Basin Plan Update?
The Basin Plan's up for review and change, but, as usual, it's one of those things wherein if you don't know about it and don't comment on anything, the doors close and whatever changes -- some of which may well affect you and your home personally -- are locked forever into place and if you object that you didn't know anything about you're told, Too Bad, Too Late, Go Away.
Monday, March 24, at 7 pm at WAMU bank in Los Osos, PZLDF will be having an informational meeting to give people info on the updates and how they can get involved if they wish. The deadline for any public comment is early April, so not much time is left to offer any input.
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
-
▼
2008
(205)
-
▼
March
(17)
- Here We Go Again, or Los Ososology, ReduxAs mentio...
- Los Ososology? Bwa-hahahahRon Crawford, over at ht...
- Reclamator’s Up And Running!The following email ex...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, S...
- Morro Valley Farmers Fined Out of Existence by RWQ...
- Basin Plan Update? The Basin Plan's up for review ...
- THWOK! Mr. Murphy Replies:
- Poor Los Osos...Now In Closed Session
- Guess Who's At The Back Door...With A CDO And A Gun?
- Is That A Registered Sex Offender You're Driving A...
- Permit Me, Please
- Crunch Time
- Stuck At The Corner of Then and Now
- Duh, Duh, Part DuhThe following excerpt is from Th...
- PZLDF's Day In Court, AgainYesterday, Judge LaBarb...
- Misc. Sewer NewsIMMEDIATE RELEASEMarch 4th, 2008CO...
- Yep, It's Official, We're Now A Third World Countr...
-
▼
March
(17)
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.
69 comments:
Or will this be the PZLDF viewpoint on the updates and what should be said to the Water Board?
What do you mean? This the PZLDF's viewpoint and has nothing to do with a Basin Plan. Don't need no State suits telling us how we're going to run the Los Osos Plan. Besides, we're all going to put in composting toilets and reclamators or pyranas, so there will be an endless supply of "new" water and no "discharge" so no Basin Plan is needed here.
Sorry MIKE, only the RECLAMATOR produces "new water".
Those others discharge waste.
Gee whiz Mark,
I believe Sharkinlet said it much better than I, but in essence he said "...Until you offer proof that your system will keep us from getting fined by the RWQCB, I will view you as a snake-oil salesman because those in the past who have offered us promises have not been able to follow through, I will assume that you are in the same category as those well intentioned folks."
So Mark, where's the PROOF? All the words you promulgate don't PROVE anything. Step up to the plate with the RWQCB. Let's see a legal document that says the CDO's are cancelled and gone away forever. Until then, you ain't got nothin' but meaningless words to go with your snakeoil Bubba!
Careful MIKE, defamation is an expensive proposition.
We are working with the Quality Control Board. Relax, stay tuned.
Meanwhilr the county's study of leaky sewerage remains on step. PRETREATMENT is now on the radar...
mark, don't you mean working ON the RWQCB?
Mark,
As a matter of fact, Mike did not defame you or your firm.
That you are unclear on what is and what is not defamation only makes me more suspicious of your interpretation of state and federal laws which regulate our water lives.
You remind me of some folks I know who are cult members. They were incapable of understanding why the rest of us in our circle of friends were unwilling to drink the kool-aide (as it were). To them, their belief system was very important and they had to tell everyone else about how wonderful it was ... unfortunately they were also unable to explain or defend some of their more outrageous statements.
I'm still waiting for a deal that you all work out with the RWQCB which will allow monitoring of your product which will allow you to sell your services. I suspect they'll require clear and definitive proof that the machine will do as advertised as well.
What I think will be the stickier issue is whether the County will allow people to sign up for your system (thus raising the costs to those who want a pipe). Essentially it's an all or none game here. If you suck off 20% of the market, everyone else gets to pay some 25% more than they would otherwise, making it even more expensive.
What I am wondering about is your claim that it will only be $45/month. If you kill off the County project, what will keep you all from becoming a monopoly and charging us far more than even the County would have done?
So far you've only claimed that you won't and suggested the County will try to add extra charges so that they can siphon some money off the top. (By the way, such a charge is bordering on defmation ... look it up ... and such charges ... without documented evidence ... tend to harm our community rather than help the situation.)
Waiting patiently ...
mark, just because you are monitoring your product via NSF's onsite Monitoring system, this does not mean the Water Board is going to give you the go-ahead. (Well, you say that is what you are doing, but how would we know?) All that gives any of us is information from one site, one system, and data for however long you have contracted for the service.
As to your assertion that no one will risk financing the County's project, can you explain how sewer systems - yes, gravity systems - get funded all over the country and have been for years? Yet this one will not? You are not making any sense.
Your threatening the CSD if they do not take your Wrecklamated water at 5x the price Golden State charges you to buy it in the first place, speaks to your ethics (or lack thereof), to poor salesmanship, and finally, disrespect to the community of Los Osos for having to foot the litigation bill should you choose to force the issue.
Shark: Have you read the 531 proposal given to the county on 8-28-07 and then to the CSD late October 07? You'll see that there is a 20 year term renewable every 20 years which ties the 45.75 to the CPI. It's contractual, something government is not offering.
My caveat to anyone using the "snakeoil" tag remains intact, including you.
Shark, seems like you might be stuck in the problem phase of discharge elimination.
Regarding the county study of leaky sewerage it may or may not be an all or nothing proposition. My interest is how they intend to pay for all the harvest water should they insist that folks with RECLAMATORS be "hooked" to the pipe.
Have you read Fraudulent use of the 218 by SLOCo. posted on our homepage.
I would be interested in your cut and paste of my words where you believe that I am making unsubstantiated claims against the county.
Toons: The Quality Control Board is constrained by the law. So is the County. So is the LOCSD. So we can work it out.
There are no threats being made, only statements of fact.
Toons wrote;Yet this one will not? You are not making any sense.
Did you read "FACTS"/"Fraudulent use of the 218 by SLOco/RECLAMATOR Engineering Report?
The future ofwater is here now in LO/BP.
Snake oil is a traditional Chinese medicine used to treat joint pain.
The snake oil peddler became a stock character in Western movies: a travelling "doctor" with dubious credentials, selling some medicine (such as snake oil) with boisterous marketing hype, often supported by pseudo-scientific evidence, typically bogus. To enhance sales, an accomplice in the crowd (a "shill") would often "attest" the value of the product in an effort to provoke buying enthusiasm. The "doctor" would prudently leave town before his customers realized that they had been cheated. This practice is also called "grifting" and its practitioners "grifters".
The practice of selling dubious remedies for real (or imagined) ailments still occurs today, albeit with some updated marketing techniques. Claims of cures for chronic diseases (for example, diabetes mellitus), for which there are reputedly only symptomatic treatments available from mainstream medicine, are especially common. The term snake oil peddling is used as a derogatory term to describe such practices.
However, the most common usage of the phrase is as a derogatory term for compounds offered as medicines which implies that they are fake, fraudulent, or ineffective. The expression is also applied metaphorically to any product with exaggerated marketing but questionable or unverifiable quality.
Los Osos has already seen several supposed cures for the polluting discharges from the density of septic systems. None have done anything more than generate battlegrounds of words.
So far, NO PROOF has been produced that the Reclamator actually can produce "new water" and we're not sure the reclamator is anything more than an up-dated septic system, complete with a discharge of some unknown fluid and the need for maintenance! Merely the words (many, many words) of a salesman! Too many words and no proof of anything other than disrespect for the community and those who have sought actual proof!
Re Monday's PZLDF meeting on the upcoming Basin Plan "update" Has anyone gotten a notice of any kind from the RWQCB or SWB about this update and the hearing dates? Any note of and informational hearing, briefing on what this is about, any note from a "representative" of the RWQCB offering a public presentation of this with time for QaA? Anything? Or the proper time and place to send comments? and method of commenting etc? Deadline to "comment" is, I believe, April 8. Is this another one of those "Resolutions" flying under the radar? and when the door closes, we'll find ourselves with another "resolution," that can't be challenged because the window to comment has closed?
From the emails I've been getting, some groups and a few people are sending in technical comments on the proposed changes, but I'd hardly call that a Public Hearing. So, what gives?
Inlet sez:"What I think will be the stickier issue is whether the County will allow people to sign up for your system (thus raising the costs to those who want a pipe). Essentially it's an all or none game here. If you suck off 20% of the market, everyone else gets to pay some 25% more than they would otherwise, making it even more expensive."
Whether the county will ALLOW . . . that's a question that needs answering and goes back to the original PZ resolution. Is ZERO "discharge" legally feasible? After all, if sewer pipes leak then no sewer pipes would be allowed in the pz since they'll "discharge." And if ZERO isn't in the original language or statutes, but some set nitrate limits are and the Reclamator (or some other onsite system) meets those numbers, then it would have to be "permitted." And if an onsite system IS "permitted" then I don't see how the county or RWQCB can mandate that people buy X rather than Y and if a sewer system can't be imposed on the whole community, it makes no financial sense. So, we're back to square one: Zero Discharge? or X% mgl "discharges" "permitted" Cost of both? Back to a "real court of law?"
Or maybe that's the real reason for the under-the-radar "basin plan update?" Write into the new resolution the language of ZERO discharge anywhere in the basin? That way you can mandate hook ups to something everywhere, even isolated farmhouses down Los Osos Valley Road. After all, it will no longer matter that they're not polluting anything (i.e. ample vados zone to groundwater, no nearby creeeks, ample acreage, etc.) if the language about pollution is removed and only the words "zero discharge" are put in place. Then you can disconnect from "waters of the state of Calfiornia" altogether.
Ann,
The RWQCB BP Update draft report has been in circulation since November, 2007. The LOCSD has had a copy of the report since that time as Mr. Schemp was the first CSD manager in the County to see and review it. The CSD board has know about it since then too. The LOCSD has had ample time to discuss the BP Update at its' own board meetings since then.
Meanwhile, the RWQCB is beginning a very l e n g h y public review of the DRAFT; and there will be ample time for the public to chime in as they please.
Regards, Richard LeGros
Okay Mark,
Let's suppose that the 45.75 really is fixed to the CPI ... what happens when your costs go up (perhaps because of RWQCB requirements for monitoring or labor costs or unexpected failures of a larger fraction of the tanks than had been budgeted for) ... doesn't you guaranteed rate pretty much mean that you'll be losing money and you'll be out of business?
It seems to me that part of your business model needs to include flexibility or else we are the ones who are really screwed.
That being said, are you going to charge folks to use your reclamated water for irrigation purposes?
How will you cover your costs when they go up faster than the CPI?
Without a solid answer to this question it seems like you are asking us to buy a pig in a poke. Sure, the "guarantee" sounds good but there is a very plausible reason that your guaranteed rate is what will put you out of business.
As for the tag "snake oil", you needn't worry ... if you just prove that you are not someone selling hope in a can you can rest assured that folks won't use it in reference to you and your product. I even looked up defamation and according to the law, defamation means that the statement must be false ... and no one here has said something which is false. We've questioned you and your statements but not claimed anything that is false. Again, the ball is in your court ... stop relying on threats of lawsuits and just demonstrate your technology to the RWQCB.
Ann, I think that a sewer for all or onsite for all is the best solution for the whole PZ. Any mix of the two will drive up costs considerably. I am fine with Mark's product as long as it works, satisfies the regulatory authorities, actually costs less than a sewer and as long as his company will be around for the long haul rather than sticking us with technologically advanced gizmos that we are not qualified to maintain and then walk away because they aren't making a profit.
Shark Inlet said...
Okay Mark,
Let's suppose that the 45.75 really is fixed to the CPI ... what happens when your costs go up (perhaps because of RWQCB requirements for monitoring or labor costs or unexpected failures of a larger fraction of the tanks than had been budgeted for) ... doesn't you guaranteed rate pretty much mean that you'll be losing money and you'll be out of business?...
Shark, Any "requirements" the Quality Control Board would impose would be a "tax" of sorts, I suppose. As it is not part of the service it would be billed separately or in addition to the $45.75. Any idea what the county O&M costs are expected to be? You are on the look out aren't you?
It seems to me that part of your business model needs to include flexibility or else we are the ones who are really screwed........The business plan is fine, thanks anyway.
That being said, are you going to charge folks to use your reclamated water for irrigation purposes?..........It is ingenious of you to demand, criticize, accuse, demean, then ask what seems like a logical and customer-like question. NO.....Don't you think we should? I love L.O. The only entity that would be required to pay for RECLAMATED water would be that entity demanding a required hook up to a ~P~I~P~E~, like the county is studying. Customers get 100% consumptive use of their water. (mark these words)
How will you cover your costs when they go up faster than the CPI? ........Our costs will decrease via economy of scale. Besides look how much water we will be making, if the county shoots a pipe out to us we will be glad to charge $25,000 for the hook up and refund it to the homeowner should they be required to pay the $25,000 flawed 218 assessment.
Without a solid answer to this question it seems like you are asking us to buy a pig in a poke. Sure, the "guarantee" sounds good but there is a very plausible reason that your guaranteed rate is what will put you out of business..............So Shark, what is that, "very plausible reason"? Shark don't you think that a technology that reclaims
As for the tag "snake oil", you needn't worry ... if you just prove that you are not someone selling hope in a can you can rest assured that folks won't use it in reference to you and your product. I even looked up defamation and according to the law, defamation means that the statement must be false ... and no one here has said something which is false. We've questioned you and your statements but not claimed anything that is false. Again, the ball is in your court ... stop relying on threats of lawsuits and just demonstrate your technology to the RWQCB. ..........Shark wrote "As for the tag "snake oil", you needn't worry ... if you just prove that you are not"...Shark this is how one proves defamation. I guess you never saw the Rodger Briggs letter of September 7, 07...the Briggs response is posted on the website. Also while your there you might want to look at Drought Solutions. The RECLAMATOR is decanting RECLAMATED water/ new water in Los Osos, soon the defamation suit against Rodger Briggs, Harvey Packard and the RWQCB will be active. It will be good to have that "new water" to evaluate for "waste discharge" or "discharge of waste".
Ann, I think that a sewer for all or onsite for all is the best solution for the whole PZ. ....Shark, law says "best". Sewerage is not best
Any mix of the two will drive up costs considerably......Shark. please do not lump the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution into the county's study of leaky sewerage process. We are taking orders at this time. So please do not quote our prices they are as advertised. Our price does not go up as a sewer would have to. Besides where is the money going to come from to pay for the "new water" made by the RECLAMATOR?(I never get tired of writing those words, it guarantees there will never be a sewer built in Los Osos or anywhere else.)(toons still see no changes?)
I am fine with Mark's product as long as it works, satisfies the regulatory authorities, actually costs less than a sewer and as long as his company will be around for the long haul rather than sticking us with technologically advanced gizmos that we are not qualified to maintain and then walk away because they aren't making a profit..........Too bad you never read the business plan. Thank you for the kind words. Think never ending supply of new water.
Why are we trying to re-invent the "tank"? The licensed installers are
very capable of installing "round bottom" tanks.Afterall, every septic tank
has already been installed by installers.
Now, because the County, under the 2701 is obligated to facilitate a
community wide project and has already gained public consent to assess
properties via the 218 vote. We are just going to bill the County/LOCSD
against the assessment against each property toward paying for the
RECLAMATOR which is required for a community wide project to comply with the
"pretreatment requirements" under federal statutes (USC§1317). Upon
installation of the best practicable "pretreatment" control technology
economically achievable, the RECLAMATOR, there will be no further need for a
"publicly owned collection system" as there will be no more "discharge of
waste" in association with each source/property, but only production of a
sustainable "alternative water source" for a beneficial reuse application to
benefit the water consumer as a "valuable resource" in compliance with
USC§1300. The County can then go apply for the federal grant assistance
funds from the feds if they want, otherwise, we will as our own non-profit
association, at any rate, we are going to claim payment for the
"pretreatment" applications from the County.
We are no longer subject to the County whelms or direction, they must first
serve us (AES and the RECLAMATOR) and the people of Los Osos in the public
interest, it is the law.
Domestic wastewater (sewage) is the source of "nitrosamines", a high level
known carcinogen, a toxic pollutant listed on the US EPA Toxic Pollutant
List and also of pharmaceuticals and personal care products which are
subject to passing through publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). All
sources of any toxic pollutant on that list, since 1977, are required to
comply with "pretreatment requirements" as defined within the statutes of
USC§1251et.seq. Pharmaceuticals and personal care products are best removed
through application into layers of soil which is only practical in small
volumes as is provided for in a "pretreatment application" when
"pretreatment requirements" of federal law are first complied with. The
installation of the RECLAMATOR at 1408 fulfills these requirements.
The County/LOCSD is obligated to administer the law and have assessment
powers to cover associated costs to do so. Remember, the contractors who
constructed the non-compliant sewer billed the LOCSD for their construction
charges so AES will bill the County and the LOCSD for its construction
charges which the County now has ability to pay for via the 218.
I have all my people gearing up to start initiating the first 1000
installations.
Stay tuned...
Tom
mark, what is a "whelms?"
Where else have you tried to apply this Federal law you cite? Are we your first try at this? Have you tried this in other states?
You say:"The Quality Control Board is constrained by the law. So is the County. So is the LOCSD. So we can work it out."
Exactly. That usually occurs in a court of law, it involves lawyers and money. Los Osos doesn't need you sticking it to us. Besides, the LOCSD is bankrupt. The last time they needed money for lawyers, they took it from the Fire Reserves. Not much left there. They will need to strip services/training from the Fire Department, or raise water rates on their water customers to find the money now. Oh, thats right - you have Golden State water, it won't affect you. But what if you needed an ambulance or a fire truck?
So you are saying that was NOT a threat last Thursday night about the CSD having to take your Wrecklamated water at 5x the rate you paid for it? If they say no you will just drop it?
Mark,
First off ... I suspect that if I find it confusing when you quote me without quotation marks and then respond on the next line without any demarkation between my words and yours. Perhaps you will use quotation marks, new paragraphs or even italics to help us out.
I am glad you are clearing up the details of the contract you are proposing with Los Osos ... that you will charge us more if your costs go up due to RWQCB requirements and the like. Essentially I am afraid that if the RWQCB charges $900 per year per tank plus a requirement that each tank have pollutant levels in the discharge/effluent/outflow/crystal-clean-water/whatever-you-wanna-call-it monitored every month at about $100 per month for testing costs, all of a sudden we're talking a total bill in the same ballpark as that the County is talking.
Earlier you told us $45.75 per month as if there would be no additional costs. I wasn't doubting you, just thinking that perhaps you were underestimating the total bill we'll be facing.
As for what the County O&M costs are expected to be ... um ... they've got those numbers in various reports for TAC. Even so, you do raise a good point, that I seem to be more suspicious of your claims than those of the County. Why? Because the County right now is the only game in town according to the laws as I understand them, so it seems to me that the question isn't as much "what is the County gonna do?" as it is "what does Mark propose to do, is it even legal and if so, will it be better than the County's plan?". Getting an idea of what you propose to do has been tough because as we've just seen, the details (you hadn't told us earlier about how you'll charge us more for any extra costs associated with RWQCB requirements) are complex and you haven't really addressed all the questions asked of you.
As for your contention that we needn't worry about your business plan ... I remain hesitant because you've not yet explained how you will be financially viable. No matter, it's not my job to convince others, it is yours and if you don't want to bother explaining to your potential market why your product is a good one, it is not my loss.
As for your claim that I have been demanding, criticizing, accusing and demeaning, I believe you either have been confusing me for someone else or that you misunderstand what these words mean. I have not demeaned you nor have I demanded anything of you. I have pointed out that you've not addressed the very reasonable questions of myself and others. Quite different, I assure you.
I am glad you won't be charging people to use the output of your device.
On the issue of economies of scale versus inflation ... any economies of scale will be realized immediately ... but ultimately when your O&M goes up faster than the CPI, the economies of scale originally seen won't keep you afloat.
Just give up on the whole defamation thing ... it's a waste of your time and mind and makes you look petty. Just explain how your device works, show the RWQCB that it will be acceptable, let us know what our bills will be if we go with your service and buy a bond which will guarantee our service will continue even if your business goes under. If you want provide a link to your business plan which explains these, it would be nice.
Tom Murphy seems to be totally delusional. "We have all our people standing by to install...." His people include the drunks from Al's??? If I had a solution to our town's sewer problem, would I threaten folks, or show data? Hmmm- not even a close contest. Mike had it right - these goofballs couldn't even give me a wrecklamator for free. Really poor business model.
Shark: $45.75 is the cost of the service. Why are you insisting that the quality control board has the ability to issue a discharge permit for a RECLAMATOR? I can understand your reasoning if you really believe that the county is the only game in town. So if you have no choice I guess it doesn't matter how much you are charged. I'll keep that in mind. Suppose the county never builds sewerage...Don't get me wrong I appreciate your thoughtful investigation of the RECLAMATOR but I don't understand your "rolling over" for a county study of leaky sewerage process, no matter what it might cost. Any fee that the county or state would impose would not be on the service(no law to support it) but on the citizen(no reason for it). Let's keep talking about what you think the quality control board is thinking, it might be a useful excercise.
The defamation suit will provide much needed venue to expose the quality control board personnel activity in a real arena. Why would you suggest dropping it?
If financial accountabilty is important to you why are you supporting the county's study of leaky sewerage? They are in the red as is the state of California.
It seems the Supervisors may have a real conflict of interest when they get to making a decision about whether to "take" the project. If they want to protect the $6 million dollars they have already appropriated they might vote for a project no matter the size just to protect the $6 mil. Talk about throwing good money(your money) after bad...
I understand you don't understand, so please keep your questions coming. I'll do my best to provide the information you are requesting.
Sorry, the business plan was only available to qualified investors, so you won't be able to download it.
If you don't go with the RECLAMATOR it will be your loss.
Toons: whelms=whims typo so sorry. Sometimes people actually follow thelaw withouta judge's order, sometimes not. I'm happy you are engaging in the legal argument, it shows progress. The LOCSD would not be able to go bankrupt on any item not already a part of the current proceedings. It would be best if the board and their counsel to examine the law carefully and ascertain their current liabilty under it. The 1999 CDO and language in AB 2701 is very clear as to the LOCSD's liabilty. I urge you to read these documents.
It is possible that the LOCSD was formed with the idea that "it" would take the responsibilty for the state and county issuing the discharge permits in the first place.
The LOCSD has two choices regarding the RECLAMATED water. Either choice sets a powerful precedent.
1) pay for the water
2) issue a disconnect waiver/notice/permit
They do not have the luxury of doing nothing. One or the other. Think cutting edge political engineering here.
alabamasue said...
Tom Murphy seems to be totally delusional. "We have all our people standing by to install...." His people include the drunks from Al's??? If I had a solution to our town's sewer problem, would I threaten folks, or show data? Hmmm- not even a close contest. Mike had it right - these goofballs couldn't even give me a wrecklamator for free. Really poor business model.
Pandora is that you? Folks who don't use there real identity are suspect... Defamation abounds. The data is posted in the RECLAMATOR Engineering Report on our website. Right under Fraudulent use of the 218 by SLO Co....
There are no threats, sue, only statements of fact. Mike, are you going to let "I wish I could sue" speak for you? You cannot get aRECLAMATOR for free but you can earn a 2% commission when you sign someone up for service.
their real identity. typo sorry
sue, sorry your dream is dead...
mark, you might study recent history. You said: " The LOCSD would not be able to go bankrupt on any item not already a part of the current proceedings"
The LOCSD IS bankrupt and has been for over a year and a half.
Mrs. Biggs read into the record the Roger Briggs letter to Cheryl Journey on Thursday night. This means we have been spending money on her fees to look over the documents pertinent to your either/or proposal to the CSD. She stated that there is no action to be taken at this time. So your statement of, "They do not have the luxury of doing nothing. One or the other" means what? You are going to sue them if they do nothing?
It is quite clear that the RWQCB makes it quite clear that you will be discharging waste. Why are you hammering on the CSD? Because you can?
I can't imagine that the neighbors next to you will be too pleased if you disconnect from the collection system and start watering the plants with your wrecklamated water. I know I'd be calling the health department immediately.
You said:
"It is possible that the LOCSD was formed with the idea that "it" would take the responsibilty for the state and county issuing the discharge permits in the first place."
I've read this three times and I don't get what you mean. The LOCSD was formed to build a sewer in place of the County building a sewer. The Regional Board has been on the CSD's back since its inception. The CSD, until this "new" board was "voted" in, had not sued the state or the County. I can only assume that you do not know the history here.
Are you going to sue the County for your interpretation that the 218 was illegal?
Do you really think ANYONE on this blog is going to sign someone up for service? Do you not read what we write?
Mark,
Trying to communicate with you is really frustrating. It is as if you admit something at one time and then pretend that you had never said that at another time.
Let's go back a bit.
If there is a chance that any of the reclamators might fail or leak ... if the output will possibly be anything less than 100% H2O ... the RWQCB will certainly have the right to fine ... somebody. Presumably you would also need their permit to get your discharges approved. (I don't want to argue this point yet again ... they define the word one way and you another ... and if you don't like their claim of regulatory authority, you can deal with them on the matter ... just don't tell us that you've won that battle because surely you know that it hasn't been fought yet.)
Why am I saying that the RWQCB will have some say in the matter?
Because everyone but you says this.
As to the defamation issue ... I was telling you to knock off the telling discussion participants that they were defaming you. I don't care if you sue Briggs or not. On the other hand, if you are trying to work with the RWQCB, it would seem odd to sue them at the same time. Perhaps they are used to that from Los Osos folks.
Finally, for you to tell me that I should read your business plan and to then tell me that I can't because I am not qualified is both a rather poor way of convincing us that you have a viable company and a poor way of trying to win an argument. Yet again it seems like you are saying "I'm right and I have proof but I refuse to show it to you." Rather lame if you ask me.
I simply want to see evidence that your company is more than a fly-by-night operation. Unless you demonstrate this somehow, many will not sign up for your service. Surely you recognize the need to sell your services ... why are you so reluctant to provide evidence that would make people willing to believe your claims?
Sewertoons said...
mark, you might study recent history. You said: " The LOCSD would not be able to go bankrupt on any item not already a part of the current proceedings"
The LOCSD IS bankrupt and has been for over a year and a half. Toons: The term "Bankrupt" will not attach until the Judge determines same. The LOCSD is currently under Bankruptcy protection at this time.
Mrs. Biggs read into the record the Roger Briggs letter to Cheryl Journey on Thursday night. This means we have been spending money on her fees to look over the documents pertinent to your either/or proposal to the CSD. She stated that there is no action to be taken at this time. So your statement of, "They do not have the luxury of doing nothing. One or the other" means what? You are going to sue them if they do nothing?...TOONS; MY CAVEAT STILL STANDS.
It is quite clear that the RWQCB makes it quite clear that you will be discharging waste. Toons, got ink? A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.
Thomas Paine
Why are you hammering on the CSD? Because you can? Toons, because they are the holder of a 1999 CDO.
I can't imagine that the neighbors next to you will be too pleased if you disconnect from the collection system and start watering the plants with your wrecklamated water. I know I'd be calling the health department immediately.
Toons we look forward to as much official/legal scrutiny as taxpayer money can buy. With the internet any scrutiny will be out in the open and instantly promulgated. The technology is flawless the law is clear. Time will tell. Relax, the county's study of leaky sewerage continues fueled by county tax payer money. What happens if a sewer never gets built? Who will pay for the RECLAMATED water if it does?
You said:
"It is possible that the LOCSD was formed with the idea that "it" would take the responsibility for the state and county issuing the discharge permits in the first place."
I've read this three times and I don't get what you mean. The LOCSD was formed to build a sewer in place of the County building a sewer. The Regional Board has been on the CSD's back since its inception. The CSD, until this "new" board was "voted" in, had not sued the state or the County. I can only assume that you do not know the history here.
Are you going to sue the County for your interpretation that the 218 was illegal? Toons...Always a possibility, think sword of Damocles here.
Do you really think ANYONE on this blog is going to sign someone up for service? Why not?
Do you not read what we write? Yes but new readers/bloggets are always turning up and some may understand what the RECLAMATOR actually means to the LOSTDEP and the county's study of leaky sewerage process...
Shark Inlet said...
Mark,
Trying to communicate with you is really frustrating. It is as if you admit something at one time and then pretend that you had never said that at another time.
Let's go back a bit.
Shark: Before we do that let's at least agree to disagree. Please don't assign emotion to my work product. Pretending is for children, the LOSTDEP is an adult and serious issue. We are talking about billions of dollars worth of projects and a business model paradigm shift that the current industry players never thought could or would happen. You are lucky to be so close to the action by way of this blog(Thanks Ann) and that ability to converse at this level. However I see you like to accuse and fall back "vados zone" so I'll be careful and will not respond the way you may think appropriate regarding personal attack topics. You see my intentions are to use "questions" to illuminate information, Law and the Technology.
If there is a chance that any of the reclamators might fail or leak ... if the output will possibly be anything less than 100% H2O ... the RWQCB will certainly have the right to fine ... somebody. Presumably you would also need their permit to get your discharges approved. (I don't want to argue this point yet again ... they define the word one way and you another ... and if you don't like their claim of regulatory authority, you can deal with them on the matter ... just don't tell us that you've won that battle because surely you know that it hasn't been fought yet.)
Shark: Please don't put words in my mouth;-) Please cut and paste where I wrote "just don't tell us that you've won that battle-" When you write like this you lose my respect (Why don't you use your real name?What are you afraid of?).
Why am I saying that the RWQCB will have some say in the matter?
Because everyone but you says this.
Shark: If everyone else jumps off the roof, will you?
As to the defamation issue ... I was telling you to knock off the telling discussion participants that they were defaming you. I don't care if you sue Briggs or not. On the other hand, if you are trying to work with the RWQCB, it would seem odd to sue them at the same time. Perhaps they are used to that from Los Osos folks.
I admire citizens that stand up for their rights. I hope my caveat keeps people focused on the subject matter and off the personal smack.
Finally, for you to tell me that I should read your business plan and to then tell me that I can't because I am not qualified is both a rather poor way of convincing us that you have a viable company and a poor way of trying to win an argument. Yet again it seems like you are saying "I'm right and I have proof but I refuse to show it to you." Rather lame if you ask me.
Shark: I believe I wrote "you should have read" I would be foolish if I thought I could convince anyone of anything. What I will work for, is getting the facts out and let nature and the lawyers take their course...
I simply want to see evidence that your company is more than a fly-by-night operation. Unless you demonstrate this somehow, many will not sign up for your service. Surely you recognize the need to sell your services ... why are you so reluctant to provide evidence that would make people willing to believe your claims?
Shark: Man was never meant to fly, Why would anyone want a computer, Why would anyone want to reclaim 100% of there water forever for far less money than a sewer project that takes their water forever. I'll keep working to satisfy your curiosity, give it some more time, if you can...
Shark I was going to go with this but then thought better not to: You are an anonymous blogger, where are your credentials? Unless you are able demonstrate that you are somehow qualified to evaluate evidence why should I spend time trying to satisfy you? As some anonymous blogger you aren't a real person. Why are you so frightened to show your face in public?
mark, you clearly don't "get" where the money will come for legal advice. Sure, the CSD is in bankruptcy protection. What makes you think it does not need to keep current with bills that come in now? It MUST pay those bills, that is part of being IN bankruptcy protection.. The money will come from the water rate payers on the CSD's water and from the tiny reserve funds for emergencies and from cutting services.
It's real simple. Yes or No. Are going to sue them if they do nothing?
You ask, "What happens if a sewer never gets built?" Frankly, I do not worry at all about that. It WILL be built. YOU are the only one nervous about that.
Since you may not see where I posted this question before, have you attempted this sort of offer in any other state? Keep it simple. Yes or no.
Simple: Follow the Law. Get interested in what your LOCSD Board Members are doing or not doing.
Toons wrote (more than once) Now I asked this on another thread - Have you tried this before in another state at another time? You haven't answered yet.
Toons: I am sorry but I won't be discussing our work in other areas of the world. As an anonymous blogget, you can understand "privacy" can't you? I'm focused like a laser beam on several projects and Los Osos is still my favorite. I love L.O.
10:50 PM, March 22, 2008
Toons, As private citizen I will share on a need to know basis.
I'm sorry if you are not getting answers that support your love of the ~P~I~P~E~. You may be well served to think about questions like; how will RECLAMATED water be paid for? and how will money spent studying be reimbursed? Not worrying about consequences is partly why government is using so much red ink these days.
Why don't you start an "I LOVE the BIG PIPE Blogspot? If your intent is to protect the study process at every turn?
Don't you wonder with all the sewerage and treatment plants the county's consulting engineer has been responsible for why does "punching out a design" take years to complete? Are they still using the technology that was in vouge when sewerage was state of the art, slide rules and T-squares? What's up with that? Where is the "award winning design", for less money?
Once again, you are off topic and drying to deflect my question.
Don't you think the entire community needs to know how and what you did elsewhere? It would be a great sales tool if positive - if not, perhaps that is why you are so reluctant to share.
Ann, I second that
Toons: There is national attention focused on LO/BP. Everything I write here is part of the LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution and is part of the history currently being made.
Too bad Richard and MIKE want to "delete me".
I hope everyone had a Happy Easter, I sure did!
Richard sez:"Ann,
Have you not had enough of Mark taking over your blog site?
Seems to me the only way to clean up this site is to ban Mark to his own blog site. Whenever Mark posts here about this device, delete him. He will get the idea as all discussion of his device & service belong there, not here.
Regards, Richard LeGros"
I post an entry on Maldanado's proposed bill making sex offenders put a special license plate on their cars, an issue that has profound consequences for a lot of people and society in general and I get two comments. I post a simple notice that PZLDF will hold an informational meeting on the "stealth" basin plan update and there's what? 35 comments, most of them you guys neener-neering at what Mark sez and he neener-neeners back at you. Go figure.
What all of you SHOULD be paying attention to is this "stealth" basin plan update. Public comment period ends April 8. How many of you knew this was underway? How many people in the county as a whole do you think are aware of this update? How many citizens in Los Osos have a clue about this? You all know well how the RWQCB works hand in glove with the Tribune to "get the message" out when they wish to. Did you recall seeing ANY mention of this update at all in the Tribune? I continuously get all kinds of printed notices from the RWQCB in the mail. I had to go call the office to get a snail mailed copy of this ordinance. (I sent an email to Sorrel Marks, who's in charge of this project, only to get an automatic notice that she'll be out of the office until April 1 -- public comment deadline is the 8th, remember? Also remember, that once public comment closes, that's it. Once this thing sneaks up to Sacramento for a Water Board vote, that's it. If there's a serious flaw in this thing, you're out of luck. Too bad. Too late. Can't challenge it. Another "stealth" ordinance. Yet this item gets NO discussion from you guys.
It's not Mark who needs deleting, it's a whole lot of you.
Ann, I heard what the Water Board proposes. Seems to be putting teeth onto the rules already in place that no one paid attention to. Why not wrote a letter to the Trib and ask for some coverage?
How about even just thinking about limiting the volumes of stuff from mark? You'd be doing him a favor. He keeps stepping on his own feet here on occasions too numerous to mention.
mark low, (Tom Murphy?) only in your mind are people in general paying attention to what is happening in LO. However, if I am wrong, or someone connected with wastewater in another state is picking up what is happening here, maybe that someone can chime in to answer the questions you keep dodging, "Have you tried a plan like this elsewhere?" and "If so, how did it work out for you?"
Mark,
I am seriously confused by what you write. Most everyone here is far more clear than you are. Let's take your comment of 12:30am on March 23 when you were essentially replying to several earlier comments across several days (and perhaps even several comment
sections in Ann's blog).
You wrote "Please don't assign emotion to my work product."
What do you mean by this? Seriously ... this makes no sense. What comment did I make (in particular) which you took as my assigning emotion to your work product?
You also wrote: "However I see you like to accuse and fall back 'vados zone' so I'll be careful and will not respond the way you may think appropriate regarding personal attack topics."
Again, what you mean by this is unclear. Let me attempt (one more time) to clear up the "vados zone" comment. I did not suggest that you had used that phrase but that another had done so and it made that look somewhat silly for the misspelling. I did not "accuse and fall back" and your overreaction here is just silly. Just read carefully and reply to the questions addressed and you'll be okay.
Furthermore, you also wrote "Please don't put words in my mouth;-) Please cut and paste where I wrote 'just don't tell us that you've won that battle-' When you write like this you lose my respect (Why don't you use your real name?What are you afraid of?)."
Oh my, lots of stuff to comment on. First, I didn't quote you directly (notice that I didn't use any quotation marks) but I was alluding to your earlier statements that your product does not discharge and so is not under regulatory authority of the RWQCB. However, this matter hasn't yet been decided as the RWQCB hasn't yet approved the usage of Reclamators for households inside the PZ in place of a sewer.
Second, I don't care if you respect my writing or not. I don't write for you but instead for the general public who is interested in these topics. Please remember that you are the one selling services here and you are the one trying to convince us. I was pointing out that you haven't succeeded in your goals. If you don't care for my writing style, tough ... it is a valid style and I am not doing anything unusual nor out of line at all.
Lastly (in this section) you comment on my anonymity as if that were a valid thing to say. We've covered this before and my words either stand on their own merit or they do not. If I had a "real name" and address and phone number which were known would my questions of you deserve an answer any more or less than if I remain anonymous? Even so, anonymity is an entirely appropriate thing in this context. Some in Los Osos have lost friends over the sewer matter and others have been threatened. I would rather not go that route.
Then a bit later (jumping a bit) when I wrote: "Finally, for you to tell me that I should read your business plan and to then tell me that I can't because I am not qualified is both a rather poor way of convincing us that you have a viable company and a poor way of trying to win an argument. Yet again it seems like you are saying 'I'm right and I have proof but I refuse to show it to you." Rather lame if you ask me.' you replied with "Shark: I believe I wrote 'you should have read' I would be foolish if I thought I could convince anyone of anything. What I will work for, is getting the facts out and let nature and the lawyers take their course..."
Fair 'nuff. You said that I should have read a document which you didn't provide me and won't make available. If this is the case, what is the point of telling me that I should have read it? Still sounds rather lame to me.
Continuing on with that same issue, when I wrote: "I simply want to see evidence that your company is more than a fly-by-night operation. Unless you demonstrate this somehow, many will not sign up for your service. Surely you recognize the need to sell your services ... why are you so reluctant to provide evidence that would make people willing to believe your claims?" you responded with "Shark: Man was never meant to fly, Why would anyone want a computer, Why would anyone want to reclaim 100% of there water forever for far less money than a sewer project that takes their water forever."
This response is 100% off-topic. Perhaps you were unaware that I was asking for some sort of guarantee that your company won't be walking away from Los Osos if you start losing money. If you would provide some sort of assurance in the form of a bond or a parent company with deep pockets who promises to uphold your agreements we would be far happier.
You also added "I'll keep working to satisfy your curiosity, give it some more time, if you can..."
No problem at all. I was just suggesting you focus your efforts on getting answers to the questions rather than spending time here trying to convince us your device is awesome.
Let me suggest you first go about getting an answer to my question of how do we know that your company won't go under or walk away from Los Osos and leave us holding a possibly very expensive bag?
Lastly, you closed with "Shark I was going to go with this but then thought better not to: You are an anonymous blogger, where are your credentials? Unless you are able demonstrate that you are somehow qualified to evaluate evidence why should I spend time trying to satisfy you? As some anonymous blogger you aren't a real person. Why are you so frightened to show your face in public?"
Hahahahaha!
It is absolutely fine to not respond to my questions or comments ... it is your right. (Ron seems to ignore my questions every time they are inconvenient for you "Pandora is the root of all evil" worldview, for example.)
However, I don't think that trying to sell people a product and then ignoring their questions is a wise thing. Think of this as like the "suggestion box" in the library, church or grocery store. Those running these organizations shouldn't ignore the suggestions just because they don't have a name on them. In fact, some would say the anonymity allows for the suggestions to be more honest and for those reading the suggestion cards to evaluate the suggestions on their merit instead of based on the name on the card and their associated patronage level.
As for my qualifications and the idea that you shouldn't bother answering my questions unless I prove myself qualified ... I find this attitude you have whole unacceptable for someone trying to sell me a product and/or service. Does the guy at the farmer's market who sells the really good organic lettuce ask me to prove that I'll put the proper amount and the right kind of dressing on the lettuce before he sells me the produce? Even so, I am not "qualified" to read all of the engineering reports you've produced nor would I be "qualified" to read any business plan you would provide (if you would provide, that is) but I am quite qualified at many many things and I would stack my "qualifications" up against yours any day. I also believe that anyone truly interested can, with enough time and work, learn the necessary skills to understand what you present.
As for your claim that because of my anonymity here I am not a real person. I will choose not to be insulted by that comment. I want to assure you, however, that I am not frightened to show my face in public ... I just don't think that you knowing my name will help either you or me. If you convince me that the general public knowing my name is of benefit, I'll be glad to reconsider my position.
Lastly, I want to say one more time that discussing these matters with you is somewhat like talking with a cult member. Red herring, change the topic and ad-hominem seem to be more your style than a serious discussion of the topics ... topics you raised. This if frustrating. My anonymity, qualifications and whether your business plan are available to the public or not are not the issue. The issue is whether your device will be approved for Los Osos use or not and if so, whether you'll be able to provide the services at the cost you've been telling us. If you would like to tell me that I am not a real person because I am anonymous, it doesn't make the RQWCB more or less likely to approve the usage of your device. If your business plan is public or not doesn't increase or decrease your viability at all. However, if your goal is to convince us that we should be sign on for your services, it would be really nice if you would treat us questioners (folks who, I am sure, are far more seriously interested in your device than the general public) with more respect and if you would explain the reason for your hopefulness in your product.
Pithy quotes are nice and yes, we all want to save the environment and we all want to utilize our resources in the wisest possible way. Even so, your presumption that we don't want to do the right thing because we don't already believe your claims is rather rude. Pons and Fleishman made some bold claims as well but if I remember correctly, it was the doubters who were correct on that matter. Blood-letting is not the best cure for cancer. Similarly, I don't invest on a hunch without reading the prospectus even if the guy trying to sell me the stock has a really great smile, is really friendly and assures me that the investment is a really good deal. The prospectus is what tells me the details that allows me to know whether I want to invest or not.
Your prospectus for our community should include approval by the RWQCB as an onsite treatment method, an honest accounting of the costs involved (including any potential monitoring costs associated with RWQCB approval) and some sort of explanation of why we know you'll not desert us after two to three years. After all, the County will get RWQCB approval and likely a SWRCB low-interest load. I won't have to pay for any additional testing and certainly, a public utility cannot up and walk away. You have to convince us that your method will be better than the County's approach.
Oh yeah ... one other thing ... please don't initiate any lawsuits which will delay the County progress in any way ... because that would unfairly tip the scale by raising the cost of the County system and you don't want to try to sell me an apple by suing to artificially raise the cost of pears at VONS ... that would be bad form and it would piss me off.
Hope you read this in the spirit it was intended....
I also believe that anyone truly interested can, with enough time and work, learn the necessary skills to understand what you present.
Shark: Nice! I could not have said it better myself. Now you are talking...
The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues on step.
For eveyone else the county's consulting engineer's study of leaky sewerage process continues on step.
It is a free country, you are all free to choose as you wish. I just do not know how the county will pay for the RECLAMATED water...
Any Federally supplied low interest State Revolving Funds will "most likely" include the "pretreatment component" for the Los Osos project. It is the law.
Shark:
Have your read the relavent California Water Law or any of C26 yet?
Mark:
Has the RWQCB approved of the use of your devices in place of a sewer yet?
Shark:
They must still be working on it.
Circles, circles, and more circles:
1. The device must be proven to work.
2. Thereafter The regulating boards must accept it as a solution to our problems of pollution.
3. Thereafter we can look at business models, bond protection for users, etc., etc., etc.
Until a well known and respected testing lab gives it it's stamp of approval, and certifies the results, and backs it with it's bond, we are talking in circles. And making much ado about NOTHING.
I call this metaphysical speculation!
Jon: Have a look at the NOwastewater Blogspot. Sorry I have neglected your question from last week...my bad.
Circles, circles, and more circles: .....You are CORRECT! The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution does circle all the way back to the water's responsible party. More later...
1. The device must be proven to work. Done. See the Engineering Report on our homepage...... Read carefully. (or not)
2. Thereafter The regulating boards must accept it as a solution to our problems of pollution..... You are CORRECT. "Boards" must follow the law, at this point.
3. Thereafter we can look at business models, bond protection for users, etc., etc., etc....... Or you can stick with the county's consulting engineers study of leaky sewerage. God Bless America, it is a free country...
Until a well known and respected testing lab gives it it's stamp of approval, and certifies the results, and backs it with it's bond, we are talking in circles. And making much ado about NOTHING.......Labs test and report and when necessary certify results, they do not issue "stamps of approval". I guess we could have done nothing, but that just wasn't an option. The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution continues on step...
I call this metaphysical speculation!....... We call it "enterprise".
Sewertoons sez:"Ann, I heard what the Water Board proposes. Seems to be putting teeth onto the rules already in place that no one paid attention to. Why not wrote a letter to the Trib and ask for some coverage?"
The Tribune cover the Stealth Onsite Update Resoltuion? The Tribune cover anything? Bwahahahah. Good joke.
Toons also sez:"How about even just thinking about limiting the volumes of stuff from mark? You'd be doing him a favor. He keeps stepping on his own feet here on occasions too numerous to mention."
What? and remove the rope necessary to allow people to hang themselves? Perish the shot. Also I do have to add a good chuckle at Mr. Le Gros asking me to limit or delet Mark. Remember when Richard used to post ENDLESS LONG REPEATED NUMBER CRUNCHING postings that have people gnashing their teeth and demanding I limit HIM from hijacking the blog & etc. And take a look at the LONG piece just posted by Inlet. Shall I "delete" HIM too?
Always, it's free speech for ME but not for THEE, eh?
A hint for readers and posters. If someone posts something you find boring or silly or repetitive or pointless, ignore it. The conversation on this blog is perfectly capable of skipping over comments you don't want to address. Each of you can speak to those posters and postings you wish to address and ignore the rest.
Ann,
The only reason for the excessive length in that recent comment is Mark was pretty clearly misunderstanding what I wrote ... and I figured that if I could get clarity by some extra length it was worth it.
On the matter of whether Richard's many and really long postings during that timeframe exceeded Mark's recent volume ... I suspect it is about the same. The one distinction in my mind is that Richard wasn't trying to sell us a product ... er, service ... and Mark is.
I don't really want Mark deleted. If he hasn't done anything truly offensive or out of line (like threaten someone) he shouldn't be deleted. I do want him to self-regulate, but that is his issue.
To discharge or not to discharge: that is the question...
Inlet sez:"The one distinction in my mind is that Richard wasn't trying to sell us a product ... er, service ... and Mark is."
Richard was and is trying to "sell" his version of "history" and "reality" and "facts" and "truth." Same difference.
Inlet: I forgot to add: To date, Mark has cost this community nothing. Richard, on the other hand, has cost this community a bundle. Let's just start with all the money lost when he voted to set the election as late as possible then then voted to start construction before the election. It's fair to say he's logged onto this comment section to try to "sell" his version of just why he cost this community a bundle. I don't buy his story. You may or may not buy it, but that's what he's selling and it's more expensive at this point than anything Mark's selling.
Ann,
I guess we'll have to (yet again) agree to disagree. Richard's analyses were sound. You didn't say otherwise ... but now you are telling us he was presenting something that was a fiction. Why didn't you point out the flaws in his calculations then? Who is the one trying to rewrite history here?
To also suggest that Richard's decisions were costly as if the decisions would have been costly no matter what else was going on. Might I remind you that none of those decisions cost us anything at all but that the actions of the post-recall board are what cost us a bundle.
Richard is quick to admit that the timing decision may have been wrong and even may have cost him (and the others) the election. I don't see Julie and Lisa and the rest of the "move the sewer no matter how much it costs" crowd making similar statements about how they may have been mistaken about how they stopped the project illegally, stole money from the SWRCB, refused to accept the SWRCB's offer to allow them to move the sewer out of town, told the RWQCB to fine individuals and told the RWQCB that those fines should start in 2010. I don't expect you to agree with me on those statements, but I can explain each and every one of them and each and every one of them is far more costly to our community than anything you think Richard may have done.
I'm not too sure about mark costing the community nothing. I'll bet his written proposal to the CSD to wrest it from the jaws of bankruptcy was read by the attorneys, and the present either/or challenge to either allow him to disconnect from the collection system and use the Wrecklamated water or pay him for it, has been looked at them too. Hopefully it was only using time from the allotted contracted hours.
It remains to be see if formal litigation will be instigated against the County and the CSD regarding the Wrecklamator and its use, but if so, you can be sure, the citizens of Los Osos will be paying for it.
So Ann, what you seem to be saying that if Richard had voted to put the recall election earlier, and it is almost conceded that the recall would have failed, we would never have gone through the anguish of what the Recall board has done to us and we would almost be flushing into our nice new gravity sewer now?
Why would anyone want to flush their water supply, money and energy into a leaky gravity serer, toons? Have you got your request for "study money" into the county yet?
Richard is quick to admit that the timing decision may have been wrong and even may have cost him (and the others) the election. I don't see Julie and Lisa and the rest of the "move the sewer no matter how much it costs" crowd making similar statements about how they may have been mistaken about how they stopped the project illegally, stole money from the SWRCB, refused to accept the SWRCB's offer to allow them to move the sewer out of town, told the RWQCB to fine individuals and told the RWQCB that those fines should start in 2010. I don't expect you to agree with me on those statements, but I can explain each and every one of them and each and every one of them is far more costly to our community than anything you think Richard may have done. ...Deliously RICH Shark!
I knew RL was pitching...he may have been quick to admit, but has he paid yet?
The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution conserves money, time, energy, land and most importantly water. All of which help to make it "best" bar none.
As you noted yesterday toons, the county is ignoring the RECLAMATED water it has on their table yesterday at office hours. Ignorance in this day and age is "unsustainable", like the leaky sewerage the county consulting engineer is studying.
Is 13 OK?
I love L.O.
Ann,
Your spin regarding my performance as a CSD board member doesn't matter.
Your spin does not matter as I have forgiven all those folks that treated me with such uncivil and childish behavior. Besides, time has made it very clear that the recall was a terrible idea. I know you will chaff at my last statement...but one only needs ask is the CSD better off today compared to the pre-recall CSD.
Your spin does not matter for your words have absolutely no affect on my happiness, the quality of my life, nor alters the love of my wife, family and many close friends.
In short, Ive gotten over 'it'. Maybe in time you will too.
Regards, Richard LeGros
RL,
You ought to have great legs as you are "still" spinning.
Board Members under a recall ought to keep their thumbs off the scale. The law, as Ron Crawford so brilliantly (and for posterity) pointed out, ought to be changed...
Hurrying up the flawed gravity sewer park project bordered on "criminal" (I am working to create the oppourtunity to prove it. Think; sewerage that does not have a pre treatment component here...) and occured on your watch. What color is the sky in your world, brother? Sometimes, I really enjoy not promulgating
I am a big supporter of forgiveness, I just don't forget to remember. As those who do not remember the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them...like: Studying, leaky sewerage and ignoring BADCT.
A return to first principles in a republic is sometimes caused by the simple virtues of one man. His good example has such an influence that the good men strive to imitate him, and the wicked are ashamed to lead a life so contrary to his example.
Niccolo Machiavelli
Mark,
Stop proving to us what an ass you are.
Regards, R
Character is much easier kept than recovered.
Thomas Paine
Mark,
For some reason you've chosen to align yourself with Ron and to criticize Richard. I don't suggest taking sides at all if your goal is selling products or services to the whole town ... but if you are going to choose sides, why in God's name would you choose the side who lied to us during the campaign? Ron, of course, didn't bother investigating the laughable claims of the recall candidates. Hardly the sort of person I would want to align myself with.
Ron has Human Testicular Fortitude and the Back Bone to stand up for what is correct. The sewer park at that site formerly known as the Tri-W was "a big lie" no matter how you "slice it".
I appreciate your point of view, I just don't agree with it.
Mark,
If you're a gonna start talkin' about big lies ... why not mention the recall candidates promise that they had a plan ... out of town ... ready to go ... that would only cost us $100/month?
I don't think that any of the gradual morphing of of the ponding system into MBR at TriW was a lie ... but eventually many folks thought "hey, I don't want TriW which is being sold as 'the only way'." The problem was that by the time these folks ... who hadn't been paying attention and offering input when it was still reasonable to do so ... by the time these folks insisted on a change, the change was too costly to be reasonable. Then some constructed a lie ... a big lie ... that the sewer could be moved and we would save money ... just to stop TriW.
Why wouldn't Ron say anything? Why not Ann? At the time both had ample opportunity to do some research and to let us know that the recall candidates were blowing smoke and that even if their most optimistic hopes were realistic, we would still be in for a soaking if we attempted to move the sewer.
Why did they not pay attention to the trainwreck? Why did they deride my warnings as only "speculation" as a way of giving themselves license to ignore the warnings?
I don't want to belabor the point, but I do want point out that while standing up for what you think is right is important ... what is also important is if what you stand up for is right.
As for my point of view that you appreciate, but don't agree with ... what do you disagree with me about?
You want leaky sewerage, I do not.
mark, get out of your bubble and get with reality for a minute. Show us the years of testing that proves the Wrecklamator works under all sorts of conditions. You aren't giving us that and we aren't buying until you do.
Tom said in a posting of Ann's above, "As the system has only been operating for one week last Friday, the nitrates are not yet where they will soon be as it takes the de-nitrifiers a little longer to develop than the nitrifiers." So some event could make it go off balance at some point, too. That's why we want to see it run over time - sometimes with heavy input sometimes with light or none. By your own definition, it is currently "discharging."
Which brings me to point out that bottle of liquid you brought to the CSD meeting as an example of Wrecklamated water. Did you swab it down with bleach or alcohol before you set it on the podium? I surely hope so. Yuck.
toons, Show us the law which supports your requests.
I see you do not understand process or what the membrane accomplishes.
Denitrofying so well in such a short period of time is the point.
California's water problem has been solved.
The law?
I'm not requesting anything that a CONSUMER does not ordinarily request from a manufacturer - I'm just asking for proof that the Wrecklamator works as promised.
I "get" the technology - it is the same type of technology as was planned for Tr-W. MBR technology for large wastewater facilities has been used many, many other places, processing millions of gallons daily. Show me the data that your mini-MBR works and that the Water Board says they are fine with it, and I'll give you a go.
Don't ask me to join a lawsuit if the Water Board says no, however. Don't drag Los Osos into another financial disaster like that. We already have a bankruptcy to pay for and the tax assessment on the MBR design that was summarily dismissed.
Mark,
There is no law which says you need to provide evidence that your device actually works ... unless you actually want a license to operate your device inside the PZ as an onsite treatment method.
There is also no law which says we ought to buy your services. But we might if we think they might help us. To wit, you might want to honor Toons reasonable request ... even though it has been made ... um ... maybe 100 times.
Why you would ask us to believe your system is better but would be unwilling to demonstrate it is beyond me.
shark, it is beyond me too. I wonder then, maybe there IS NOTHING to demonstrate that it is better? I think I'll go with that thought unless mark wants to show us some data on differently used systems over a reasonable amount of time - say 5 or 10 years.
Toons:
The RECLAMATOR is RECLAMATING in Los Osos. That is better "demonstration" than anything that has actually been done for Los Osos and it didn't cost the citizens a cent. The pollutants from that source have been eliminated. The home is now "sewer exempt". The LOSTDEP is a demonstration project.
You can "go with" whatever you want, even the county's consulting engineer's study of leaky sewerage.
Shark: I will challenge your ascertion that what the QCB3 says about the PZ and correcting the CDO "is law". Think 13360 here.
Toons request(s) should be directed to the county's consulting engineer.
I know everyone is tired of my contention regarding "law" but that's really the only thing holding everyone up. EVERYONE.
The law prevents someone like toons from "preventing" BADCT from being implemented.
I repeat the RECLAMATOR is in operation in the PZ satisfying a 1999 CDO under 13360.
Post a Comment