Calhouns Can(n)ons

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Look Out, Shandon, Nipomo, Santa Margarita, Here They Come

Yes, it’s Roger Briggs & The Gang, now coming to a community near you. And all you people out there in the county’s unincorporated areas laughed at poor Los Osos. Bwa-hahahah. You’re next. Best of all, this Stealth Update, according to the RWQCB documents, has absolutely no environmental impacts that would require any kind of EIR. None. Zip. It’s a miracle!

And, true to form, "public comment," even serious, technically involved and documented public comment, was all quickly dismissed with the usual unsupported bland assertions. Which means this poorly thought through stealth update will not get a serious review (with an eye to actually making it better) and will be rubber stamped and sent up the line for more rubber stamping. The PROBLEMS then that will be caused by a rubber stamped stealth update plan will be visited upon the unincorported areas when it's far TOO LATE to fix the problems and the residents will be abandoned by their county government and will be left at the mercy of Roger Briggs. Just like Los Osos.

All of us here in Sewerville, can't wait to hear their astonished and fearful outcries then. Our response will be Bwa- hahahahah. Told you so. But you didn't listen, did you?

PRESS RELEASE------FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 7, 2008
CONTACT: Gail McPherson, Citizens for Clean Water -PZLDF-805-459-4535 mcp@charter.net

--------San Luis Obispo Ca.

Regional Water Board Changes its Rules for Septic Systems. Targeted communities question their motives, the lack of notice, and public process.

Sweeping changes will affect over 100,000 properties in 7 counties with onsite septic systems, especially in the communities of San Martin, San Lorenzo Valley, Carmel Valley, Carmel Highlands, Prunedale, Arroyo Grande, Nipomo, Upper Santa Ynez Valley, Los Olivos/ Ballard, according to the water Board staff report. However, none of the actual property owners have been notified of the proposed changes. The Regional Water Board will hold a meeting to adopt the resolutions May 9 2008.

The Regional Water Board has the authority to regulate septic systems, and delegates the costs and responsibility for implementing rules to local jurisdictions, such as the County, through Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreements.

The Regional Water Board staff report also states that their agreement with San Luis Obispo County’s permitting of septic systems expired in 2004, and they were dissatisfied with County septic system program performance. Several areas in SLO county rely on septic systems. In addition to Los Osos, Shandon, Templeton, Santa Margarita, Nipomo, and other unincorporated areas in Paso Robles and Atascadero, and in the South County.

The Board of Supervisors recently voted to put a interim verbal agreement in place until the final rules are known. In County staff estimated it will require several additional employees, and additional funding for the already fiscally strapped County.

Citizens for Clean Water, a local watchdog group, claims the Regional Water Board is looking for justification for enforcement action against other targeted communities, and to cover the 4 year lapse in an agreement with the County.

In 2006 the Regional Water Board launched random enforcement against a handful of homeowners with septic systems in Los Osos, and sent notices of violation to all 5000 properties promising stop orders in a streamed-lined enforcement process. Los Osos Citizens filed a defensive lawsuit in May 2007 (CV 070472) that appeals the actions and conduct of the Regional Board. Among the claims is that the agency abused regulatory authority, and did not comply with basic due process and constitutional protections.

The Water Board spokes person, Sorrel Marks has said in the staff report to the Water Board that revisions are minor and only apply to new systems. The revisions are to correct vague and confusing language in current rules. “That is just what was said before, and look at what has happened in Los Osos.” Said Chris Allebe, one of the property owners issued a Cease and Desist Order.

Most would agree that the rules contain confusing language. In fact, the Water board is being challenged on vague language from a similar resolution which used to justify enforcement against Allebe and others in Los Osos in 2006. A similar basin plan revision in 1983, (resolution 83-13) was adopted to accommodate growth. The document stated 1150 more homes could be built, yet placed a septic system prohibition in order to control new discharges. The resolution actually encouraged growth in order to pay for a community sewer. The sewer wasn't built, and a building moratorium in the resolution stopped growth within the prohibition area in 1988. Years later, the resolution has been reinterpreted to force people from homes built before 1988 unless a sewer is constructed by 2011.

The Regional Water Board proposed resolutions to be adopted on May 9th requires local agencies to implement septic management programs, and will allow waivers for existing systems if properties are enrolled in a local program. The waivers can be revoked at any time, and likely won’t apply to Los Osos.

A reading of the staff report and the letters from various agencies request the water board provide more information and postpone adoption of revisions on May 9.

Among the concerns are the costs of the required new programs that must be implemented by the local agencies are unknown and unfunded. The State has been working since 2000 to set statewide septic system standards. Many believe making local changes now, ahead of the proposed statewide plan puts “the cart before the horse’ according to several letters to Water Board staffer that Marks received in response to proposed changes.

According to Gail McPherson, a retired wastewater professional, the normal process for Basin Planning revisions is to notify and involve the stakeholders in the Basin Plan revision process. “A working group approach is completely absent here. The lack of information to justify the action is appalling. The basic who, what, when, where, and how and (how much) for implementation has to be answered. The anticipated cost to taxpayers, and impacts to individuals with septic systems must be explained”. She believes that “this is required information that has either not been thought out beforehand, or is being purposely hidden.”

Some further concerns question the affects on land planning, the environment, changes to the technical criteria for new systems, adding even more vague language, foreclosing on ‘green sewer options’, and the promotion of unsustainable systems that sacrifice affordable housing and granny units.

McPherson Says, “Communities should not expect better treatment in their communities- The punitive and abusive actions by the Regional Water Board against Los Osos spun completely out of control, and we believe individual enforcement orders, and conduct of the Regional Water Board is unconstitutional. McPherson is the spokesperson for Citizens for Clean Water-PZLDF, the non profit group challenging individual enforcement in Los Osos.
END

Link to Water Board Agenda and document for item 9 & 10
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/Board/Agendas/2008/050908/MAY08agn_web.htm
See letters posted from respondents.

More Information: www.pzldf.org CCRWQCB Appeal Lawsuit CV070472: Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund vs.. Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Sorrel Marks
Sanitary Engineering AssociateCentral Coast Water Board895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
805/549-3695 (Sorrel's desk)

Other Contacts:
Sullivan & Associates
Shaunna Sullivan, www.Sullivanlaw.com
805- 528-3355

Central Coast RWQCB
Michael Thomas
805-788-3571
mthomas@waterboards.ca.gov

40 comments:

Unknown said...: Anne, I think you are going to have to drop the "stealth" thing... due in large part to you and a few others that brought this issue to the forefront, it is no longer a secret.

I am sure the water board will produce the hundreds of letters it got from people complaining this is a secret as proof it is not a secret... add to that the New Times story and the issues brought up by the LOCSD and Atascadero City Council and they could say the cat's out of the bag.

Keep up the good fight about the content of this plan, but it's no longer a secret.; 8:15 AM, May 08, 2008
Ron said...: This is funny.

I clicked on the comments section to write something like, "You know, Ann, if it wasn't for me and you writing about it, I wouldn't know anything about this important story."

And then I saw Steven's comment:

"... add to that the New Times story..."

The reporter that wrote that story, Kathy Johnston, is a friend of mine, and the reason she knew about the story is because I told her about it last weekend over a beer.

That's funny. She's goooood. Well done K.J.

Now we can compare and contrast.

Yin:

I tipped Kathy to the story, and in just a few days, she's all over it.

Yang:

On April 28, I sent Sandra Duerr, editor of the Tribune, this e-mail:

- - -
Hello Mrs. Duerr,

On sanluisobispo.com today, you wrote:

"Do you have a question about the newspaper, our Web site or our coverage? If so, please write me c/o The Tribune..."

I have a question regarding your coverage.

In a recent SLO County staff report, Barry Tolle, a waste water specialist for the county, wrote, "In areas like Santa Margarita (with clay soils, high groundwater and frequent flooding), this [Mandatory Septic Management Programs] could create a defacto septic moratorium."

I phoned Mr. Tolle and asked him if that meant that Santa Margarita could become a "Los Osos," with no new building until a sewer is built?

He said, "Yes, it's very possible," and added, "In about a year."

That staff report was released over two weeks ago, but I have yet to see a story in the Tribune regarding the sweeping changes the local Water Board is planning for SLO County.

Here's my question: Is your paper going to cover this extremely important story -- a story that impacts everyone that owns a septic system in the county?

I've been writing about it at my blog: http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

It's very interesting.

Thank you for your time,
Ron
- - -

Not only have they not covered the story at all, like Johnston, Duerr never even replied to my e-mail.

Hey, Trib, how's that subscription base coming along?

You know, they've been whining a lot lately about how they've been forced to make cuts due to cost reasons. Has it ever occurred to them that, if they didn't suck, people would actually subscribe to their paper?; 9:20 AM, May 08, 2008
Unknown said...: Ron, I am glad the story is getting traction and I credit you and Anne for getting it going. I should have mentioned you in the first posting here...

The reason for my first post is that it seems the opposition to this "stealthy" action is the fact that noone knows about it. Once you get a ton of people to come forward and complain that noone knows about it, you have defeated your own tactic... and proven that everyone no knows (at least the water board will make the link between a few letters and "everyone").

So I am suggesting Ann drop the "stealth" bit and focus moro on the content... there's plenty there to complain about...

... and the more you spread that word the more irrelevant "stealth" becomes.; 10:25 AM, May 08, 2008
Churadogs said...: Steve sez:"So I am suggesting Ann drop the "stealth" bit and focus moro on the content... there's plenty there to complain about...

... and the more you spread that word the more irrelevant "stealth" becomes."

One of my main complaints about all this has been THIS particular Water Board's PROCESS. THIS kind of stuff is UNNECESSARY but is TYPICAL of how they do business. STEALTH updates with minimal notice and no effort to involve the public and other stakeholders does nothing to foster confidence that THIS board either knows what they're doing or isn't trying to pull a fast one. As I point out in one of my comments, involving the stakeholders early-on allows for GOOD comments and input that can make a plan BETTER. Instead, we have a STEALTH PROCESSthat -- from past history -- will likely result in messes farther down the line and the kind of stuff that happened in Los Osos where -- Surprise! the doors close to any changes years ago so the community, who knew bupkis about 83-12, for example, are legally trapped with a BAD plan. Same kind of thinking is going on here, which is why I call it STEALTH -- it's a STEALTH PROCESS, it's INTENDED to be a STEALTH PROCESS, that's how THIS PARTICULAR Board operates and it's BAD. Worse, it's UNNECESSARY. But it seems like they don't know any other way to operate.

Steve also sez:"So I am suggesting Ann drop the "stealth" bit and focus moro on the content... there's plenty there to complain about..."

You make my point entirely. IF the waterboard hadn't use the STEALTH PROCESS, had worked with the county to involved the stakeholders (septic tank owners, builders, etc.) UP FRONT, in PUBLIC input sessions, a lot of the content in this draft that present lots to complain about, could have been resolved BEFORE a draft was sent to the Board for acceptance, and from there to the state.In other words, FIX THE PROBLEMS FIRST, THEN present the draft for re-review, THEN . . and etc. That's the proper, open way to do this stuff. But, nooooo. That's not the way THIS board does business. They do it the STEALTH WAY.

HAven't seen New Times, but if Kathy Johnston's on the case, Hooray. As for the Trib. Feh. Asleep at the switch, AGAIN.; 7:14 AM, May 09, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: If process is so important (and I believe it is), why are you castigating the RWQCB who did follow their process to the letter (if not the spirit) when you did nothing of the sort when the recall LOCSD board followed neither the letter nor the spirit when stopping TriW, when approving pay outs to BWS and when retroactively approving Dan Blesky's mis-management of funds?

As for stealth, the recall LOCSD board had it in spades ... yet no complaints from Ann about stealth or a lack of transparency or process.

I wonder whether the issue here really isn't process but rather something else.

That's just my take on Ann's comments without any opinion on the basin plan update itself.; 10:57 AM, May 09, 2008
Realistic1 said...: Ann does love her euphamisms.

"Nudge, nudge, wink, wink..."

"Thumbs on the scale"

and now -

"Stealth Update"

She'll use them until the next one comes along.; 12:20 PM, May 09, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: God I hope that "hide the salami" doesn't come back again ... she never seems to use the phrase right.; 1:09 PM, May 09, 2008
Unknown said...: Realistic1

You forgot, "Pounding the money into the ground".; 2:52 PM, May 09, 2008
Realistic1 said...: Another classic - how could I forget that one. She certainly used it enough.

I wonder why she hasn't come up with a phrase for all of the cash the post-recall board has funneled to their ineffectual lawyers.; 3:45 PM, May 09, 2008
Unknown said...: Haven't heard "Scorched Earth" in awhile either... maybe because Jeff and Julie want to develop it...???; 5:40 PM, May 09, 2008
Churadogs said...: Inlet Sez:"If process is so important (and I believe it is), why are you castigating the RWQCB who did follow their process to the letter (if not the spirit) when you did nothing of the sort when the recall LOCSD board followed neither the letter nor the spirit when stopping TriW, when approving pay outs to BWS and when retroactively approving Dan Blesky's mis-management of funds?"

Let's see here: Process. There was a very public recall. There was a public vote on an Initiative (also a public process to get that on a ballot) People voted in the very public recall & very public initiative. The Vote was certified and open to public challenge. The newly elected board voted at public meetings not to violate Measure B, and so stopped Tri W. All kinds of Public meetings were held, lots of them, the good old October Compromise meetings, etc. all publicaly noticed, etc. and, as part of the the Process, with lots of public comment. The Public commented. The Board voted. etc.etc.etc. All of that was part of a Process of Recall, a Process of voting in Initiative, a process of Public meetings, Public Comment, Public votes, etc.

Is Inlet saying that's somhow Not A Process? Or is the problem that Inlet doesn't like the outcome of that Process?; 7:48 AM, May 10, 2008
Watershed Mark said...: Ann,
The "anonymice" sure are squeaking...

Keep up the great "write"!; 9:50 AM, May 10, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

Even if the recall was about stopping TriW "no matter how much it costs", the other two stealth measures by the post-recall board were certainly hidden from the public until the last minute.

That you only address the 1st of the three examples I gave makes me curious. Are you saying that you believe that Blesky's illegal action which the board only approved after the fact and without proper noticing and public comment was somehow following process?

When the RWQCB follows their process Ann squawks that they are trying stealth measures but when the post recall LOCSD board doesn't follow the process we get silence.

I think that Ann's issue here isn't whether the process is followed correctly but something else entirely.

Someone truly concerned with the spirit of the process and not just the letter would have squawked rather loudly when the LOCSD board schedules the announcement of the results of one closed session vote at any time but the start of the next available open meeting. Similarly, anyone concerned with spirit of transparency would be opposed to the board not reporting the financial status of the LOCSD during meetings before votes are taken to spend gazillions on consultants. Putting the LOCSD into debt without informing the public that this would be the result of a vote is not transparent by any stretch.; 1:42 PM, May 10, 2008
Unknown said...: There is also something about the legitimacy of Measure B, the cornerstone of halting a legal project.

"The newly elected board voted at public meetings not to violate Measure B, and so stopped Tri W."

Wasn't Measure B struck down and in fact wasn't worth the paper it was written on?

In the spirit of the illusion of being a lawfully elected Board, shouldn't they have waited a tad longer before halting the project? They didn't just "temporarily" halt the project, they went hell bent on destruction of any form of local government straight down the sure path to bankruptcy. No one in this community can say that the LOCSD is in any way in control of the Waste Water Treatment System coming our way!

There has been NO PROCESS followed by the post recall Directors. They have simply blundered along considering themselves above the laws of California.; 3:09 PM, May 10, 2008
Churadogs said...: Mike sez:"Wasn't Measure B struck down and in fact wasn't worth the paper it was written on?"

At the time the recall was certified and the new board seated, Measure B was still "legal" according to the legal Process of court ruling, appeal, etc.

As for Inlet's sqawk, Why didn't he start an immediate recall when learning of Blesky's/Board's "illeagal?" "improper" "non-processian" actions? Or, heck, start a recall when it dawned on him that the original TriW was based on a non-existent "Community held value," and thereby was based on an official lie by an official elected body to official appointed regulators. And so forth.; 5:50 AM, May 11, 2008
Watershed Mark said...: The District owns and operates approximately 40 linear miles of sewer pipeline ranging in size from 6-inches to 24-inches in diameter. There are approximately 800 maintenance holes and cleanouts in the system, which are openings used by District staff to access the network of buried pipes for cleaning and inspection purposes.

The wastewater collection system was constructed as the City of Carpinteria and surrounding areas developed. Many sewerlines in the downtown area were built in the 1930's. The District recently completed a comprehensive condition assessment of its buried infrastructure. The results of this study will be the basis for an ongoing pipeline rehabilitation and replacement program.

There are six wastewater pump stations located within the collection system that are necessary to convey flow to the wastewater treatment plant. These pump stations have redundant pumping equipment and are designed to handle peak wet weather flow rates.

A staff of three highly trained individuals is assigned to the operation and maintenance of the system. The crew is responsible for pipeline cleaning, root control, smoke testing, CCTV inspection as well as onsite industrial inspections and public information.

http://www.carpsan.com/facilities/collection_system.htm

Why would anyone want to leave a "sewer" as their legacy, in this day of technology...?; 3:42 PM, May 11, 2008
Watershed Mark said...: Think SLO County can do 40 miles in LO with 3 people?; 3:44 PM, May 11, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: That's right Ann, a recall is the best solution to all problems.

Perhaps you forget that you've told us over and over again that people hate recalls. Perhaps I considered the action and figured that the cost and effort weren't worth it, once balancing out the costs and benefits (if any).

Perhaps I just thought that if Blesky's actions were, indeed, illegal, the public waste portion of the lawsuit against the boardmembers who voted for the action would allow the district to recover the money the board wasted.

Again, I find it curious that you don't address the question of why Blesky never presented any budget information at the meetings even though he was asked to do so by the public. Was he so inept that he didn't have current financial statements ... and if this was the case, the board should have fired him on the spot ... or was he follow board direction to obscure from the public information necessary to guide public comment on the very issues this board was dealing with?; 3:47 PM, May 11, 2008
Churadogs said...: Inlet sez:"Perhaps I just thought that if Blesky's actions were, indeed, illegal, the public waste portion of the lawsuit against the boardmembers who voted for the action would allow the district to recover the money the board wasted."

So, has that happened? Where's that lawsuit now? If the CSD comes out of bankruptcy will it go forward? Why don'tyou create an initiative wherein everyone in the PZ can cough up a few bucks each to continue the Breach of Contract lawsuit. That way we'd be able to put everybody under oath, old board, new board, old GM, new GM, all GMs. and ask them for the information you want. I've stated here I think this community needs a Truth and Reconciliation Hearing. Baring that, then maybe the Breach of Contract lawsuit would have to do. It needs to go forward and I guess the only way for that to happen is if folks like you get the community to cough up the dough to pay the CSD attorneys to go ahead with it.

Inlet also sez:"Again, I find it curious that you don't address the question of why Blesky never presented any budget information at the meetings even though he was asked to do so by the public. Was he so inept that he didn't have current financial statements ... and if this was the case, the board should have fired him on the spot ... or was he follow board direction to obscure from the public information necessary to guide public comment on the very issues this board was dealing with?"

Again, I don't get the point of your sqwak. Did you ask, at the time, at the CSD meetings? Did you file public records requests. (Irony here, pre-recall folks filed those and were shined on. Post recall folks filed those and if they were shined on, nobody did anything about it anyway. We've got sauce for goose and gander.

If you want to really know what the hell happened here, then this community needs to move forward with the Breach of Contract lawsuit. And you need to go beat the bushes to raise wahtever private money you can for whatever lawsuit you feel is necessary to get everyone in court and under oath and under penalty of perjury. PZLDF is struggling along trying to protect the rights of some CDO recipients and thereby protect the rights of everyone in the PZ and I sure don't see you supporting their efforts. So, go start your own fund-raising efforts to sue whoever you want if you want "The Truth."

I suggest a Truth and Reconciliation since those type of hearings carry with them Amnsesty for people who come forward and actually tell the truth and a big hammer for those who don't. At this point, if this community wants to heal, a full accounting of what the hell happened here, starting with the original late 1970's scheme to "make a finding" and thereby get federal funds for a sewer. It's a hell of a story.; 7:06 AM, May 12, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

People asked for budget info. This info was not provided. How can you reasonably expect informed public comment on issues like whether paying Ripley or Wildan for studies on options when we don't know the amount in the bank. This is like suggesting that a consumer who has no idea of whether they are flush or in debt should be able to make a wise decision about whether to buy a Volvo wagon. Certainly if one knows how much she has in the bank the car variety decision can be wisely made ... but without that info, input from others is pretty useless.

As for your truth and reconciliation suggestion ... what if it comes out via that process that it is the recall folks who appear to have simply misunderstood the gravity of the situation (pun intended), the nature of the laws which govern the process and the necessity of actually trying to follow through on promised made.

Sure, the recall candidates ran on a platform of stopping TriW "no matter how much it costs" (and that statement alone should have frightened the hell out of voters), but they also promised us they had a plan, that it would be $100/month and that they would be open and transparent. They seem to have followed through on only one of their promises.

That they've never ever ever ever shown anyone their plan strongly suggests they didn't have one that would justify their $100/month promises. In the very same way that Ron has pointed out that the $38/month promise of the Solutions Group casts doubt on the formation of the CSD in the first place, the recall candidates promises cast doubt on the recall. Many have said "if you had just told us the truth about the likely results of your proposed actions we would never ever have voted for you." Twice.

Ann, If you want to really know what the hell happened here, then you've got to attempt to come to terms with the financial and legal facts, something that you appear to never have even tried. I've been claiming since before the recall, that a recall would end up costing us a lot. You blew me off saying that my concern was just speculation. You didn't even bother checking my calcs or proposing alternative assumptions which would have allowed for a re-calculation of various costs based on what you would view as likely or reasonable. When the LOCSD board stopped TriW without first checking with the SWRCB as the contract specifies, they screwed up. You've never addressed this issue ... but it is clearly in the contract. The October negotiations resulted in a possibility for the LOCSD to pursue out-of-town as they asked for ... as long as they would take out a bridge loan to protect the SRF loan until a 218 vote would be taken ... but the LOCSD didn't take out such a loan because it they couldn't afford it ... but then turned around and hired Ripley for half a million dollars within a few months.

These financial and legal issues abound and the current board seems to be blissfully unaware. Anyone who wants to form an informed opinion on these matters must consider these questions.; 9:13 AM, May 12, 2008
Churadogs said...: Inlet sez:"As for your truth and reconciliation suggestion ... what if it comes out via that process that it is the recall folks who appear to have simply misunderstood the gravity of the situation (pun intended), the nature of the laws which govern the process and the necessity of actually trying to follow through on promised made."

Truth & Reconciliation (and/or a bunch of breach of contract lawsuits or a Federal Investigation of just how that SRF loan was released & etc and/or whatever) are always premised on Let The Chips Fall Where They May. Right now, there's too much that's buried and until that all comes to light -- including back room deals and wink-nudge, thumbs on the scale items and "questionable" decisions, this community is flying blind. And if you take this back to 1970, it's clear to me that this community has been flying blind for a long, long time.

Inlet also sez:"When the LOCSD board stopped TriW without first checking with the SWRCB as the contract specifies, they screwed up. You've never addressed this issue ... but it is clearly in the contract."

Where is the evidence of just who pulled the plug and when? That time line is still missing. The CSD stopped the contractors for their 90-day stand down (per the contract) Now, just who and when, exactly, stopped the 2nd disbursment of the SRF loan? THAT, so far as I know, is what precipitated the cascade and that's what the breach of contract lawsuit might well figure out, but it's stalled and/or dead. And if it gets buried, the facts will also get buried with it, and this community will likely never know.

Inlet sez;"I've been claiming since before the recall, that a recall would end up costing us a lot. You blew me off saying that my concern was just speculation."

What you did was run a bunch of numbers. What I did was say, Wait and see how this shakes out. I still say that. And interestingly, the TAC numbers kept coming up with Tri W, for example, costing MORE, not Less, which meant this whole thing was goofy. Until the county comes back with real numbers on their various proposals, we won't know how much this train wreck will end up costing. And if the Breach of contract suit is buried, we'll also never know just who did what. And if a sweet deal is cut with the SWB regarding the SRF loan (because it's never determined who did what) and that can be quietly added (wink nudge) with no one the wiser and then buried & etc. then this town will have been screwed -- again. Which is why I keep saying we need a full investigation of all this stuff -- under oath. With legal and criminal penalties hanging overhead.

Will that happen? When pigs fly. There's too much at stake here. It will be covered up and buried and the bill stuck onto Los Osos homeowners. As it has been from 1970 onwards. The County, the State and the contractors and the Coastal Commission and the Planning Commission, the RWQCB, the SWB, the Feds (oversight of federal $$),the CSDs and the community members (asleep at the switch) will NEVER take their share of responsibility for ANY of this. Worse, none of this had to happen in the first place, either. That's the tragedy.; 7:51 AM, May 13, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

The SRF contract specifies that the LOCSD is not allowed to stop work for any reason without first obtaining permission from the SWRCB ... with the special exceptions of buried artifacts and the like. You say that there is a 90 day stand down clause. I remember reading this claim somewhere before. Could you tell us where this clause is in the contract and the conditions which would allow the LOCSD to exercise this stand down clause. Last time I remember reading the contract looking for this clause in particular, I recall thinking "well, that didn't happen, I guess we're in trouble." I think that should that breach of contract lawsuit progress you will be disappointed that the LOCSD didn't obtain a legal opinion on whether their actions would be a problem before taking those actions.

As for your ignoring of my financial warnings ... I find it humorous that you tell us to be aware and watch out and that the train is heading for the bridge that is out and all that ... but when I present a reasoned argument for why we should watch out that the "move the sewer no matter how much it costs" group will hurt our community, you say "well, let's just see what happens". A wise person would at least take such warnings under advisement and check the calculations or consider questions like "under what circumstances would moving the sewer not be a financial nightmare?" To advocate for the recall as you did ... without first checking out the facts ... is unconscionable.

As to the question of the TAC report indicating that TriW is more expensive. Now both Maria and I have explained how you are wrong in your continued misinterpretation of TAC documents ... I wonder how you can justify to yourself your continued misuse of these documents.

If you're a gonna say that the various other agencies will never take their share of responsibility (and I agree with you that at least the County has a whole lot of responsibility here), what about the LOCSD recall board? When are they going to step up and admit that they're part of the reason this train wreck is soooooooo expensive. Lucy, ju got a lotta 'splainin to do!; 9:00 AM, May 13, 2008
Watershed Mark said...: The SRF contract specifies that the LOCSD is not allowed to stop work for any reason without first obtaining permission from the SWRCB ... with the special exceptions of buried artifacts and the like.

A great reason not to utilize the government system.; 2:26 PM, May 13, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

Now you're in favor of destroying Native American artifacts ... sheesh!; 2:53 PM, May 13, 2008
Watershed Mark said...: I'm against leaky "SEWER PIPE" that feed failure prone treatment facility.; 2:58 PM, May 13, 2008
Watershed Mark said...: "Government" mandated leaky sewerage..
§ 13360. Manner of compliance
(a) No waste discharge requirement or other order of a
regional board or the state board or decree of a court
issued under this division shall specify the design,
location, type of construction, or particular manner in
which compliance may be had with that requirement,
order, or decree, and the person so ordered shall be
permitted to comply with the order in any lawful manner.
However, the restrictions of this section shall not apply to
waste discharge requirements or orders or decrees with
respect to any of the following:; 3:02 PM, May 13, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Mark didn't deny he is in favor of destroying Native American artifacts .... sheesh!; 6:09 PM, May 13, 2008
Watershed Mark said...: Shark,

Sheesh is right.

I think my position about Native American Burial sites/artifacts has ben made clear in my previous postings.

For the record, again, I am not in favor of 40 miles of sewerage that can disturb burial grounds and artifacts.; 6:47 PM, May 13, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: For the record, I am not afraid of leaky pipes ... but that doesn't keep Mark from saying so.; 10:41 PM, May 13, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Nice link to Shaunna - a relative perhaps?

Welcome to the future home of jamesj_sullivan.web.aplus.net

To access your account control panel, please visit: https://cp.aplus.net

For technical support information, please visit our Knowledge Base: http://www.apluskb.com

General instructions on getting started with your new web hosting package:

Place your HTML pages into the /html directory.

Place your CGIs into the /cgi-bin directory. You can place and run any CGI under /html as well, but it should end with .cgi or .pl.

To make a subdomain sub.yourdomain.com, just create subdirectories /sub and /sub/html, and place files related to your subdomain into /sub/html. You can create /sub/cgi-bin and use it as CGI directory.

The subdirectory /logs (read-only) contains your raw access log. It refreshes hourly, and rotates daily with maximum history one month.

The subdirectory /stats (read-only) contains your web statistics based on the above log. These stats are being re-generated at least once a day.

The file /.passwd is used for Control Panel authentication and should not be modified nor used for any other purposes. (Yadda, yadda - Message truncated!); 11:42 PM, May 13, 2008
Unknown said...: Just what will Marklamator do when native North American Continent remains are uncovered when excavating a 20 ft wide by 20 ft long by 15 ft deep pit in the front yard of each and every home in the Los Osos Valley?

If the same crew that dug the pit for the first Wrecklamator are of any indication of "trained" professionals, then we might just as well turn loose a real excavation company down every street in Los Osos! The damage won't be any more than having 5000 canyons dug in every yard and will probably be considerably less!

Now Marklamator will probably defend his position by saying "trust me" and then a few quotes from folks who never had to put in a sewer or a Wrecklamator, but he will never put facts on the table as to just how BIG the OSHA LEGAL excavation with proper shoreing, needs to be, so my assumptions are every bit as accurate as his until PROVEN incorrect!!!

Remember, a 20 ft wide by 20 ft long by 15 ft deep pit will need to be excavated in the front yard of each and every home in the Los Osos Valley!!!; 12:24 AM, May 14, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Mark wrote: "I think my position about Native American Burial sites/artifacts has ben made clear in my previous postings."

Prove it! Give us a quote from your earlier postings (and tell us where we can find it).

Unless you can prove that you've written before about artifacts, we know that you really are in favor of their destruction.

Sheesh!; 7:26 AM, May 14, 2008
Realistic1 said...: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the streets of Los Osos already been dug up to install water lines? Were artifacts discovered then? If not, why would they be discovered now? Aren't the streets of Los Osos being dug up as we speak to replace the above mentioned water lines? Is the guy pushing the (w)rec(k)lamator using the same fear-based marketing tactics that Ron whats-his-name is always whining about?

Just asking.; 4:10 PM, May 14, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: The reason Mark is such a fan of the reclamator is that he relishes the opportunity to dig up everyone's yard and destroy the many Chumash artifacts he'll find there. He knows that if we dig up streets to put in a pipe and if we use the TriW site for a treatment plant we won't find anything new there. The whole reclamator thing is a big ruse to distract us from his real intention, to destroy all remaining aspects of Chumash culture.

He's also the one who booked Three Dog Night to play in the Chumash Casino as another part of this plan.; 9:23 AM, May 15, 2008
Churadogs said...: Inlet sez;"The SRF contract specifies that the LOCSD is not allowed to stop work for any reason without first obtaining permission from the SWRCB ... with the special exceptions of buried artifacts and the like. You say that there is a 90 day stand down clause. I remember reading this claim somewhere before. Could you tell us where this clause is in the contract and the conditions which would allow the LOCSD to exercise this stand down clause. Last time I remember reading the contract looking for this clause in particular, I recall thinking "well, that didn't happen, I guess we're in trouble." I think that should that breach of contract lawsuit progress you will be disappointed that the LOCSD didn't obtain a legal opinion on whether their actions would be a problem before taking those actions."

It's in the contracts with the contractors.; 7:08 AM, May 16, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Okay then ... if the LOCSD has a contract with their contractors which says the LOCSD can suspend work for a period of 90 days but the LOCSD has a contract with the SWRCB who "owns" the project which says they won't stop work unless the stoppage is approved in advance by the SWRCB, don't you think that the "stand down" clause you refer to is just plain irrelevant to the question at hand, whether the LOCSD had the right to stop work? Sure, both contracts clauses refer to stopping work, but only the contract with the SWRCB is relevant to the question at hand.; 10:21 AM, May 16, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Well, then, it makes perfect sense that the owners of the money (the State) might think their money had the potential for misuse if no one was working and there was no plan, as Lisa stated at the December Water Board hearings (-and possibly earlier and elsewhere).

Now - what was it that happened to the money that was disbursed before the project was stopped? Some was paid out for filling in the trenches and repaving the streets (was THAT even legal?) Of course we know that money could NOT have be used to start drawing up another, different project. (What money did the new Board think they had anyway to start from scratch? Did they plan to come to us with a 218 to raise the money to do this? Was this a campaign promise? The old Board paid $20 million for plans. Which we are still paying back.)

So what exactly did new Board do with the State money? Do I hear the echo of BWS floating in the air?

Just when did the contractors go after the new Board? After the 90 days was up and no work or money was ahead of them? Why wouldn't they sue? Wouldn't you?; 12:54 PM, May 16, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Let's consider an analogy.

Mom asks the weeds to be pulled by 5pm unless there is a gopher ... in which case the daughter should tell mom. Mom also says that the daughter may enlist the help of friends if she wants. Daughter had earlier talked to neighbor kid who agreed to help if daughter calls asking for help.

Daughter doesn't call neighbor and only does a half-assed job on 1/5 of the yard.

At 5pm mom is angry because the daughter didn't complete the task.

When the daughter says "there wasn't a gopher but I thought that because my friend didn't help I wasn't obliged to finish" ... mom laughs and doesn't provide allowance. Daughter sues for breech of contract. Ann asks for a truth and reconcilliation commission to explore who was at fault. Many including Ann suggest it was mom's fault that daughter didn't do her job or that it was the fault of that pesky brother who didn't pull the weeds either.; 2:01 PM, May 16, 2008
Watershed Mark said...: Shark:
Too bad your not on my blind copy list.
Interesting that you think I know what is below up to 25/35 feet deep through an unknown 40+ mile under ground excavation.

Anyway here are some cut and paste RE: Native American Burial site disturbances.

Water Supply Pipe is not buried very deep at all "REAL1".

Watershed Mark said...
Shark,

Sorry, I can't give you credit for knowing "numbers" because you want a big leaky/polluting pipe the cost of which is unknown as digging 40+ miles of deep trench in sandy conditions comes with "unknowns". Think Native American Burial site, cave in/dewatering/etc. here. Good news for the "I love a big Public Works Project" people, bad news for those people who pay for it. See what I mean about the numbers.

I see again you do not understand "data" or "demonstrated" as embodied in the NSF Nitrogen Series.

Can you show us the data the county's consulting engineer has provided? Didn't think so....

You stick with what you want, it is a free country.
I guess pointing out the lack of discussion put forward by the county's consulting engineer regarding exfiltration even as the county put out a PIS document delinating 500 gpd/mile/in on pipe is off topic.(Have you read SLOCO PIS or any of the TM's?)

When are you going to start that "I LOVE A BIG LEAKY/POLLUTING PIPE , NO MATTER HOW STUPID OR HOW MUCH IT COSTS" Blogspot?

Don't worry we shall continue to continue. That is a fact you can count on.
2:39 PM, April 05, 2008

As far as blaming one administration or another what about "Congress"? The Administration cannot write a budget, only Congress can and there are no "term limits" for these budget writers.

You have a front row center seat at the "Government" in action show.
The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution.

If you didn't receive today’s mail, get it, or you are really going to be out of the loop. The mail I will be sending out over the next few days will be very useful to those who are still reading with an open mind. For everyone else they can stick with the county's sewerage study process. I continue to be interested how they will pay for all that resource of value coming out of the RECLAMATOR...I hope they will choose to study that, as long as they are not studying, exfiltration, carbon footprint and Native American Burial Site disturbance among other "things"...they should have the time and money.
10:30 PM, March 08, 2008
Pathetic Mark! Take your sorry butt to some country that will appreciate you for the slime you really are!!!
Mike, relax- its called "sarcasim".
The USA is the greatest Nation on God's Green Earth Brother..Bar NONE.

Los Osos will be the Silicon Valley of Water RECLAMATION. Think World Visionary here...
10:45 AM, February 27, 2008

For the record the lots in LO/BP were "cleared" by the state/county for installation of septic tanks already in the ground.

Usually a RECLAMATOR is installed in that tank's place.

I think that sewerage is an unnecessary threat to any potential burial sites, which I am against.

I see you still don't offer "cite" regrding your claims...

I saw Three Dig Night in Avalon, Santa Catalina, Calfornia 20 years ago. When were they at the Casino?
"How can people be so heartless?"
I Love L.O.!

Toons: The government gets the money it loans by borrowing from bonds backed by the people treasure.
So the money suppiled by SRF program is not "their money", but you know that, already.; 3:11 PM, May 16, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Loans at 2.3% are a deal mark. Where do you intend to get your money to build 5,000 Wrecklamators?

It wasn't the new Board's money to spend as they pleased however, and that is what they did.

PS mark - you are threatening to sue the State Water for $600 billion? That was a misprint, right? Hilarious! Oh, and if you win - whose pocket will that money come out of?

For those interested (Ann), here is what I found on the State Water Board loan page:

California State Water Board's Annual Report

2005/2006

5. Credit Risk of the CWSRF
Each loan recipient must pledge one or more dedicated sources of revenue toward
repayment of its CWSRF loan. Dedicated sources of revenue can be sewer rate revenue
pledges, general tax pledges, or other contractual income.

As of June 30, 2006, the CWSRF had no defaults, but had one loan agreement
termination. The termination was necessary because the applicant, the Los Osos
Community Services District (District), stopped its project in late 2005. The State
Board officially terminated the loan agreement on December 13, 2005. The District’s
action did not comply with federal and State requirements that SRF projects can only
be funded if they are constructed according to the approved facilities plan and designs
and specifications. $6,486,144 was disbursed to the District for the planning, design
and partial construction of this project as of today. The Water Board intends to
vigorously pursue all legal means to recover the disbursed funds and anticipates the
recovery of all funds.; 12:38 AM, May 17, 2008

Pages

Thursday, May 08, 2008

40 comments: