Calhouns Can(n)ons

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Uh, Ya Wanna Run That By Me One More Time?

When I read the ad in the 7/17/08 Bay News, the one by The Reclamator Service, I had to scratch my head. Ad said, "Call today and be one of the 333 to get a $15,000 rebate!" Ad encouraged us to "Join the Revolution!" and noted that this revolution would be:
"FREE from liability" (But not free from Roger Briggs of the RWQCB who, win, lose, draw, will have the Suit Boys from Sacramento -- on the taxpayer's dime -- arriving to drag your ass into court ENDLESSLY from now until the crack of doom.)
"FREE from the big, expensive County project" (Uh, don't think so. Not according to the County. According to them, you'll be assessed pots of money by the county even if you had seventeen Reclamators dotted around your property)
"FREE from high sewer bills" (See above)
"FREE from future assessments" (That's true of all of us Los Ososians at this moment.)
"FREE from drought-vulnerable municipal water." (Uh, o.k. until Roger Briggs hauls you into court and stops you from using the Reclamator as a "greywater" "discharge" system, that is.)

And the ad stated that your "Reclamator reimbursed by 100% upon the sale of our 2008th Reclamator!" an interesting sort of Ponzi Scheme, it seems to me. That is, what happens if only 2007 Reclamators are sold? Is the deal off? Do you get your money back?

Also unanswered in the ad is this: I was under the impression that Mr. Murphy, of Reclamator fame, isn't really selling a piece of machinery but is selling a 24/7/365 monitering/repair/replace servicing service. If so, what happens to economies of scale if only 16 units are sold. Or three units? Seems to me that the service costs would skyrocket if you had to keep a trained service person (and equipment) on hand 24/7/365 for 25 years to take care of, say, one or two units. Wouldn't the cost get prohibitive? Like waaaaay more than the proposed cost for the County project?

Just asking.

Also missing from the ad are any certified "discharge" test results vetted and approved by the RWQCB as being approved in the PZ, for example. I know Mr. Murphy asserts that they have no say in what he's "discharging," and we've waltzed around what the meaning of "discharge" means, but I don't see from this ad that any further progress has been made in resolving that particular issue.

Also no mention of any lawsuit being filed (or won?) in federal court indicating that the federal rules concerning "compliance" has been settled either.

In short, nothing in this ad makes me confident that this issue has advanced so much as an inch. Well, this is Los Osos so we all have to "stay tuned." But if it were me, I'd also count the silverware. A lot of people have been injured in this town on account of lies, bungles, blatant stupidities, Medean craziness and incompetent, run amok regulators. Don't need any more body parts flying about.

29 comments:

Maria M. Kelly said...: Thank you Ann and I agree.
Sincerely,
Maria; 11:54 AM, July 22, 2008
Realistic1 said...: It is astonishing to me that this guy is still in town and that people might actually be listening to him.

He must have an endless supply of cash to continue his crusade. Makes me wonder who is funding him.

Thanks, Ann. It is rare we agree, but I am 100% with you on this one.; 12:38 PM, July 22, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

Seems everyone agrees on this issue. I am sure there are many other issues we concur with too.

Regards, Richard LeGros; 12:56 PM, July 22, 2008
Rick said...: Anyone who gives this guy money is fulfilling the proverb about a fool and his money being soon parted.

Where is the DA?; 5:56 PM, July 22, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Here's the really funny thing ... I believe that Murphy's device actually does work to some extent. (Whether it would work for Los Osos or would be as cheap as Murphy claims is unclear.)

That Tom and Mark seem unwilling to work with the RWQCB and County is greatly troubling. It is as if they expect that we should take their claims as proof and as if they expect that regulatory agencies would forget they are required to follow the law.

In any case, willingness to pay for a Reclamator at this time ... based on evidence presented here, even with discount, should be considered evidence of a mental defect ... after all, Mark has given us no evidence that his device will work for our town nor that the purchase of his service will keep the RWQCB at bay.; 7:24 PM, July 22, 2008
Churadogs said...: Inlet sez:"Here's the really funny thing ... I believe that Murphy's device actually does work to some extent. (Whether it would work for Los Osos or would be as cheap as Murphy claims is unclear.)"

What's odd is the RWQCB rushed and stealthed around with their basin plan update which would put whole swatchs of this county under their control (and when AB885 finally comes on line) which should mean that something like the Reclamator could work in a whiole variety of places, even if Los Osos isn't one of them. So why not go jump through the hoops, do the testing, get the certification, etc. then stand ready to sell your product as soon as that semi-updated basin plan finaly gets approved up at state? Seems to me you'd have a hell of a market all over this state as more and more water sources get more and more degraded and need cleaning up at the source and etc?; 5:56 AM, July 23, 2008
Maria M. Kelly said...: Again, I agree. The question then becomes: is there really a product to sell or service to provide or, based on the filed suit of current unknown status, is messing with an enforcement agency part of the game. Either way it's a potential win/win or a complete lose/lose for the future consumer and the current LO community.

His product, in conjunction with methane harvesting ponds on dairy farms could solve a myriad of problems. Maybe it's not cost effective when sold or produced on an individual bases. Is economics of scale really a larger part of the issue?

Hmmm, not sure and unfortunately not a significant time to think about it. I've been in Oregon all week and will head home today. It's a lovely state really. I was also in Olympia and Seattle briefly to see friends. I had lunch on the Olympia bay that used to be a superfund site - the Olympic Oyster is coming back to extensive clean up efforts. My friend that I had lunch with works as an environmental law atty. and we talked about LO and he was familiar with Morro Bay and had a small part in the fishing agreements but not part of this story. Anyway, he was fascinated by our situation and brought up the Hood Canal which is seeing the effects of small communities and septic tanks. Little inlets and bays are losing thier shell fish. It's not the boaters that go by or temporarily anchor. My hope for them is that they don't wait 30 years. My parents live on the Hood Canal and have 2 properties on opposite sides. It is impacting them and we have had some interesting discussions as my father is resistant to the cost. My question to him is, can he afford not to.....

Off to drive!
Maria; 6:56 AM, July 23, 2008
Maria M. Kelly said...: Forgot to toss this site in. I would think that the company would/could/maybe even should, be listed here.
http://www.eco-web.com/index/category/2.5.2.html; 7:04 AM, July 23, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

I have yet to see any compelling evidence that "the RWQCB rushed and stealthed around with their basin plan update". Just your claim and Ron's. It appears that they followed their process the same way as normal. That you feel it was rushed or stealthed doesn't mean they didn't do things the same way as normal.

But ... if it is important that important decisions not be rushed ... if process really is important to you ... why did you not squawk when the post-Recall board voted to stop TriW at a hastily called meeting within a day of their election being certified (a meeting where agenda items were not noticed properly)?. Similarly, why didn't you voice your opposition when the board voted to retroactively approve Blesky's illegal transfer of funds from an account meant to re-pay the design bond to other purposes (like BWS)?

Just curious about whether your outrage is selective ...

Don't get me wrong here ... I'm not suggesting the RWQCB is right here (or always) but only that you seem very willing to trust PZLDF and those who roughly fall into the category of TriW opponents but you seem quite willing to see deceit in the actions of those who have traditionally favored TriW.

I do congratulate you on your healthy sense of doubt about the Reclamator folks, however. What I find most amusing about them is that they've been so darn good at alienating those in Los Osos who would be most willing to adopt their anti-sewer position.; 9:00 AM, July 23, 2008
Unknown said...: It's been amazingly quiet around here with Gail stealthily sliding off to Redding and Julie evicted out of the glass house... Is the RWQCB responsible for these moves also...???; 9:34 AM, July 23, 2008
Churadogs said...: Inlet sez:"I have yet to see any compelling evidence that "the RWQCB rushed and stealthed around with their basin plan update". Just your claim and Ron's. It appears that they followed their process the same way as normal. That you feel it was rushed or stealthed doesn't mean they didn't do things the same way as normal"

The septic tank owners throughout the county were not notified of any hearings, the county made (to my kowledge) no effort to contact them, even the BOS was caught with too many questions and plenty left to do with no time to do it in. If you think that's the RWQCB's "normal" way of doing things, then there's no wonder things are always in a mess.

As for stopping Tri-W right after the election. Uh, measure B was still in effect on that date, if memory serves, and the Board chose not to violate the law (conveniently, of course, but all the same) and then the newly elected board ran on a platform of moving Tri W and proceeded to do that (would you have had them be sworn in and then announce that evening that they were going to proceed building Tri W?) and, right after the election, the Board voted to "stand down," (they had 90 days no-harm, no foul to do that) to assess how to proceed, when the contracters walked off and the State breached the contract by pulling the 2nd payment within that 90 day period -- an issue that should have been settled in court in the breach of contract lawsuit. but wasn't and likely never will be.

Maria sez:" Anyway, he was fascinated by our situation and brought up the Hood Canal which is seeing the effects of small communities and septic tanks"

Friend who used to live here and moved up to that area is watching his communities discuss putting in sewers. For him, it's deja vu all over again.; 12:43 PM, July 23, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Ann says:
"The septic tank owners throughout the county were not notified of any hearings"

How would this have been accomplished and at what cost? A CSD's recent mailing was around $5,000 to only around 2,500 homes. Who would pay for it? The WB doesn't have enough cash to broadcast some hearings! Is SLO a rich county?

What would your preferred way of notification have been?

And just what would the septic tank owner have done had they been notified? No wait - don't answer that.

Hasn't this septic management stuff been around for years and years? Doesn't doing it cost money? Is the WB finally stepping up to address possible pollution? Isn't that their job?; 3:01 PM, July 23, 2008
Realistic1 said...: Mike,

"It's been amazingly quiet around here with Gail stealthily sliding off to Redding..."

Gail McPherson left town??????? For good?

Has she gone somewhere else to practice her "submarine" skills?; 3:24 PM, July 23, 2008
Richard LeGros said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7:56 AM, July 24, 2008
Ron said...: Kumbaya my lord, Kumba... oh... I'm sorry. I just wanted to get in on the love fest.

After all, Richard wrote:

"Seems everyone agrees on this issue."

and Maria wrote:

"Thank you Ann and I agree."

and R1 wrote:

"Thanks, Ann. It is rare we agree, but I am 100% with you on this one."

You know, guys, Ann also wrote:

"A lot of people have been injured in this town on account of lies, bungles, blatant stupidities, Medean craziness and incompetent, run amok regulators."

Maybe Ann could elaborate on what she meant by that, and THEN we'll see if "everyone agrees on this issue" "100%."

Kumbaya my lord, Kumba...; 9:27 AM, July 24, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: OMG ... Ron, you're either dense or you're trying to pick at nits for no reason other than to be bitchy.

Now, how about addressing the question you've been asked over the years? That question? Why do you only call into question the Solutions Group promised but refuse to call into question the promises of those who ran in opposition to TriW?; 9:41 AM, July 24, 2008
Ron said...: Guppy Inlet wrote:

"OMG"

"OMG," Gup?

What? Are you 12? (Although, that would explain the depth of your logic.)

Even I, inventor of the great BrucEwok (scroll to the bottom of that link... it's hilarious), think that's a tad juvenile.

and;

"... but refuse to call into question the promises of those who ran in opposition to TriW?"

You mean the promises to stop that colossal embarrassment, and build a STEP system, with a sewer plant that's NOT in the middle of your beautiful coastal town -- a system that knowledgeable county officials have recently called "cost effective" and "viable"?

Those promises, Gup?

You know what kills me? (Other than, if not for the "Medean craziness," the post-recall board could have began building their "cost effective, "viable" project, years ago... makes you wonder who the REAL "obstructionists" are, huh?)

It's that the pre-recall CSD Board spent nearly $600,000 of Los Osos taxpayers money for a PR campaign designed to lie to those same taxpayers about the Tri-W embarrassment, and the post-recall board spent almost that exact same amount of money developing a "viable" "cost effective" sewer system -- the Ripley project.

And for what it's worth, I once asked Dana Ripley this question:

"With a STEP system, would a homeowner notice any difference in 'operation' from a conventional sewer system?"

He said, "No."

So, to recap:

The post-recall LOCSD Board spent about $600,000 developing a viable, cost effective sewer system: The Ripley project.

and;

The pre-recall LOCSD Board spent about $600,000 for a few "spiffy quarterly publications called Bear Pride on heavy stock paper filled with graphics and color" and used them to lie to the people of Los Osos about the Tri-W embarrassment... that they spent over $20 million of Los Osos taxpayer money, and nearly six years developing.

Ouch!; 12:07 PM, July 25, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Ron ... I apologize. I should have been more sensitive by not expecting you would remember aspects of this discussion over time.

Let me be more clear. If you're a gonna say it was wrong for the solutions group to promise $35/month when they should have known (at least you claim) that such a figure was unrealistic ... why do you refuse to similarly say it was wrong for Chuck, Steve and John to promise a $100/month out of town sewer when they should have known better?

As to one other issue ... considering you're now pretending to be someone with financial understanding ... are folks in Los Osos going to have lower or higher bills in total. When you answer this question please be sure to present some calculations.; 7:22 PM, July 25, 2008
Unknown said...: Hi Shark..... Hahaha... I've heard of Reverse-Polish-Notation and even reluctantly used an HP 12C, still prefer my old TI Calculator though, ...but now you're setting us up to have to listen to the Reversed-by-Ron-Calculations... If he can reverse history, I'll bet he can reverse financial calculations... Ya think he ought to be on the Bankruptcy Board...???

Any idea whether Ann will honestly answer the question regarding what happened to the PZDIF lawsuit in court Wednesday...???; 7:34 PM, July 25, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Mike ... some of us are curious about your and Richard's hints ... gonna fess up?

As for Ron ... he's full of sh*t on the money question. He's consistently neglected to address the question of whether folks in Los Osos will be better off or not because of the recall. He advocated for it and yet now he only raises his head when there is some news which allows him to say "I told you so". The sad thing is that he doesn't chime in and say "my bad" or "I guess I screwed up that one" in the same way.; 7:55 PM, July 25, 2008
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Gee, ron, I seem to notice a great deal of difference between a gravity system and a step system - I don't have to pump out a septic tank with a gravity system! Or smell it - or my neighbor's stench either, when they are pumping. Big difference - that, and not having to rely on electricity to push the effluent out of my yard.

Maybe, since you are the journalist here, you might want to delve into the interesting part of step - the HUGE carbon footprint it leaves! I'd sure like a discussion about that from you!

Ripley had an idea BTW, hardly a full-blown plan.; 8:26 PM, July 25, 2008
M said...: shark inlet, you seem to be the one that harps the most about the post recall boards boast of $100 a month, we have a plan campaign promises. Can you provide documentation of this? Was this the sole platform the candidates ran on?
I find it hard to believe the majority that voted, did so only on the promise of $100 a month.
I would have to believe that the actions of the pre-recall board had something to do with it. Anybody that watched one of the CSD meetings before the recall would have to come away feeling like there is no way we want to allow this group to dictate the site and plan of our wastewater treatment facility.
After public comment of no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,no,they would still vote yes. How can a community perceive this any other way than the board members fulfilling their own agenda?
What really surprises me is that we don't hear alot about the fact that we would be on-line now or close to it if Tri-W had come to fruition.
I'll give you a telling sign of the pre-recall boards mindset. In Gordon Hennsley suit against the current CSD about not keeping the fence up around Tri-W, he speaks of the danger to the endangered species with no protection from Los Osos Valley Rd. Uh, there was no fence up there before the destruction of that property.
What about the clandestine meeting with the contractors prior to construction with some of the board members being physically restrained from attending the meeting?
Has the current board made mistakes? Obviously yes, they have. I guess we will have to wait and see if their decisions have cost us the way you harp on.
3 years now since the recall. Such an imposing problem and where are we? You would think that such a serious perceived threat would have a little higher priority in the governing agencies that are involved.
When I read of the oyster farms having to move further south in the bay to avoid contamination, I seriously have to wonder about how serious our perceived problem is. By that, I am not saying that we can stand pat, what I am saying though is that maybe us in the prohibition zone shouldn't have to bear the brunt of the fix.
Sincerely, M; 11:32 AM, July 26, 2008
Churadogs said...: Thanks for your observations, M. One of the reasons I've called for a Truth and Reconciliation Hearing is because this is an incredibly complex story, with HUGE numbers of missteps and bungles all along the way by so many players. There was and still is so much going into the still-Byzantine mix.

As for Hensley & the TPW Crew, I find all that Medean wierdness too, too Freudian. No other way to 'splain that stuff.

I found the article on the oyster farms having to relocate very interesting. That and the stories on CMC's sewage spills -- had to laugh at CMC protesting their measly fine. Los Osos "fines" make theirs look like chump change. There doesn't seem to be much relationship to actual damage and fines. Well, why expect sense in a Mad Hatter Board? Just another example of how Byzantine this whole issue is and will continue to be.; 6:16 AM, July 27, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: M and Ann ...

The flier used by the three Recall candidates used to be available at http://www.locvvc.com/pdf/Alternative%20to%20alternatives.pdf but that website has since disappeared. I don't have a copy of this flier here (although, if someone does have a copy I would be very happy if they e-mailed me a copy at sharkinlet@gmail.com). In any case, the closeness of the election, along with the relentless lies promising that they had a plan that was ready to go and that would save us money is one of the factors which pushed the recall over the edge.

As for the question of whether those in the PZ should pay to fix the problem that their sewage is polluting the aquifer we all use ... I find it laughable that you suggest that others who are not polluting in the same way should be asked to pay some of the costs to clean up the aquifer. In any case, this is, indeed, what will be happening. The County is working out deals with the three water districts where they will pay some of the cost and pass that cost on to their rate payers.

As for whether the size of various fines relates to the amount of pollution ... yes there is a huge disparity here. The LOCSD fine, when compared to the amount of pollution done by those in the PZ, is far lower (in a fair, cost per amount of pollutant way) than the fines imposed on CMC, Pismo or even the Monarch Grove neighborhood in Los Osos.

Lastly, yes there were huge missteps and errors by many many people, both those running the CSD and those voting in our district ... but to get back to my point ... it is galling when folks criticize the Solutions Group for lying about the costs of their plan don't criticize at all the anti-TriW folks for a misstatement that is comparable or worse in every way.

I would ask yet again to see the details of the plan the recall candidates said they had and again to see the calculations which allowed them to feel comfortable claiming it would cost us only $100/month.

The problem of comparing the County plan to the TriW plan is that they each have a different scope (TriW was going to tackle the aquifer recharge and saltwater intrusion as well). This difficulty is further compounded by the fact that if garbage rates and water rates and fire rates are higher because of the choice to pay Ripley and BWS and if we still have to re-pay the earlier bond as well as pay various debts and fines, it will be tough to figure out how much we're going to be paying for our recall vote.; 12:42 PM, July 27, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Thanks to those who e-mailed me the pdf of that flyer.

Anyone who would like a copy should please e-mail me (sharkinlet@gmail.com) and I will reply with the document.

If anyone of you would be willing to put it on the web anywhere (Ron?), please let me know and the whole Los Osos community will appreciate your willingness to preserve documents relevant to our dilemma.; 12:56 PM, July 28, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Spoke too soon (er... wrote too soon?)

The file is available (for at least four weeks) at: http://sharkinlet.fileave.com/$100perMonth.pdf... download and enjoy.; 1:01 PM, July 28, 2008
M said...: Uh Shark, could you maybe Highlight or something where that pdf said $100 month. I read it over and over and not once did I see $100 month.; 5:11 PM, July 28, 2008
Shark Inlet said...: Okay ... I'll type it out. Please compare this version to the one I linked to figure out which typos are mine and which (if any) are part of the original document.

There will be formatting differences because I can't get HTML tags to do the formatting perfectly. The italics are the flier text and the bold portion is the quote you ask for.

---------8<--cut-here--8<---------

Everyone knows it’s a bad idea to build a waste-water treatment plant in the middle of a town…
EVEN IF THEY PROMISED YOU A PARK

Would you like to see and vote on alternative plans that cost at least 50% less than the current $163,000,000 project?

Shouldn’t we the citizens choose where the waste water treatment plant is going to be built? Consider that agriculture land costs much less than the current site because the Tri W site is on Environmentally Sensitive Habitat (ESHA land). This is among the most expensive land in the county.

We will save millions of gallons of drinking water by trading our waste-water with farmers that currently irrigate their crops with the water that comes from our aquifer? These farmers have been contacted already and want to use our waste-water, since it contains nitrates to feed their crops and will save them money.

Would you like to see and vote on an alternative collection system that costs 50% less than the current trenching system? It’s not only cheaper, this S.T.E.P. (boring) method would not require the trenching and rebuilding of 40 miles of roads, disrupting our quiet lives for up to 3 years?

The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) says this collection system is more protective to sensitive habitats, than the current trenching system.

Finally, would you like to make sure that the current Tri W site is made into a park, so that this land will remain, forever protected from developers?

Vote yes on Measure B-05

Measure B-05 makes it illegal to build a waste-water treatment plant in close proximity to homes, businesses and community gathering places, like parks, churches and libraries in the city of Los Osos.

B-05 says all residents of Los Osos have the right to vote on what kind of waste-water treatment plant and collection system is built and where it is located.

B-05 protects us from fines. The CSD is using scare tactics to tell us that Los Osos will be fined if we don’t go along with the current project. This is only true if we refuse to build a treatment plant. We have better alternatives that will be voted on and immediately implemented, if the recall is successful and/or if measure B-05 is passed.

The current plan will cost residents at least $225 per month and could force as many as 1/3 of our residents to move out. The alternative plan will cost us less than $100 per month.

The current plan will eventually force us to purchase our drinking water from outside sources at a premium rate. This is because the current plan does not solve the saltwater intrusion that is contaminating our drinking water. The alternative plan slows saltwater intrusion of our aquifer and saves millions of gallons of drinking water.

Our community deserves a better treatment plant, built outside of town, that everyone can afford. We also deserve a CSD board that cares about our sensitive habitat and the health and well being of its citizens.

Vote YES on Measure B-05 and YES on the RECALL

Homeowners and renters vote Tuesday, September 27, 2005

---------8<--cut-here--8<---------

Pretty clearly they are saying they've got a plan with enough details fleshed out (out of town, AG-exchange, $100/month, STEP).; 5:43 PM, July 28, 2008
Unknown said...: OK M... What part of the PLAN have you voted on and seen immediately implemented? Was that the part that said you would pay your legal counsel even though they lost every one of the 11 suits they filed against the pre-recall Board?

Lisa, Julie, Chuck, John or Steve, please tell us why you did everything EXCEPT explain YOUR PLAN that was ready to immediatly implement...!!!!! You seem to have gotten around to filing for Bankruptcy but NEVER had a PLAN...!!!!! That PLAN was an absolute LIE from the beginning....!!!!

"We have better alternatives that will be voted on and immediately implemented, if the recall is successful..."

"The alternative plan will cost us less than $100 per month."

Lisa, Julie, Chuck, John and Steve, you failed this community, you lied to us all...!!!; 6:03 PM, July 28, 2008

Pages

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

29 comments: