Calhouns Can(n)ons

Thursday, January 08, 2009

Lost Osos

I have received several emails informing me of the sudden loss of Dr. Tom Ruehr, who died suddenly in his home last night. Dr. Ruehr, a soil scientist at Cal Poly, was involved in the Hideous Sewer Wars for many years. He was an honorable man. And his loss to the environmental community will be huge. My deepest condolences go out to his family at this terrible time.

We shall find peace. We shall hear angels. We shall see the sky sparkling with diamonds. -- Anton Chekov

137 comments:

Watershed Mark said...: I had two opportunities to speak with him and both times he demonstrated both his high character and fine understanding of the problems which all of LO/BP now face without his contributions.

Dr. Rhuer is an Oso who will be missed by me personally.
I wish his family and friends my deeply sincere condolences.

God's Peace Dr. Rhuer.; 12:10 PM, January 08, 2009
I Remember said...: So we may all remember what Tom was all about.

Sewer Terrorism

A speech given by Dr. Thomas A. Ruehr in September of 2001

I want to speak to all citizens of Los Osos, both those present this evening and those watching on television. Every citizen who watches this and is concerned about government abuse should take notice. All citizens living in San Luis Obispo County in non-sewered communities should take careful heed because the same thing will happen to you in the near future.

It is time to begin a letter writing and a telephone calling campaign. Write or phone every newspaper in the community and the state. Contact radio and television stations. Write or call all politicians. Do not just express your concerns as questions, demand answers.

Make no mistake about it. The recent action of the federal district judge to dismiss the legal case without comment is a unique form of political terrorism against the community of Los Osos. It is a different form of insidious terrorism and can be brought against every community large or small. The only weapon we have to fight such political terrorism is to ask questions and to promote an open properly functioning government.

The following questions must be asked of any and all possible contacts in the media or public office.

Why was the ballot for the sewer NOT confidential as a secret ballot? A separate enclosed ballot marked with only the lot size or the number of sewer connection units could have been provided. This would have allowed people to vote in secret and would still provide a tally of who returned the ballots. But, this was NOT done in a democracy. Why were we prevented from voting in secret in this way?

Why were all non-votes counted as yes votes in favor of the sewer? Were the citizens warned of this unique voting process ahead of time? What would happen nationally if all non-votes were added arbitrarily to a particular candidate's vote? Why should only the wealthy and the powerful be able to choose a voting system which prevents a secret ballot and has intimidated many voters thus preventing them from sending in their vote, and then counting this vote as being in favor of the process when no vote was actually voted?

What is the political influence which caused the federal district judge to dismiss the Los Osos case without comment? Why did the judge NOT want to examine the charge of social injustice in this community of Los Osos? Was the federal district judge bought out by the wealthy and the powerful in the community? Was the federal district judge pressured into dismissing the case by pressure from the Regional Water Quality Control Board? Contact the courts to ask what the process is and ask they to explain to you why such actions are taken. Specify you want to know why the case was dismissed without a hearing.

Why has the law and the governmental process allowed gerrymandering of the land in Los Osos resulting in a "prohibition zone" which has resulted in social injustice? Why are almost all of the residents who are poor or on fixed incomes included within the prohibition zone, while the wealthy or politically influential are located outside of this "prohibition zone"? Why are these same poor and those on fixed incomes forced to pay the full cost of the sewer? What cost will be born by those wealthy citizens with modern fancy newer homes outside the "prohibition zone" who will be forced in the future to connect to the previously constructed sewer? A simple connection fee is much less than the cost of construction. Why were NOT all citizens who would potentially benefit from this sewer included in the assessment district and included within the "prohibition zone"? Is the "prohibition zone" an admission by the Regional Water Quality Control Board of some properly functioning septic systems within the community? Or is the "prohibition zone" only a way of saying the government process of allowing 25 foot wide lots originally in this community has resulted in too high of a housing density per acre, and consequently, only the wealthy have afforded and been able to purchase larger lots outside of this "prohibition zone"?

The legislature of the State of California created the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards to monitor and regulate the state's water resources. These have been created as quasi-governmental agencies with vast unregulated powers and are beholding to no governmental body whatsoever. What laws allow the Regional Water Quality Control Board to dictate a particular type of sewer on the community of Los Osos? The state allows them only to point out problems, require corrective actions and demand solutions, but they are supposed to be prevented from specifying specific solutions. Why does the Regional Water Quality Control Board force the most expensive and environmentally non-friendly form of a sewer on the community of Los Osos?

Why is the Regional Water Quality Control Board so obsessed with the nitrate level in Los Osos? Why does the Regional Water Quality Control Board continue repeatedly to monitor and report nitrate levels from monitoring wells which even the best engineering firms have continually warned were improperly constructed and not properly sealed to prevent surface contamination? Why is the Regional Water Quality Control Board forcing a particular sewer system on this community of Los Osos when the water quality of the upper aquifer before the sewer will be essentially no different than the water quality of the properly functioning sewer facility after it is constructed? Both before and after installation by their own data, the nitrate level in the ground water will remain the same at about 8.5 milligrams of nitrate - nitrogen per Liter.

Why is the Regional Water Quality Control Board obsessed only with the quality of the water and willing to allow the quantity of water to disappear from this community of Los Osos? Under the proposed sewer system, a series of water recharge sites are proposed only to recharge the upper aquifer which only drains eventually downhill into Morro Bay and the Pacific Ocean. This means eventually all of the water in Los Osos will be lost to the ocean. No attempt is being made to recharge the lower aquifer from which the community draws it’s quantity of pristine & excellent tasting water. Why will the Regional Water Quality Control Board allow this loss of water from our Los Osos community? Why will the Regional Water Quality Control Board allow sea water intrusion into our pristine underground lower aquifer? Such sea water intrustion will contaminate and destroy our the only water source for this community. Is the intention to force this community of Los Osos to import water from Lake Nacimiento or to connect to the state water pipeline eventually? Why must we the citizens of Los Osos be forced to import water from elsewhere when we already have a plentiful supply of some of the most pristine water in the state of California in our lower aquifer?

What political force is driving this compulsive action by the Regional Water Quality Control Board? Why does the Regional Water Quality Control Board demand the stealing of all the people of Los Osos's water in a worse case than the stealing of Owens Valley water by the people of Los Angeles by judicial, political and secret means of the wealthy and powerful over a century ago? Have we learned anything about the judicial and governmental process in a century? Where is the justice in our justice system which turns a blind eye to the crying out of a community faced with such injustices?

How can the community of Los Osos possibly afford this sewer? Various estimates indicate nearly 30 to 40 percent of the residents of this community will NOT be able to maintain the cost of the sewer which will have to be born solely by the residents of this community for the first time, instead of having some governmental support for this government mandated sewer? Why does the state continue to force unfunded mandates of action with no finances upon communities? Why does the Regional Water Quality Control Board refuse to allow the use of proven engineering processes for small communities to be employed in Los Osos? Why does the Regional Water Quality Control Board insist upon only using massively engineered construction which is currently used in other areas within this district? Why does the Regional Water Quality Control Board refuse to allow other engineering technologies which have been developed and are being used successfully with effective track records in other states and countries (but which are denied here because they have not been used within this area before) from being permitted to be used in this community? Why does the Regional Water Quality Control Board reject the suggestions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency which recommends various other alternative proven engineering solutions for small communities?

How will the community of Los Osos be able to dispose of all of the Bio-solids (sewage sludge) generated by this new sewer treatment facility? We dare not burn the Biosolids and are not and should not dump it into the ocean. Newly proposed regulations by the San Luis Obispo County's Board of Supervisors Task Force on Bio-solids will prevent or greatly reduce use as land application for its fertilizer nutrition equivalent. This leaves only disposal into our land fills at very elevated costs and these land fills are rapidly being filled with all other wastes? What are we expected to do with all of the bio-solids being generated? Why are these matters ignored in the current sewer plan?

What is going to happen when instead of about 6000 individual septic tanks and leach fields distributing the properly treated wastewater from our homes into the sandy soils of this community, the number of recharge sites will be reduced to less than 20 and the same mass of water will have to disposed of at these few sites? Will this concentration of water quickly overwhelm the water infiltration and water permeability of these sandy soils at these few recharge sites? These sandy soils have hundreds of pencil thin clay layers parallel to the surface. How far downward will this water soak into these sands with many very fine clay layers which force water to move horizontally along the surface of each clay layer and eventually move northward towards Morro Bay rather than downward to recharge the lower aquifer?

What will happen when the water concentrated into less than 20 water recharge sites over fills the recharge capacity at any site? Will this water simply run down hill over the land surface? What will happen if we have an earthquake? Liquifaction of the land occurs when the soil is overloaded with water and the earthquake causes readjustment of the underlying soil material. This is particularly a problem on a hillside community as exists in Los Osos. Will most of the homes below these recharge sites be susceptible to this liquifaction problem? Will this result in the destruction of many homes within the community of Los Osos?

All massively engineered structures will eventually fail. What will happen when the single massively engineered "monster" sewer facility fails in the middle of town and raw sewage leaks out of the facility with no possible alternative? All residents below the proposed treatment site should be concerned about this potential flow of raw sewage. Should all residents be concerned about the health implications of a failure at this single sewer system with no backup facility? Who should be held responsible for these future failures of the new sewer system? What will happen when the new sewer does NOT correct the nitrate problem and in the future the Regional Water Quality Control Board demands we do a very expensive corrective action to solve the nitrate problem which is not being eliminated by the proposed sewer? Who will be responsible when the computer models used for predicting these problems fail to provide an adequate representation of what nature has in store for the community of Los Osos?

Should the members of the Los Osos Community Services District be impeached or recalled from office? These Community Service District members were widely supported during the election for their stand to have an alternative to the massively engineered sewer. Now these elected members of the Community Services District have changed their minds by 180 degrees and are pushing for a massively engineered sewer system. Why did the members of the Community Services District change their minds? Who exerted such strong political influence upon their will? Who has been bribing officials under the table to make these things happen? Have the members of the Community Service District been coerced, intimidated or threatened by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, its members or its staff? Why have these members of the Community Service District NOT made full disclosures about their actions? Why have they failed to respond to direct questions asking why these actions have been taken at their Community Service District meetings? Do they deserve to remain in office? Are they truly representing our community's best interests?

Has the Regional Water Quality Control Board far exceeded its obligations to the state in their over zealous prosecution of the community of Los Osos? What can be the state or the citizens of the state do when a quasi-governmental organization (the Regional Water Quality Control Board) and the State Water Resources Control Board act beyond their legislative mandate or allow discrimination against some citizens to exist for its own aggrandizement or edification or empowerment? What can be done to return a checks and balances system to these quasi-governmental organizations when the legislature has abdicated its responsibility to provide these checks and balances? Must the state constitution be amended to rectify these excesses?

Why should we the citizens of Los Osos be forced to pay between 80 and 100 million dollars solely from local community members' taxes when the Solutions Group and the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors’ own Technical Advisory Committee on Wastewater Alternatives identified several feasible proven alternative technologies which would together cost much less than 20 to 30 million dollars and would be more environmentally friendly and economically affordable for the citizens of Los Osos? Why is this one of the very first times local citizens will be forced to bear the entire burden of a public works project mandated by a state agency without recourse to some major state or federal assistance and NO ability to reject the massively engineered sewer in favor of a more manageable proven effective and more economical alternative solution?

As Dr. John Alexander and others have indicated, various proven technologies are available which will serve the needs of Los Osos admirably. Why must we be denied the opportunity of using these instead of the massively engineered "monster" sewer? I believe we need some treatment of wastewater in some parts of Los Osos. Several small local water treatment facilities using sequencing batch reactors (the type proposed for the "monster" sewer) could be installed in various locations around the community at much less expense than the proposed massively engineered sewer facility. Why does the Regional Water Quality Control Board reject any system which is environmentally friendly and which is designed specifically for small communities where the ability to pay the full sewer fee will bankrupt most of the community?
We want a government of the people, by the people and for the people, NOT a government doing it to the people. We must each make our voices known on these matters. Write letters and make telephone calls to all newspapers, radio, television, all members of the Community Service District, all staff and members of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, to the State Water Resources Control Board and to any and all senators and legislators to make your concerns known. Ask any or all of these questions. Demand specific and explicit answers. The freedom and continuation of our democracy requires an open and communicative governmental process. Write and call often.

People in surrounding communities can be assured their community will be the next one on the hit list of the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Just because you do NOT live in Los Osos is an insufficient reason for you to ignore these concerns. Why should we allow this dictatorial political terrorism to continue to threaten our local community? Where is the Truth? Where is the Openness? Where are the answers to these questions? Where is the Justice in our current governmental process? Should it be changed? What can we citizens do to ensure our government cares for our true concerns and needs rather than just worrying about garnering our contribution and votes for the next election or being able to wield undo political influence while we stand by helpless to challenge the "monster" sewer and similar challenges to our governmental process.
The time to act is now!; 8:38 AM, January 09, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Thank you I Remember.

Phew, poor guy. Having heard him speak more recently made me think that being mindful of our blood pressure should be a concern for all of us. Obsessing on sewer issues should not impinge on our health. If it does, check with your physician. Consult with a shrink on biofeedback or do some yoga.

Also, don't believe every impassioned speaker. Do your own fact checking. Experts often disagree. Consult several sources on differing sides to an issue before committing to a stance. Allow yourself forgiveness if you find later that you were wrong. Learning is a lifelong endeavor.

Go in peace, Dr. Rhuer.; 12:41 PM, January 09, 2009
Churadogs said...: Thanks for posting Dr. Rheur's speech. A good reminder that so many of the questions he raised are still unanswered. But he asked them because he was an ethical man who spoke truth to power and lived life with much and many enthusiasms! And a great deal of laughter. None of which have anything to do with blood pressure.; 6:27 AM, January 10, 2009
M said...: I would not have known Dr. Rheur if I saw him walking down the street, but after reading his speech I realize what an asset to the community and a tremendous loss after his passing.
Leave it to a classless sewertoons to make his death the "Death in Los Lobos". Perhaps on one of the other currently running blog comment sections sewertoons could expound on what we should not believe in his speech. Out of respect for Dr. Rhuer I wouldn't want to continue this on this one.
I know I said I wouldn't respond to anymore posts, but I just could not let this pass.
sincerely, M; 11:14 AM, January 10, 2009
Osos Change said...: Also, don't believe every impassioned speaker. Do your own fact checking. Experts often disagree.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found that to be particularly offensive given this guy just died. The line is one large euphemism for, "He doesn't know what he's talking about," and I just want to say back to Lynette, "Who the Hell do you think you are?"; 11:22 AM, January 10, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: There is nothing offensive in disagreeing with Dr. Rheur's OPINIONS. To be able to hold differing opinions is very American, don't you think? I would never say he was wrong to put out his opinions, that was his RIGHT to do so. Death however, does not suddenly make anyone's opinions sacred or correct. Before you become burdened with fear engendered by opinions, stop and think!

I didn't know him socially. He was a public person and making observations on him show no disrespect. Read the New York Times obits if you want to see how this is done well. I was only an observer in an audience where he spoke, and I make no claims as an accomplished writer.

In thinking on health issues, which at my age and with the numbers of family and friends who have passed I often do, his death was a reminder for me. It made me think of people who have been very intwined with sewer issues and how stress is a factor in ill-health. It made me think of the old and ill people scared half out of their minds by the CDO's. We have the power to change how we react to stress. We can let it do bodily damage or we can be aware of its powers and find ways to react differently, less damagingly. If we love our friends and families, we owe them and ourselves the efforts to do so.

What you find offensive Osos Change is perhaps my disagreement with his opinions, not that this comes on the heels of his just dying. I disagreed with them prior to his death and no one found that offensive beyond disagreeing with me.

Some may lament that he will no longer be giving opinions, but our true sympathies must go to to his family and friends, as they are the ones truly suffering right now.; 12:17 PM, January 10, 2009
Unknown said...: Osos Change.... "Who the Hell do you think you are?"

You are the hypocrite of hypocrite's... YOU can't stand to see or hear anyone else's opinions...if some one doesn't say what YOU want to hear, then you are ready condemn them with all the venom in YOUR poisoned being... and personally, YOUR opinions don't mean a damn...!!!!

Sewertoons said nothing to elicit the nastiness YOU just poured... Keep YOUR crap to yourself...!!!!!

..."Who the Hell do you think you are?" ...YOU, Osos Change, are NOT GOD, nor even have a respected voice in Los Osos...!!!!!

Rest in Peace Tom, the fight is over...; 12:56 PM, January 10, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Sewertoons:

Do you have ANY idea how many fighting the corruption of the mega sewer have died, had heart attacks, and stokes?

These have been good people fighting for the truth.

I don't know you or Tom Ruehr, but I've seen both of you speak. Dr. Ruehr was an intelligent man, a honest man, a good man. Goes to show the good do die young.

He offered truth and I don't see this from you, Mike or Steve.

The fight is not over, and can never be as long as there is such a scam going on with the County and Montgomery Watson Harza (our very own Haliburton!) Tom will help us from where he is now. You don't have angels on your side Lynette.

...Tom will be missed in Los Osos.; 1:23 PM, January 10, 2009
Unknown said...: ...Q & F... You won't be missed...!!; 1:50 PM, January 10, 2009
Osos Change said...: I'm going to ignore Mike because he's just irrelevant. Any more death threats and I'll just report him to Blogger. I don't care.

It's not the fact that you stated an opinion that bothered me, Lynette. It was what you said. It's like saying, "He'll be missed, but whatever. Don't believe what he said," and it's really heartless.; 3:23 PM, January 10, 2009
Unknown said...: Report away you quack... I haven't given you any "death threat" and you know it... You just like your moment of theatrics... but should you have the stroke that you like to work very hard at getting, I only hope it is Quick and Final...I would hate to see any tax dollars go toward keeping you from suffering further... Now maybe you'll understand what Q & F means... No I don't wish ill of you, but if it does, so be it...!!! You sure have worked hard to be one of the nastiest sewer obstructionists long enough... If you have suffered any ill over the sewer you have fought so long to prevent, then it's your own damn fault and no one elses... You want that stroke, so keep being such an ass and you surely will be struck down...not by anything I've said, but only by your own bile...!!!! Joe Sparks is not going to put up with you and neither will I...; 3:57 PM, January 10, 2009
M said...: Mike has to be the most disgusting person in this community. A blog topic honoring the passing of a LONG TIME resident of this community and you are hoping for a "quick and final" end to osos change.
Sincerely, M; 4:22 PM, January 10, 2009
Osos Change said...: Okay, look:

This is a time of mourning. You have this wonderful person, who has contributed more than a simple damn to help out Los Osos, and here we have a person saying, "Don't believe every impassioned speaker," meaning, "Let's dismiss Tom Ruehr's credibility" (Lynette).

Then you have someone who randomly appears NOT to pay respect to Ruehr but instead mention "quick and final" or "Q & F" as some sort of a curse that he continuously chants. And by saying, "... you surely will be struck down," Mike, that pretty much closes the case.

It's only a matter of time now before Ann removes your access from the blog.

I've already reported you to Blogger.com and will have no problem calling the police either.

I left a message with Ruehr's widow, informing her of Lynette's remarks. A few people have already referred to Lynette's words as "shallow" and "sophomoric."

No wonder why M doesn't want to respond to you people. Both Mike and Lynette's conduct shows signs of their moral bankruptcy. It's sick.

I'm not coming back here on this blog. I feel like I have to take a long, cold shower every time I read these posts.; 5:12 PM, January 10, 2009
Unknown said...: I did know Dr Ruehr, and I bought my first home in Los Osos in 1969.... I am more than disgusted with that ass Osos Change who never even met Tom... I didagreed with Dr Ruehr, but I respected his opinions... Osos Change has shown no respect for anyone... So stick to wringing your hands M, you haven't been around long enough to understand the lies and enuendo spread by Osos Change...

This blog is not going to bring the responsibility for constructing a sewer back to Los Osos... and the CSD is not going to allow the business meeting to continue to be a social club for the sewer obstructionists...; 5:15 PM, January 10, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Having talked with Tom on several occasions about quite a few things (but not the sewer issue), I have to say that he was, like all of us, a person who tried to do what he thought was right. He was willing to stand up for what he believed in, even if it was unpopular. He was also, like all of us, sometimes mistaken.

I am saddened by his passing and even more by the various remarks and actions here, especially those of Osos Change who would go out of his way (her way?) to tell Tom's widow that some folks disagreed with him. Not the most sensitive thing to do and .... duh! Anyone around here who is unwise enough to voice his or her opinion about things sewerish will eventually be targeted by others.

Tom will be deeply missed on campus, in the Academic Senate and in the Soils department.; 8:17 PM, January 10, 2009
Osos Change said...: One more thing before I leave this blog.

Tom Ruehr was right. There have been no experts, none, to prove otherwise.

"Whatever these people say on the Internet is sheer County propaganda," said Ruehr in September of this year. "It's not right, never was right, never will be right."

I'll leave on that note.; 8:33 PM, January 10, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Osos Change, I'm sure the grieving Mrs. Rhuer, was hurt and baffled as to why you would bring words that you felt were improper to her. What on earth was your motive to bring a blog opinion into a house of grief? To make her feel better -- or WORSE? We have no idea who the other is, and even if we were best friends, would your action have brought her some consolation? You might spend some time reflecting on your motivations for such an act. Try the word heartless on for size and see if it fits. Then apologize to Mrs. Rheur.; 8:47 PM, January 10, 2009
Churadogs said...: Toonces sez:"What on earth was your motive to bring a blog opinion into a house of grief? " . . . and "You might spend some time reflecting on your motivations for such an act. Try the word heartless on for size and see if it fits. Then apologize to Mrs. Rheur."

I suppose the same question might be asked of you. What on earth was your motive to post your comments (aspersions on Dr. Rhuer's stated opinions and/or facts, implying that somehow he died from sewer-related stress ?? (so far as I know the cause of death has not been made public. it is also irrelevant to either original posting) and that he needed to chill out, and so forth, all on an original post that only briefly announced his death and info on the memorial service & etc and said NOTHING about sewers or any such thing. The fact that some other ANONYMOUS poster posted one of Dr. Ruehr's speeches as a kind of rememberance still didn't require any comment from you or anybody.

Clearly other readers found your posting inappropriate and/or offensive. Me? I found it just soooooo Toonces.

Then one of you other ANONYMOUS posters supposedly called the widow to tattle that some other ANONYMOUS embarassing piece of work embarassed herself on a public comment section of a blog???

Then several others of you started squabbling among yourselves, like bratty kids poking each other with sticks at a funeral. That's just soooooo some of you guys.

My suggestion: The funeral/memorial service is this afternoon at 2 in SLO, I suggest you all show up with water balloons and wearing dunce caps and you can sit in the back and toss balloons at one another. Then, Lynette, you can stand up and refute Dr. Ruehr's public comments point by point, then proceed to outline the connection between "stress" and "sewers," quoting fully from the medical literature and so forth. Then some of you other anonymouses can stand up and yell, "You're a stupid dummy poopy-head!" "Am NOT!" "Am so!" "I hope you eat worms and die!" "Pffftttt-poopy-poopy!"

I'm sure the family will appreciate your efforts.

Then you can all go home and stand in the corner with those dunce caps on your heads.; 6:57 AM, January 11, 2009
Osos Change said...: This turned out to be a great social experiment.

The truth is: this ANONYMOUS blogger (moi) did not call Mrs. Ruehr to tattle that some other ANONYMOUS posting an opinion that differed than her husband's.

I would never call her under these tragic circumstances and I would never urge others to do the same. However, this exercise was meant to illustrate guilt.

Lynette Tornatzky doesn't know who Tom Ruehr was nor what he stood for. Upon reading the speech posted by "I Remember," she said, "don't believe every impassioned speaker. Do your own fact checking. Experts often disagree," but for as long as she's lived in Los Osos, not once has she posted any experts who actually disagree with Ruehr. The only experts that she's implied were the County and Paavo Ogren as well as the Public Works project has ties to the developers of the original gravity collection plan at Tri-W and served as GM during the Pandora Nash-Karner board era.

She did not recognize the man for his scientific expertise, but for a disagreement. That's all that it ever boiled down to: a disagreement.

Steve Rein, who has spent years on SanLuisObispo.com incubating this homoerotic obsession with WilDan and comparing Tri-W and gravity collection to overused "used car" analogies went against everything Tom Ruehr stood for while showing no proof, no documentation, no visual evidence to show that what Rein said was ever right. "He stood up for what he believed in even though his belief was unpopular."

In reality, he has been saying for decades that there haven't been problems with Los Osos septics. Meanwhile, there has been no report or independent study to counter him: none. Cleath? They tested illegal wells, not individual septics. AB2701? The bill cited that 5,000 septics in the Prohibition Zone are polluting, but that was a statement, not based on research conducted in the bill; it did not contradict Ruehr's point of view.

Last but not least, you have "Mike," who, at the very least, is a friend of Rein's and Tornatzky, issuing death threats for -- guess what? -- an opinion. Lynette and Steve will criticize my opinion for taking offense to Lynette but they will ignore a death threat ("You want that stroke, so keep being such an ass and you surely will be struck down") for the sake of compensating for their foolery.

I would like members of the community to print out this page because this illustrates what Taxpayers Watch really is all about: a bunch of heartless minions who will do anything and say anything to contradict the truth.

Sincerely,
O.C.

P.S. Checkmate.; 11:33 AM, January 11, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: OsosChange,

Did you know Tom?

Unless you did, you should not presume to speak for him.

Furthermore, I did not criticize your opinion in this thread, but only what you said you did, call Tom's wife and intrude on her grief with something pretty petty by comparison.

To the rest of your comments ... they are pretty much about as bad as what you are complaining about when you fuss at Mike or Toons and certainly not worth responding to.; 1:38 PM, January 11, 2009
Osos Change said...: You keep saying my comments are "certainly not worth responding to" because you have nothing to say.

Maybe if I read your comments to the president of Cal Poly at a meeting with me, you and him next month, maybe you'll respond then. After all, your job is now on the line.

Ciao.; 2:05 PM, January 11, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Osos Change,

I am not saying that your comments are certainly not worth responding to not because I have nothing to say, but because it doesn't seem worth my time to respond to comments like "homoerotic obsession with WilDan" and that I am a friend of Mike (I've never met him, but why would it matter if I was) and that mike is "issuing death threats".

No reason for me to comment. You are making impressions with others just fine by yourself.

On the issue of whether you knew Tom, I note that you didn't answer.; 3:22 PM, January 11, 2009
Osos Change said...: At least I didn't improperly use college computers at VCU and Cal Poly to pursue an agenda and then lie that you did -- so when you're talking about making impressions, you're not one to talk.

I may be a bit theatrical in my approach, but at least I don't have a criminal record.

We'll be meeting with Dr. Michael Suess shortly.; 5:04 PM, January 11, 2009
sewertoons is looney toons said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 5:29 PM, January 11, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: I am sorry for the pain you must be in Osos Change to write words that reflect far worse on you than illustrate any wrongdoing you feel that I have done. I do know who you are and feel sad that your problems overcome the person I know you to be inside. I hope you find some more effective way to deal with your demons than this. Good luck, I do still wish the best for you.; 10:15 PM, January 11, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Ann, you are kinda silly. And I don't go to funerals of people I don't know in person. I knew Dr. Ruehr only through his words and the one time I saw him speak. He has made public statements meant to sway public opinion, which was totally his right to do and I happen to disagree with him. Funny how this stance is so inflammatory for people who never claim to have met him either, but clearly hold him in the position of Sewer Guru. What if the announcement had been that Dubbya had died? Think there might have been some political comment on this blog?; 10:31 PM, January 11, 2009
Osos Change said...: Lynette,

Not only are you a bad judge of character, you assume wrongly. I'm not that "looneytunes" fellow.

I don't stoop to calling people a bunch of vulgar names regardless of if I agree with someone or not. That's just uncalled for.

If you keep assuming wrongly of people, then you don't have any credibility, period. You're just a a nobody, an anonymous that spews propoganda as a lip service so that Paavo Ogren doesn't have to.

The truth is a lot more effective than name-calling.; 11:48 PM, January 11, 2009
Unknown said...: Osos Change is indeed a very, very sick individual...!!!!; 5:28 AM, January 12, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: a classless sewertoons

CRACK!!!; 6:30 AM, January 12, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Mike said...
...Q & F... You won't be missed...!!

Lynette, is this the lind of venon you drink?
Your comments put you right up there with MIKE. Have you no shame?

I stand with M.

Mike has to be the most disgusting person in this community. A blog topic honoring the passing of a LONG TIME resident of this community and you are hoping for a "quick and final" end to osos change.
Sincerely, M; 6:41 AM, January 12, 2009
Churadogs said...: Let me say, again, after, again, reading your posts: "Then you can all go home and stand in the corner with those dunce caps on your heads."; 6:41 AM, January 12, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: OC wrote:

This is a time of mourning. You have this wonderful person, who has contributed more than a simple damn to help out Los Osos, and here we have a person saying, "Don't believe every impassioned speaker," meaning, "Let's dismiss Tom Ruehr's credibility" (Lynette).

Then you have someone who randomly appears NOT to pay respect to Ruehr but instead mention "quick and final" or "Q & F" as some sort of a curse that he continuously chants. And by saying, "... you surely will be struck down," Mike, that pretty much closes the case.

No wonder why M doesn't want to respond to you people. Both Mike and Lynette's conduct shows signs of their moral bankruptcy. It's sick.

OC is spot on target.
Double Bulls-EYE!!!; 6:47 AM, January 12, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE wrote: Osos Change has shown no respect for anyone...

MIKE,
On this we disagree. Perhaps if you showed more respect you may receive some.
OC is extremely articulate which is probably why you have a prob;em with him.
We are all fortunate that he is on the correct side of the LO/BP septic tank discharge elimination solution, equation and that you are not.

For you to justify your hateful Q&F statements as a means to cut taxpayer expense illuminates your "big pipe" agenda beautifully.; 6:57 AM, January 12, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Churadogs said...
Toonces sez:"What on earth was your motive to bring a blog opinion into a house of grief? " . . . and "You might spend some time reflecting on your motivations for such an act. Try the word heartless on for size and see if it fits. Then apologize to Mrs. Rheur."

Ann Calhoun is a "class act".
CRACK! Homerun!!; 7:03 AM, January 12, 2009
alabamasue said...: Ann-
Do you actually read all of the comments posted here? "Sewertoons is looney toons" called Lynette a "tactless bitch", an "insensitive cunt" and told her to "go fuck yourself." Nice language. And yet you don't see a need to delete? I'm done reading your blog for now. You apparently have no control, and no standards.; 9:02 AM, January 12, 2009
I Remember said...: Hi All,

I posted Dr. Rheur's speak to show he was a nut; and to display that he had not a wit of ethics as he slandered many fine folks and organizations that he disagreed with in that dripple of a speech.

I find it telling that those that support Dr Rheurs's point of view found no fault with his speech's lack of professinal decorum and ethics.; 9:17 AM, January 12, 2009
Unknown said...: Thank you alabamasue and I Remember...!!!!; 9:34 AM, January 12, 2009
Osos Change said...: Ann,

You can sit there and say we [Anonymous] should sit in a corner and put our dunce hats on, but you know that these attacks on Dr. Ruehr are offensive.

This whole fiasco revisits the Hatfield-McCoy fence-fighting, which is the polar opposite of what Taxpayers Watch has been supposedly fighting for in the public eye.

You have Lynette, a representative of Taxpayers Watch, igniting half-hearted well-wishes while showing her back hand to Ruehr and everything he stood for.

You have Rein, who says he's not a TW member but has donated to Maria Kelly's campaign, saying Ruehr's opinions were "unpopular." Yeah, according to whom?

You have Mike who undermines the whole purpose of this thread to wish me a "quick and final" stroke and follow up with a death threat. Lynette nor those who Mike agrees with have stepped in to find fault in his violent wording.

You have "I Remember" calling Ruehr a "nut" without "a wit of ethics."

This is a slap in the face to science and reason.

To treat Dr. Ruehr this way after his death is morally reprehensible even if it is your opinion. If you have an opinion that is morally reprehensible, then it is. None of the comments about Dr. Ruehr stopped at, "even though I disagree..." It went further than that. "Don't believe every impassioned speaker. Experts often disagree."

How dare you.; 10:48 AM, January 12, 2009
Unknown said...: You, osos change, are the same nasty individual, and certainly representative of those, who cursed the past members of the Bd of Directors, hurled very open death threats and proudly stated you could tie any sewer up in the courts forever...!!!! All because YOU did not agree with their decisions...!!!

I have no sympathy for YOU taking what I say as a "threat", YOU know damn well I am NOT THREATENING you, but I'm sure not going to lose sleep over you blowing out a blood vessel in YOUR OWN CONTRIVED ANGER...!!!!!!!!!! You and I know it's coming my friend, you can't help yourself...!!!! YOU are very very sick and need professional help....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Try to keep in mind that this CSD no longer is a social club for sewer obstructionists... Take your anger to the State or County, but do check into a hospital soon...!!!!!; 11:07 AM, January 12, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: OsosChange,

I largely agree with much of your sentiment about the use of Tom's passing as a political football.

Just to correct you on two things ...

Please don't presume that I was referring to Tom's sewer position when I wrote that "he was, like all of us, a person who tried to do what he thought was right. He was willing to stand up for what he believed in, even if it was unpopular." On campus Tom was very willing to take an unpopular stand if it was for something he believed in. Ask anyone who worked with him or had significant interactions with him. Doing so is a mark of character. Whether Tom's was in agreement with 95% of Los Osos on the sewer or only 5%, he would have written and said and done things exactly the same way.

Also, while I did support Kelly's campaign, I did not donate to it.; 12:10 PM, January 12, 2009
Alon Perlman said...: Enogh
Lesson number one: Truth
Lesson number two: Respect
Lesson number three: Caring
Lesson number four: Dignity

Lesson number one hundred and one: Legacy; 2:14 PM, January 12, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: The sniping from your closets regarding Dr. Rhuer is sickening.
If you are proud of your comments why not sign your real name to them as you attempt to disparage a great man’s reputation.; 2:18 PM, January 12, 2009
Churadogs said...: One of you anonymice claims I have no control over the blogsite and no standards because I allow anonymice to post tasteless, crude statements on the comment section. I have reminded folks to mind their tongues and language or I'll start dumping again. And real threats (posting addresses, etc.) are a no-no. Do I have to remind some of you AGAIN? Fine. You're warned.

But here's what's critical about allowing some of these anonymice freedom to write what they write: The Reader is perfectly capable of coming to conclusions about the mind-set, ethics, manners, "soul" & etc of the writer as revealed by their own words. No matter how annonymicy these posters think they are, (or how much they just make stuff up as an "experiment" in jerking people around, for example) their REAL "voice" keeps leaking through and it's often a real piece of work. Eeeeuuuuuu.

The Reader who has been following these few (very few) "regular" mice, should know the players very well by now. No surprises there. And the Reader's judgement as to the quality and value of what these various mice have to say (and what their comments reveal about themselves, and why they continue to hide behind anonymouseness) is up to the Reader. Drawing conclusions about these annonymice is also up to the Reader, but in order to draw conclusions, it's important to know just what kind of people these folks are, as revealed by what they say.

This blog comment section gives people rope. Whether they create lifelines and interesting bridges to other posters or nooses with which to hoist themselves by their own petards (to mix a metaphor), is up to them. And judgement of whatever that rope creates is left up to the dear and gentle Reader.

Also, the comment section is separate from the main blog. If Readers are upset by some of the real ugliness of spirit found on the comment site, they need not click on and/or participate.; 7:35 AM, January 13, 2009
Unknown said...: Dear Ann...

Please remind us WHY CrapKiller was banned from this blog...

I'm sure you wouldn't want to be showing a double standard...; 7:57 AM, January 13, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: I wonder what Dr. Reuhr would think of the potty-mouthed "sewertoons is looney toons" above who defends him in such detail?; 12:33 PM, January 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: As I believe that: wisdom begins in wonder:

I wonder if Lynette can "tell me(us)that she believes her comments regarding Dr. Ruehr were timely and appropriate-"...Until your are dead, It’s never too late to apologize, Lynette.

Anyone can misspell, but it takes a level insensitive callousness that I have never seen before to misspeak so terribly when speaking of the deceased, especially before they have been buried.

S; 1:20 PM, January 13, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Ann opened the door to comments with, "Dr. Ruehr, a soil scientist at Cal Poly, was involved in the Hideous Sewer Wars for many years."

I have made no comment on Dr. Reuhr's personal life. I have made no comment on his life at Cal Poly. I know nothing about these areas. However as to his role as a public person in the Hideous Sewer Wars, I see fit to comment and don't find any disrespect in disagreeing with his views. Also, as a person who has seen people die from stress related illnesses, having heard reports of people dying over the CDO issuance, which GetRealOsos later corroborates with, "Do you have ANY idea how many fighting the corruption of the mega sewer have died, had heart attacks, and stokes?" it seemed time to remind people that you control your own reaction to stressful events. Hearing him speak, impassioned, yes, but stressy, -- yes (in MY OPINION). Did he scare people with "liquefaction" threats? His death made me think.

I don't like seeing people die, and I especially don't like seeing people die for reasons that had they thought or learned about stress, or been given a direction for thought on stress, they died needlessly. Yes, diet, genetics and exercise play a part, but threatening your health with a poor reaction to stress is a sad, unnecessary choice.

Dr. R has his own responsibility for his words which is not our concern and that might be addressed someplace other than this blog. I will also add that being dead does not immediately elevate all you have said to fact.

Some may argue that he helped the community. I find the innuendo and disparaging remarks not helpful, in MY OPINION. I find the delays to getting a sewer with his participation in the CAWS lawsuit not helpful. (Would we have any CDO's with a sewer in place? Would we have had received Clean Water Act funds without the lawsuits?)

ws mark, I don't see how speaking before or after burial should matter. But I fully embrace your right to YOUR OPINION.; 2:59 PM, January 13, 2009
Osos Change said...: Lynette,

By now you know you are a horrible person. What you've said and done in Los Osos in the name of taxpayers is atrocious. You're going to have to live with your idiotic comments for the rest of your pathetic life.

All you really are is the County's lip service. Whatever Paavo says, you say. You can't think for yourself. All you can say is, "Don't believe every impassioned speaker," and while that opinion on the surface isn't that bad, it's the principle of the matter. It's just shutting the door on the face of a man who is rather credible; credible enough to receive numerous awards and recognition from experts and the faculty at Cal Poly.

But that's where it ends. You had a choice to say, "He's a good man. Rest in peace," and you could've said, "Even though I disagree with him and barely knew the guy, I know he will be missed," but right after "I Remember" wrote that speech, you wrote Ruehr off as if you have some enlightened wisdom -- as if you know with such confidence that there are experts who disagree with him.

Paavo isn't an expert. He's an accountant.

Bruce Gibson isn't an expert. If he was, he would have stopped the discharging in Morro Bay and gave a damn about his district instead of rubbing elbows with Pandora.

Pandora Nash-Karner isn't an expert. She works for Montgomery Watson-Harza.

Joyce Albright isn't an expert. She's a spineless coward who rides around in her wheelchair, garnering sympathy.

Ann Garfinkel isn't an expert. She just thinks she's important because she's part of the League of Women Voters.

The TAC aren't experts. They're local sewer junkies who have all but two been outspoken in favor of a hastily developed, "shovel-ready" gravity collection system.

The RWQCB and the SWRQB aren't experts. If they were, they would be conducting studies pertaining to septic tank discharge in Los Osos instead of mailing CAOs and threatening CDOs for "alleged" pollution.

I fully embrace your right to your opinion, but not your idiocy.; 3:45 PM, January 13, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: What - people don't have the "right" to be an idiot? Is that what you meant to say? Just how exactly would that work in your world?; 4:03 PM, January 13, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: OsosChange,

Before you make Tom into more of a saint than he was, please remember two things ... his field of study was soils not sewers. Along those lines, there are very reasonable folks with at least as much knowledge and understanding as Tom who disagreed with him on a variety of issues.

Like I said earlier, we all make mistakes. If someone has made a mistake, we should all give them the grace to allow to rethink their position. Calling people names isn't as helpful as you might think ... it tends to cause any reasonable discussion to devolve into a shouting match with little benefit.

I am sure that Tom would agree. Let's honor him by letting such childishness drop by the wayside and move forward with a higher tenor in discussions here!; 4:12 PM, January 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette,

It is a shame you care only about those involved of the “front end” of (as you put it) “corruption of the mega sewer” and have not a care in the world for those who will be steam rolled out of existence physically one way or another after payment begins for the construction of an ill researched, technologically inferior, overpriced project.

I’ll stack Dr. Ruehr’s experience and knowledge regarding soil against anything you have written. Obviously you have nothing to “link/point to/cite”.

BTW, In November 1998 the County issues CDO's to the newly formed CSD for the developments/community collection septic tank discharges and the Fire Station.

In a hideous sewer war, one who fiddles is no friend of the public at all, toons.

Have you no shame? Karma is a _itch…; 4:24 PM, January 13, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Again, ws mark, this is YOUR opinion. I would hope that you would encourage those not getting with the PROCESS outlined by the County to do so. Too incur more delay only hurts the people the delayers intend to help, as it has all along.

I wouldn't presume to stack my own opinions against those of Dr. Reuhr, only those of others in his field of study. Like the documents in the DEIR written by experts that are fine with discharge at Broderson.; 4:59 PM, January 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: When idiocy/stupidity is painful there will be less of it.
Needless stupidity in the LOSTDEP will be painful; financially, environmentally and otherwise.

The toll on some folks could be unbearable.
Think about that, as you attempt to provide cover for those responsible for public safety/affairs when hard questions remain, unanswered by those same people.

Here’s one-Why would anyone want a $25M for an ox-ditch that produces secondary water, which must be upgradeable to tertiary when an $8.8M tertiary “gravity flow” MBR is available?
When you answer that question you may be tempted to challenge your current position. If you answer the question before it comes before the BOS for a vote you will have no need to be “sorry” later.

It’s only a question, Lynette.
Why are you having so much trouble with it?

Why not be “smart” when selecting solutions?
We simply must be bright enough to ask why.; 5:12 PM, January 13, 2009
Osos Change said...: An interesting note:

You know expert witnesses can be paid to alter their opinion and cater that opinion to whoever lined their pockets with cash.

With that said, the County pays their experts to be experts in the process but even then, those experts did not do one single study on discharge at Broderson. Not one. They can say they're "fine with it," but that doesn't mean that they're right.; 6:19 PM, January 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette,
The cost of MBR has gone from $50.16 per gallon capital cost in July 2006 to $7.40 per gallon capital cost today.

The energy it takes to operate ECOfluid's MBR Design is nil as it capitalizes upon "gravity".

So you see, you are incorrect when you "think"- "Too incur more delay only hurts the people the delayers intend to help, as it has all along."

CRACK!; 8:26 PM, January 13, 2009
sewertoons is looney toons said...: Hi everyone. It's me again. Like I said, I only drop in here 3 or 4 times a year and post in here less often. Before Sunday, I can't remember my last post. I think it had something to do with Babe Ruth's use of hot dogs and beer as substitute for performance enhancing drugs. Anyway, it was a long time ago. Vanity has caused me to investigate the response to my last post on Sunday. I thank God that, for me, this blog has not become the heroin most of you are addicted to. I want to apologize to everyone who was offended by the "naughty" words that I used in my last post on Sunday. Sometimes, it's just way too easy to use a four letter word to express the way I feel than five or six words that mean the same thing. My sense of comedy was shaped by the likes of George Carlin and Richard Pryor and their sense of comedy was shaped by the likes of Red Foxx and Lenny Bruce. George is mostly widely known for his mid70's "seven dirty words" routine. I am a huge George Carlin fan. Reflecting on George Carlin's career and his entire body of work, if you omit the "seven dirty words routine", the use of "foul" language in his work is minimal at best. Anybody with a half a brain cell, will understand that this routine has absoutlely nothing to do with the use of "naughty" words. This routine demonstrates the complexities involved with regulating freedom of speech.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM

Needless to say, I am not as talented as George.

What follows is a more palatable(PG) version of my Sunday post..........edits are in italicized bold
Upon completion of this post, I will delete the first draft.

--------------------------------

Ann, thanks for your post this morning. I was working on a similar post last night when I fell asleep on my keyboard. I don’t come in here often and I post even less often. To be honest, I got sick of all this excriment some time ago. But, after reading sewertoons post, I can’t help myself. Unfortunately, I have joined the party in the back of the church with the sticks, water balloons, and dunce caps on. I apologize for nothing.

Lynette(a.k.a sewertoons) , I have had just about enough of your highly hypocritical, ignorant, and insensitive remarks in this blog. I would like Lynette and everyone to scroll back up to her first comment regarding Dr. Ruehr. Reread this comment and tell me again Lynette that you believe your comments were timely and appropriate, you insensitive, stupid, obnoxious, extremely disagreeable creature.

First Lynette, after reading your post, I felt like taking a bath. A bath deeper than you(Lynette) will ever be able to fathom you shallow, obtuse, tactless, unpleasant, spiteful, overbearing woman.

Just for fun, Let's dissect Lynette's first post........

First, you chose to paint Dr. Ruehr, who wasn’t even buried yet, as some sort of obsessive sewer freak. I find this hypocritically ironic and hilariously funny considering this criticism of Dr. Ruehr comes from someone who hides behind a name like "sewertoons"(a.k.a. Lynette Tornatzky) and that this someone has absolutely nothing better to do with her life than spend hours sitting hind-fixed staring into a computer monitor and posting onto a sewer blog all day long.
We're not laughing with you Lynette. We're laughing at you. I mean really Lynette, if you really want to see what an obsessive sewer freak looks like, all you have to do is look in the mirror.....

Lynette's second major idiotic and highly hilarious hypotcritical gaffe?.........
After her ignorant and idiotic attempt to paint Dr. Ruehr as an obsessive sewer freak, Lynette presumptuously and capriciously presumes that Dr. Ruehr's health problems were related to the time, dedication, and brilliant mind he contributed to our community's water issues.
What is it that makes Lynette's claim hypocritical and hilariously ironic? I remember a few years ago when Lynette, who is the real obsessive sewer freak that posts in here 10 or 20 times a week cause she has no life outside the sewer, I remember when Lynette came down with a case of the shingles. It is believed that the disease shingles is brought on by excessive stress and fatigue. Nobody claimed that Lynette's case of the shingles was caused by her freakish obsession with the sewer issue, but in light of her comments regarding Dr. Ruehr, Perhaps it is you Lynette, the queen of obsessive sewer idiots....perhaps it is you who should not allow obsessing on sewer issues to impinge on your health. Perhaps it is you who should check with your physician or consult with a shrink, do biofeedback or some yoga. Perhaps you should change your name to "SEWERSHINGLES". Perhaps you should look in the mirror before making comments like this about someone else. You are a vacant minded and soulless insensitive, stupid, obnoxious, extremely disagreeable creature.. You need help Lynette, serious, professional help.

You also claim in your post that you "don't believe every impassioned speaker."and you ask us to "Do your own fact checking"....

HHMMMMMMMMMMM let me think for one second.... when it comes to our wastewater issues, who should I listen to?.....
A PHD like Dr. Ruehr who has years of education, knowledge, and the intelligence and dedication to solve our community's water problems OR should I listen to an empty shell of a human being like Lynette(sewertoons) who brings nothing to the table except a political agenda?

Ok. I'm done thinking. Go find yourself, Lynette. I'm listening to Dr. Ruehr.

As far as Dr. Ruehr’s expertise goes, there was absolutely noone in the County who was more qualified to sit on the TAC than Dr. Ruehr. Could someone please explain to me how a “community volunteer”(Maria Kelly) and an attorney who was involved with the sale of TRI-W property(Marshall Ochylski) were more qualified to sit on the environmental group that an PHD in soil science who has more knowledge on our local problem than Maria has in the tip of her pinky fingernail? So why wasn’t Dr Ruehr selected? Dr. Ruehr was not selected because Dr. Ruehr’s knowledge, education, expertise, and experience, did not fit with the County of San Luis Obispo’s preconceived agenda.. Dr. Ruehr was not selected to the TAC because his credible expertise expected to be a thorn in the side of the County’s preconceived plan. So, instead of selecting someone with a PHD in Soil Science and years of local knowledge and experience on our water issues to serve on the environmental group, the County decided to select a patsy “community volunteer” who worked as an intern for recalled Gordon Hensley(Maria Kelly) and a patsy attorney who was involved in the sale of the failed TRI-W property(Marshall Ochylski). By the way, when claiming you are a “community volunteer” as an occupation on a ballot, do you know what this really means? It means you are unemployed.
With Dr. Ruehr’s omission, the County completely embarrassed and exposed itself. At this point, it became very clear to me the direction the County was going to take and that the TAC was nothing more than a big “dog and pony” show. Want to hear something funny? A few months after the 218 passed, I ran into an insider who works for the county public works department at a holiday fund raiser. I asked him what direction he felt the county would take regarding the wastewater project. At first he stated it was too early in the process to speculate. But, after a few drinks(both him and myself) I pressed him and just asked; “Based on what you know today, if you had to guess or bet on it today, what would you say?” He responded; “gravity collection to an out of town treatment facility.” Then, I asked him what he thought about the TRI-W project. He laughed out loud and walked away. Guess what? These comments were made before the TAC committee was ever formed. I never sold-out my informant. Throwing someone under the bus is not the smartest move if you ever want them to speak with you again. Based on what my insider friend had told me, the biased TAC selections were no surprise. I knew the TAC was a farce, a dog and pony show so that when the county decided to do what it was already going to do, they could say the community had input. What a joke. I would personally like to thank everyone who served on the TAC committee for wasting their time and ours. Thanks, thanks for nothing.

Getting back to Lynette’s wonderfully sick and twisted comments regarding Dr. Ruehr’s expertise, if we decide to go with discharge at the Broderson site, and after a few years of the tap, tap, tapping resonance which will lead to liquefaction causing half the hillside to collapse onto Los Osos Valley road, will you(Lynette) be willing to forgive yourself when you find out you were wrong? When people die and homes are lost, will you be willing to forgive yourself, Lynette? Are you blind? All one has to do is look at and explore the hillsides just above the Broderson site to see and find escarpments that have been carved out by natural causes. Get a finding clue.

Finally Lynette(sewertoons),
I wish that you had expressed you condolences to Mrs. Ruehr personally rather than attempt to piss on the man’s grave in a blog site. If you, Lynette, don’t believe the comments you made regarding Dr. Ruehr in your post were appropriate to make to Mrs. Ruehr, then what on earth makes you think it was ok to post your comments here?

Lynette, you are an empty shell of a human being. You are a heartless, soulless, brain dead idiot.
I just have one request Lynette. If you are going to piss on a man’s grave in a blog site, Could you please try to show the intelligence you lack by at least spelling the man’s name correctly?
:) xxooxx(__ * __)

Gute nacht, mein fraulein.
Sieg heil.

___________________________________

I think it is very important at least once or twice a year to laugh until you cry.

I didn't cry but after reading Sewertoons' & Mike's response to my Sunday post, I did laugh very hard. Apparently, Sewertoons and Mike seem to think that I am the same poster as Osos Change. I can only respond to this by asking Mike and Lynette, Do you guys even remember at what point in time you completely and totally lost your mind? I don't know much. But there is one thing that I do know. I know I am not Osos Change. No matter how bad you guys want me to be, I am not. Maybe Osos Change is really Ann or Watershed Mark? No, wait. I know. Maybe Osos Change is Barack Obama. I've always felt that Osos Change was Elvis but this is just my personal opinion and what do I know?
Question.......
What kind of psychotic, paranoid delusions allow someone's hatred & paranioa to assign a real identity to an anonymous blogger?
Lynette & Mike, at what point in time did this blog become a virtual reality for you? I didn't realize they allowed internet access to the patients at Atascadero State. I'm guessing that Mike and Lynette are Atascadero State Alumni. Mike & Lynette, your ship sailed a long time ago. I'm just wondering if you even remember when it left the port? You're playing solitaire. The problem is, your deck is missing a few cards and there is no way you can win. Lynette implying Osos Change and I are the same person said; "I do know who you are and feel sad that your problems overcome the person I know you to be inside."
Lynette, I'm reaching out to you in your padded cell.....
You have no idea or clue who I am you crazy fucking bitch cunt.

Next,
I would like to draw everyones attention to the comments Lynette Tornatzky(sewertoons) makes at 2:59pm today(1/13)......

I give up. I have attempted as hard as I possibly can to expose, the heartless, soulless, stupid, obnoxious, shallow, obtuse, tactless, unpleasant, spiteful spitit we have all come to know and love as Lynette Tornatzky.
I give up. I tried as hard as I can. I can't do a better job than Lynette herself. Her own words truely speak for herself.
But, I'll give it a shot anyway.......
Lynette says; "I have made no comment on Dr. Reuhr's personal life.
No, you just claimed he died because of his involvement in the Los Osos sewer issue. Lynette, do you even realize how fucking stupid your assertion is?

SEWERSHINGLES, DO YOU REALIZE HOW CLEAR IT IS TO ANYBODY WITH HALF A BRAIN, WHAT YOU ARE DOING?

What you are doing is projecting a problem you have(sewer obsession) on to somebody you have never met and don't know.
It's just unfortunate that this somebody(Dr. Ruehr) is a dead person who can't defend themself against your false accusation.

Lynette says;"I don't like seeing people die, and I especially don't like seeing people die for reasons that had they thought or learned about stress, or been given a direction for thought on stress, they died needlessly.
I don't like seeing people get shingles, SEWERSHINGELS(Lynette). Have you looked in the mirror? You're looking extremely pale these days. And I don't mean the usual Lynette "I'm a vampire" pale, I mean pale even for you. Have you called your doctor this week, you fucking hypocrite?

Finally,

Last night Lynette stated; "I just want to say thank you to the county....I think you've done a great job.....I'm really happy to see you continue despite what you "face" every meeting".
In a post today Lynette states;"I would hope that you would encourage those not getting with the PROCESS outlined by the County to do so.

This is my question for you Sewershingles.....
What is it the County has to face every meeting that you are so against?
My post has come full George Carlin circle.
What the County has to face every meeting that Lynette is so against is something called "Freedom of Speech"
Lynette, you have made it very clear that you are a heartless, soulless, stupid, obnoxious, shallow, obtuse, tactless, unpleasant, spiteful creature. What I didn't realize is that you had a problem with freedom of speech. When I said;"Gute nacht, mein fraulein.
Sieg heil." I was joking about you being a Facist Nazi. But, based on your comments today and last night, I guess it's not a joke. On top of everything else, you are a Facist Nazi, aren't you.

Anyway, in closing, I would just like to remind everyone that if it were not for Pandora, Stan, Gordon, Richard LeGros, and Taxpayers Watch and the lies this same group of people told us all back in 1998, we would all be hooked up to an out of town County project right now and be paying $70/month.

Go fuck yourself TW.
:)
xxooxx
(__*__)

and to Lynette my love,
Gute nacht, mein fraulein.
Sieg heil.; 12:04 AM, January 14, 2009
Churadogs said...: O.K. can we all get a life now? And as for people thinking they know who anonymouse posters are & etc, please. I've said it repeatedly, NOTHING in the blog comment section is "real." People can make up phony names, use real people's names and claim to be them, even though it's patently false, and say anything they want, including blatant lies, and the Dear and Gentle Reader has no way of knowing who they are or what they're saying is true or false. That's why I warn people Caveat Emptor in this section. The main blog is written by me, it was set up by "Newsstand" Greg McClure, is keyed to a separate account and passowrd protected, it has my name on it and is not anonnymous. I put my name on my opinions. The comment section is nameless and hence has no credibility or accountability except for the choice I have to garbage-can dump certain posters or I can turn off the response button entirely and you'll all go have to whine and lie and snarl on some other blog site.

So, plluuueeeze, grow up, get a grip and get a life. Jeeeze.; 6:54 AM, January 14, 2009
Billy Dunne said...: If I'n not mistaken, the Bay News carries Calhoun's Canon's every other Friday. There they encourage everyone to "keep up with Ann" by logging onto this blog. I wonder if they're aware of the filth on here by the anonymous blogger calling himself "sewertoons is looney toones." I certainly would not want my children reading this trash, and they read the Bay News.

Free speech is free speech, and if this blog wants to allow unfiltered filth as a means of opinion, more power to you Ann. But I certainly question the Bay News, a family newspaper, pointing people in the direction of this garbage.; 9:25 AM, January 14, 2009
Ron said...: Ann wrote:

"... I can turn off the response button entirely and you'll all go have to whine and lie and snarl on some other blog site. "

Oh, for the love of god, noooooooooo!!!!

Sewertoons is Looney Toons wrote:

"... when it comes to our wastewater issues, who should I listen to?.....
A PHD like Dr. Ruehr who has years of education, knowledge, and the intelligence and dedication to solve our community's water problems OR should I listen to an empty shell of a human being like Lynette(sewertoons) who brings nothing to the table except a political agenda."

Exactly. Just like I recently wrote, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/11/hilarious-dynamic-on-display-in-los.html

when I wrote:

- - -

"The Tri-W project, when scrutinized by objective officials (read: NOT 1998 - 2005 LOCSD officials), didn't even make the short list for potential projects.

Furthermore, the National Water Resources Institute, comprised of some of the top water quality professionals in the world, were unanimous: "Given the number of problematic issues with the downtown site (Tri-W), it is the unanimous opinion of the Panel that an out-of-town site(s) is a better alternative."

So, when a Tri-W project developer/supporter, these days, says something like, "That is why I like Tri-W - in town, not expandable - oh, and cheaper," what they are also saying is that every SLO County official is wrong, and every NWRI member is wrong, and they (in this pathetic case, an anonymous blog commenter with the handle of "SewerToons") are right.

To add to the hilarity, nowadays, the only people willing to stick their necks out for the failed Tri-W project, ARE anonymous commenters on blogs... which is exactly what they will do in the comments section below this post. I already know they will, because they have to.

They HAVE TO keep the Big Lie going.

Without it, it will immediately become clear to everyone that the 1998 - 2005 Los Osos CSD wasted over $20 million and seven years on a technological embarrassment, and ripped the town apart in the process.

Also, without the continuation of the Big Lie in some form -- not only am I shown right, but also that the recall of the elected officials responsible for the Tri-W project in 2005 was the exact right thing to do, and the stoppage of the Tri-W project by the officials that replaced the recalled three, was also, the exact right thing to do.

And the people that developed the Tri-W project can never let that happen... at any cost.

- - -

Sooooo true.

I just love it... the people that developed the Tri-W embarrassment are now saying, "support the county's process," when the county's process continually shows the Tri-W project to be the exact colossal embarrassment that I've reported it to be, beginning in 2004.

I love it! Pandora and SewerWatch, on the exact same page!

Kumbaya do dooo, do do dooo...

How 'bout Paavo, last Tuesday? Saying they realized immediately that they could save some $25 million just by moving the plant out of town. Awesome!

My favorite part of last Tuesday was Bob Semenson. I mean, how did his day go?

He, a former CSD Director responsible for the Tri-W embarrassment, sat in the audience at the Supervisors' meeting, and listened to Paavo outline, for about an hour, exactly why that project was a colossal embarrassment, then, after all of that, Semenson got up and accepted the Resolution honoring the TAC, that he was a part of...

Huh?; 9:57 AM, January 14, 2009
Unknown said...: I'm curious as to what a $25M savings really means... Does that mean there will be NO AQUIFIER REPLENISHMENT like the Tri-W Plan would have done...??? Does that mean there would be no attempt at reversing salt water intrusion...??? Does that mean piped water to Los Osos as the well become more contaminated...??? ...and my favorite, does that mean "controlled" growth...of about 20,000 to 50,000 homes and Wal-Marts in the open space between SLO Town and LO Town...??? Tell us Ronnie, how a sewer PARK out of town that does not address those 4 items that the very legal and permitted, Tri-W Design had under construction... Think Ronnie... The Tri-W Plan was small enough to prevent "uncontrolled growth" and still refreshed our drinking water while holding back salt intrusion and drastically would have reduced the present septic induced pollution...

Congratulations, the Sewer Obstructionists have won...!!!! Let CalTrans keep their CSD-seasoned "professionals" working on beginning the 6 lane expansion of LOV Parkway....!!!! Let KB Homes rape the LO Valley...!!!! Yup, you sewer obstructions have won... You weren't capable of compromise and now you have no choices... Have fun paying your sewer AND water bills...!!!!; 2:08 PM, January 14, 2009
M said...: 20,000-50,000 homes?
Sincerely, M; 5:00 PM, January 14, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE:
The Tertiary MBR slated for Tri-W was $50M+ because it had to get below 7mg/l TIN.

Because moving the treatment facility out of town is outside the "P" zone Ox-Ditch (upgradeable to Tertiary in the future) secondary water above 20 mg/l TIN for $25M is what P thinks it should cost.

$50M - $25M = $25M or a savings of $25M.

Like I said MIKE, if stupidity was painful there would be less of it...; 5:16 PM, January 14, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

Do you know if discharging 20 mg/l water outside the PZ would allow us to use our upper aquifer and blend water with the lower? That would be a HUGE issue for Los Osos.; 7:23 PM, January 14, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,
Remember www.basinwater.com ? Agricultural regions, like Avondale, Arizona, are often plagued by high levels of nitrate in their groundwater - a side effect of long-term fertilization.
These folks solve drinking water problems like nitrates…I'm the guy with the $8.8M Tertiary Membrane Treatment Technology.

MIKE:

$50M- $8.8M = $41.2 Savings. (sorry Lynette, waiting has saved money)

I wonder why Paavo has not picked up on this money saving technology yet.

Oh well, perhaps the DEIR comments and responses will produce the level of understanding required to grasp that the technology everyone is looking for is actually here and on the table.

http://www.wwdmag.com/Moving-Forward-article9913
Aging infrastructure, energy costs and environmental protection are among the challenges facing modern water/wastewater professionals. In an interview with WWD Associate Editor Caitlin Cunningham, Robert Y.G. Andoh, director of innovation for Hydro Intl., shed light on the need for the industry to make a paradigm shift.

On a common sense note: $41.2M would go a very long way towards buying all the technology needed to eliminate the nitrates and other impurities from the upper aquifer.; 9:36 PM, January 14, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Do you know if discharging 20 mg/l water outside the PZ would allow us to use our upper aquifer and blend water with the lower?

Too bad Dr. Ruehr isn't here to address your question.; 9:40 PM, January 14, 2009
Unknown said...: ..in other words Mark, you don't know....!!! Why don't you go read Wikipedia and report back with your "scientific" findings....

You really don't know what Shark asked... You just spit out some more nonsense and never answered his question... You never answer any questions... Is there anyone left who wonders why you didn't get your "lastest and greatest technology" past the County...????; 10:18 PM, January 14, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

Thanks for speaking to the issue, but this question is essentially a regulatory one. Los Osos is not allowed to harvest water from the upper aquifer (you know, the one with nitrates) and treat it a the wellhead unless we first stop the pollution of the upper aquifer. Presumably you know that. What I am asking you is this ... if treating our wastewater and discharging it outside the PZ is sufficient.

Recharge itself is another huge issue.

Much of the hoopla over saving money by moving things out of town (and, by the way, the estimated cost is still higher than TriW) overlooks the fact that there were distinct benefits of TriW (like aquifer recharge) which aren't part of the new plan.; 10:21 PM, January 14, 2009
Churadogs said...: Inlet sez:"Los Osos is not allowed to harvest water from the upper aquifer (you know, the one with nitrates) and treat it a the wellhead unless we first stop the pollution of the upper aquifer."

Hmmmm, good question.; 9:03 AM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,
Please provide the link that supports the statement:
"Los Osos is not allowed to harvest water from the upper aquifer (you know, the one with nitrates) and treat it a the wellhead unless we first stop the pollution of the upper aquifer."

Please detail cost factors that show Tri-W was supposed to recharge the aquifer.

The point of that exercise is to demonstrate every component like recharge, reuse etc., is priced separately.

When you break the capital costs out into the components and use better less costly technology in or out of town the price comes down.

This is what the county's study process should reveal.
Your question about discharging polluted/secondary instead of reclaimed water outside the P zone is a good one.

How is the water to be “recharged”?
Will that selected process actually work as it has never been done?

I’m sorry to see the natural balance disturbed as it has served LO?BP so well for so long.

If you want more discussion about “wastewater regulatory” issues try subscribing to:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/ to manage your
subscription or unsubscribe. To unsubscribe, click on the "my forums" tab and click on "unsubscribe".

For problems with this list, contact decentralized-Owner@lists.epa.gov

MIKE, I think it is time for you to switch bottles…; 9:19 AM, January 15, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

Simple, read all the documents relating to the PZ and LOCSD and TriW since 1983 and you'll find what you want.

All the best...; 10:22 AM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Simply put Steve, You don't have anything, again, to back up your claim(s).

I cannot actually do anything based upon "impressions" from something you may or may not have read.
I guess you shouldn't take yourself too seriously.

Stupid is as stupid does...OUCH!
CRACK!; 11:25 AM, January 15, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

I was commenting on your propensity to reply to specific requests by saying "hey, just go and read this ... and this ... and this" but to not provide specific quotes when asked for them.

Now, to your question. You should ask Richard LeGros about this issue. I know when he mentioned it, he provided some details but when it was, I forget. Presumably if you are really interested in the answer (which I doubt) you could follow up with him. Let us know.

However, I would like to make the point once more that ... if the disposal of high-nitrate water outside the PZ does not allow us to harvest from our upper aquifer, those "savings" you refer to have a cost associated which you neglected to state.; 12:26 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,

I cannot work with your recollections, impressions or faulty memory.
You seem more interested in jousting and finding solutions.

Until the men of action clear out the talkers we who have social consciences are at the mercy of those who have none.
George Bernard Shaw

It is your drinking water and YOUR question, Stiv.
If I were you and in your shoes, I would use all my resources to get an answer.

Forget about the cost of the project, without water there is "no life".
Treasure of Sierra Madre comes to mind: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040897/quotes

Howard: Water's precious. Sometimes may be more precious than gold.

In the end Howard, Bob Curtin and Fred C. Dobbs all perish without ever tasting the benefits of their gold.; 1:34 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve wrote: However, I would like to make the point once more that ... if the disposal of high-nitrate water outside the PZ does not allow us to harvest from our upper aquifer, those "savings" you refer to have a cost associated which you neglected to state.

Prove it, show me the evidence/proof/LINKAGE

Fun huh?; 1:35 PM, January 15, 2009
Unknown said...: Mark...come back and talk when you have a real property stake in our water issues in Los Osos... until then you are merely wasting time.... Take YOUR problems to the Bd of Supv and see if they can answer, or even want to answer to your over-abundance of BS...

You have got to be one of the worst salesmen on this planet...; 2:26 PM, January 15, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

This seems to be a game to you. No surprise, really, considering that you don't live here and you aren't putting too much time and effort into convincing the County. On, the other hand, the amount of time you're putting in here is another matter and makes me think that you are enjoying these discussions.

What I find odd is this ... while you seem to view this as a game, you aren't very good at playing it. If you are trying to convince people that your views make sense you should be sure to answer reasonable questions.

If your goal, on the other hand, is to convince us that you are simply interested in an argument, you are doing a great job.

The ball's in your court. Let us know what you find out after you talk with Richard. The key point here is this ... if you aren't interested in key questions like whether it is better to use a cheaper plant out of town (as you suggested) and get no recharge or whether it is better to use a more expensive process but then get to reuse the water, you shouldn't probably be here commenting at all.

Probably the same comment should go to Ron because he's the one who brought it up suggesting that we're saving money by abandoning TriW. Yes, with out of town a cheaper plant can be used if you don't care about aquifer recharge ... but if you do care about aquifer recharge, it seems things are a bit more expensive. Again, Ron should focus on the scope of various proposed projects to see what is the biggest bang for the buck.

As an obligatory comment, yes, we all know that Mark claims that his system will save us tons of money and do everything better than whatever the County is proposing and better than TriW as well. The problem here is that the County hasn't been convinced, so even if Mark is right, we don't have that option.; 3:49 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE,

Like I said MIKE, if stupidity was painful there would be less of it...

Fun huh?; 3:50 PM, January 15, 2009
Unknown said...: Apparently you would really enjoy all the pain Mark... But enough wasted time reading your nonsense...have fun "convincing" the permit/funding authorities that you have the greatest wijit...; 3:57 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: When I read a reasonable question Stiv, I have answered it.
You still haven't provided the basis for any of your positions...

Go ask Richard and go read the paper blizzard from 2+ decades doesn't quite cut it, in my book.
You'll starve if that's how you hunt...

Why is my opinion regarding the hydraulic management of the aquifer important to you?
My area of interest is what happens to wastewater as it enters the technology and how much it costs to get it to reclaimed water status. What happens to it before and after isn’t my problem it is yours.

Whatever happens you will pay for it, in more than one way. Stay strong and don’t be afraid to confront those attempting to decide exactly what to do before they do it. You will never regret doing that…

Perhaps your thinking that I or any technology provider (Ox-Ditch/Bio-Lac, etc) somehow is responsible for sorting out every aspect of the water management issues that are occurring because the county is “considering” rerouting the direction water travels in you very unique water basin. What part of it has never been done before, don’t you understand?

I think DR. Ruehr’s comments will live to serve as an example of what should and should not happen.
I appreciate the "obligatory Statement" it shows you are paying some attention to the details.

The county initiated process is still underway.; 4:06 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: RL had his thumb on the scale regarding the hurry up and start construction before we agree to have a recall the people called for.
Does RL live in the P Zone?

BTW, The state standard for drinking water nitrate is 45mg/l.
The 7 mg/l P zone limit is being adjudicated because there was never any scientific proof that water containing nitrates exceeding 45mg/l was actually entering the aquifer.

The leakage from a gravity pipe at 499 gpd per diameter inch per mile of pipe(for starters) will provide a significant amount of pollution to the aquifer.
Please (anyone) correct me if I am incorrect about any of the above statements.

I think those following our exchange deserve to see RL’s point of view. He makes several great points although he never did answer your question, did he?
Too bad RL isn’t following the discussion more closely. As he may not be immediately affected because he doesn’t live in the P zone I understand why.

Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"

From: Shark Inlet [mailto:sharkinlet@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:52 PM
To: Mark Low
Subject: Fwd: Disposal outside the PZ and pumping requirements

FYI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: kpgrbl kpgrbl@aol.com
Date: Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Subject: Re: Disposal outside the PZ and pumping requirements
To: Shark Inlet sharkinlet@gmail.com

Hi Steve

State water law is very clear on this issue. Before a polluted water source may be used, the source of the pollution must be removed first. Once the pollution source is removed, the polluted water source may be used for consumption via wellhead water treatment/filtration, blending of clean and polluted water to a statutorily prescribed limit, etc. To be clear,

The County's intent (to avoid the RWQCB's required limit of 7 mg/l N discharge within the basin) is to dispose of all the water via spray fields outside of town and the Los Osos aquifer.....the 'savings' coming from using less expensive technology to clean water to a much lower standard. Of course, this attitude does nothing to preserve our aquifer unless an equal amount of water is imported into the district; thus negating the need for water from our aquifer; otherwise in order to discharge the secondary-treated water in Los Osos, the water will have to be treated to 7 mg/l N at the disposal site (cost unknown). As the County has decided to do some discharge at Broderson (to address salt water intrusion), gravity well disposal will have a filtration component.

The County's solution is not proactive in the anticipation of future (stricter) water quality statutes. In the future, going to tertiary treatment via membrane filtration will become a precursor to reverse osmosis filtration....which may need be done in order to remove a variety of 'emerging contaminants' such as hormones, enzymes, drugs, etc.

Nor does the County plan address the CC requirement to preserve existing wetlands (created in the last 30 years) as water tables will drop to pre-prohibition levels. All those wetlands that have arisen due to unnaturally high water tables caused by the prohibition will dry up and die off.

Nor does the County plan deal with maintaining the aquifer water tables on either side of the 'inferred fault'.

You get the point... the Tri-W project resolved all those issues to a higher level of treatment at a lower (pre stimulus package) cost. Such an opportunity lost. C'est la vie.

I suspect the County wants the out-of-town site for several reasons;

1. The project creates a new sewage treatment facility which creates a new water source in the control of the County; which they may want
to use for future growth along the LO Valley corridor. The treatment plant site fits the historical model of urban sprawl (build it out of town
and the town will grow up to and around it).
2. The project will force Los Osos to tie into the Naciemento Water Project (spreading the costs to the County) as the treated water is not
entirely returned to the aquifer. To avoid depletion of the aquifer water need be imported.
3. The site is large enough (and centrally located) for a countywide sewage sludge handling facility. This is a plus for the County as
anticipated state law will mandate that each county handle it's own sewage sludge instead of hauling to distant treatment facility. Such a
facility will make a lot of money for the County.

Overall, in the future I doubt the County will return the project to the LOCSD for the above-stated reasons (and control); as well as the
project will become a new major source of County revenue.

Do not get me wrong...I support the County efforts 100%. Let us just say that the needs of Los Osos are secondary to the future needs and wishes of the County. When Los Osos handed over the Project, the County was given a 'goldmine' which they will mine to drive future growth, create sludge-handling facilities, and create an expanded property tax base. Los Osos Valley will look much different in 2025 than it does today, my friend.

Regards, Richard LeGros

In a message dated 01/15/09 12:32:28 Pacific Standard Time, sharkinlet@gmail.com writes:

Richard,

In Ann's blog there is a discussion about saving money by disposing treated wastewater outside the PZ (presumably this would allow for the discharge to have higher nitrate levels and therefore there could be a cost savings). I remember you mentioning one time that in Los Osos we could not pump from the upper aquifer until we started treating our wastewater. Do you remember that discussion? Do you know whether disposing high-nitrate water outside the PZ would then allow us to harvest from our upper aquifer and then treat the water at the wellhead?

All the best....

S; 5:03 PM, January 15, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

Two things ...

I am sure that Richard wouldn't mind, but typically polite people will ask for and wait for permission before posting the private email of others into a public forum.

Second, I forwarded you Richard's answer as a courtesy because you indicated that you weren't gonna bother consulting him yourself.

Richard does raise some good points ... but the key here seems to be that the County project is clearly inferior to TriW in many ways which matter to Los Osos.

I also think that I'm not likely gonna e-mail you anything in the future if you are so quick to disregard standard e-mail protocol. Now I wonder whether the authors of the other e-mails you've posted here know that you've used their words in this fashion.; 5:25 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,

Please send me the link to "email protocol" as I understand it:
There is no expectation of privacy in cyberspace.

Please cut and paste those "authors of the other e-mails you've posted here know that you've used their words in this fashion." and I'll be happy to respond.

Generalities just don't cut it.; 5:39 PM, January 15, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

Please cut-n-paste from an authoritative document which says that "there is no expectation of privacy" with e-mails. If you can't do it, I will pretend that what you say is not valid.

My gosh you're being argumentative. My question is this ... why?; 6:22 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Article1

CRACK!
Double fun, huh?; 7:22 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: When I have asked you to "back up" your position, you never have, so-
If you can't do it, I will know that what you say is not valid.

CRACK!; 7:24 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,

I cannot work with your recollections, impressions or faulty memory.
You seem more interested in jousting than finding solutions.

I wanted to amend my comment...; 7:58 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Sorry MIKE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales
Salespersons
The primary function of professional sales is to generate and close leads, educate prospects, fill needs and satisfy wants of consumers appropriately, and therefore turn prospective customers into actual ones. The successful questioning to understand a customer's goal and requirements relevant to the product, the further creation of a valuable solution by communicating the necessary information that encourages a buyer to achieve their goal at an economic cost is the responsibility of the salesperson or the sales engine (e.g. internet, vending machine etc). A good sales person should never miss sell or over evaluate the customers requirements. A great sales person will never UNDER evaluate or under sell their
customer, they allow the customer to make the decision they never pre-qualify a sales lead.

CRACK!; 8:03 PM, January 15, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

Logic does not allow you to to say that my statements are invalid just because I choose not to cut-n-paste quotes as you keep demanding.

Frankly, dealing with you is annoying. Perhaps you don't understand my rhetorical style. Perhaps you are just trying to be annoying. Who knows.

All I do know is that I am getting tired of trying to interact with you in a way which will help you.

I am probably not going to respond to your comments in the future for your sake at all .... but if I feel that others will benefit. If you wanna take that as my having no evidence to back up my point of view, find.

Lastly, I would suggest that your impression of reality is quite at odds with my own. Maybe you find it reasonable to simply insist that the war in Iraq makes us safer or that and that the County has ample proof that your fantastic device will meet the requirements of the state, but I am not gonna start with that assumption. I'm gonna want strong evidence to believe what you seem to take as a matter of faith. Thus far, you've not shown these thing. No surprise that we see things differently.; 8:40 PM, January 15, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: So mark, you are verifying that you are a poor salesperson. Why? We already know this.; 8:42 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve:
HELP yourself. Ask the hard questions from those you have helped to elect.
If you will not read the documentation which I provided you cannot understand the quality of the technology.

Everyone sees what they wish. There are none so blind as those who will not see.; 9:26 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lastly Lynette:

A good sales person should never miss sell or over evaluate the customers requirements. A great sales person will never UNDER evaluate or under sell their
customer, they allow the customer to make the decision they never pre-qualify a sales lead.

...More Tea?; 9:28 PM, January 15, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Mark,

If you are inclined to post my private letters (emails), be considerate and ask my permission first. 9 times out of 10 my response would / will be yes.

-R; 9:28 PM, January 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: RL:
So was this email one you would have said yes to me posting?; 10:26 PM, January 15, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: I have no idea what the community survey will look like. If there is no box to check for Tri-W, I will write in Tri-W and say, "If our choice is only out of town, I'll go with whatever is the community preference." I would pick Turri as my #2 favorite, as no one is likely to sue that far out!

I think the County is sick of hearing about why Los Osos rejected Tri-W, however they are now getting a different earful (from the main complainers about Tri-W) on how the DEIR-preferred Turri Road location is awful - because the water is wasted, its piped too far away, water is not released over our basin, not cleaned to tertiary. Gee, all the things that Tri-W DID! Giacomazzi is better they say - near a church which is a reason they used against Tri-W! They want mini-plants in town - plants IN TOWN? That was their reason against Tri-W, it was in-town! One complainer went so far as to say it should be located where it was going to go right before the CSD was formed.

The poor County. Los Osos is beyond mixed up as represented by the vocal 12. The rest of us? Guess we'll see how the survey comes out.; 11:04 PM, January 15, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Oh, another beauty about Tri-W? There is nothing left to sue over - it is sue-proof!; 11:06 PM, January 15, 2009
Unknown said...: ...Hi 'Toons...

The Sewer Obstructionists are against ANY SEWER, ANY WHERE, and at all costs...!!!!

Hopefully the County is fed up with those clowns parading before the Bd of Supv's with their endless bleating and threats...

...I wouldn't count out those extremeists sueing over any sewer at any location in SLO County...; 5:45 AM, January 16, 2009
Churadogs said...: Billy Dunne sez;"I wonder if they're aware of the filth on here by the anonymous blogger calling himself "sewertoons is looney toones." I certainly would not want my children reading this trash, and they read the Bay News.

Free speech is free speech, and if this blog wants to allow unfiltered filth as a means of opinion, more power to you Ann. But I certainly question the Bay News, a family newspaper, pointing people in the direction of this garbage."

First off, bogs and blog comment sections are not newspapers. Everyone knows that when using the internet, the watchword is Caveat Emptor. The main blog is mine; the comment section is created by people who actually have to sign up for a Yahoo account and log onto it, as you have done.

Furthermore, most parents understand the difference between a newspaper and blog comment sections. Heck, even the Tribune (a family paper) had to spank on their comment sections because of some of the same immature idiots who show up here. It comes with the territory. Which is why parents with kids can set various computer controls and moniter what their kids read while on line.

But past that, I would think that IF your kids are past a certain age so that they would even be interested in the least about this blog and its comment section, then some of these blog entries would serve as a terriffic "teaching moment" for you. For example, why not print out some of the potty-mouthed idiocies above, redact any "bad" words, (if your kids are past a certain (increasingly young, Alas) age, they likely have heard them all before anyway) then have a discussion with your kids about how words only have power over us if we let them, that we have a choice not to be bullied by words, that people who try to bully others with dirty words are only displaying their own ignorance and immaturity, not to mention that by resorting to that sort of tactic they simply prove that they've already lost whatever argument they thought they were making.

Or how and why some people allow their anger to run them off the rails, or feed their anger until they get themselves ramped up into complete idiocy and the whole exchange devolves into something akin to two dogs fence fighting. And how utterly pointless such a coloqy is, how totally ineffective and silly their exchanges become.

Another terrific topic you could raise with your kids is to ask them to explain just how some of the comments made on this blog so clearly reveal the inner qualities of the writer and do so despite their efforts to remain anonymous. And how some of those qualities are things the writer didn't intend to reveal, but there it is anyway. How tone and tenor and word choice are like unconscious "tells" and how clearly a "voice" comes through to illuminate the writer in ways they often do not intend. You should also discuss with your kids, how the cloak of anonyminity emboldens cowards into becoming bullies because they think they can get away with something, and so forth. Then compare and contrast that with other posters who are able to argue their points rationally and stay on point and etc.

All of which should be amazing teaching point topics for kids who need to learn appropraite ways to navigate and respond to a very real world of foul-mouthed, immature fools, bullies, and other assorted nincompoops.

Richard sez:"If you are inclined to post my private letters (emails), be considerate and ask my permission first. 9 times out of 10 my response would / will be yes."

EXCELLENT advice. I hope all of you commenting here pay attention.; 7:27 AM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Ann,
The "rules" (I use this term loosely) of journalism are there to protect the journalist's career, not "the source".
Who would provide information to a journalist if they thought they would be exposed, especially if they didn't want to be.

I am not a journalist.

Warning to all:
Email lasts forever.; 8:36 AM, January 16, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Note to all ... even though e-mail lasts forever and no one should really consider the e-mail they send to be private forever, it takes a real jerk to be the one who disseminates other's e-mail without asking. Remember those rules about politeness we learned (well, most of us) in kindergarten? Good to follow!; 10:36 AM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: No one should consider the e-mail they send to be private.; 11:25 AM, January 16, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: If they are sending to impolite people like you, for sure!!!; 11:32 AM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: No matter how much Lynette and Steve kick and scream I still love LO!

It is interesting you two spend so much time worrying about the messenger and so little considering the meaning of the message...
Fear not, I shall continue working hard to prevent everyone from paying way too much for a resolution because of thinking like that.

I would think that by now you could understand my resolve by the way I so politely post the answers and the substantiation for those answers, unlike others.; 11:45 AM, January 16, 2009
Unknown said...: The real question is "Why" is anyone reacting/reponding/replying or even e-mailing to Mark...??? It's obvious his only concern is to stir the pot of dissention and incredibly post volumes of nonsense...

He apparently did not reply to the County's requests for alternatives and now thinks he can stir us to some action in support of his latest sales promotion...

Quit responding and he'll be left to play with himself...; 12:03 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE:
Can you show me the request for alternative memo, please?; 12:57 PM, January 16, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mike,

You are right in this case.

Typically I like to try and interact and engage folks with whom I have a disagreement of opinion. In most cases either I can explain my position to a point where they understand my choices or they are willing to take the time and explain their own in a way which allows for at least a reasoned discussion. I like to assume that most people will be reasonable and participate, but every so often I bump into some who seem unwilling to fully engage. Sometimes trying to interact with these folks seems like trying to nail jello to the wall ... no matter what you do or say they just keep changing the topic in a way which doesn't allow for progress. If, for example, Mark had explained (some time back) how he knew his system had a 10 year track record of success instead of just repeatedly asking for proof that a 10 year track record was required. The issue here isn't so much whether a 10 year track record is required but that he simply refused to provide that proof. Somehow he thought that he should get to determine whether my request for information was valid.

Like I said, I will be responding when I feel it is worthwhile to others for me to respond.

Now if he would only stop e-mailing me unsolicited stuff!; 12:57 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Actually Steve, you never could provide the statute that required 10 years track record.
The pertinent issue here is you can't provide back up to what you claim to be factual.

I know you don't understand that ECOfluid operates using a very clever variation of extended aeration.
Yes, it has more than 10 years worth of track record, for what it's worth.; 1:12 PM, January 16, 2009
Unknown said...: Hi Shark...

I know you are much more patient than I am... but I'm through wasting time on Mark...

If I want info on the system, I'll talk directly to the corporate folks... I wouldn't buy anything from Mark, he'd talk, talk, talk, and say nothing, to lull you into a deep sleep... Good Sales don't need to beat the client over the head...it either meets the requirements or it doesn't... It's not up to the client to prove anything to the salesman, it's the salesman who has to prove his case and then shut up... To continue only pisses off the client...and I've been on more than my fair share of the Dog and Pony shows to be able to know when to quickly bounce out the pretenders... I can not believe the lengths Mark has gone to in beating this dead horse...

We're certainly not the audence he needed to be in front of...I feel like he's been less than accepted by the County and now he's trying to come in the back door in some fashion using this blog.... He apparently doesn't know when to stop...!!!; 1:32 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE:
Can you feel your wat to show me the county's request for alternatives memo, please?; 1:44 PM, January 16, 2009
Realistic1 said...: Shark said: "Now if he would only stop e-mailing me unsolicited stuff!"

Shark,

Report his email address as a sender of SPAM. That should stop it quick enough.; 2:31 PM, January 16, 2009
Osos Change said...: I find it a little ironic that Steve Rein is complaining about Mark being "annoying" while Mark is providing information (sending "unsolicited stuff"), yet Steve, himself, has no information on hand to counter him.

You post all this crap on here that assumes so much. All we can assume from that, Steve, is that you have this treasure trove of documentation that would counter the idea of you talking out of your ass, which you have clearly done -- and then stating it as a matter of fact (NOT opinion), which blows me away.

I'm talking to you now, Steve. Not Mike, not Realistic1, not Richard LeGros, not anyone who you've been calling to help you. I'm talking to you and I'm saying to you that you either have to put up or shut up. It looks worse and worse for you, as a person, to continue the spin cycle.; 3:24 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Thamks OC!
At least someone "gets it".

Steve,
Simply cover your eyes an hears and block me as sender.

Then you can keep talking and be willfully ignorant about issues you profess to know about.

How about that last piece of mail?

A technology which provides a 50%+ reduction in energy usage coupled with a 70% reduction in capital cost is very smart, no matter how you pay fit it.

Nice huh?; 4:16 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Thanks OC!
At least someone "gets it".

Steve,
Simply cover your eyes an ears and block me as sender.

(pesky spell check); 4:20 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: eyes and ears.....sheeesh!; 4:21 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Michael Brandman Associates
220 Commerce, Suite 200
Irvine, CA 92602
714.508.4100
The County's Environmental Engineer who wrote the DEIR, I would love to see the billing and supporting documentation for their work.
When I attempted to google up a website to get an email address because the offices are closed on Friday I found this:

Michael Brandman Associates This site may harm your computer.

Does anyone have any thoughts? Steve?
We could use a different topic, not you think?; 4:30 PM, January 16, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: OsosChange,

If you think that e-mails with pictures of weighlifters and standard republican party line justifications for the Iraq war are "providing information", just send Mark your e-mail address and I'm sure he'll add you to his list.

As for your suggestion that I should justify stuff I've written, I want to know what you are referring to. I tend to be pretty careful to avoid affirmative statements which I cannot justify or explain. If I've said something which you feel needs an explanation, ask! I can't promise that I'll convince you that I am right, but I will try to explain why I wrote what I wrote.

As for a "spin cycle" ... I hardly think that pointing out that stating one's opinion counts as spinning, but even so, what is wrong with pointing out that the proposed County project differs considerably from TriW? This should be especially important when folks start trotting out the "out of town is cheaper" canard because the County project seems to be at least as pricey as TriW was gonna be and it certainly isn't gonna return water to our aquifer in the same way.

I would think that anyone who cares for Los Osos would welcome a discussion of these topics and would relish the opportunity to provide a balanced opinion. Simply put, if you disagree with me, please explain why you believe my perspective to be in error.; 5:29 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve wrote: I tend to be pretty careful to avoid affirmative statements which I cannot justify or explain.

Bull...

From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 1:43 PM
To: 'Shark Inlet'; 'sewertoons@gmail.com'
Subject: The jerk ;-)

The clean and jerk is one of two current Olympic weightlifting events (the other being the snatch). It is a highly technical lift that is known as "the king of lifts" because more weight can be lifted above one's head as compared to any other known weightlifting technique.

Fun huh?
Mark Low
602.740.7975 voice
480.464.0405 facsimile
Mark@NOwastewater.com
P.O. Box 1355 Mesa, Arizona 85211
Spero Meliora "I aspire to greater things"

I couldn't post the pic...:-(

And:

From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@ModernHunter.com]
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 10:32 AM
To: 'Mark Low'
Subject: You could have heard a pin drop

Every American should read these Four Great Stories

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

When in England at a fairly large conference, Colin Powell was asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury if our plans for Iraq were just an example of empire building' by George Bush.
He answered by saying, 'Over the years, the United States has sent many of its fine young men and women into great peril to fight for freedom beyond our borders. The only amount of land we have ever asked for in return is enough to bury those that did not return.

You could have heard a pin drop.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Then there was a conference in France where a number of international engineers were taking part, including French and American. During a break one of the French engineers came back into the room saying 'Have you heard the latest dumb stunt Bush has done? He has sent an aircraft carrier to Indonesia to help the tsunami victims. What does he intended to do, bomb them?'
A Boeing engineer stood up and replied quietly: 'Our carriers have three hospitals on board that can treat several hundred people; they are nuclear powered and can supply emergency electrical power to shore facilities; they have three cafeterias with the capacity to feed 3,000 people three meals a day, they can produce several thousand gallons of fresh water from sea water each day, and they carry half a dozen helicopters for use in transporting victims and injured to and from their flight deck.
We have eleven such ships; how many does France have?'

You could have heard a pin drop.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A U.S. Navy Admiral was attending a naval conference that included Admirals from the U.S., English, Canadian, Australian and French Navies. At a cocktail reception, he found himself standing with a large group of Officers that included personnel from most of those countries.
Everyone was chatting away in English as they sipped their drinks but a French admiral suddenly complained that, 'whereas Europeans learn many languages, Americans learn only English.' He then asked, 'Why is it that we always have to speak English in these conferences rather than speaking French?'
Without hesitating, the American Admiral replied 'Maybe it's because the Brits, Canadians, Aussies and Americans arranged it so you wouldn't have to speak German.'

You could have heard a pin drop.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AND THIS STORY FITS RIGHT IN WITH THE ABOVE...

A group of Americans, retired teachers, recently went to France on a tour. Robert Whiting, an elderly gentleman of 83, arrived in Paris by plane.
At French Customs, he took a few minutes to locate his passport in his carry on. 'You have been to France before, monsieur?' the customs officer asked sarcastically. Mr. Whiting admitted that he had been to France previously. 'Then you should know enough to have your passport ready.
'The American said, 'The last time I was here, I didn't have to show it.' 'Impossible. Americans always have to show your passports on arrival in France!'
The American senior gave the Frenchman a long hard look. Then he quietly explained. 'Well, when I came ashore at Omaha Beach on D-Day in '44 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find any Frenchmen to show it to.'

You could have heard a pin drop

Steve,
You are a whiner.
I will fight to the death your right to whine...; 5:54 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve:
How about that: "Michael Brandman Associates This site may harm your computer." Topic?

I thought you are supposed to be some kind of internet champion..?

Sup dog?
Bye now. I've got to get back to the shrimp on the Bar-be..; 5:57 PM, January 16, 2009
Osos Change said...: If you think that e-mails with pictures of weighlifters and standard republican party line justifications for the Iraq war are "providing information", just send Mark your e-mail address and I'm sure he'll add you to his list.

Actually, I was talking about all the information he's been posting on here: on this very blog. Remember when he was educating Lynette and how horribly wrong she was? Remember when posting all those nice Wikipedia links to you while you were... talking out of your ass?

Also, I have compiled a list of your comments that I've disagreed with and found factual errors, but when I sat back and looked at the list, I realized that I copy and pasted every single comment you've made since 2005 to my list. I'm thinking, "Wow, everything you said is complete crap," and then I thought, "How can a Cal Poly professor, who works in the field of academia, post without citations when constantly making unverified claims?"

You're a big baby, really, if you're going to whine about Mark's e-mails when you've been spamming the blog with what's essentially lies and exaggerations.

You can't even whip out a PDF of County data. At least Richard LeGros could. I give him credit for that. But you? I mean, who are you? What's in it for you?

I'm only seeing your mouth flapping but nothing substantive ever comes out.; 6:47 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: There were 2 presidents during WWII. Franklin Delano Roosevelt and then Harry Truman. Mr. Roosevelt did not want to go to war, but he did want to support our British friends, who were already at war. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor, he felt he didn't have a choice. When Roosevelt died, Mr. Truman took over and did everything he could to end the war. Truman also ordered the use of the first atomic bomb, which some credit as a factor in ending the war.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States_during_World_War_II
Truman was quickly briefed on the Manhattan Project and authorized use of atomic weapons against the Japanese in August 1945, after Japan did not accept[56] the Potsdam Declaration.[57] The atomic bombings that followed were the first, and so far the only, instance of nuclear warfare.
Testicular fortitude is exhibited by Americans Steve no matter “party” affiliation…; 7:16 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: "How can a Cal Poly professor, who works in the field of academia, post without citations when constantly making unverified claims?"

Steve,
Isn't there some kind of standard that a "government employee" must live up to, especially if he is using government property to further his or her behavior?
If OC decides to make an issue of it with your boss, it could result in some kind of disciplinary action or worse. You have a long history of never putting forth the proof which supports your claims.
Opinions are like rectums, most everyone has one.
Your statement:"I tend to be pretty careful to avoid affirmative statements which I cannot justify or explain." is more of a rationalization instead of a factual touchstone.
You seem comfortable in making your feelings the basis for "what you wrote".
Statements like "ten years worth of data" is a good example of writing something which you claim as fact or statute when you cannot provide the linkage to the fact or statute you claim is truth.
Your feelings are never incorrect, Steve, as they are your feelings. Where "we" get into trouble is when we think our feelings are fact.
Like Lynette not being able to provide any verbiage regarding repayment of a stimulus. Because it isn't law yet no one knows what gets paid back and when.
You two are like a pair of Deuces when it takes Jacks or better to open. Get it? Got it? Good.
How are you and RL coming with the Porter Cologne assignment I gave you kids last night?; 7:32 PM, January 16, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: OsosChange,

You can insult me if you wish, but if you are interested in a discussion and you want to give a few examples of things I've written which you disagree with, I am sure that we could have a good chat. Perhaps you misunderstood a rhetorical device I was using or perhaps I was unclear in what I wrote. Heck, maybe it is just that you disagree with me that makes you quick to find fault with what I've written.

If you aren't gonna bring up a particular (and when I asked you to do so above, you didn't), I would suggest we start with a discussion of TriW and whether the recall was a good idea. I argued back then before the recall that the cost of stopping TriW would be considerable and that many of the justifications used for saying that out-of-town would save us money were flawed ... that not including inflation when comparing two potential projects stacked the deck. Do you disagree?

Lastly, it would seem that spending four years documenting every word I write is a bit obsessive. Maybe you only started recently and took the time to hunt down things over four years ... but it still seems obsessive to me. A bit creepy as well.

No matter, like Tom, I will stand up for what I believe in and anyone who is interested in an open and honest discussion of those matters should feel free to ask questions and join in.; 7:42 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve a.k.a. rhetorical device Hein wrote: "I argued back then before the recall (on RL’s behalf?)that the cost of stopping TriW would be considerable and that many of the justifications used for saying that out-of-town would save us money were flawed ... that not including inflation when comparing two potential projects stacked the deck."

WS MARK WROTE:
Steve,
Please detail cost factors that show Tri-W was supposed to recharge the aquifer.
The point of that exercise is to demonstrate every component like recharge, reuse etc., is priced separately.
When you break the capital costs out into the components and use better less costly technology in or out of town the price comes down.

Rein Man,
Please stop spinning, your making me dizzy ;-0
Just do the math, man.; 8:56 PM, January 16, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Hi Mike! You said, "Quit responding and he'll be left to play with himself..." I took you up on that advice. Thank you! I feel better already!; 10:21 PM, January 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,
Aspiring to be like Tom Ruehr is a great first step……………………………………………………… (the first step in solving a problem is identifying it)
If only you could begin to think and act like him.

Tom Ruehr, the gentle giant, never backed down from a fight when the truth was on the line.

He relentlessly sought accountability from government agencies on the Los Osos Wastewater Project. Confronted by Dr. Ruehr's findings (often confirmed by other independent experts), the county felt it had no other choice but to try (and fail) to discredit him simply because they could not refute him based on real science and cold fact, and still haven't to this day.

After all is said and done, more is said than done.
Aesop 620 BC- 560 BC

Steve, put up or shut up.

Aaron said...
TOM RUEHR (1943-2009)
AN APPRECIATION
Tom Ruehr was a giant in his community and county and a genuine hero of the Earth. A dedicated teacher and activist, he was a leading voice in the struggle for environmental and social justice for Los Osos and for transparent government absent in San Luis Obispo.

A Renaissance educator, Tom wore a variety of hats with ease and grace. Among his many skills he possessed a genius for clearly, fearlessly and eloquently articulating his positions, in writing and in public, that left no doubt where he stood and which way to go. Understandably, Tom was both revered and feared for his razor-sharp intellect and critical ability to separate the wheat from the chaff, science from myth, fact from fiction, and, ultimately, truth from its pale but highly active competitors.

Brilliant, profound, passionate and courageous, Tom Ruehr was the rarest of human beings: he lived the life he preached. The truth was no abstraction to him; he lived about as close to truth as a man can get and practiced living it with dignity day in and day out. Tom the accomplished individual, the honest and faithful man of matchless integrity, the learned and enlightened teacher, devoted father, husband, brother, uncle and grandfather, is utterly irreplaceable. Fortunately, as a role model, he has inspired an army of believers who will follow his example as thoughtful, caring human beings, always dedicated to infallible truth. That is the bright candle of Tom Ruehr's lasting legacy that continues to burn within all who knew and admired him.

Tom had been active in the Los Osos wastewater debate since the mid-1970s. Through the years, time and time again, he volunteered his expertise, wrote and spoke out, protecting the community he loved by reminding the State and Regional Water Boards and county that they would be held to higher professional and evidentiary standards. He demanded documentation supported by science and fact, not unproven assertions and unchecked bias. Tom Ruehr, the gentle giant, never backed down from a fight when the truth was on the line.

He relentlessly sought accountability from government agencies on the Los Osos Wastewater Project. Confronted by Dr. Ruehr's findings (often confirmed by other independent experts), the county felt it had no other choice but to try (and fail) to discredit him simply because they could not refute him based on real science and cold fact, and still haven't to this day.

The Rock is proud to have featured an exclusive in-depth interview with Tom Reuhr in the May 2007 issue. It may be the most comprehensive interview with Dr. Ruehr ever published and covers a wide range of sewer-related issues that unapologetically cut to the core of the debate. Tom Ruehr's comments on the Los Osos Wastewater Project on www.rockofthecoast.com are 'must reading' for anyone seriously involved or interested in the Los Osos sewer. The truth can be easily found in Dr. Ruehr's comments, if the truth is what you're after. His words remain powerful testimony forever on the record.

Ed Ochs
Publisher
The Rock; 6:41 AM, January 17, 2009
Unknown said...: Good Morning 'toons...

When I stay away awhile and then look in, this blog is such a waste of time... Absolutely nothing will be resolved here... The main player doesn't live in Los Osos and writes in such a convoluted style that not even he understands what he is saying...

I still like to read what Shark says, but the rest of the blog has collapsed into a morass of childish games... Oh well, Lisa and Julie are out of the CSD with far more intelligent people now in charge, and the County will bring a Sewer to LO inspite of the Sewer Obstructionists...

Have a great day.... Mike; 6:43 AM, January 17, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette,

Please tell us how the future generations may pay for the stimulus bubble.
What it "pops" what then?

If "we" don't spend and work "smart", our future generations won't have the means to earn the money you want them to pay.

Come on, tell us how you "feel"...; 6:44 AM, January 17, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE,

Of course you like to read Steve Rein, he isn't saying anything except what he "feels".

Sorry, you don't like the way that facts mess up a big pipe agenda.; 6:51 AM, January 17, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: WHEN it POPS, what then???; 9:53 AM, January 17, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: I believe that Mark made an inadvertent typo ... he meant to write:

"He relentlessly sought accountability from government agencies on the Los Osos Wastewater Project. Confronted by Dr. Rein's findings (often confirmed by other independent experts), the few remaining LOCSD recall faithful felt they had no other choice but to try (and fail) to discredit him simply because they could not refute him based on real science and cold fact, and still haven't to this day."

When there is uncertainty in the science, engineering or financial aspects of any discussion, one cannot reasonably ask for definitive proof. If you have to make a decision and don't have an infinite amount of time and an infinite budget, even random speculators cannot be disproven. That being said, I find it funny that Tom's opinion based on partial information is called a finding but that my opinion based on partial information is called talking out of my ass.

Let's look carefully at one question which may be helpful (again, anyone who wants to participate is welcome ... even OsosChange who says I make lots of misstatements) ... where did the high nitrates in the aquifer come from. One theory is that the nitrates are from old veg matter. Another is that it is from septics. What do the data say? If from veg, the nitrates shouldn't be increasing over time. If from septics, they should be, especially in the PZ. Well, the data match up with the septics as source theory far better than the veg theory. Of course, someone could also say that the entire monitoring history was set up to provide an intentional bias. Of course, the police could also have set up OJ. Seriously, unless you believe the conspiracy theory (without evidence), the septics as source theory is the only one that matches the data.

So, are Tom's opinions on this matter solid science even though his opinion doesn't match the data? (And to anyone who would say "prove that the nitrate readings are higher now than before" I would simply turn you toward the 1st Ripley presentation to the LOCSD where they trotted out the same maps that pretty much every other scientist and engineer have used ... you can go dig that up yourself.); 10:58 AM, January 17, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,
You are dizzy. I didn’t write what you seem to want to rhetorically correct. Perhaps you can use a refresher reading comprehension course. Maybe you could take time from your workday blogging budget? Stop spinning. Do the math, bro’. How is that Cal Water Law assignment coming? RL? I sent you guys the interactive pdf..sheesh.

A remedial action is a change made to a nonconforming product or service to address the deficiency. Rework and repair are generally the remedial actions taken on products, while services usually require additional services to be performed to ensure satisfaction. In some settings, corrective action is used as an encompassing term that includes remedial actions, corrective actions and preventive actions.
In rhetoric, a rhetorical device or resource of language is a technique that an author or speaker uses to evoke an emotional response in the audience (the reader(s) or listener(s)). These emotional responses are central to the meaning of the work or speech, and should also get the audience's attention. Usage of rhetorical device techniques can give an auxiliary meaning, idea, or feeling to the literal or written.; 11:55 AM, January 17, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: rhet·o·ric (rtr-k)
n.
1.
a. The art or study of using language effectively and persuasively.
b. A treatise or book discussing this art.
2. Skill in using language effectively and persuasively.
3.
a. A style of speaking or writing, especially the language of a particular subject: fiery political rhetoric.
b. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.
4. Verbal communication; discourse.

Steve,
You may want to evaluate how well your "style" works.

We can all use a constructive criticism.

b. Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous: His offers of compromise were mere rhetoric.; 12:06 PM, January 17, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Mark e-mailed me with comments that were made by Sharkinlet at 10:58 AM. I just wanted to make one tiny little correction: the comments that Inlet italicized were comments made by my father, Ed.

I can't speak for Ed and I won't but here are some factors to consider in my opinion.

(1) Tom Ruehr was a soil scientist and his professional opinions were highly regarded by the Earth & Soil Sciences Department at Cal Poly. With that said, he was someone who was knowledgeable in that area. From what he told me, he studied the Los Osos wastewater project almost religiously and conducted research; even taking and analyzing soil samples for potential contamination. If you're going to say that he had no "definitive proof" or imply as such, you're unreasonably short-sighted to say the least.

(2) When someone talks about data, you better show that particular data when you're making the claim that someone's claims are mismatched compared to that said data. I believe that if you're going to bring up inaccuracies and falsehoods, you better get your good reading glasses on and look at the fine print, link us to the print and show us what you're talking about.

The fact of the matter is that Tom Ruehr was not limited to being simply an "impassioned speaker." He didn't just talk the talk -- he walked the walk as well. For several years, he devoted much of his time to researching the Los Osos wastewater project. I even remember digging through the New Times and checking out an article that was written in the early 90s and Tom Ruehr was saying the same thing then: it's all hype.

On a personal note, it bothers me to see that so many misconceptions have manifested on Ann Calhoun's blog. I hope that everyone can, one day, post with facts and information on standby instead of spewing venom, which is ultimately meaningless.; 1:23 PM, January 17, 2009
Unknown said...: Interesting message Aaron... nice to see you've grown up and aren't stealing neighborhood garden lights any longer... Oh yes, I do know who you are...and YOU are NOT an authority on the Los Osos water situation...!!!!; 2:16 PM, January 17, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Aaron,

Your comments regarding fact (Generally, a fact is defined as something that is true, something that actually exists, or something having objective reality that can be verified according to an established standard of evaluation) are directly on target.

Truth:
Meanings for the word truth extend from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular.[1] The term has no single definition about which a majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree, and various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.

Justice:
Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness and equity. A conception of justice is one of the key features of society. Theories of justice vary greatly, but there is evidence that everyday views of justice can be reconciled with patterned moral preferences.

Would be nice to have added into the dialouge as well.

After all "Free Speech" isn't free as illustrated by Dr. Martin Luther King's death.

He was a Patriot.; 2:17 PM, January 17, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE, MIKE, MIKE:

Why don't you "man-up" and come out of your closet to throw your stones, coward...; 2:22 PM, January 17, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Something more to ponder (as Lyneete calls it) in “the hideous sewer war”:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0416449/quotes

From the movie "The 300"-

Queen Gorgo: Spartan!
King Leonidas: Yes, my lady?
Queen Gorgo: Come back with your shield, or on it.
King Leonidas: Yes, my lady.

Daxos: I see I was wrong to expect Sparta's commitment to at least match our own.
King Leonidas: Doesn't it?
[points to Arcadian soldier behind Daxos]
King Leonidas: You there, what is your profession?
Free Greek-Potter: I am a potter... sir.
King Leonidas: [points to another soldier] And you, Arcadian, what is your profession?
Free Greek-Sculptor: Sculptor, sir.
King Leonidas: Sculptor.
[turns to a third soldier]
King Leonidas: You?
Free Greek-Blacksmith: Blacksmith.
King Leonidas: [turns back shouting] Spartans! What is your profession?
Spartans: HA-OOH! HA-OOH! HA-OOH!
King Leonidas: [turning to Daxos] You see, old friend? I brought more soldiers than you did.

Persian: A thousand nations of the Persian empire descend upon you. Our arrows will blot out the sun!
Stelios: Then we will fight in the shade

King Leonidas: Spartans! Prepare for glory!
Daxos: Glory? Have you gone mad? There is no glory to be had now! Only retreat, or surrender or death!
King Leonidas: Well, that's an easy choice for us, Arcadian! Spartans never retreat! Spartans never surrender! Go spread the word. Let every Greek assembled know the truth of this. Let each among them search his own soul. And while you're at it, search your own.

I continue to wonder how those Patriots in Lo/BP will be remembered.; 4:43 PM, January 17, 2009

Pages

Thursday, January 08, 2009

137 comments:

Calhouns Can(n)ons

About the Can(n)ons

Followers

Calhouns Can(n)ons

Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons

Central Coast NewsMission

Adopt a Dog or Cat Today

Local Bloggers and Friends

Blog Archive

Central Coast News Radio

Central Coast NewsLinks

Pages

Thursday, January 08, 2009

137 comments:

Calhouns Can(n)ons

About the Can(n)ons

Followers

Subscribe To

Calhouns Can(n)ons

Search Calhoun's Can(n)ons

Central Coast NewsMission

Subscribe To

Adopt a Dog or Cat Today

Local Bloggers and Friends

Blog Archive

Central Coast News Radio

Central Coast NewsLinks