Will The Real Number Please Stand Up?
The following remarks were made at the last TAC meeting by Dr. Ruehr. Should we presume the questions he raises will actually be answered in the EIR? Stay tuned. Posted with permission
May 12, 2008
My name is Tom Ruehr and I live within one block of this building. I have served on the Los Osos Nitrate TAC and the Waste Water Alternatives TAC plus I have served on the County Biosolids Taskforce.
The critical issue is treated waste water reuse or disposal.
First, testing at the Broderson site resulted in a water “infiltration” rate of 180 gallons per day per square foot “through the wetted surface of the trench” during prototype testing. This must have included side walls!
Second, the Fugro West 2004 study recommended using a maximum application rate value of 30 gallons of treated waste water per day per square foot.
Whereas, the previous sewer project in 2001 determined a recommended rate of 7 gallons of treated waste water per day per square foot.
Third, the Broderson site percolation rate data in 2003 indicate all sites had percolation rates greater than one minute to percolate one inch of treated waste water.
Table 2 and Figure 1 of the March 2007 draft law AB 885 says under these conditions, a maximum application rate is 1.2 gallons of treated waste water per day per square foot.
What is the correct value? 180, or 30, or 7 or 1.2?
As a soil scientist, I know a sustained water application rate of the lowest rate of 1.2 gallons of waste water per day per square foot can not be sustained on the Los Osos dune sands.
These sands are permeated with thousands of horizontal pencil thin clay lamellae. These lamellae cause water to move faster horizontally than vertically.
Bottom line is the Broderson site is dead in the water for high rate waste water application as is every other possible site any where on the Los Osos dune sheet.
This is an absolute fatal flaw in the proposed sewer. I made this known in 1992 and the County has tried to cover this up since then.
What must be done?
One: The citizens of Los Osos deserve a thorough explanation of why various engineering firms have chosen these values and why no agreement has been reached after millions of dollars of studies.
Comparable values in units of gallons of waste water per day per square foot should be used in all calculations, rather than hiding data by using other units of measurement.
Two: We must have an independent reassessment by an outside unbiased recognized authority to determine the one waste water application rate to use.
Three: This result must be dealt with appropriately in the Environmental Impact Report.
Four: The final proposed sewer project must have an effective and environmentally sound and unified collection, treatment and waste water application system.
It must not be segmented with the idea of solving the waste water application system in the future.
This fatal flaw will cause EACH residence of Los Osos to have to pay over 1 million dollars to fix this problem created by the inability of these studies to provide a single unified value.
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)
-
▼
May
(12)
- Your Monday PoemOops, got busy Sunday, and am now ...
- Yup, Déjà vu Some MoreI’m sure Neil Ferrell’s exce...
- Calhoun’s Cannons, The Bay News, Tolosa Press, SLO...
- Your Sunday PoemThis one from Billy Collins from h...
- Will The Real Number Please Stand Up?The following...
- Design Build ReminderThe following Press Release, ...
- And Now, A Word From Our On The Spot CDO Recipient...
- STOP THE PRESSES! No, wait, START YOUR COMPUTERS!...
- Calhoun’s Can(n)ons, The Bay News, Tolusa Press, S...
- Look Out, Shandon, Nipomo, Santa Margarita, Here T...
- A Sunday PoemA NOTELife is the only wayto get cove...
- Why Does Mother Calhoun Have To ‘Splain This AGAIN...
-
▼
May
(12)
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.
26 comments:
Along with the diversity in the percolation data there's a diversity in the cost data. There's also a difference between the $15,000 assessment and Dr. Ruehr's $1,000,000 per property cost. Where does he get that number?
A million bucks per household?
Is that a misprint?
Talk about needing "real" numbers.
Maybe there is a bit of reason behind the County not responding to Dr Ruehr's input? But then, maybe it's just part of the great government conspiracy?
The ROCK is a big supporter of Dr. Ruehr…
Actually the million isn't all that much compared to Tom Murphy's threatened claim against the state for $1,095,000,000,000. If that gets divided up among the Los Osans it comes to $219 millon per household.
Prefix: Where did you get the $15,000.00 assessment figure?
There are a number of engineers that have made this same observation. There is an EXTREME desire by both the design firms and the State to keep downplaying this as both MWH and the CCRWQB will be exposed to some serious liability issues. Just follow the money. I wonder if the State Auditor should take a look at this issue?
DAN BLESKY, You are spot on the money. County could want a project no matter the cost to/toll on the people and their environment.
Supervisor Gibson;
I appreciated your putting me onto Will Clemens during your office hours at Sea Pines a couple of weeks ago.
After our initial meeting with Will, we submitted a public records request for documents not currently in the public domain relating to SLO County’s Sewerage Study Process, including but not limited to the contracts, billings and supporting documentation for the county’s consulting engineering activity.
Patrick Sparks Esq. and staff will be conducting the examination and copying of documents.
He will be available from 2 p.m. to 5 p.m. in the conference room located in your county’s public works department to answer questions concerning the Los Osos/Baywood Park septic tank discharge elimination project and the opportunity to ask questions regarding the RECLAMATOR “sewerless” Solution.
Everyone reading this invitation to attend this “Office Hours” session is welcome.
Learning more about the information available from Patrick during this opportunity will conserve precious resources and time.
I hope you and the other “invitees” can make some time to attend.
We continue to expect that the “RECLAMATOR” Solution will be submitted to the CCRWQCB by the those in the County Government legally responsible for doing so.
Best regards,
Mark Low
AES DES LLC.
480.363.1154
528...where are you???
Where did you get the $15,000.00 assessment figure?
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2008 9:01 PM
To: BGibson@co.slo.ca.us
Cc: mark@nowastewater.com; assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov; attorney general ca; Dean Benedix P.E.; governor@governor.ca.gov; Greg Haas; gsibbach@co.slo.ca.us; pogren@co.slo.ca.us; 'John Waddell'; 'Mark Hutchinson'
Subject: Patrick Sparks' Office
Hours May 20, 2008 2-5 p.m. SLOCo. Public Works Conference Room
Here is a public service announcement, just in:
-----Original Message-----
From: pogren@co.slo.ca.us [mailto:pogren@co.slo.ca.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:56 AM
To: Mark Low
Cc: assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov; BGibson@co.slo.ca.us; Dean Benedix P.E.; governor@governor.ca.gov; Greg Haas; gsibbach@co.slo.ca.us; 'John Waddell'; mark@nowastewater.com; 'Mark Hutchinson'; attorney general ca
Subject: Re: Patrick Sparks' Office Hours May 20, 2008 2-5 p.m. SLOCo. Public Works Conference Room
Mr. Sparks is not conducting "office hours" in Public Works Conference
room.
The availability of our office space in accordance with the public records
act does not extend to others for purposes outside of the act. Other
individuals who are interested in obtaining public records will also need
to comply with the act, submit a request to the department, and provide us
the opportunity to reply accordingly. Individuals who arrive at public
works and have not been authorized according to protocal and regulations
associated with the public records act will not be admitted.
Paavo Ogren
Director of Public Works
pogren@co.slo.ca.us
805-781-5291 (w)
805-781-1229 (fax)
Mark,
Do you even know who Dan Blesky is? Just curious.
Also, I would suggest that there is a balancing act here ... to continually put off a solution because there is a better (yet likely unproven) solution may not be the best long-term strategy. After Los Osos has avoided doing anything by a variety of means, the RWQCB and County want action even if it's not approved of by Mark as the "best" choice.
I think many - most - (not all) people of Los Osos want action, too. Enough delay already. There always will be something "better" down the road, meanwhile the pollution mounts. it would be nice to focus our energies on something else. It will require a period of decompression however. Many, including myself, are pretty hooked on this stuff.
The fact that mark is agreeing with danbleskey shows he doesn't know much about Los Osos.
'Toons,
I've always been amused by the folks who continue to drive their 1977 volvo wagon because they're waiting for a really high-mpg, low carbon impact car to come along.
The continued pollution from their current ride in the next two years will far exceed whatever gains they will gain by buying the newest prius two years down the road over the today buying the model from two years ago.
Folks, it might be the continued pollution and lack of attention to saltwater intrusion in our lower aquifer there the greatest cost of the recall will be found, not the debt.
Shark:
I don't know who you are.
Dan statement makes sense.
Toons: With all your self perceived knowledge you really know very little.
I hope Dan is using his real name like a real man or woman unlike all you anonymice.
Using his own name gives Dan "credibility".
mark, as to credibility, consider this:
Dan Bleskey is long gone, exiting Los Osos in disgrace, failing miserably as interim GM to the CSD. He mismanaged the money so badly even the board who hired him was disgusted. He "forgot" to make a Bond payment to Bank of New York, resulting in the County taking over making those payments from our collected tax monies, thereby ruining our credit and making us lose the interest from the monies we used to hold. I could go on, but I won't.
Still think using a "real" name gives credibility mark?
***********************************
Shark, I believe you are right. I almost don't want to figure it all out it will be so depressing.
Toons:
The Board who hired him was hired by people like you.
If controls and oversight were not in place to detect, determine and control the actions of the LOCSD GM then the responsibilty falls to the Board and the people who elected them. That's credible accountability and is our form of government.
The Board failed to perform its fiduciary duty if and when it failed to act appropriately in a timely manner to prevent the "damage" you outlined above.
It really is counter productive to play the blame game, while the future financial and environmental health of the community are "hanging" in the balance.
Of course you are free to do what you want.
danbleskey said...
There are a number of engineers that have made this same observation. There is an EXTREME desire by both the design firms and the State to keep downplaying this as both MWH and the CCRWQB will be exposed to some serious liability issues. Just follow the money. I wonder if the State Auditor should take a look at this issue?
Is this a credible statement? You bet. You are betting tens of thousands of dollars if you don't pay close attention. Gravity sewerage is obsolete.
No, that board was not elected by people like me - who knew stopping the project would be a disaster. It was elected by people who believed $100 out of town was a real number. The new Board's weak grasp on numbers allowed that and Dan Bleskey to happen.
That disaster is why I keep asking you for the years of data to prove what you say. I fear too many will again be swayed by promises that are not based in fact and reality, but on wishful thinking.
mark, it will be based in fact when the Water Board gives you the go ahead. Otherwise you are just a different face out there misleading people.
Pity the County took a dim view of your commandeering the Conference Room. You could have spared yourself the embarrassment by asking first. It is this kind of thinking that illustrates perfectly what you are trying to push with your Wrecklamator. You make claims and find out later IF they are true.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 3:36 PM
To: 'pogren@co.slo.ca.us'
Cc: 'assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov'; 'BGibson@co.slo.ca.us'; 'Dean Benedix P.E.'; 'governor@governor.ca.gov'; 'Greg Haas'; 'gsibbach@co.slo.ca.us'; 'John Waddell'; 'Mark Hutchinson'; 'attorney general ca'; 'mark@nowastewater.com'
Subject: RE: Patrick Sparks' Office Hours May 20, 2008 2-5 p.m. SLOCo. Public Works Conference Room
Paavo Ogren has stated many time that the County would review the RECLAMATOR.
As of this correspondence he has not reported to us that has been done.
One is left wondering what would preclude him from living up to his word and his duty.
I hope he will be able to successfully defend his actions/inactions regarding the RECLAMATOR.
We procured two copies of the entire record to review carefully.
-----Original Message-----
From: pogren@co.slo.ca.us [mailto:pogren@co.slo.ca.us]
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2008 9:56 AM
To: Mark Low
Cc: assemblymember.blakeslee@assembly.ca.gov; BGibson@co.slo.ca.us; Dean Benedix P.E.; governor@governor.ca.gov; Greg Haas; gsibbach@co.slo.ca.us; 'John Waddell'; mark@nowastewater.com; 'Mark Hutchinson'; attorney general ca
Subject: Re: Patrick Sparks' Office Hours May 20, 2008 2-5 p.m. SLOCo. Public Works Conference Room
Mr. Sparks is not conducting "office hours" in Public Works Conference
room.
Keep up the good work Toons.
Someone calling himself danblesky sez:"There are a number of engineers that have made this same observation. There is an EXTREME desire by both the design firms and the State to keep downplaying this as both MWH and the CCRWQB will be exposed to some serious liability issues. Just follow the money. I wonder if the State Auditor should take a look at this issue?"
I thought the State Auditor was supposed to be auditing all this. What happened?
As for serious liability issues, what's with the lawsuit by, who is it? There's so many -- Taxpayer's watch? Gordon Hensley? Richard LeGros? suing the present CSD Board members PERSONALLY for whatever they're suing them for. Does that have the potential for blowback? i.e. documents that track back to the previous Board's decisions? Since this al all totally linked, hipbone to thighbone. Like maybe that will finally uncover what Ron's been asking for all these years, actual documentation to indicate that the "strongly held community value" in the previous Official SOC that put a sewer in the middle of a park didn't exist. If that never turns up, will this "personal" suit then turn back to actions of the previous board that also might trigger a countersuit, with Hensley, leGros et al being personally held responsible? And so on down the line?
If Blesky's right, seems like there's a whole lot of vested interests in this county (and state? and town? ) who would benefit from burying everything and everyone. But that also runs the risk that you'd end up burying yourself as well.
The previous board didn't use public money to pay off personal legal bills. That's what the TPW lawsuit is about. No way for that to "blowback" on the previous board.
Prefix: Where did you get the $15,000.00 assessment figure?
5:50 PM, May 18, 2008
Prefix ...
I don't believe you have any obligation to reply to Mark's request for information (perhaps other than to say "look it up yourself" or "you want a leaky sewer pipe") until Mark provides to others the information they've been asking for for months.
No offense Mark, but you shouldn't ask others repeatedly for details when you are unwilling to provide them yourself.
To do so would be a really dickish move...
The point of asking prefix to support "its" contention is to illuminate the lack of attention to detail.
The recent 218 assessment which was based upon an "unstamped" fine screening report was for $25,000.00 not $15,000.00 as suggested by "p".
No offense taken as I always consider the source and motivation behind statements made regarding the LOSTDEP.
Speaking of lack of attention to detail ... how about neglecting to answer request for information about a produce one is selling.
Even if you are not offended by what you believe to be an unfounded assertion by another ... you shouldn't ask others to get their ducks in a row before you are willing to do the same yourself.
Gee mark, it could have been a typo. Prefix isn't selling anything and you are. We know what Prefix meant.
Now as for detail, where are pages 2 to 51? Can you cough up just one page if 50 are too many to handle?
As for more detail, are you really thinking of suing the State for $600 billion or was that a typo too?
Heck, I heard he was sueing for a Trillion.
Post a Comment