Pages

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Where’s Waldo?
The following email from Mark Low was sent to Mark Hutchison in response to the public comment on the DEIR for the Los Osos Sewer Project. The nitrogen reduction attachment tables seemed to indicate various sites showing Nitrate as N (mgl) ranging from 2ish to 7.12. The attachments mentioned should be on Mark's link or on the county's DEIR comment section. Posted with permission.

Greetings,
In support of your wastewater treatment solution efforts to locate and secure consistently efficient, economical and energy efficient technology that is reliable and simple to operate we offer the following:
Attached for your review and consideration are Comments to the San Luis Obispo Draft EIR, exhibits in support of our energy saving and capital cost reduction treatment technology and a generic proposal for a 1MGD ECOfluid USBF Membrane Bioreactor Title 22 Water Reclamation Facility,
A close review of our treatment technology will reveal many advantages over the other treatment technologies your study process included.
These advantages include, but are not limited to, reduced footprint, reduced energy consumption, no odor, reduced sludge production, reduced capital and O&M costs.
The cost range is $6,900,000.00 for a Micro Screen option and $7,400,000.00 for the Membrane option, both include a 30% design, engineering and contingency.
The one factor that significantly contributes to operating simplicity and reduces operating and maintenance needs and costs, is the all gravity process flow. Pumped once from the equalization tank into the bioreactors, the entire flow through the process (biology, filtration and UV disinfection) is by gravity. Gravity and hydraulic action are forces of nature and is energy which is free of charge.
Of course any size (GPD) facility for any strength influent can be designed upon request.
The attached Nitrogen Reduction Memorandum should be of particular interest to those interested in solving Nitrogen loading problems.
http://www.ecofluid.com/ President, Karel Galland P.E. and I are available to discuss in detail the generic proposal and how a site specific proposal can quickly and economically be developed for your project, at no charge, as a professional courtesy.
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.
We hope to see it included in your study review process, including the DEIR Comment Review for “substantial” environmental issues for the DEIR located here: http://www.lowwp-eir.net/lowwpeir/eir.aspx
Time and money are precious, so we won’t waste any and know that you will want to give us your best consideration so we look forward to hearing from you soon.
My very best regards,
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"


Busy Busy Busy?

The following came over the transom. Especially curious is the last paragraph. Huh?

After reading this, will some folks out here in Sewerville start to get the idea that Sticky Thumbs are now back on the scale in the form of a new mantra? Instead of Better Faster Cheaper, will we now starting seeing the phrase “Shovel Ready” used as a new buzz word that will distract people so they won’t see The Process being short-circuited, and instead we’ll start seeing floated the false idea that there will only be ONE federal infrastructure disbursement and if we don’t qualify for that one, (say 90 days?) we’ll totally lose out so we have to HURRY HURRY HURRY, short-cut directly into the old Tri-W project, get Watson Montgomery Harza and the original contractors paid off and penciled in and fast tracked, start digging gravity pipes into the ground immediately, no need for a community survey of “choice,” i.e. Want STEP? Or Gravity?, no need for price evaluations, (STEP costs $___ while Gravity costs $___), No, No, No Time! gotta get this Shovel Ready project into the ground right now or we’ll all die in the streets like dawgs! (Oh, look, it’s the Regional Water Quality Control Board threatening (via the front page of their handmaiden, the Tribune) we’ll get FINES!FINES!FINES! CDO’s for Everyone In Town! if we don’t skip some of these unnecessary steps in The Process and fast-fast-fast start
shovel readying NOW!!).

Sticky thumbs? Rustling in the done-deals back rooms? Deja vu? Hmmmmmm??? Well, of course. It’s Sewertown, Jake. Sewertown.

FOLLOW THE MONEY
Wow! What a country. The past year has proven to be as much of a financial roller coaster ride for the nation as the sewer saga has been for Los Osos! However, in the midst of the emotional, political, and economic upsets, new hope for opportunities could be within our grasp once again.
As 2009 dawns we have new leadership at our CSD who bring fresh thoughts and resolve to bring the District's bankruptcy to an end. In addition a leadership change at the County Board of Supervisors has new opportunities to help our community find significant funding for a waste water project. And of course a new administration is about to be installed in Washington just as the need for major investment in infrastructure has taken center stage.


Since 2005 Taxpayers Watch has been dedicated to speaking for the interests of Los Osos taxpayers. TW strategy has been to hold accountable those who are responsible for bankrupting the community. While that strategy has succeeded to a great extent and is likely to end in the return of as much as $2 million to the District treasury in 2009, it is time for each of us to take an active role to voice taxpayer interest in capitalizing on the opportunity the next Federal Stimulus Package is likely to bring our way.


As many of you are aware Congress is wrestling with specifics of how to funnel money, as part of the economic stimulus package, to the states. In fact, President Elect Obama has asked Congress to have a proposal on his desk on January 21, the first day after his inauguration!


As you will read in "The News" below, the idea behind the hundreds of billions of dollars that may be included in the stimulus package is to perk up the national economy by funding "shovel ready" projects that will employ companies and workers performing necessary public works infrastructure projects. The catch is, shovel ready means projects that could start construction (or perhaps restart construction) within 90 days.


TW is asking each of you to contact our County Supervisors, US Congress Members, and US Senators TODAY reminding then that Los Osos does have a wastewater project that could be under construction in 90 days. Ask them to consider funding a restart of the former project.

Dooo Dooo Doo Doo Dee Doo Dooo, Stealth Update Back In Town


Remember a few months back when the RWQCB was holding stealth “public hearings” for updating the septic system onsite rules (Shhhhh, we gotta run this puppy through as fast as possible so please don’t alert the citizens of North County, for example, that when this thing gets rushed through, they’ll become, ta-DA! – the next Los Osos!.) Well, the deadline for commenting is fast approaching. Speak now or forever be out of luck. As for Mark’s comment, “I know there has been a great deal of information recently regarding onsite wastewater systems . . . . “ Really? The Stealth Basin Plan Updates were snuck by without a blink. I’m betting various agencies (not- to mention the general rural public living with septics – clueless) out there are still staring like deer into the headlights, having not yet figured out what they’re in for when these “updates” get run through and turned into enforceable regulations. Bwa-hahahah. Poor dears.

Ladies and Gentlemen: I know there has been a great deal of information recently regarding onsite wastewater systems; such as updating the Basin Plan criteria, proposed AB 885 regulations, and draft Implementation Program. Therefore, I just wanted to send this reminder so that the draft Staff Report that I sent in mid December doesn't get overlooked. The public notice is posted on the "Announcements" section of our website at http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/ and includes links to the staff report and relate documents, alternately the documents are attached to this message. Comments and recommendations on the proposed action are due by January 23, 2009, and the public hearing is scheduled for March 20, 2009. Please give me a call if you have questions on this topic.Sincerely, Sorrel Marks805/549-3695


.

99 comments:

Watershed Mark said...

If anyone wants a copy of the Nitrogen Reduction pdf I will send one to you or you can ask Maria Kelly, Lynette or Steve Rein to send it to you as they received the complete package.

Ron said...

"TW is asking each of you to contact our County Supervisors, US Congress Members, and US Senators TODAY reminding then that Los Osos does have a wastewater project that could be under construction in 90 days. Ask them to consider funding a restart of the former project."

Absolutely beautiful.

You know what the one thing above all that has led to delays in getting a sewer system in Los Osos? Trying to force a sewer plant in at the Tri-W site.

Earth to Taxpayers Watch: When you send your little notes "TODAY," be sure to include this:

Here's the Pro/Con Analysis' take on the Tri-W project:

- - -

- "(Tri-W's) downtown location (near library, church, community center) and the high density residential area require that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."

and;

- "It has high construction costs..."
($55 million. The next highest treatment facility option is estimated at $19 million.)

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

- "Small acreage and location in downtown center of towns (sic) require most expensive treatment"

and;

- "higher costs overall"

and;

- "Limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades, or alternative energy"

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

- "All sites are tributary to the Morro Bay National Estuary and pose a potential risk in the event of failure. Tri-W poses a higher risk..."

and;

- "ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"



and this;

"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."
-- National Water Research Institute



- - -
"Since 2005 Taxpayers Watch has been dedicated to speaking for the interests of Los Osos taxpayers. TW strategy has been to hold accountable those who are responsible for bankrupting the community."
- - -

Someone fetch me a bucket.

Notice, again, how Gordon Hensley, recalled CSD Director since 2005, fails to mention that he IS Taxpayers Watch.

Fascinating.

Shark Inlet said...

Ron is right about quite a few things ... but the key here is this ...

Sewer fanatics who push for their particular favorite "solution" at all costs and who ignore very reasonable questions like "what's it gonna cost?" and "what is the scope of the project?" and "what is an alternative project cost and scope?" and "what's the best bang for the buck?" and "is this proposed solution even gonna pass muster with the RWQCB?" and "did the contractor actually submit documentation to the County to prove their system meets RWQCB requirements?" aren't helping Los Osos move forward one bit.

Certainly the great expense of what the County is proposing makes any source of money seem attractive, but rushing things to take advantage of "free money" might actually be costly in the long run.

LO.CarryingCapacity said...

Remember that the PZ was formed and 1150 homes quickly slapped together in order to qualify for federal funding. Let's not go down that road again. We need to follow through with a responisible EIR and a project that will protect our aquifer and estuary.

Watershed Mark said...

There is no "free money".
Borrowed money needs to be repaid with interest.

Best to be smart when making the decision on what to buy.
But that has always been the case, no matter how many fail to follow that common sense thinking.

It is way past time to do more with less.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Maybe there will be time to get the results of the survey in before the County has to apply for anything. If gravity is chosen anyway, it's highly unlikely the Supes would object. We would not have to pay for much engineering with gravity, just turn the pipe to out of town and lengthen it. The EIR is cool with either system. SLO County could sure use some stimulus money.

LO.CarryingCapacity said...

Sewertoons
We do not yet have an EIR: We have a DRAFT EIR. It contains many ommisions and errors to promote gravity out of town.

We need all comments and concerns of the DEIR addressed, and a responsible EIR produced. This will lead to a project that is best for the people of Los Osos. The community survey should be part of the decision process, as promised, but it must be accompanied by honest evauation of the pros and cons of various choices.

An honest process will give us the best bang for our buck, and holistic project that will serve us well. A dishonest project will give us lawsuits, history repeating itself once again in LO.

Churadogs said...

Toonces sez:"If gravity is chosen anyway, it's highly unlikely the Supes would object."

Chosen by whom? That's the question. How the "survey" is spun will determine the "choice." How the numbers are spun will also determine the "choice." And if the phony "shovel ready" replaces the phony "faster, better, cheaper" or the phony "overriding community value," or the phony Fines!Fines!Fines!We're all gonna die!mantra, then a whole lot of bad math and bad engineering and bad decisions can also be buried along with the pipe, sticking the community with the bill. That's the danger, once again.

L.O. C>C> sez:"We need to follow through with a responisible EIR and a project that will protect our aquifer and estuary."

As I wrote some time ago, sometimes the fastest way forward is a step back. Also, sometimes the fastest, cheapest way forward is to go slowly in haste, with transparency all round.

Shark Inlet said...

Here's an interesting question for all involved ... when would you be willing to stop pushing for your favorite site/technology/whatever?

For example, if the survey shows that gravity is preferred ... even if the survey has some flaws (which we don't yet know that it does, so writing now as if it will be flawed seems to be speculation about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin), would it be better to just allow the process to move forward than to fight and argue and threaten lawsuits? Similarly, if the survey shows that TriW is not favored, would you be willing to let the process move forward? Even if TriW has some advantages over what the County is proposing? Even if the survey doesn't point out those advantages?

The problem with Los Osos is multifaceted. Face one; the County and RWQCB (and others) are really tired of dealing with the fussy whiners. Face two; they may have prejudged the situation just to get the process to move forward because it's taken so long already. This sets the stage for more whining and more infighting and more threats and more delay and more "better ideas" and more mess.

Myself? I will support whatever the County comes up with ... unless they choose something which has been clearly shown to be inferior in many ways as well as more costly.

(And I am willing to stipulate that Mark believes this is the case, but it is not so obvious to the rest of us who need to rely on professional opinion.

But that is much like a patient with a rare disease getting three or four "second" opinions and then trying to decide which MD is best ... we don't always have the background to most appropriately select.)

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

L.O.CarryingCapacity, I seriously doubt that even 2% of LO citizens will be reading the draft EIR or the final either. I'd bet most don't know anything about "shovel-ready." I'd bet most will have made up their minds or will do so without consulting anyone beyond their circle of friends. Sewer geeks like us are in the minority.

NWRI was touted by the step proponents as the entity to give us the "correct" answer until they came out with the position that either system will do, now they are vilified by step proponents as being a "tainted" agency. THAT tells me something about spin. This group is where I foresee the lawsuits being generated if step is not chosen.

Unknown said...

It's not going to matter what technology or location is chose by the County or even by this community... There will be an extreme faction who will fight... and I believe Ann Calhoun will continue to cheerlead for that group as she has for these many years... That is her right as an American, but let's keep in mind that as a sewer obstructionist, she has even joined lawsuits against the State to fight a legally permitted sewer project because she didn't "like" the peoject...no compromise, no concern for the years of work to design and permit such a project...

So why would I believe she and the extremists would accept any sewer or well head filter or any technology for any water cleanup anywhere west of Bakersfield without a lawsuit and further protests to delay any sewer anywhere...????? There has been nothing positive from this group of extremists and sewer obstructionists...!!!!!

Shark Inlet said...

But Mike,

Don't you realize that promoting TriW as a solution at this point in time ... or even saying how much better it is than the County's choice ... is just as obstructionist?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Hi Shark, excellent question that you have posed.

As a Tri-W/gravity proponent, I will gladly accept whatever the Supes pick. No squawks, no complaints and certainly no lawsuits! I will say my TW friends are of similar thought will offer no protest either. We will accept for the good of, and peace for, the community. The main thought is to get the project done, to end the fight.

Doing nothing has done an incredible amount of damage to the community and to the environment. I wish the obstructionists could see that or care enough to stop fighting. There is no perfect sewer for Los Osos, never will be. The No Sewer people will use every excuse to stop a project, the more "environmental" that they can make it sound, the better for their actual purpose.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

I might also add that the people wishing to make a buck here have done nothing to help. And I don't mean decent vendors of ecological solutions that present what they have and then leave us alone.

Unknown said...

If folks would actually "listen" to what TW has said, is that TW is a "potential" shovel-ready project... It was afterall, fully designed and permitted... and what Ann seems to think is an important point, 20,000 additional homes could not be built to hook up to...and of course would help significantly reduce the current septic pollution of the aquifiers, thus reducing the LO portion of the estuary pollution...

Neither the Post-Recall Plan (and there never was any plan except for an obstructionist dream and several after-thoughts) and the County making a "chinese menu" of potential projects... will be ready within 2 years of even approaching the Feds...

But "if" Federal Money (yup, our tax dollars) is not important, then let's continue to whine and cause delay of any sewer anywhere in or near LO... If we wait long enough, maybe some perfect solution will be found... maybe the human body will evolve to eleminate human waste...

...maybe Mark will find yet another perfect solution by yet another company... maybe politicians will be seen as honest and caring for their communities... maybe the Illinois governor will not "sell" Senate seats... maybe world-wide religous tolerance will be come reality... maybe the USA will bring all the troops back home, cars will run on nuclear generated electricity and poverty wiped out... Guess we can all dream... We just won't be able to dream about this round of Federal money and we may just be looking at another 10 years of no sewer....

Shark Inlet said...

Mike,

The problem at this point in time would be doing a quick rewrite of the EIR to now make it look like TriW is the best option. That would be difficult and timely and likely cause lawsuits.

While I don't think that anyone (but Mark, of course) has a plan which addresses aquifer recharge as well as TriW, it would be darn near impossible to go from the current EIR to something ready for construction funds in less than at least a year ... and probably more. This is about the same timeframe as the County project. I don't see TriW as having a real competitive advantage on the time or funding front.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi All,

Just to add to the discussion.

The County, if it wants to use pursue stimulus money for a 'shovel-ready' collection system, then the one designed for Tri-W is the only one ready to go.

Several problems come to mind if the County wants to use the old collection system design and permits:

1. That collection design belongs to the CSD, no the County.

2. The collection system was designed by MWH; which has sued the CSD for breach of contract. Will the fact that MWH has sued, and that that lawsuit is stayed by the Bankrupcy, cause a problem for the County trying to get hold of the collection design?

3. The County needs permits to build the old collection system (county, CCC, EPA, Native Americans, etc), along with an approvwed DEIR. If the County wants to build the old collection system they may need to reactive the old CCC permit and adopt the old DEIR in order to acquire the needed permits/approvals to build the collection system.

4. The regulatory / resource agencies (which will control the dispersement of stimulus money) MIGHT say to the County....'hey, you already have a designed and approved project (Tri-W). Why not just build that one? Just saying that you can't/won't for 'political reasons' is not good enough as the Tri-W project was technically sound, has vested permits AND was actually under constrution. You want the money, you restart Tri-W."

Regards, Richard LeGros

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

The "best" option need not be chosen. But Tri-W, has been so RUINED as a viable project by the obstructionists, it will not, I'll bet for political reasons only, ever see the light of day, even if it could be built for free.

I am sure to get over 50% amount of the community to buy in at all, the political hot potato had to be shown in its worst light by the County. The Tri-W fans will allow anything to be built, the anti-Tri-W's - some will accept non-Tri-W projects, so there the 50% tie is easily broken and others seem to accept nothing, period, but they are now by far in the minority. Was Tri-W perfect, no - would it work and address all the issues - yes.

The collection system however having a competitive advantage…now THAT seems quite possible. We need not have an entire project is what has been said.

I think cost (combined with No Sewer) was the real reason for the recall/Measure B stoppage - not the trumped up stinky in-town objections (as the ringleader objectors now say mini-plants scattered though town are OK - which knocks the legs out of the old argument, and one has gone so far to say "…how about the old in-town site?").

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Richard, doesn't the CSD, as per AB2701 need to turn over "Sewer Properties?" And doesn't the CSD own the plans, regardless of the lawsuit?

The one thing we don't have is time, but time is the only resource available to show Tri-W's advantages. Most people are blissfully unaware of what is at stake here, and only repeat old rhetoric as to what the problems were supposed to be for Tri-W. They don't know from recharge or what that even means.

Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...

I'm going to post briefly here and then I'll finish posting on my blog.

I just did a word search on my web browser, typed in "obstructionist" to see how many times it was mentioned. It was mentioned about six times so far. Personally, I don't like the word because it's a strawman term. "Anyone who disagrees with my point of view is an obstructionist!"

Now I'm not saying that delaying any highly desired public works project is a good thing, but it's interesting because our economic climate is forcing contractors to propose lower-than-normal bids on big projects just so they can get work. I'm seeing this happening all across the country.

Additionally, when I see the term "obstructionist" being thrown around by people like Lynette, they put it in a way like they're uttering a racial slur and then the follow-up line is, "These obstructionists should just stop fighting and accept it." If the sewer didn't cost $250/month and it was a project that was sustainable and green, then I bet you that you will see more support behind the County process.

To not acknowledge the socioeconomic repercussions is a testament of economic class cleansing and malicious elitism by those at the top of the totem pole. If you live in the Prohibition Zone and you fully believe that the County is doing the right thing, you need to do your homework. Attending meetings and gawking at people you don't like doesn't make you more informed.

I could go on and on about Tri-W, but it's not worth it because I see that option as a dead end. The community voted against that solution in 2005 during the CSD recall and the County will ultimately have to come to terms with that. We can still have a sewer built just as efficiently if it was out of town, period. No obstructing there.

I have this theory, which I'd like to test out someday. I believe we can all unify if we can put our pre-conditioned, pre-conceived notions aside and do a bit of research, conduct that research while thinking outside the box. Right now, it's all speculation. We shouldn't speak in absolutes.

LO.CarryingCapacity said...

The mid-town site failed because the people were scammed. Fancy flyers and telemarketing continued to deceive up to the election. Then when the deception started to come out, no explanation was forthcoming. Instead trees were chopped down and streets torn up. The community consensus was that the mid-town site could not withstand a transparent review and the board was thrown out.

We have been heading down that road again. The community may not have the time to keep up with the hundreds of documents that have been produced in this process, but they will react if they find that they have again been deceived.

Sewertoons
It is easy to refer to anyone that disagrees with you as a “sewer obstructionist” but there are very few people that truly object to protect our water. I have been fighting a CDO for 3 years, but I am not against a sewer. Protecting our environment is a top priority.

I am against government abuse of power, and I feel it is our duty as citizens to protect our democracy, and there have been quite a few undemocratic occurrences regarding the wastewater projects. Governmental abuse at all levels has left our country in a terrible mess. Hopefully the new batch of politicians, both notionally and locally, can start to turn things around.

But transparency is essential and the watchdogs need to be listened to and praised for their efforts rather than vilified. We need to stop this game of deciding what the people should know, the careful control of the information revealed by the Tribune. The best project for the community will come forth when the people are given unbiased information and allowed to take part in the decision.

Watershed Mark said...

LOCC beautifully expressed:
But transparency is essential and the watchdogs need to be listened to and praised for their efforts rather than vilified. We need to stop this game of deciding what the people should know, the careful control of the information revealed by the Tribune. The best project for the community will come forth when the people are given unbiased information and allowed to take part in the decision.

LOCC as the target of a CDO has more standing than everyone else (save me, soory...) put together.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

LOCC says:
"The best project for the community will come forth when the people are given unbiased information and allowed to take part in the decision."

It depends on who you ask as to whether or not this has happened. I do go to the meetings, to get information and to see what the community reaction is. I feel that we are being given the info we need to make a decision, but I also see people disgruntled with the process because it does not appear to be giving them the outcome that they expected. And goodness knows, THEY have the CORRECT opinion, everyone else is WRONG. There is a difference between disagreement and belligerence.

Sustainable and green takes a back seat to cost, but waiting years to get sustainable and green - (whatever that has come to mean - apparently the County hasn't hit the mark on that score according to some) - is accepting a million gallons of filth into the ground - daily -- how that is OK, or at what point the benefits of waiting crosses over to being seriously detrimental to the environment. I say that point has happened already. Then we have the faction that believes in magic sand because the evidence against the magic has been "trumped up." I see emotions quelling science.

Socioeconomic repercussions vs. environmental repercussions. I see entitlement. Gee, I've had to move before because I couldn't afford the rent when it was raised. Was that illegal? Should I have dug in my heels and stayed?

We will apparently be getting something that costs near to what we were going to pay $205/mo. - but we get almost no aquifer recharge (2/3rds of the water being sprayed onto fields for an unknown amount of time) and the tertiary cleaning needed at some point is left for payment at a later date. I see failure to address those issues in a timely fashion bringing us closer to Lake Nacimiento than we ever dreamed.

Some people will feel deceived because they neighbor says, "We have been deceived." Few follow the meetings and read the documents to learn for themselves. There is more to life -- like jobs, kids, elder care -- than sewers apparently.

Watershed Mark said...

On second thought:

LOCC as the target of a CDO has more standing than everyone else put together.

Sorry LOCC.

Watershed Mark said...

Ann, Ron, Aaron and ESPECIALLY LO.CC understand what is truly at stake in the LOSTDEP.

The folks I cut and pasted are carrying water, just not for themselves. Sorry MIKE, you don’t rate.

Sewertoons said...
If gravity is chosen anyway, it's highly unlikely the Supes would object. SLO County could sure use some stimulus money.
8:46 PM, January 18, 2009
Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...
Here's an interesting question for all involved ... when would you be willing to stop pushing for your favorite site/technology/whatever?
Myself? I will support whatever the County comes up with ... unless they choose something which has been clearly shown to be inferior in many ways as well as more costly.

8:08 AM, January 19, 2009

Sewertoons said...
Hi Shark, excellent question that you have posed.
As a Tri-W/gravity proponent, I will gladly accept whatever the Supes pick.
10:45 AM, January 19, 2009

Richard LeGros said...
Hi All,
Just to add to the discussion.
'hey, you already have a designed and approved project (Tri-W). Why not just build that one? Just saying that you can't/won't for 'political reasons' is not good enough as the Tri-W project was technically sound, has vested permits AND was actually under constrution. You want the money, you restart Tri-W."

Regards, Richard LeGros
12:31 PM, January 19, 2009

Sewertoons said...
The "best" option need not be chosen. But Tri-W, has been so RUINED as a viable project by the obstructionists, it will not, I'll bet for political reasons only, ever see the light of day, even if it could be built for free
12:39 PM, January 19, 2009

Sewertoons said...
Richard, doesn't the CSD, as per AB2701 need to turn over "Sewer Properties?"
The one thing we don't have is time, but time is the only resource available to show Tri-W's advantages.
12:44 PM, January 19, 20

Watershed Mark said...

To “cover” the sewer system study process with stimulus bubble “talk”, may expose any weaknesses in the “process”.
The EIR process is still underway. Comments have been made and must be addressed, before there is a rush to judgement.

I thought we all wanted change?

Shark Inlet said...

When does one rate watchdog status?

If someone is watching out for how government might be making mistakes, is one a watchdog?

What about if you are watching out for potential biases caused by corporate interests?

What about if you are watching out for folks offering "alternative" plans where there hasn't been a careful vetting of the costs?

In discussions here it seems that few participants would ascribe the watchdog title to all three of the above types of careful thought and many are far too quick to label at least one of the above as either fronting for the man or opposing progress.

Churadogs said...

Mike sez:"and I believe Ann Calhoun will continue to cheerlead for that group as she has for these many years... That is her right as an American, but let's keep in mind that as a sewer obstructionist, she has even joined lawsuits against the State to fight a legally permitted sewer project because she didn't "like" the peoject...no compromise, no concern for the years of work to design and permit such a project... "

False and a perfect example of why you have zip credibility. You dont' know what you're talking about. You have confused the legal case defending against the regulatory abuse of The Los Osos 45 with CDOs with whatever you falsely define as "anti-sewer obstructionist." Zip credibility, Mike. Zip.

Alon sez:"I just did a word search on my web browser, typed in "obstructionist" to see how many times it was mentioned. It was mentioned about six times so far. Personally, I don't like the word because it's a strawman term. "Anyone who disagrees with my point of view is an obstructionist!"

Amen. It's not only a strawman, it's also used dishonestly to deliberately mislead and lie. (See Mike, above. Typical tactic. Ditto Lynette.) And indicates some amazing intellectual laziness to boot and the dangerous semantic trap of confusing Item A with Item B with Item C.

L.O. C.C. sez:"But transparency is essential and the watchdogs need to be listened to and praised for their efforts rather than vilified. We need to stop this game of deciding what the people should know, the careful control of the information revealed by the Tribune. The best project for the community will come forth when the people are given unbiased information and allowed to take part in the decision"

Another amen. IF the Process is done right, and stickey fingers stay off the scales, then we should end up with something the majority of the community can live with. Which is why I have been critical of The Process being done wrong and supportive of The Process being done right. Not to mention that the righter the Process is, the fewer "hooks" are left to hang a lawsuit on. The wronger the process, the more hooks. Which is why I say sometimes the fastest way forward is to make haste slowly and carefully.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann, you know perfectly well that the PZLDF case as originally written would have resulted in the busting up of the PZ and the termination of the County's project. You can spin it as you like but the result would have stopped yet another project. That would be an example of obstructionism, guised in the cloak of regulatory abuse.

BTW, how's that case going? I heard that it was in court again last Monday - why no update for us? Didn't things go well?

Alon Perlman said...

Hi Ann, AKA Chardogs
Although AAron Ochs is one of the people posting that I would least object to being confused with, I am not him.
Nor am I the Raucous inafective Albert.
This is to correct your reply
above-
Alon sez:"I just did a word search..." that was Aaron posting.


The word verification to post this message was "expellur" sounds like a Harry Potter Spell...
Expellur-self-described-sewer-expertiamus !
...
....
..?

Nope, they're still here.

Unknown said...

Alon...maybe you swished when you should have swooped... but Ann Rita Skeeter will spin it into some grand conspiracy, which by her definitions, would be anything she didn't agree with...no compromise, no grey area, just her vision of sticky fingers on the scale of law... Opps, do we see the sewer obstructionist's (them that wanted and are still trying to delay and thus increase the sewer costs to higher that Hogwart's highest keep) fingers pounding on the scale...

So keep your blinders on Ann, the straight and narrow "process" was bent backwards by the recall...and you seem to have missed the very lengthy and legal process prior to the throwing down of shovels... But sweetie, Tri-W is still the only "Shovel Ready" option for any Federal Funding... If you don't believe me, how about you dial up Barbara Boxer later this week and ask....there is more here than you would like to believe.... Have a nice day...

Shark Inlet said...

Some would say that the decision to approve TriW was a rush to judgment. Others would say that it was the recall vote or the post-recall LOCSD board decision to stop TriW.

I don't think that either Ann or Mike are as "unbiased" as they believe themselves to be.

Heck, whatever the County decides will be viewed as deeply flawed by someone. That being said, what is the best overall decision for the bulk of those in Los Osos? Let's not let the goal of perfection be the enemy of achieving something good!

LO.CarryingCapacity said...

Sewertoons says
“We will apparently be getting something that costs near to what we were going to pay $205/mo. - but we get almost no aquifer recharge (2/3rds of the water being sprayed onto fields for an unknown amount of time) and the tertiary cleaning needed at some point is left for payment at a later date. I see failure to address those issues in a timely fashion bringing us closer to Lake Nacimiento than we ever dreamed.”

Sewertoons, why do you submissively accept what Paavo presents if you do not like it? A project that does not protect our aquifer and our estuary is not acceptable. We can do better. It will take the commitment of the community to live the lifestyle of the 21st century; reduce, reuse, recycle. Greed and personal gain must be removed from the equation when comparing systems and components. We must learn to use our resources wisely.

Pumping our aquifer dry and spraying our water on a field out Turri Road is not acceptable. If we demand a project that protects our aquifers, the supervisors will listen. Give this new board a chance to show responsible leadership.

As for “accepting a million gallons of filth into the ground – daily,” 25 years since the PZ was drawn, and I am still drinking the water. That doesn’t mean that we should not have a project, but the bottom line is that the project should do no harm. The fix presented by the county will cause a bigger problem. There will eventually be no water to drink.

Shark Inlet (a.k.a. Stiv Neener) said...
When does one rate watchdog status?
“If someone is watching out for how government might be making mistakes, is one a watchdog?

What about if you are watching out for potential biases caused by corporate interests?

What about if you are watching out for folks offering "alternative" plans where there hasn't been a careful vetting of the costs?”
All 3 rate in my book. The world we live in is complex. It is impossible for the average citizen to process all the information needed to make educated decisions on every issue that effects their lives, and still hold down a job, raise their families, and have a life. The watchdogs are willing to give back to there communities by dedicating a significant portion of their lives immersing themselves in a specific issue and communicating findings to the public. Unfortunately we are in a situation where the watchdogs are only heard by the other watchdogs, and the foxes that are stealing from the henhouse. The lack of responsible reporting by the Tribune over the years has contributed greatly to community dissention.
Sewertoons says
Ann, you know perfectly well that the PZLDF case as originally written would have resulted in the busting up of the PZ and the termination of the County's project. You can spin it as you like but the result would have stopped yet another project. That would be an example of obstructionism, guised in the cloak of regulatory abuse.
Are you saying that the process was not legal? That I have a lien on my home for $500 to $5,000 a day, retroactive to 1988, and with no opportunity to comply unless I can build a sewer, a lein based on an illegal process? That the stress I have undergone this past three years along with 1% of the population was for an illegal document? And you would not want this to come before a court? We live in a democracy. Walk a mile in my shoes before you call me an obstructionist.

Watershed Mark said...

LOCC wrote:

As for “accepting a million gallons of filth into the ground – daily,” 25 years since the PZ was drawn, and I am still drinking the water. That doesn’t mean that we should not have a project, but the bottom line is that the project should do no harm. The fix presented by the county will cause a bigger problem. There will eventually be no water to drink.


Stud or Studettely! BRAVO!!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

LOCC, I accept not submissively, but with gratitude, what the County proposes for several reasons. The first and strongest being that this is the the very best way, the ONLY way, for Los Osos to get a sewer. Will it be my preferred choice, I don't think so. Will it be perfect, nothing is perfect. Will it get the job done - emphatically, YES.

Secondly, in facilitating the three water purveyors to band together in agreement with the ISJ, and allowing them to be the principal players, the cost will spread to all water customers, a vacant lot owner 218 assessment for water service playing into that. If the sewer project bears the cost, then only the PZ will pay. Now that hardly seems fair, does it? The old project had a way to sell that tertiary water to the other 2 purveyors, but that, as they say, is political water lost under a long gone bridge.

LOCC, you are no longer drinking water from the upper aquifer, but the lower. The upper is too polluted to drink as is, and just to further inform you, if you were not aware, emerging contaminants are in the upper. Not large amounts, and the US does not have numbers to not go above (Europe does), but it is time to pay attention.

I'm not saying if the process was legal or not, but the time to protest it passed 25 years ago, hence the case was a waste of money. The Water Board is supposed to protect the State's waters. Getting Los Osos to build a sewer to stop messing up those waters was impossible without pressure. They were very patient with extending the timeline for the old Board. Then, in my opinion, with the stopping of a permitted project, already underway, they lost their patience and leniency. Lisa admitted in December 2005 that there was NO PLAN. How do you think they would react to that? I'm sorry for your upset about being a CDOer, but I think certain community members did us all, but particularly the CDO people, a disservice by making this the end of the world. Build a sewer, which were are on track to do thanks to the County, is what will make the CDO's go away.

Unknown said...

Now that the CSD has cut the financial strings to PZLDF, maybe someone would care to comment on where that lawsuit is going...???

BTW, some accounting to show just how much PZLDF actually paid the lawyer would seem in order... It appears the CSD paid some $75,000, which currently appears to be 100% of the legal fees...and just what was that agreement for the split of fees...??? Did PZLDF live up to their agreement...??? or was it just a scam to make money for the CSD5's defense...??? Did Gail receive some financial gain from the CSD paying the PZLDF legal bill...??? Oh yes Ann, there are some sticky fingers, not on the scale but in the community pockets...!!!!

It certainly appears our past CSD (minus Joe) screwed the taxpayers yet again... Nice going Ann, sue the State with local taxpayer money, but make up a cock and bull cover about PZLDF paying to protect the interests of all the community... The PZLDF is a total fraud brought to us by Gail and cheerlead by Ann Calhoun...!!!

Churadogs said...

Oops, there Mike goes again. Making stuff up. Zip credibility, Mike. Zip.

LO C>C> sez:"Are you saying that the process was not legal? That I have a lien on my home for $500 to $5,000 a day, retroactive to 1988, and with no opportunity to comply unless I can build a sewer, a lein based on an illegal process? That the stress I have undergone this past three years along with 1% of the population was for an illegal document? And you would not want this to come before a court? We live in a democracy. Walk a mile in my shoes before you call me an obstructionist."

Ah, now there's the question for the whole community, including Toonces and even Mike. CDO's based on an illegal process? Well, well.

Unknown said...

I'm saying that the PZLDF does NOT and has NOT ever represented my and my family's interests... I'll even go out and say the PZLDF DOES NOT represent the majority of this community... It's strictly a sham to create even more dissention between the State and the Community... The PZLDF never entended to pay the legal fees in their private little lawsuit... Just where does that lawsuit stand these days Ann...??? You signed it, you should know...

Had we proceeded with the very LEGAL Tri-W WWTF, we would not have had the PZLDF lawsuit because there would have been no CDO's...we would all have a sewer right now and none of this crap...!!!

Then to take funds from the CSD in some guise that paying the PZLDF lawsuit was somehow going to halt/delay a legal sewer... BS!!!

If the small group supposedly represented by the PZLDF wanted to sue, then they should have paid their own legal fees instead of promoting even more lies put out by the CSD...!!! How much have you paid Ann...???? There never was any legal agreement that the PZLDF ahd with the CSD...maybe some loose under-the-table kick-back agreement that the whole community would pay for the folly of the PZLDF... If you want to talk legal, then produce the contract and show that PZLDF paid the agreed upon amount...!!!!

There is no such agreement and the PZLDF along with the CSD lied and lied and lied...!!!!!!

Ron said...

LOCC wrote:

"The lack of responsible reporting by the Tribune over the years has contributed greatly to community dissention. "

As I've written a number of times over the years, I put the Trib at the top of the train wreck blame list.

Their reporting on this story has been terrible, beginning in 1997, when their sister paper, The Sun Bulletin, ran a series of reports favoring the Solution Group's dead-on-arrival "better, cheaper, faster" project.

But the one episode that just kills me is this:

In 2000, the "better, cheaper, faster" project, that was solely responsible for forming the Los Osos CSD in the first place in 1998, failed two years later, and the Trib didn't write one word about it.

Blows my mind. Of course, as I also wrote, what makes it splatter all over the place, is the fact that I wrote a New Times cover story showing that the "better, cheaper, faster" project, that was solely responsible for forming the Los Osos CSD in the first place, was on the verge of failing, and, one month after that story was published, it failed, and the Trib STILL didn't write one f-ing word about its failure... after running a series of reports in 1997 favoring the Solution Group's dead-on-arrival "better, cheaper, faster" project.

From a journalism standpoint, that's just flat-out embarrassing. It's terrible.

And, if they HAD written one word of follow-up to my first New Times cover story on this subject, the train wreck would have never happened, because the LOCSD wouldn't have been able to illegaly sneak their second project in at the Tri-W site, in an effort to cover-up the fact that their first project had failed.

And, oh yea, Bill Morem, long-time Trib reporter/editor, not only lives in the Prohibition Zone, but has also been on a first-name-basis with Solution Group founder, Pandora Nash-Karner, forever.

Without doubt, at the top of the LO Sewer train wreck blame heap, is the ol' Trib.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann, maybe you could comment on the PZLDF case. It seems that every time it makes a court appearance, more parts of the case are carved out of it by the judge. What is left now?

I heard the CSD had spent $88,000, which means someone else - the CDOers - has spent $264,000 - or at least they have been billed $264,000 for a total of $352,000. The agreement - voted on by the Board in February 2007 was to pay bills backdated to January 1, 2007 - for 25% of the bill's total then and onward. But all of the bills received have been redacted, so no one knows the amount billed to PZLDF. Legally, this might work, to not show the total bill, but this secrecy looks very suspicious from where I sit - and I am not alone in this position. Even Margitson said (during the public comment part before the Board's last closed session) the amount the CSD has to pay has never been proven.

As I have publicly stated as a PZ property owner, I do not want this case to represent me to the Water Board.

So Ann, how's it going?

Shark Inlet said...

Another complaint about the journalists who covered sewer issues for Los Osos would be that not a single one of them actually reported any of the details of the plans for an out of town sewer promised for only $100/month by the recall. Perhaps had the voting public solid information from journalists about the plan ... like that there was none ... the vote would have been different.

Woulda coulda shoulda. Let's get over the past train wrecks and move forward in evaluating the County plan and the soundness of proposed alternatives. The way I see it ... even if the County made some mistakes (and they are likely to have made some) in the EIR and site selection, some millions have been spent and this is what they believe is best. Anyone coming forward now with an alternative has the burden of proof on their shoulders. That is all to say ... someone who believes STEP to be superior needs to spend some serious cash now to get an alternative analysis to demonstrate that for Los Osos, STEP dominates gravity. Similar for folks who prefer TriW or who want on site systems or whatever.

While I am disappointed that the County hasn't designed any substantial aquifer recharge into their system. Of course, that would also raise the cost ... but to accept a higher cost would be quit reasonable when the alternative option is even more expensive.

Once the draft EIR is out there, comments can be made, but only compelling comments ... than demonstrate a superior in an unambiguous way ... can be expected to make serious changes in the County plan.

By no means is the situation fait accompli ... but darn near. After the final EIR it would only be a compelling lawsuit or bureaucratic hurdle which could change the conclusion. Essentially, all effort to bitch and whine at the County level would be wasted and all attempts to stall challenge the County position could be expected to only lead to delay.

Now some (M, perhaps) would suggest that delay may save us money because construction costs have dropped. I am glad that costs have gone down. However, unless they continue to drop, we can expect inflation to take over yet again and cause costs to go up.

Let's carefully move forward and present compelling arguments to the County if there are any. Then, once it is decided (whatever way that may be), let's drop any squabbling and move forward towards a solution.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

The cost of aquifer recharge will be also be shared by vacant lot owners with the 218 they must pass. All 3 water company water users (well water users being off the hook) will help pay. The cost of the interconnect, which will do the most to help with over-pumping, should be paid by all. The Coastal Commission wants a water management plan (The Basin Management Plan) and that is where the guidelines for tertiary treatment we need for reuse will come in. The money for studies of the two water basins has been approved. The intertie project is funded and a preliminary design should be out in a few weeks.

The staff report from the January 6 CSD meeting states that the "…proposed wastewater project is a critical tool among the available water management studies."

The CSD is in process of sending a policy statement regarding these issues. At preliminary draft stage anyway, the District is asking for the County to include an optional cost for tertiary treatment in its pending Design/Build process. They are tying the statement to ag and urban re-use. We'll have to see what the final policy statement looks like and how it affects what the County does. In the current, not-yet-final statement, I quote, "Ideally, the DEIR should fully address the impacts, including solids handling, chemical usage, air quality, traffic, etc. associated with attaining a higher level of tertiary treatment."

We can't expect this County project to address all of the water issues the way the last project, in the hands of the CSD could.

We would be helped by a timeline for all of this!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Mike, I have attended all of the meetings, but have heard nothing as to the handling of the PZLDF case… yet! I think we might just stay tuned.

But Ann could enlighten us as to how the tentative ruling went, so we can see if we are getting our money's worth - as WE ARE paying for it. She is a part of the case.

Shark Inlet said...

On the whole PZLDF thing ... I believe that suing the RWQCB is throwing good money after bad even if the lawsuit is legitimate. Heck, anyone can sue anyone for any reason ... whether it is worth the money depends on how much money the suit costs and how likely it is to prevail. I rather doubt that the PZLDF case is gonna win and so I perceive it as not a good use of the limited money our district has.

Then there is that whole question about whether the other parties to the lawsuit have been paying their bills ... if only the LOCSD has been paying their share of the tab, it would seem that this is a situation where there is an opportunity to get the district to pay the lion's share of the amount paid to Sullivan. If there aren't methods in place to verify that the other 75% is being paid, it is not appropriate for the CSD to carry the burden ... and that would be true even if Sullivan is guaranteed a win and the lawsuit only cost $100k total.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

The District can expects a shortfall in tax revenues according to the County as reported by District GM John Schempf. Phill Veneris has been asked to carve $111,000 out of his Fund 301 Fire Dept. budget. (Mr. Schempf and staff will be carving out monies too out of the Admin. budget, but not as much.) It was discussed at last night's Emergency Services Committee meeting - which was well attended. There will be an additional meeting next Wednesday, January 28, 5:30 PM at the fire station to discuss this. The public is urged to attend to voice their comments and ask questions.

Watershed Mark said...

Steve,
Technology represents much more enonmical savings than materials and labor price reductions.

Pre-engineered designs also save time and money.

Want/need a shovel ready design?

Watershed Mark said...

Brought to you by Water & Wastes Digest (WWD)
Urging House Committees to Provide Maximum Funding for Water/Wastewater Projects in Stimulus Package
by WWEMA
The Water & Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association is asking its members to contact House committee representatives about providing maximum funding in equal proportion for both water and wastewater infrastructure projects in the new economic stimulus package.
The Appropriations Committee is scheduled to review the stimulus package bill today, while the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on the infrastructure investment portion on Jan. 22.
Members of the Appropriations Committee can be found here, and members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee can be found here.
According to WWEMA, the needs for water/wastewater funding are comparable to those of public health, environmental protection and economic recovery.
The stimulus package calls for $6 billion for wastewater infrastructure and $2 billion for drinking water infrastructure, which will be administered through the U.S. EPA State Revolving Fund programs. An additional $1.5 billion is slated for rural water/wastewater projects administered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
WWEMA is also urging its members to contact senators for support of a letter requesting $32 billion for water infrastructure projects. Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) spearheaded the letter-writing campaign, which calls for $20 billion for wastewater projects, $10 billion for drinking water projects and $2 billion for water efficiency projects.
The letter, which was signed by several other senators, was sent to Senate leadership last Friday.

I think about all the time, energy and money which can be conserved and spread out to cover more need.

If the money is to be handed out SRF why does the county need a lobbyist?

Churadogs said...

Mike sez:"I'm saying that the PZLDF does NOT and has NOT ever represented my and my family's interests... I'll even go out and say the PZLDF DOES NOT represent the majority of this community.."

Remember at the CDO/ACL hearing when Seitz stood up and said that the CSD WAS the community and the community WAS the CSD and so there wasn't any there there? And he did so as part of the team supposedly "defending" the community/CSD from the CDO/ACL process. When it became clear what his defense was, the RWQCB dropped their original case, and started it up again by first going after the Los Osos 45 and then expanding that to include all of us, including you Mike. (A switcharoo that really pointed up what a clusterf$#^%k Mad Hatter nightmarish insanity was in store for some community members, with nobody, including the Board even sure what was is, out, evidence, not, incorporated by reference, no, yes, where is that, that's in but not that, rule change, no , yes, In short, to save his "client," the CSD, Seitz, dropped you and everyone else in the soup. The CSD board understood what had happened and voted to defend itself as an entity AND defend its citizens against the regulatory abusive mess.

The new board must now vote whether to drop the citizens back into the soup and all on their own. That vote will hinge on the two new board members. Will they defend the community that elected them? Or dump them all in the soup?

What the status of the PZLDF case is is plodding through the various preliminary motions & etc. At some point the various points being challenged can proceed in a real court of law IF the parties to the case decide to proceed forward. So, stay tuned.

Unknown said...

...all could have be avoided had the Mad Hatters ruining the CSD thought about their decisions to halt a legal sewer project and create a major bankruptcy...!!!

...and didn't the CSD vote to "Drop" all further support of PZLDF...??? An accounting of the amounts actually PAID by the CSD AND PZLDF should be made PUBLIC if the scales are to be balanced... Would it be too much to ask for some transparency concerning the spending of out tax dollars...??? The previous Board certainly was NOT transparent and probably has lead to this continued discord...!!!!

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

Are you saying that the LOCSD took on the PZLDF suit payments because they felt guilty about telling the RWQCB that CDOs and CAOs were the only appropriate course of action and that the LOCSD shouldn't be fined for stopping TriW?

Frankly, it sounds like you are trying to blame Seitz for a strategy that the CSD must have signed off on ahead of time. I'm sure that Jon even told the LOCSD board that it would be a better strategy to start TriW back up than to pick a fight with the RWQCB ... but if they wanted to get in a brawl and wanted to avoid immediate fines, the only reasonable way to do this would be by passing the buck.

By the way, I believe this very same ACL hearing is where Lisa fessed up that there was no out of town plan even though the recall campaign promised there was.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

As a PZ property owner, I think Mr. Seitz did the right thing, I do not feel "dropped in the soup" and would rather face the Water Board on my own (if for some odd reason I have to), without this millstone case looped around my neck.

A poll to see whether we want to pay for this case to continue when a sewer is in sight, thanks to the County (thereby dropping the CDO's)

OR

do we want to put that money into fire reserves to be able to keep keep our level of fire service - a fire truck cost a half mil and we are far from that number right now and must replace ours in a couple of years - would be very interesting.

The closer we get to that sewer the more irrelevant this case becomes.

Guess you are not going to report on that last court appearance.

Realistic1 said...

"What the status of the PZLDF case is is plodding through the various preliminary motions & etc."

I heard it was a great deal more than that, Ann.

Has the majority of the case been tossed, and was PZLDF told by the judge that the part that MIGHT make it to court is a likely loser?

Please, correct me if I'm wrong. You want us to support the case? Please give us a real update.

Churadogs said...

Sewertoons sez:"I do not feel "dropped in the soup" and would rather face the Water Board on my own"

Really? Then you must have been one of those who stood with the Los Osos 45, helping them face the water board, donating time and money to help them prepare to defend themselves, & etc. No? You didn't life a finger to help them? Ah, well, of course. Just as I figured. YOU didn't have to face the Waterboard, YOU didn't get a CDO, so of course it's not your problem.

Unknown said...

...hmmm I remember a much smaller number (12?) who actually wanted to fight the CDO's... The rest wanted the sewer to be built with the knowledge that there would be no CDO once connected...

...I also seem to remember someone who didn't live in the PZ and who would never have had a CDO, being the organizer and script writer of most of the opposition... and didn't she have a personal ax to grind with the State water Board for her "terminated" employment...

Sorry Ann, the community at large did NOT SUPPORT the PZLDF lawsuit...!!!! I did not and will not support the PZLDF and as a mater of fact, I am totally against the previous CSD throwing our tax dollars at an ill prepared lawsuit... I am pressing very much to see the actual agreement and the accounting to go with that agreement... I suspect, as do many of us, that money was given to some individuals through this sham agreement... Neither the past CSD nor the PZLDF has been transparent as we had been told they would be... Seems like just more lies from the small group of sewer obstructionists....

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Ann says about me:
"YOU didn't have to face the Waterboard, YOU didn't get a CDO, so of course it's not your problem."

If I had been a shrink I would have helped the CDOers as a therapist to counteract the sturm and drang you and Gail brought into these poor people's lives. Thank goodness not everyone freaked out. THOSE people are the role models here in settling with the Water Board and sensibly realizing the way out of this was to support getting a sewer.

No Ann, I did not get a CDO and neither did you.

You CHOSE to be part of this because you knew the defense for the case was a breaking up up the PZ - which would bring us back to square one on getting a sewer. In all of your writings you haven't at all convinced me that you want a sewer or even think that we need one.

The best defense for the NOV's the rest of us non-CDOers got is a SEWER and I have been supporting the County's process ALL ALONG.

Realistic1 said...

And as a co-plaintiff in the PZLDF suit, Ann knows exactly where the case stands after the most recent court dealings a few weeks ago. But she can't (or won't) fill us in. I wonder why...

Could it be that the PZ was litigated at least twice in 20 years, and the RWQCB won each time?

Could it be now that the PZLDF's sugar daddy, the LOCSD, has (or is about to) cut them off financially the case is DOA for lack of funding?

Could it be the judge recently told PZLDF they barely have a chance of advancing to a court trial, let alone a snowball's chance in hell of winning if it does?

Those are all the rumors swirling about town, but Plaintiff Ann won't address them.

Watershed Mark said...

From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Friday, January 23, 2009 4:03 PM
To: john beardwood
Subject: Supes Approve Another Million

Hello Jack,

Great news piece!
I love it when someone actually knows, then does their job.

When are the Supes going to put out an accounting of who the money is being spent?
Can we at least see the billings from the companies they hired?

Billings as in any business help “tell the tale”.

My best regards,

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"

Supes Approve Another Million
By Jack Beardwood
With the hope of receiving funds from President Barack Obama’s economic stimu¬lus program, the County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to ante up another $1 million for development of a Los Osos sewer project.
John Deodati, department administrator for the County Public Works Department, told The Bay News that the additional money will allow them to expedite the project application process, improving their chances to qualify for federal funds. It will help them get the EIR certified and allow for an application for a State Revolving Fund loan to be completed sooner, he explained. A consultant would be hired to administer the state loan applica¬tion.
Deodati said it does not mean that they will skip any portion of the environmental review process and that the county has not chosen a technology or location for the project.

Everyone should read Beardwood’s front page Baywood News piece: http://baynews.ca.newsmemory.com/

A few questions for you MIKE:
When did the SLO BOS vote to “take” the project?
How much money will it take to study whether or not, to “take” the project?
As the DEIR comment period is still open through 1-30-09 and no technology has been chosen why is an RFQ out for a gravity ox-ditch?

If there are any legal challenge, will the county vote to take the project?

If all monies for water and wastewater projects are being funneled through the SRF program why does the county need outside consultants? I thought that the county had the “where with all” to get the job done(Lynette?). Seems what they have is the people’s money to hire outside/private industry to augment their efforts, so when will the people be able to see the billings?
What is California’s State Government’s deficit at the moment-$38B? it was to be $16B April/May 2008, what’s up with that?
What is SLO County’s fiscal deficit?
Then there is this:
Take all of your wasted honor
Every little past frustration
Take all of your so-called problems
Better put them in quotations

Say what you need to say (8x)
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say

Walking like a one man army
Fighting with the shadows in your head
Living out the same old moment
Knowing you’d be better off instead
If you could only

Say what you need to say (8x)
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say

Have no fear for giving in
Have no fear for giving over
You better know that in the end
It’s better to say too much
Than never to say what you need to say again

Even if your hands are shaking
And your faith is broken
Even as the eyes are closing
Do it with a heart wide open

Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say

Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to
Say what you need to

Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say

Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say

Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
(Fade)
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say
Say what you need to say

The EIR states that the “environmentally superi¬or” project would be located on the 645-acre Tonini property along Turri Road east of town. It would utilize a gravity-fed collection system.
See Supes, page 5

Supes, from page 1
Critics claim the county is not fully considering alternative technologies and that the community cannot afford what is now estimated to be a $ 165 million project.

Shark Inlet said...

'Toons,

You asked about the PZLDF case ruling. A friend e-mailed me a copy and I put a copy at http://sharkinlet.fileave.com/PZLDF 1-15-09 Ruling.pdf for you to read. I haven't read it and don't have the time to do so now, but if you can read lawyer-speak and let us know, I would appreciate a summary.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Thank you Shark! Got home late - will download now - my bro-in-law is an attorney - I'll see if he has time to properly translate this tomorrow, I'll send it on to him.

Churadogs said...

Toonces sez:"In all of your writings you haven't at all convinced me that you want a sewer or even think that we need one."

Yep, just as I thought. You don't read carefully. That's the problem.

toonces sez:"The best defense for the NOV's the rest of us non-CDOers got is a SEWER and I have been supporting the County's process ALL ALONG."

The CDO's PZLDF case has nothing to do with the County's sewer Process. The CDO holders I've spoken to support the County's efforts, want a sewer system, have always wanted a sewer system. The PZLDF has to do with regulatory abuse, not the County Process. (Interestingly, the Stealth Basin Update Plan extends that same abusive methodolgy out past the PZ. Unless folks throughout the county pay attention, they'll find themselves in the same boat as the CDO'ers. Will that be poetic justice??)

Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Watershed Mark said...

LO/BP is an important project for many reasons, I wish more folks could get their heads and hearts around that fact.

Shark Inlet said...

Ann,

I believe you misunderstood 'Toons. She was saying that at it's heart, the PZLDF suit was aimed at invalidating the PZ definition. While I wouldn't so much mind that, it would force the RWQCB to redefine the area where wastewater treatment would be mandated and then there would need to be yet another plan developed, another study, another EIR and even more lawsuits and all in all, more delay. And, no matter what M tells us, delay on the order we are talking about by striking down the PZ will end up costing us.

If it is important to you that the PZ be redefined, please realize that down the road you will be paying for the right to complain about process now.

Simply put (no matter how much OsosChange doesn't like it), it is often cheaper to ignore the flaws than to have them fixed. This is true about minor damage from a fender bender and it is true about a sewer for Los Osos.

Osos Change said...

Once again Steve, you keep talking out of your ass. Please stop pretending that you know more than you actually do.

LO.CarryingCapacity said...

Shark
I have a lien on my property for $500 to $5000 a day retroactive to 1988, and would have had the same lien regardless of whether the document was a CDO or a CAO. Are you saying that I should not have protested? That the 1% of the population should have given up the right to protest, and put their fate in the hands of Roger Briggs?

I honestly don’t think I would have a home right now if I had taken that path, and I also believe that Taxpayers Watch would still have used marketing techniques to make me appear to be “sewer obstructionist” that deserved my fate. Were any TW insiders chosen in this lottery, and did they receive a proposed CDO? Or were TW friendly names replaced with known anti-TW activists? Although I had never been involved in LO politics before the CDO, it was surprising how many of the chosen victims had spoken out against the Tri-W project.

The individual CDOs were just a game to TW and the WB, and we were pawns. In the eyes of the WB and TW, the people chosen in the lottery were expendable. We were necessary collateral damage needed to achieve the desired objective. I was not allowed alternative compliance, but instead told that I was responsible for making the community vote the “right way” if I wanted to avoid the fines.

This was wrong. It should not be allowed to happen again. The only way to assure this is through the courts.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Thank you Shark, you have clarified my position to OC precisely.

I was unfortunately asleep when my bro-in-law called with his response to what I sent, RULING ON MOTION TO STRIKE SECOND AMENDMENT TO SECOND AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS. I took notes. Kinda messy. So I'll just cut to the chase. Any errors in interpretation are mine alone.

PZLDF states there was a lack of compliance for CEQA, so the CDO's are not valid. The judge did not buy the cases presented for defending that position as PZLDF had MISSED the deadline to protest. Those rulings the judge didn't buy were for specific cases and cannot be generalized to defend being late here. Even if all PZLDF says is true, it doesn't matter, too late. Now, there is apparently no right either to allow this thing to be appealed, but it probably could be. But it would cost a LOT of money to do so.

My question is - what is left of the case, and if this centerpiece is gone, what really is left to continue with? Ann?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

LOCC, are you involved enough to comment on why this was filed too late? Are you satisfied with this kind of representation of your case to the Water Board?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

LOCC, TW and the Water Board are two very different entities. TW does not influence the WB, as much as you might want to believe it. You are giving TW FAR, FAR more power than it actually has. Sounds like you are angry and have found yourself a target to vent your spleen. You have probably had some help in picking out that target.

At this point, you are going to need an awful lot of luck and a ton of money to be on the legal playing field.

Unknown said...

Ann says..."The CDO's PZLDF case has nothing to do with the County's sewer Process."

...Apparently Ann is in agreement with the County and the Sewer Development & Selection Process...

"The CDO holders I've spoken to support the County's efforts, want a sewer system, have always wanted a sewer system."

...Amazing, but then what you didn't say was that you and the CDO folks you spoke to, just don't want a sewer in Los Osos...???

"The PZLDF has to do with regulatory abuse, not the County Process."

...and who defined "regulatory abuse"...??? Gail, Ann, Lisa, Julie, Ron, Mark, Ms. Sullivan...??? How about Jerry Brown...??? How about Al Barrow, he certainly could be an authority on regulatory abuse after the CSD tried to publicly censure him for his abusive manner...??? How about the SLO Bd of Supervisors...???

Could there be a similar definition of "obstructive public abuse of regulators"...or "abuse of Pre-Recall LOCSD Directors...???

..."(Interestingly, the Stealth Basin Update Plan extends that same abusive methodolgy out past the PZ. Unless folks throughout the county pay attention, they'll find themselves in the same boat as the CDO'ers. Will that be poetic justice??)"

....First Ann says she supports the county Sewer Process, but then isn't so sure....maybe she considers herself to be the watchdog pointing out "regulatory abuse"... Just where was she when the Pre-Recall Directors were being threatened and lied about...and btw, are still being abused by members of this community...

I guess that was Ann's defense of the CSD paying the PZLDF legal bills... So far, there has been no agreement to pay the bills publically presented, did one ever actually exist...??? Is PZLDF now on the Bankruptcy Creditors List....????

There certainly has been no accounting as yet, but it appears the wonderful PZLDF has paid ZERO costs in their legal battle against "regulatory abuse"...and we, the tax payers of Los Osos got pay something over $80,000 before the new CSD Board took back control of the finances and halted financial support of that poorly prepared and presented lawsuit...

Try again Ann, explain how it was/is somehow ok to physically threaten and lie about public officials who made decisions you disagree with... Explain how that "abuse" is merely "freedom of speech"...

Churadogs said...

Inlet sez:"The judge did not buy the cases presented for defending that position as PZLDF had MISSED the deadline to protest. Those rulings the judge didn't buy were for specific cases and cannot be generalized to defend being late here. Even if all PZLDF says is true, it doesn't matter, too late. Now, there is apparently no right either to allow this thing to be appealed, but it probably could be. But it would cost a LOT of money to do so."

What's the most fascinating is the Catch 22 game the RWQCB has set up here. You can't sue in a real court to protect your property and civil rights until you are "harmed" and when you are "harmed," (a CDO placed on your home, for example)and you follow the correct administrative steps, then it's too late to sue. A perfect Catch 22. Which places everyone under the control of the RWQCB trapped in a totally untenable legal limbo with no way to make sure they have anything even approaching equal justice under law -- there IS no law.

Does this need a full hearing and an appeal? Oh, my, yes.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

So Ann, clearly YOU want a full hearing and an appeal, but who is going to pay for that? Have you paid any money yourself yet?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

BTW Ann, I said, "The judge did not buy the cases presented for defending that position as PZLDF had MISSED the deadline to protest. Etc."

Watershed Mark said...

What's the most fascinating is the Catch 22 game the RWQCB has set up here. You can't sue in a real court to protect your property and civil rights until you are "harmed" and when you are "harmed," (a CDO placed on your home, for example)and you follow the correct administrative steps, then it's too late to sue. A perfect Catch 22. Which places everyone under the control of the RWQCB trapped in a totally untenable legal limbo with no way to make sure they have anything even approaching equal justice under law -- there IS no law.

CRACK!

Richard LeGros said...

Ann,

Reading the Judges ruling, the PZLDF case is over.

PZLDF clearly lost on all causes of action that remained; as prior causes of action were rejected. You may want to have a longggg talk with Ms. Sullivan about her screw-up; maybe sue her for malpractice?

Also, as you are a 'procedure' wonk, the fact that PZLDF did not follow procedure (ie missed the filing dealine) is ironic. If PZLDF files an appeal (which I doubt as there is no money to pay for such an action); and challenges the Court's ruling regarding PZLDF's failure to follow procedure; such a suit would be downright comical.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Hey Ann - Call the ACLU to see if you still have --or --EVER HAD a case - or did you do that already and were told no, you didn't?

Shark Inlet said...

Richard,

Aren't you really suggesting that the LOCSD could sue Sullivan for malpractice? After all, we know that they did pay their share of the bill ... we don't know that anyone else did.

Richard LeGros said...

Hi Sharkinlet,

No, the CSD should just cut it losses and run. Besides, the $80,000 the CSD spent is chump change to the real money spent/wasted by the CSD5.

The goal of the TW lawsuit is to return to the CSD/taxpayer as much as the $2,000,000 the CSD5 illegally squandered. The comments and discussions opined at recent Water Ops and Emergency Services Committee meetings illustrate how much the community is beginning to realize the damage the CSD5 have caused to their services.

Meanwhile, PZLDF should atleast file a complaint with the Bar over Sullivan's incompetence and failure to be honest with the CSD.

-R

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

And of much interest at the Emergency Services Committee meeting was the disappearance of $800,000 held in reserves in 2005.

Ron said...

R. LeG. wrote:

" Besides, the $80,000 the CSD spent is chump change to the real money spent/wasted by the CSD5. "

Dude! We're on the exact same page! That now makes you AND Pandora AND SewerWatch, all in our little warm and fuzzy place.

Let's make some schmors.

Kumbaya do dooo, do do dooo....

Check it:

First, we have ol' P. and she's all about "support the county's process," right? And, I say, "Hell yes, support the county's process!"

That process has shown the Tri-W sewer-park-plant to be the embarrassing, illegal cover-up that I've reported it to be (time-stamped) over the last fours-and-counting, just like I recently wrote at this link:

http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Heck, brilliant County officials, like Mark Hutchinson, even laugh out loud these days, when they're asked (by some smart-ass reporter) to put themselves in the shoes of the people responsible for the Tri-W embarrassment.

So, do I "support" the county's process? I can do better than that. I absolutely LOVE the county's process! Best... process... ever.

Then, R. LeG. up and writes:

"Besides, the $80,000 the CSD spent is chump change to the real money spent/wasted by the CSD5."

Right. Exactly.

The $80,000 the CSD spent is chump change to the real money spent/wasted by the CSD5.

Like I also reported at this link:

http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

when I wrote:

(In 1999, the initial CSD5), shortly after taking office, made the decision to dump, entirely, the County's "ready to go" project that (the County) had spent nearly five years and some $6 million developing, so (the CSD5) could chase their "project."

Cha-ching!

We could just stop right there, and that above-mentioned, alleged "$80,000," is "chump-change" when compared to that $6 million that Nash-Karner's "CSD5" cost county taxpayers.

And, Richard, that wasted $6 million doesn't even include one penny from the over $20 million (and five years) that the CSD6 -- Pandora Nash-Karner, Gordon Hensley, Stan Gustafson, Frank Freiler, Bob Semenson, and one Richard LeGros -- wasted developing the illegal Tri-W cover-up/embarrassment.

Toss in all of the completely unnecessary administrative costs associated with the cover-up over the past 10 years (at every level of government imaginable), and, whooooaaaa boy, aye-yai-yai...

Cha-ching! Cha-ching! Cha-ching! Cha-ching! (ad infinitum)

Yea, I reported on all of that at this link:

http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/

Richard, since we all seem to sound the same these days, me, you, and Pandora should all get matching sweat suits, or something.

Richard LeGros said...

No Ron...we are NOT on the same page.

I agree that the Solution Group plan was DOA. However, nothing they did (priot to or after the election)was illegal. They won an election based on their misplaced fervent belief that their plan would work; and would not hear contrary criticism that it would not until 18 months after being elected. In 2001 they realized that their initial plan would not work; and made the switch (with complete public oversite and while stricly following the CEQA process) to a plan that would work (Tri-W). Yes, the Solution Group could not meet their campaign promises...but that is not illegal. Nor was it illegal for them to spend public money to go through the process that resulted in the rejection of the Solution Group plan or the switch to Tri-W. Nor was it illegal for them to establish an SOC to guide the the configuration of a waste water project which resulted in Tri-W. Yes, time and money were wasted; but their actions were completely within the law.
Get it? NOTHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED.

MEANWHILE:

What Taxpayers watch is suing over has nothing to do with the CSD5 stopping the Tri-W project, the recall election, or that they forced the CSD into bankruptcy.

What the lawsuit is about is that the CSD5, our elected officals, VIOLATED STATE LAW they they were obligated to uphold.

After the CSD5 received $1,500,000 in property taxes collected for the CSD fire fee and Bond Payment (which could, by law, only be spent on those expenses) they spent the money on costs other than what collected for (Attorney fees, etc)....forcing the CSD to drain $766,000 out of LAIF reserves to pay the CDF fire fee, and borrowing $716,000 from the Bank of New York to pay the bond payment. Theses are clearly ILLEGAL (felony) acts that the CSD5will be held accountble for.

Additionally, the settlements with BW&S totaling $480,000 can be clearly shown to be illegal as the CSD5 had a vested interest in seeing their pre-recall attorney bills paid. Using public money to pay privent debts is ILLEGAL.

You should be glad that TW is holding it's elected officals accoutable for ILLEGAL BEHAVIOR; and as the result of the TW lawsuit will return $2,000,000 to the CSD at a time it needs the money to maintain emergency services TO CURENT LEVEL; and to payback the BNY loan without forcing the taxpayer to pay twice.

-R

Shark Inlet said...

Seriously Ron ... "illegal"? Are you gonna persist in that claim?

And thanks for the head's up about your blog post. I hadn't visited and so didn't know that there was anything new since December.

Churadogs said...

Richard forgot to mention all the money he and Stand and Gordon wasted by starting that project before the Recall/Measure B vote, then lying about how they had no choice, legally had to start digging right then, boo-hoo.

Yes, Ron, time to get matching track suits and print the entire amount of money wasted on the back . . . if there's enough room, that is. Kumbaya, M'Lord, Kumbaya

Richard LeGros said...

Ann forgot to say that I, Stan and Gordon made it very clear prior to the recall that the CSD had a dozen binding legal contracts (going back to the 2002 Bond Assessment Vote) that, if the Tri-W project was stopped, would be in default; resulting in tens of millions of dollars in damages that would have to be paid by the taxpayers of Los Osos.

Ann also forgot to say that Julie, Lisa, Chuck, Steve and John disregarded those warnings, voted unanimously to reject the State's last offer to keep the SRF loan and project in play, and stopped Tri-W anyway....resulting in a $50,000,000 bankruptcy that will be paid on the backs of the Los Osos taxpayer.....and have to pay for a more expensive County waste water project to boot!

Ann also forgot to say that Measure B was an illegal initiative that have been invalidated three times in court. Essentially Julie, Lisa, Chuck, Steve and John base CSD policy upon an illegality; and they should have adjudicated Measure B in the Appeals Court prior to making CSD policy based upon it.

Ann (and Ron), you obviously do not understand the idea of obeying the law, making sound policy decisions based upon that law, contractual obligations, finances, or the PROCESS of getting a project of this size and magnitude made reality.

-R

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Thank you Richard, well put!

You are very, very kind to say that they "forgot to say!" There are less kind ways that could have been stated.

Perhaps the awful consequences of this obstructionism are so overwhelming to Ann and Ron, that they have not yet quite been able to get their arms around it, or even let it sink in? It is hard to admit that the work they put in to causing the project to crash has had so many damaging results to the community. The happy spin of "stopping 'The Awful Project'," MINUS THESE CONSEQUENCES, is a lot easier accept.

Forgiveness can be granted when responsibility for mistakes is owned. Otherwise the rest of us will just move on, writing off those who hide their heads in spin as irrelevant.

Watershed Mark said...

Ann (and Ron), you obviously do not understand the idea of obeying the law, making sound policy decisions based upon that law, contractual obligations, finances, or the PROCESS of getting a project of this size and magnitude made reality.

-R

Wrote he who delayed the will of the people...Me thinketh ye doth protest too much.

Watershed Mark said...

Perhaps the awful consequences of this obstructionism are so overwhelming to Ann and Ron, that they have not yet quite been able to get their arms around it, or even let it sink in? It is hard to admit that the work they put in to causing the project to crash has had so many damaging results to the community. The happy spin of "stopping 'The Awful Project'," MINUS THESE CONSEQUENCES, is a lot easier accept.

Written by someone who does not possess the intellectual integrity to hold every side of the equation to the same standard...More Tea, Lynette? You’ll need it if you get what you deserve.

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Oh, and you do? You have not proven that here.

Watershed Mark said...

Show us the leakage data that proves the gravity is superior, Lynette.

Richard LeGros said...

Mark,

Are you saying that the 'will of the people' was to knowingly and gratefully elect a post-recall board whose actions would result in the default on numerous multi-milllion dollar legal contracts, violate State Law AND cause the largest per capita municapal bankrucpcy in US history?

Do you really believe that 'the people' were willing to accept and pay for the post recall boards actions would indebt them to pay $50,000,000 in damages and fines; all while jettisoning their $20,000,000bond investment?

Do you really beleive that 'the people' knew that the post recall board's promise that they had a plan cheaper than Tri-W readt y to go was all a lie?

-R

Watershed Mark said...

I am saying the people wanted you and Hensley recalled from office.
Given your punditry regarding your ex-CSD Boardsmanship at this jucture I can understand why.

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the State Water Board wasn't going to give out the second installment of the SRF loan when they said they had to have a 218 vote first.

Wouldn't that say that the State Water Board stopped the Tri-W project and that they (State Water Board) actually caused the bankruptcy debt, etc. themselves by not doing things right with the 218 vote in the first place BEFORE handing out the first installment?


Lynette,

You speak of obstructionists, but the County had the project for many years and couldn't pull it off. The initial CSD had the project for years and couldn't pull it off. What you call "obstructionists" are really truth seekers. There is so much fraud involved with the sewer in Los Osos and you play a big part!

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

GetReal, Richard can tell you why, but as a preamble -- there was no need for that 218 vote before - the law has been cited on this blog more than once. Your retention skills are lacking.

The County could have pulled it off. They opted to be done with Los Osos and let the bears fight it out amongst themselves. Can't say I blame them, but as it turns out they got it back. Little could they have predicted…

The CSD had it for years because the obstructionists had 15 lawsuits to work out of their systems before anything could be built.

I had no idea that little me, a little blogger on this little site plays a big part in fraud!!!

Watershed Mark said...

The county BOS have not voted to "take" the problem, yet.

How are you coming with the leaky sewerage data which proves gravity is best, Lynette?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

ws mark says, "The county BOS have not voted to "take" the problem, yet."

Don't worry yourself, or perhaps I should say get too excited. They will. I think you were trying to be clever, and pardon me if you simply misspelled the word, but the correct word is "project."

GetRealOsos said...

Lynette,

If there was no need for the 218 vote "before" then tell us why the State Water Board wanted a 218 vote before they would hand out any more money (second installment)?

As far as the fraud, you promote it -- you are part of it.

You obviously have not done your homework on why the County didn't want the project. All the delays you talk about were because of their actions. As far as the first CSD, it wasn't the lawsuits, it looks more like Pandora had to figure a way to get around the 218 and to get the project off the County's back and she sold her Measure K knowing the RWQCB would not approve ponds and they didn't have the proper amount of land anyway.

My retention skills aren't lacking -- I just believe you are wrong and have to correct some of your bull. A judge would have to rule on whether the 218 vote was required by law. This has not been done yet, but I guess you never saw how nervous Jon Seitz and Steve Highland were at the time. Oh well.

You need some serious eduction my dear. But if someone refuses to learn, there's no sense in trying to educate you. You've got your job to do. We understand Lynette.

GetRealOsos said...

Richard,

Do you just let Lynette answer for you?

I'll repeat:

Richard,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the State Water Board wasn't going to give out the second installment of the SRF loan when they said they had to have a 218 vote first.

Wouldn't that say that the State Water Board stopped the Tri-W project and that they (State Water Board) actually caused the bankruptcy debt, etc. themselves by not doing things right with the 218 vote in the first place BEFORE handing out the first installment?

Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...

Getreal asks,
If there was no need for the 218 vote "before" then tell us why the State Water Board wanted a 218 vote before they would hand out any more money (second installment)? "

Um, because the new Board stopped the project? The project that the money was specifically designated for? Maybe they thought the new Board would be spending the money on a giant trip to Tahiti? I mean the new Board had NO PLAN if you remember.

If you want Richard to answer, why ask me? I was merely giving you an hors d'oeuvre!

Besides, we've been through all of this before with you.

Watershed Mark said...

Lynette,

If you don't see the elimination of the septic tank discharge as a "problem" you have a problem. Should the county decide to "take it on" it could be the most scrutinized "project" in the history of the industry in California and perhaps nationally. As long as everything is completely transparent the county should be ok. I am still looking forward to seeing the detailed billings from the county's contractors for the $7M spent so far and of course all the data which was reviewed that yielded "gravity" conveyance as best. That $25M secondary Ox-Ditch is a problem when USBF tertiary is available for $8.8M.

Don't make the stupid mistake of thinking that the "facts don't matter". Facts are important especially during these tough economic times.
Why do you want to build an unnecessarily over priced system when you can build and operate a better one for less money?