 33/26 to specify the RECLAMATOR by “brand name or equal” based upon its performance. (USC 33/26/1284(a)(6))


Furthermore, I have given the County notice of such defamation occurring and have requested them to correct such from continuing further. Again, I demand the County of San Luis Obispo correct and retract these false and defaming accusations made toward the RECLAMATOR in their statement being circulated throughout the defined business territory of AES. For the County not to act expediently in a manner to correct such would be severely damaging to the business success of AES and all of its affiliates.


As the RECLAMATOR is the federally compliant (U.S. Code Title 33 Chapter 26) and required waste management innovative and advanced alternative best available technology which, per such statutes, is the required waste management solution to eliminate the Los Osos onsite discharges, and AES, as a business which provides such a federally compliant waste management solution and as the County has been giving the authority under the same federal statutes to administer and to "require" application of and to "assist" in the implementation of such an alternative, the County of San Luis Obispo, not complying to such requirements obligated to them under such authority will be causing damage to the potential economic and financial success of the AES Central Coast Discharge Elimination Company, LLC and its mother company, Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc. in the amount of at least $79,500,000.00 in relation to just the Los Osos alternative water source project. However, the AES, LLC market encompasses the entire County’s jurisdiction and consequently AES would be subject to damages in the amount of $400,000,000.00 (my attorneys are willing to do the math for the County as necessary).


It is obvious the County of San Luis Obispo continues to ignore the certified facts in regard to the RECLAMATOR just as the County of San Luis Obispo has ignored the law that has required the County to require only the best practicable control technology economically achievable instead of permitting septic discharges over the past 30 years (USC 33/26/1311(a) and USC 33/26/1312). The gross negligent damages which have resulted from knowingly allowing the toxic discharge of nitrosamine carcinogens in violation of what was required of them under such federal statutes is in the neighborhood of $1,095,000,000,000.00. (Again, if the County needs the math, my attorneys will be glad to provide it to them)


As Founder of AES, LLC, President of AES, Inc. and inventor of the RECLAMATOR technology, I hereby demand the County of San Luis Obispo, California, to first expediently initiate an immediate retraction of the "Technical Memorandum Onsite Treatment Final Draft of January 2008" drafted by Carollo Engineers and remove it from public circulation. Then secondly, the County of San Luis Obispo “engineers” shall publish within 48 hours their obligation, as registered professional engineers registered in the State of California and sworn to uphold the laws of the land in the use of their stamp and within the ethics of their profession, to promulgate throughout their jurisdiction their legal obligation to specify the RECLAMATOR by “brand name or equal” based upon its performance, to serve all point sources of discharges within the County of San Luis Obispo’s jurisdiction as they are required to do per statutes defined in U.S. Code Title 33 Chapter 26 and more specifically defined in USC 33/26/1284(a)(6).


I will expect to see these demands met by the end of this month, January 31, 2008.


Sincerely,
D. Thomas Murphy
Inventor,
RECLAMATOR, “The Future of Water”
(775) 848-8800
AES Central Coast Discharge Elimination Company, LLC.
Founder
(805) 305-2378
Advanced Environmental Systems, Inc.
President
(775) 425-0911

http://www.nowastewater.com/

“Lead, Follow or get out of the way” ---Thomas Paine

-----Original Message-----From: jwaddell@co.slo.ca.us [mailto:jwaddell@co.slo.ca.us] Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 8:57 AMTo: Tom MurphySubject: RE: October 29, 2007 RECLAMATOR Submittal to County


Mr. Murphy,
Thank you for your comments. Yes, the County and Carollo Engineers are aware of your product and the binder that you delivered to the County in October. As you may have noticed, the Onsite Treatment Tech Memo provides an overview of onsite treatment processes, but does not evaluate any specific company's product. The Tech Memo identifies general issues associated with onsite treatment, such as the regulatory permitting environment, monitoring requirements, lot size constraints, and the practicality of reuse for irrigation. These issues are pertinent for any type of onsite treatment technology and warrant community discussion and input prior to any technology selection decisions. The appropriate forum for discussion of the Tech Memos is the project Technical Advisory Committee meetings. The next meeting is Monday, February 4 at 7 pm at the South Bay Community Center.


We do not plan to retract this Tech Memo. However, it is a draft and it may be modified or amended as more information and community input warrants.
--John Waddell