Calhouns Can(n)ons

Friday, March 13, 2009

Uh-Oh, The 4.6 Mil Smackdown

Front page story by Jack Beardwood in the March 12, Bay News (www.tolosapress.com). Seems the U.S. Fish & wildlife Service thinks that the $4.6 million Broderson site plus $10,000 a year was mitigation for digging up Tri-W. Period. End of sentence. Touch one blade of grass at Tri-W and poof, the $4.6 million is gone, while the $10,000 per year remains and must be paid.

“The draft EIR,” wrote FWS officials, “ appears to conclude that the 72 acres of land not needed for leach fields at Broderson are still available to provide mitigation opportunities to compensate for biological impacts associated with this concurrently proposed project. We disagree. These lands at Broderson constitute the mitigation required for take of MSS (Morro shoulder dune snail) a well as impacts to other state-listed and special status species and their habitats that resulted from the clearing and grading of the Mid-Town Site (Tri-W), clearing and use of staging and collection areas and installation of pipelines that occurred in 2005 as part of the former project.”

Mark Hutchinson, who’s working on the draft EIR, disagrees, noting that “the county would be willing to offer more mitigation only if it disturbs an area that wasn’t included in the original project.. ‘We think Broderson property is more than appropriate,’ he said.”

Then added that “they [the county] would ultimately be negotiating these issues with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The county will just consult with FWS and the state Department of Fish and Game.”

Translation? The elephants will now commence to dance and anything resembling a mouse better run for cover.

Further translation? If FWS is correct, that the $4.6 mil plus $10,000 a year was total mitigation for so much as touching one blade of grass at Tri-W, then you can begin to understand the F*&k You And The Horse You Rode In On gamble the recalled board made with your money. One blade of grass, one roll of the dice and the $4.6 mil would be lost forever. And since the recalled Board wasn’t over deadline, they had the choice of waiting the few weeks until the Recall vote was over to touch that one blade of grass, which makes that F*^k You gamble even more breathtaking. And certainly not something a prudent Board, a Board that actually cared about the community would have ever done. $4.6 mil? Hell, Boys, Roll them snake eyes and F*^&k ‘Em All!
Wooooo!

Proposition 8, Some More

In the same Bay News issue, (p. 5) is a Viewpoint/Letter by Stephen R. Marsden, Los Osos, in response to Pastor Nash’s Viewpoint of Feb 2o. Pastor Nash’s Viewpoint listed a whole bunch of reasons why the state should support heterosexual marriage, which neatly missed the entire point of the debate, which was and is: What’s the secular STATE’s compelling reason to treat citizens unequally when it comes to the secular contract known as “marriage?” That’s the question several of my columns on the issue raised and I’m still waiting for some kind of answer. Mr. Marsden neatly lays out the problem, so now I guess we’re both waiting on Pastor Nash. Thwok! The ball is once again in his court. Unless the state Supreme Court beats him to it.

167 comments:

Richard LeGros said...: Lady, ya ain't fooolin' anyone!

You are FINALLY AFTER 3+ YEARS begining to understading that the CSD had legal obligations to the USF&W service, and many others too, that would be in default if the project was stopped; and costing the community millions of dollars too.

The fallout from stopping the project was CLEARLY explained to the CSD5 by past board memebers, by pre-recall letters sent by the SWRCB, the USF&W service and many others.....so the CSD5 were clearly warned.

It was the CSD5's decision to make alone; so stop trying to shift blame to others that were not involved in their decison.

The CSD5 clearly had a choice on behalf of the publid interest; and it was not a pleasant one to make...

EITHER:
ADHERE TO THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE BY OBEYING THE LAW AND HONOR THE COMMUNITY'S CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS; THEREBY PROTECTING THE COMMUNITY AND THE CSD FROM SERIOUS FINANCIAL DAMAGE.

OR:
REFUSE TO FOLLOW THEIR OATHS OF OFFICE BY SNUBBING THE LAW, REFUSING TO HONOR THE COMMUNITY'S CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS; THEREBY CAUSING SERIOUS FINANCIAL DAMAGE TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE LOCSD.

THAT my dear is the critical decision that those holding the reins of power (Julie, Lisa, Chuck, John and Steve) had to make.

THEY failed to make the prudent choice for Los Osos! We have all been financially damaged by it; will have to pay it; and STILL have to pay for a waste water project too.

-R; 8:38 AM, March 13, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: An intersting veiwpoint by a respectable environmental group and the Farm Bureau today prionted in the Tribune. (see below).

Thursday, Mar. 12, 2009
Viewpoint: County should rethink its choice for sewer site

Morgan Rafferty and Jackie Crabb
***********************************
San Luis Obispo County’s application process for its “preferred” wastewater project for Los Osos is fatally flawed.
Even before the full environmental review process has been completed, the county is seeking permits for the project at the Tonini Ranch — one of several locations under consideration. Unfortunately, the county’s chosen project and location fail the residents of Los Osos — and the entire county — for many reasons.

First, the project does nothing to address Los Osos’ water problems. Our governor just declared a state of emergency because of the ongoing drought. Even with ongoing water shortages statewide and in Los Osos, the county has not seriously considered the option of tertiary treatment, which would allow for reuse of treated water for landscaping, agriculture and urban uses. Why are they instead planning only to dispose secondary treated effluent on spray fields outside of the basin (no water recharge for Los Osos) located on and adjacent to prime agricultural lands?

Second, the Tonini Ranch is on prime soils and would potentially impact agricultural production on adjacent prime soils. There is only so much prime soil left, and none of it should be taken out of agricultural uses if there are feasible alternatives. The ranch is also currently in a Williamson Act contract that would have to be canceled for the project to proceed. To meet the requirements for cancellation of that contract and to meet requirements of the state Coastal Commission, it must be established that there is no feasible alternative location. The draft environmental impact report identified feasible alternative locations that are not on prime soils, and a willing seller owns at least one of those sites.

Third, locating the wastewater treatment plant closer to Los Osos and providing tertiary treatment for water reuse could truly address the problems of seawater intrusion, water quality and water supply. With our current water crisis, it is irresponsible to not consider the alternatives that could address multiple issues, rather than one that would waste water on spray fields outside of the town’s water basin. Other local communities are taking steps to upgrade to tertiary treatment; the county should do the same. Cost is a legitimate concern, but why doesn’t the county compare the cost of a project closer to town on a much smaller site? The savings from the reduced cost of pipes, purchase of a significantly smaller site, and much less required mitigation would likely more than pay for the difference in treatment costs. Tertiary treatment will certainly be required at some point, and it would be cheaper for the community to build the appropriate project now and not continue to put off the expense while costs continue to increase.

Fourth, the county is actively seeking federal stimulus funds to help pay for the project, so it is time to build the project that best serves all the needs of the community. County staff must fully consider whether state or federal laws currently require tertiary treatment. Tertiary treatment provides many benefits including protection of health and water quality by removing pathogens and dangerous pollutants, thus protecting the beneficial uses of our local coastal streams and agricultural resources. It also eliminates the need for application of secondary treated discharge and reduces the land use conflict of siting a treatment plant on, and adjacent to, prime soils and agricultural production. Finally, the visual resources analysis in the draft report is woefully inadequate.

Unlike some other alternatives, the Tonini property has no naturally occurring topography to screen a project from public view. Repeatedly, the report states that the impacts would be the same for each alternative, even though there are obvious and distinct differences between the sites. At the Tonini property, the plant would be clearly visible from Los Osos Valley and Turri roads for approximately one linear mile. Turri Road now offers essentially pristine views of the Morros, the Irish Hills and agricultural fields and homesteads. The siting of a 32-acre industrial park at this location clearly contradicts the county’s viewshed policies. On any given day, there are painters, bicyclists, movie crews and many others there to enjoy the natural beauty.

We urge county staff to reconsider their preferred project. They have stated in public and in brochures sent to Los Osos residents that each site considered is relatively equal in terms of environmental impacts. If this is true, then they owe it to Los Osos to construct a project that truly addresses all of the water-related needs of the community.
***********************************
Morgan Rafferty is the executive director of the Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo County. Jackie Crabb is the executive director of the San Luis Obispo Farm Bureau.; 8:49 AM, March 13, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Thanks for the cut-n-paste, Richard. I hadn't seen this.

My question is whether the "out of town no matter what" faction in Los Osos will argue to the death with ECOSLO now because they want to keep TriW from being viewed as even a possibility. Are the "out of town no matter what" people gonna stop wearing the sustainability hat now the the environmentalists have stepped up and pointed out that sustainability implies Tonini has huge drawbacks?; 9:27 AM, March 13, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Shark Inlet,

Good questions.

I suspect that the lament will be 'We want a project ASAP, as long as it is not Tri-W.'

Oddly, the CEQA process dictates that a obviously viable project such as Tri-W cannot be overlooked just due to politics; and must be seriously reviewed in the County's EIR... which to date it does not. The lack of review of Tri-W is a serious hole in the EIR; and is suggested as such in today's viewpoint.

The irony here is that the Tri-W project resolved all the technical issues that those who oppose the County Project now say they want. You know, they want all water cleaned to teriary levels, 100% of the treated water returned to the Los Osos aquifers, reversal of salt water intrusion, etc...all these components are included in the Tri-W Project at a lower cost too.

Anyway, the County is obviously in for a long process to get an approved DEIR, permits and the commencement of construction. Tri-W is starting to look to be a very good alternative to the County's current project.

-R; 9:48 AM, March 13, 2009
Unknown said...: Thank you Richard...

The sad state of the fence is the direct result of the decision of the post recall CSD led by the infamous CalTrans Biologist who supposedly knew the F&G regulations at least since she was informed back in 2003... She deliberately chose to do nothing to retain the permit and instead began a backroom campaign to blame everyone but herself... It is a concern that she may be playing these games while working for CalTrans although it appears she is assigned work of little importance while collecting her State wages... The blame really lays on the shoulders of Lisa Schicker for not performing the duties she was elected to do...

So when Ron writes another outdated piece about the snails, he really ought to be pointing directly to Lisa...!!!! You want the fence down, then ask why Lisa didn't do her job....!!!!!; 9:56 AM, March 13, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: I wrote to Richard and Real yesterday, but no response. Hmmmm.

My last sentence seems more real this morning after reading the Trib today.

The ECO SLO attorney wrote most of this on his DEIR comments and it looked then, like it looks now, that they prefer Tri-W. And, of course, the Tribune was more than willing to print this today (even though they said they were done with the sewer issue for the time being...Hmmmm....)

I'll try again, Richard and/or Real, (because it's important):

8:50 PM, March 12, 2009
Blogger GetRealOsos said...

Richard, Real, etc.:

If the County really wanted to make this an affordable project then they would have had the State & Federal kick in "their fair share for benefit" -- Governmental Agencies ARE NOT EXEMPT from the Prop. 218 LAW!!

WHY DIDN'T THE COUNTY MAKE SURE THAT THESE "GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES" PAY??? It's a "Federal" Bay that you say we are polluting! It's the State's groundwater that you say we're polluting.

HOW DARE THE COUNTY SAY THEY CARE ABOUT AFFORDABILITY???

WE WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE GOTTEN THE MONEY THAT OBAMA IS HANDING OUT NOW!!!! Even Golden State Water benefits and didn't have to pay. Oh, how convenient!!!

The County, OBVIOUSLY, wants the seniors' homes. These homes are probably paid off, and when they can't pay the big lump sum every year, a lien will go on their homes and will be taken by the County within three to five years!

The County KNOWS THIS!!!

And, Richard, the Court ruling you talk about here, it is my understanding that "your side" knew the ruling before he (the Judge) ruled!!! Not too cool Richard!

And, Paavo, Noel, Shirley, Mark H., Gail Wilcox have all stated on the record that we would have a gravity project from before the County took over. So, why the dog and pony show?!?

Looks to me like the "survey" was written to favor Tri-W....am I right?

8:52 PM, March 12, 2009; 10:52 AM, March 13, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Mike and Shark Inlet,

Today’s Tribune Viewpoint just highlights what many folks have been thinking for some time now……that the County needs to rethink where they are headed with their project. Obviously, the County’s current project has begun languishing in a political never-never land where it will experience delay after delay for years to come. The stark reality is that time has run out for the County and Los Osos. Understanding this reality, Los Osos has clearly told the County to ‘build a project as quickly as possible’ as their #1 suggestion in the recent Community Survey; and has dedicated $125,000,000 of their own wealth to make it so. So where is the project? More to the point, why doesn’t the County just restart the Tri-W Project thereby bypassing the current debacle all together?

After all, the Tri-W plan is less expensive than the County’s new plan; has an approved ironclad DEIR; is fully designed with that design already paid for; and is technically superior to the County’s project as it treats waste water to tertiary levels, recharges 100% of the treated water back to the community’s aquifer while reversing salt water intrusion too. Better yet, the Tri-W Project has all approved permits ready to be reactivated; and has vanquished all lawsuits dashed against it. But best of all the Tri-W project can be ready for construction within months; and as it is defined as an ‘existing project’ that is ‘shovel ready’ it is the perfect poster-child project to receive Federal Economic Stimulus Grant Funding. Acquiring Stimulus Funds, coupled with the declining construction costs caused by the recession, would be a Godsend to cash-strapped Los Ososians trying to make ends meet!

County Planning Staff and the Supervisors must consider the Tri-W Project under the CEQA review process guidelines. At the very least Los Osos deserves an answer as why the County decided not to restart the old project. The Tri-W Project is undeniably a viable alternative project that should not be sacrificed in the name of political correctness. Los Osos deserves no less and cannot afford otherwise.

-R; 10:59 AM, March 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Richard LeGros said...
Hi Mike and Shark Inlet,

Today’s Tribune Viewpoint just highlights what many folks have been thinking for some time now……that the County needs to rethink where they are headed with their project.

"the county has not seriously considered the option of tertiary treatment"; 11:35 AM, March 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Something else the county did not seriously consider or co-equally compare:
Alternatives are objects or actions, where the choice of one excludes choosing the other…
Leaky Gravity Bell and Spigot, Gravity Welded, STEP/STEG welded, Vacuum welded, Grinder Pump welded.
The Science of Heat Fusion Welding
The fundamental of heat fusion welding is to heat two hdpe pipe surfaces to an appropriate temperature, changing the resin's molecular structure to an amorphous (pliable state, and then fuse them together by application of prescribed force until cooling occurs, returning the material to a crystalline state and creating one homogeneous pipe.
When fusion pressure is applied at the designated temperature and prescribed force, the molecules from each pipe surface end mix. As the joint cools, the molecules return to their crystalline form, the original interfaces have been removed, and the two pipes have become one continuous length. The end result is a fusion joint that is as strong or stronger than the pipe itself, and this creates the leak-free joint that is one of the amazing strengths of HDPE pipe.; 11:50 AM, March 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: This is why MIKE likes to refer to me as a “snakeoil sales person”
Make certain to read all the way to the bottom MIKE.
We wouldn’t want any gags, bits or business from you.; 12:16 PM, March 13, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: At secondary treatment, already the County proposal is more expensive than tertiary Tri-W.

Putting the $cost$ of that onto the backs of the PZ homeowners is unfair and it is better to put it onto the backs of the water purveyors who serve water to the entire community, not just the PZ.

But hey, I want Tri-W as the water will be right here in town and ready to be SOLD to the purveyors. Cheaper all around.; 12:21 PM, March 13, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: The problem that I'm starting to see is the issue of priorities. Which crisis has more priority to solve? Wastewater treatment or treating water?

The legislative digest of the chaptered version AB2701 says that the bill would "...authorize the County of San Luis Obispo to undertake any efforts necessary to construct and operate a wastewater
collection and treatment system to meet the needs of the Los Osos Community Services District, as specified, and to impose and collect user fees and other charges to cover the reasonable costs of any wastewater collection or treatment services provided pursuant to these provisions."

After reading the viewpoint that Richard LeGros posted on here at 8:49 AM, I can see -- in the second paragraph -- that the people who wrote the viewpoint see that the water issue takes a higher priority over wastewater treatment even though AB2701 was constructed based on the elevated priority for wastewater treatment.

I'm personally not a fan of the Tonini site because of the problems mentioned in the viewpoint. I'd rather have a project that is closer to town.

Since Rafferty and Crabb is using the "natural beauty" argument to dismiss consideration of the Tonini site, that argument could be applied to Tri-W -- even more so because the facility would be located in the middle of a scenic town. For them to ask the County to reconsider the preferred project on those grounds is a bit short-sighted.; 12:57 PM, March 13, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Aaron, the building was buried, there was only a 14' "wave" wall showing, AND there was a park. All of this sounds better than a strip mall, motel or homes. Perhaps that WILL be it's fate once the wastewater's tiny section is carved out of it and the CSD sells the rest of it to help pay off the bankruptcy.

(Our town could use some work to be "scenic," and LOCAC is addressing these issues.)

Wastewater must come first because of the RWQCB. But the two are married.; 1:09 PM, March 13, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Hi Aaron,

AB2701 does speaks only to the waste water issue. However,the County cannot focus exclusiely on that issue to form a project as WW issues and water resource issues go hand-in-hand.

The regulatory agencies that provide permits to the County have a say in the plan. As these agencies must enforce the law by which they are governed and empowered to enforce, they will make requirements on the project seeking permits.

For example, the USF&W Service issues the Section 7 or Section 10 permits that the County requires. They have made it very clear that by law the County may not use Broderson to mitigate their project as Broderson has already been legally pledged for the Tri-W Project. To get the permits, the County will have to provide new mitigation on 630 acres of land + the in-town disruption. Want to change this result...then you have to change the Federal Environmental Protection Act.

The Farm Bureau notes that the County Plan is using land protected by the Williamson Act for many years to come. It is a huge legal undertaking to take land out of this act once it is under itAs for the scenic issue, the core question is how is the County going to mitigate that impact. At Tri_W, the visual impacts have already been mitigated. You cannot compare the two at all. Tri-W used ony 2.3 acrea of an 11 acre parcel with scenic aspects protected as Sewertoons wrote above; while 35 acre Coutny project on a 640 acre parcel has no way to mitigate such a large site. Additionally, if the flat prime farmland is to be preserved, then the only other location of the facility would be exposed on the hillside for all to see.

The RWQCB, which issues the discharge requirements and discharge permits, will enforce the laws mandating protection of the state water resources by protecting the integrity of the Los Osos aquifer. Tio make that so, the RWQCB will insist that ALL treated water water be returned to the basin.

The list goes on...but you understand the point.

-R; 1:47 PM, March 13, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: I understand that water resource issues go hand-in-hand, but I'm just saying that we shouldn't put the cart before the horse. This is a very delicate situation in here and we'd be extremely lucky if we had a 2-for-1 system that addressed both the wastewater and water issue.

I'm not saying that water shouldn't be a top priority.

Sewertoons and I were at the office hours meeting yesterday and someone there was talking about global warming, melting of the polar ice caps causing a rise in sea level and the possibility of building a desalinization plant instead of a wastewater project in Los Osos. I was thinking to myself, "Woah there. We need to focus on dealing with the wastewater issue first."

I do understand your points, Richard. Thank you for the clarification.; 2:12 PM, March 13, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: HI Aaron,,

I agree with you. A WWTF that does many things in one would be great for Los Osos...keep down costs too.

As much as the County wants to focus on one issue, the process they will go throught with other agencies will make that impossible. What is happening to the County today is exactly what happened to the CSD during 1999-2000. We have already been here before. I am sure that the County will have as much success in dictating to the permitting agencies as the CSD did; which is none at all.

A frustrating and time comsuming process, isn't it?

-R; 2:24 PM, March 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: "r" wrote: What is happening to the County today is exactly what happened to the CSD during 1999-2000. We have already been here before.

Except that many more technologies are on the field and so many more are watching closely.

And the project wasn't controled by Paavo "If there is a significantly less expensive technology is available, then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away" Ogren.; 2:54 PM, March 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2:58 PM, March 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: "If there is a technology that is significantly less expensive then that technology becomes the new standard and all other fall away."

Yeap, that's the ticket!

It sure isn't the same old collection system that MHW used in their design!; 3:00 PM, March 13, 2009
Realistic1 said...: GRLO:

Your paranoid ramblings about the County wanting to steal senior's homes are not worthy of response.; 5:02 PM, March 13, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Real,

Ramblings? The homes that are paid for will go to the County. Whether intentional or not.

I look around and I don't see many that could possibly afford the mega sewer. There ARE affordable solutions, but the County has insisted on Montgomery/Watson/Harza -- same goes for the State Water Board. Can anyone spell kick-backs?!

The County could have had the State and Federal help pay, but declined to do so. So, they do not care about affordability one bit -- no matter what they say. Period.

No, you don't want to address that -- of course not!; 7:24 PM, March 13, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Real,

P.S. It is clear to me that the questions on the survey -- how and where the questions were placed on the survey, favored Tri-W.

I knew Gibson would do what Pandora and Shirley wanted in the end.

What a scam!; 7:27 PM, March 13, 2009
Unknown said...: GRO... Guess there is only one thing left for you to do...; 8:56 PM, March 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Assume anything touched by sewage is contaminated?; 9:11 PM, March 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Advantages and Disadvantages
The greatest advantage of an oxidation ditch is the efficiency of sludge removal. In an oxidation ditch, only about 15% of the original B.O.D. ends up as sludge, compared to a packaged plant where about 60% of the B.O.D. becomes sludge.
However, oxidation ditches are expensive to maintain. The monetary cost is very high per ton of B.O.D. removed. In some cases, the cost may reach nearly 350 dollars per ton.

Oxidation ditches have an additional environmental drawback. The water is moved through the ditches using rotors, and these rotors in turn use electricity. The electricity used to operate the plant causes sulphur dioxide and other contaminants to be released into the atmosphere from coal-burning electrical plants.
Oxidation ditches provide the most thorough process for treating sewage, but oxidation ditches are also one of the most costly forms of treatment.; 9:17 PM, March 13, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Mike,

What do you want me to do -- report all the fraud??; 9:49 PM, March 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Of courseGravity and Hydraulics when employed by the USBF™ design are free and that makes the design as Green as it gets in tertiary wastewater treatment, especially compared to an oxidation ditch.
ECOfluid’s USBF™ Technology fits nicely into today’s Green Collar Job Market.; 10:11 PM, March 13, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lyneete Wrote:
Another local resident claims that a Mr. Dean (sorry, lost his last name) represents your company. So I wanted to identify from whom we were to get our information on your technology.
Honesty implies a lack of deceit.; 10:19 PM, March 13, 2009
Churadogs said...: Richard sez:"Lady, ya ain't fooolin' anyone!"

Apparently I fooled you because I think you missed the funny point of the article which was: IF the recalled CSD had held off on touching so much as one blade of grass BEFORE the recall, then that 4.6 mil in mitigation would be available to play with. But because you and your board majority started that project BEFORE the election, even though you had a choice, you blew that $4.6 mil the moment that first blade of grass was touched. Losing that money had nothing to do with the new board. It occurred on your watch, by your vote, the moment the big cats moved onto the Tri-W property and pushed the first tree down.; 7:04 AM, March 14, 2009
Churadogs said...: Aaron sez:"The problem that I'm starting to see is the issue of priorities. Which crisis has more priority to solve? Wastewater treatment or treating water?"

If memory serves, Dr. T and the overview report noted both water and sewage as important issues, but stressed focusing on sewage collection first and water second. Toonces' comment about making sure everyone pays for their share of clean waster is imporant as well.; 7:07 AM, March 14, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: "If there is a technology that is significantly less expensive, then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away."

This is the point of my work in Los Osos.

ECOfluid's USBF(tm) denutrifies (and detitrifies) better than an ox-ditch using far less energy (by half) and for a fraction of the capital cost.

Why do you think (honestly) businesses that make a killing designing oxidation ditches don't want to review and report on it co-equally?; 7:24 AM, March 14, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Ann,

You should be a comediannne cuz you're soooo funny! Where you come up with your crazy ideas is a real hoot!

The conditions of mitgation for the Tri-W project was contracturalized when the CSD obtained the Section 10 permits from the USF&W back in the SPRING OR 2004, WHICH IS 18 MONTHS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGAN!

Even if the Tri-W site had not been disturbed, the CSD still had contractural obligations with the USF&W to fulfill!

Even if no project was built, those contractural obligations still had to be honored regardless of whether a blade of grass was removed or not!

Also, let's not forget that Lisa, Chuck, and John all claimed to be CEQA experts who understood the USF&W mitigation guidelines. As they understood the conditions of the Section 10 Permits and the obligations attached to them, why did they decide to do what they did anyway?

Sorry Ann....you fail again to understand that if the project had continued with all contractural obligations fullfilled, NONE of the damages to Los Osos would have occured! No Bankruptcy, no lawsuits, no fines...none of it. "Losing that money" had everything to do with the new board as they made the stupid critical decision to stop the project without understanding the effects of doing so!

I find it very funny and foolish of you thaat you did not know this.

LOL, as I said, you're a real comedianne! LOL

-R; 7:43 AM, March 14, 2009
Unknown said...: All part of the never ending Crique du Seweur script to deflect, detract and delay any waste water treatment system for Los Osos... We have script writers, clowns, trolls and sideshow freaks and plenty of snakeoil...

It really is fun to laugh at the overaged cheerleader who can only see the world she wants to see, reality has nothing to do with her "viewpoint"... It's easy to see that she was the model for Rita Skeeter in the Harry Potter novels... Yup, it's always nice to read Ann's view, it usually starts the day with a chuckle about how far off on some perfect island she stands... I am still waiting to hear her version of how the perfect Gail led the Perfect Post Recall CSD in making Perfect Financial Decisions and of course, showing the community the Perfect Plan...

Gee Richard, you guys should have simply let Lisa and Julie have their way in deciding to scrap the legal process and proclaim Los Osos never needed a sewer... They didn't need to be bound by a bunch of silly environmental laws... They even went to Sacramento and told the State Water Board as much...

Yup, is is fun reading the Calhoun Gossip, Blame everyone EXCEPT the ones who actually created the whole Crique du Seweur... I do hope the very next CDO is hand carried and nailed to Calhoun's front door and then on Lisa's...; 9:03 AM, March 14, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: I don't mind at all Ann's criticisms of the pre-recall LOCSD board and the County and the way both were attempting to implement the process. While I disagree with Ann on lots of issues, I think that her questions and comments are often quite valuable because, at least, they allow those who might support the current project to know what information may be unclear among those in town.

What has bothered me the most about Ann's comments is that she never brought even one tenth of the same level of questioning to the post-recall LOCSD board. It is almost as if she would trust McClendon or Blesky or Biggs or McPherson implicitly while she would assume that Seitz and Buel and Nash-Karner would be lying.

That bothers me. A lot.

Ron pulls the same sort of crap when he says that he doesn't bother thinking about anything in Los Osos after recall because it doesn't interest him. Presumably he is only interested in a town being screwed over if he can get in a few jabs at Pandora or Hensley. That's not being a reporter, that's being vindictive.

Ann,

As part of your truth and reconciliation plan for the healing of Los Osos, would you please come out and tell us how you feel about the outcome of the post-recall board's decision to stop TriW? Do you think we are better off now or not? Do you think the post-recall board made any mistakes ... or do you still think every decision they made was, in retrospect, the wisest one?

The difficult decisions that both boards had to make and that the County has to make now is to figure out what will be best ... even though there is incomplete information. Sure, it would be nice to run two complete projects all the way thru the design and permitting stage in parallel so that we know what they will both cost. The problems with doing that is there would always be someone else who says that there needs to be a 3rd or even 4th design as well. The even larger problem is that we don't want to spend some additional $20M coming up with a 2nd plant design because that will run an extra $20/month per home.

Sure it's a good idea to spend that much money if we'll likely save more than that amount, but unless we know that this is a likely outcome, it seems unwise.

Suppose VONS doesn't have a scale in their produce department and you want to buy a squash. You know the price per pound for Butternut and for Kobucha (which is a bit cheaper but the Kobucha squash is a bit bigger). Which is the cheapest purchase (not on a per pound basis but in total)? Would it be wisest to buy both just because you want to figure out which is less expensive? I know that this is different that the sewer situation, but there are enough similarities that it might help clarify our thought.; 11:10 AM, March 14, 2009
Ron said...: Ann wrote:

"And since the recalled Board wasn’t over deadline, they had the choice of waiting the few weeks until the Recall vote was over to touch that one blade of grass..."

And, don't forget this critical point (that I first reported on using excellent, primary sources, as usual, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/09/californias-recall-elections-code.html)

Due to a terrible California law that continues to be on the books (even after I made Assemblyman Blakeslee aware of the absolutely disastrous consequences that can result from it [he didn't seem to care]) -- the "recalled Board" was allowed to set their own recall election date, and they (including Richard LeGros) deliberately set that date at one of the latest possible dates, despite an overwhelming cry from their community to set the recall election at one of the earliest possible dates.

And, that extra month that they bought themselves by setting their own recall election at one of the latest possible dates, bought them the extra month they needed to needlessly waste those millions by needlessly ripping up all of that ESHA at Tri-W and, all things being equal, HAD they listened to the overwhelming voice of their community, and set their own recall election date at one of the earliest possible dates, none of those millions would have been wasted, and the Tri-W site would STILL be the beautiful, tree-filled, coastal dune scrub habitat that it was... prior to Richard & Co. needlessly wasting all of those millions needlessly ripping all of it up.

That point -- the fact that Richard, Gordon, and Stan, ignored (again) the voice of their community, and deliberately set their own recall election date at one of the latest possible dates -- and the absolutely disastrous results of that terrible, horrendously undemocratic decision -- is, in my opinion, one of the most egregiously bad decisions in the entire train wreck, and that's saying something.

An amazing story.

Again, I first reported on all of that (using nothing but excellent, primary sources, as usual) at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/09/californias-recall-elections-code.html

And, also 'of course,' the Trib never wrote a word on that over-the-top newsworthy subject.; 11:26 AM, March 14, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Shark:

You ask Ann: "..would you please come out and tell us how you feel about the outcome of the post-recall board's decision to stop TriW?"

Shark, the State Water Board wasn't going to give out the second installment of the loan because of Measure B and no 218
vote.

And, Shark, anyone who would even think about putting gravity pipes in a sand dune is nuts anyway.

Don't you know that?!

You can talk about squash, strawberries and cars all you want, but Montgomery/Watson/Harza rules, no matter what damage their project does.

It's all about development and that's clear, like I said, people like Edwards wants the PZ to pay for him to be able to develop. Don't you want Julie to have a real home?!; 12:03 PM, March 14, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Ron,

Thanks for proving my point.

I would also hazard a guess that pretty much everyone ignores sewerwatch thesedays (how many replies have you had there in since Jan 1? is it still in the single digits?) ... the reason you are irrelevant is that more often than not you don't actually respond to reasonable comments and questions. Furthermore, when you do reply, it is in a self-aggrandizing fashion where you show no interest in actual thought on the issue raised in the comment.

In short Ron, you are living the natural consequences of your choices. Wise people in a situation like this will learn and change their behavior if they don't like the result.

That being said ... Ron, do you like being the know-it-all kid at school that the others laugh at behind his back because he is actually annoying and wrong? If not, do something about it.; 12:19 PM, March 14, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

I believe you are incorrect about the 2nd installment. Had the post-recall board not stopped the project, the money would have been coming. I would also suggest that had the post-recall board wanted to wisely use Measure B to their advantage they would have asked the SWRCB permission to pause construction on TriW (but not the collection system) until Measure B was resolved in the courts. The SWRCB would have gone along with that request. The money would have kept coming. Measure B would have been struck down and construction on TriW would have started back up again unless the board could have negotiated a compromise during the time the Measure B lawsuit was moving forward.

On the whole question of gravity versus STEP, you seem to be saying your wisdom beats that of people who are professionally trained in this area. Fine. Think what you want.

On the question of Jeff, you might be right.

Certainly he seems to have been the first one in line for TriW right after the recall where we were promised TriW would remain open space forever.; 12:34 PM, March 14, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: ron, had the recall been held earlier, we would have Tri-W up and running right now - the recall only gained momentum over time and was barely won. It may have been a mistake, but the outcome would have been quite different than what you write.; 12:37 PM, March 14, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Shark,

I saw the paperwork from the State Water Board saying they had to do a 218 and get rid of Measure B first before any additional money came through (interfering with an election....)

Also, it was Dr. T and other experts who say it's not a good idea to put gravity in a sand dune. Not me!! I'm no expert and never claimed to be.

I don't prefer Step. I would prefer vacuum, but if it was a choice between gravity and step, I would say step. I hate to see all the trees gone here, Los Osos is different because there are so many trees and it's so green compared to Pismo Beach and Morro Bay with their gravity systems.

I hate the construction of gravity with the noise for years, dirt, not being able to park on the street, having to pick up mail at the post office, and of course, the added costs for repairs. People here just don't realize what it will really be like...too bad...

Clearly, it's been your assignment to fight for gravity on the blogs. Okay. You should admit to that though. You never went to any meetings, you won't have your street torn up, and you weren't assessed.; 1:38 PM, March 14, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

We've been over this before. I don't care what system is used. I would prefer the quickest and cheapest (longterm) solution.

If it is a fact that STEP is cheaper in the long run than gravity, it is not obvious to me. Show me a spreadsheet with some estimated costs and we can talk about it. I think this would be interesting.

On the question of the 218 and Measure B thing ... I remember that as well ... as part of the post-recall compromise. That is, to get the payments reinstated, the LOCSD would have had to hold a 218 and to stop supporting Measure B. This the almost agreed to do. (Why they didn't, we don't really know.) However, you seem to be referring to pre-September 2005 document which I haven't heard about. I think that you may be mistaken about the date.; 1:58 PM, March 14, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lyneete has demonstrated her desire to be deceitful in an attempt to get what she thinks she wants and should be taken with a pound of salt, if at all.
I understand she sits next to Bruce Gibson and Paavo "If there is a significantly less expensive technology, then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away" Ogren, taking notes.

Hmmmmm, I wonder if she ever shared here response and treatment results that she received from ECOfluid with Bruce and Paavo? If they were what she wanted, I think we would have heard about it, don’t you?; 3:30 PM, March 14, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Ann,
I love it when the name calling gets "turned up".
It is a sure sign that you are making your point(s).

"r", MIKE Steve if ya'll are so sure that your point of view is correct why all the whining?; 3:32 PM, March 14, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: "r",
Ron "THE MAN" has you cold. You and your board put your thumbs on the scale, rushed and really screwed the pouch. Give it up already...You may get to play yourself in the movie.; 3:37 PM, March 14, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: To Ann and her Toadies,

You are in denial of the obvious and undeniable...that Julie, Lisa, Chuck, John and Steve free will to make a decision regardless of what others did before them or told them to do....they had the option to choose either to continue with the Tri-W Project and honor the CSD's commitements; or not to. The choice was theirs alone. They made their choice. That they choose to not honor the decisions of prior boards is completely their decision, not the prior board's.

-R; 4:09 PM, March 14, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: "r" your utter and complete denial is a matter of record. Can't you see the evidence if the rush to needless destruction at Tri-W you and yours caused, that everyone else does?

Your choice to unilaterally commence a project you could never finish is now a matter of record also and would be at a minimum laughable if the financial and environmental damage was not so great.

As Ron "THE MAN" Crawford wrote: That point -- the fact that Richard, Gordon, and Stan, ignored (again) the voice of their community, and deliberately set their own recall election date at one of the latest possible dates -- and the absolutely disastrous results of that terrible, horrendously undemocratic decision -- is, in my opinion, one of the most egregiously bad decisions in the entire train wreck, and that's saying something.

An amazing story.

"r",
I am not the only one who concurs with both of these statements.
By all means continue on in your failing attempt to rewrite the facts as that is laughable, leaky pipes and all, “r”!; 5:31 PM, March 14, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: GRO says:
"I don't prefer Step. I would prefer vacuum, but if it was a choice between gravity and step, I would say step. I hate to see all the trees gone here…"

I'm not getting something - or perhaps you are confused. What do trees have to do with a collection system? The liquids will be going to the treatments plant with or without the solids…; 6:08 PM, March 14, 2009
alabamasue said...: So, how would gravity collection harm trees? Do we have trees in the middle of our streets? No; STEP would remove trees from some people's yards. That was a truly weird comparison, and thanks for pointing it out, Sewertoons.
And Mark Low continues to suck up and ass-kiss (Ron "THE MAN" Crawford) How Low can you go...; 10:09 PM, March 14, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Sewertoons says: "I'm not getting something..."

Well, that's for sure!; 10:54 PM, March 14, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Shark,

You say, "However, you seem to be referring to pre-September 2005 document which I haven't heard about. I think that you may be mistaken about the date."

What? What are you talking about, I was talking about the document around the compromise time frame. I didn't mention a date.

The quickest and cheapest solution would be vacuum. Why are you only talking about Step?

And, again, you weren't assessed, won't have your street torn up, won't even hear the noise. Why would you be so obsessive on the blogs if the sewer issue isn't yours to deal with. Nope, you were assigned to monitor the blogs and promote Tri-W and gravity (no matter what you say...)

I said vacuum, not step, if I had my choice.

Plants and trees won't get the water from septics anymore. Gravity digging will kill many roots of the trees in Baywood. Los Osos will look very different in the years to come.; 11:03 PM, March 14, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: GRO - so you support no sewer? Vacuum lines will remove the water, too.

Why don't you comment on the vacuum pits that will wind up between every 2, 3 or 4 houses. You want that in YOUR yard? If it is one per house, it won't be cheaper.; 12:30 AM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 7:08 AM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: There are only three stations as opposed to 22 pump/lift with the leaky polluting deep trench gravity system, so it is much more energy efficient with no on-site electrical work needed.

Lyneete Misinformation Alert: All work and stations are in the street just like her beloved big pipe deep trench gravity!

Let's get that estimate on the table Quick! Just give them a call, you know how to do that Lyneete and there is no need to make up a fairy tale, unless you feel you have to...
Lyneete didn't you read the Kennedy Jenks Report I sent the county and you?
It will be interesting to see the county's response to the AIRVAC DEIR Comment.

Why didn't the county "comment" on vacuum or grinder pump?

Answer: Because they would have risen to the top and buried leaky polluting bell and spigot gravity.; 7:11 AM, March 15, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

When you wrote about interfering with an election, I was thinking that you meant that you were talking about the recall election because, after all, there was no election scheduled for the time period we are talking about (October-December, 2005).

My mistake. I see your point now ... that the post-recall board was unable to follow through on their promises because their funding source (the SRF) had dried up.

My thought? Those running for the recall seats were unwise to assume that stopping TriW wouldn't result in the loss of SRF payments. The LOCSD had a contract that says they promised to be building TriW and and the SRWCB will be cutting them periodic checks to allow that process to continue. Stopping TriW is why the SWRCB stopped payments. That Lisa and the rest were surprised (or acted surprised) and outraged is what I still find curious. It is almost as if they hadn't read the contract or if they did it seems they didn't understand some pretty clear language in it.

I'm not saying that it is wrong to want to move the plant location or to prefer STEP ... just that the post-recall board was very unwise to stop TriW so quickly. Even if they had a goal of getting the plant out of town, they could have handled the Measure B and SRF/SWRCB issues far more carefully and they would have had a far greater chance of success. It seems like they just assumed that the SWRCB would view Measure B as limiting the SWRCB options just because the LOCSD board wanted them to.

Hubris.

The question is this ... can those who praised those unwise decisions at the time now admit they were mistaken. People I know who voted for George W Bush are more often than not thesedays regretting those votes in 2000 and 2004. Do those who vote for the recall regret it or do they think we're really better off now that we are likely to have a more expensive plant which doesn't recharge our aquifer as well and which will allow for more development in Los Osos down the road ... just because the plant will likely be out of town.

There is not a wrong answer on this question, those who value out of town might prefer things now, but they should be quick to admit that the desire to move from TriW to another site has caused the cost to go up.

Can Ron admit it? Can Ron admit that a plant which won't recharge our aquifer is in some ways inferior to TriW?

Oh ... and Mark ... the reason the County likely didn't read what you sent them is that you couldn't provide them a list of comunities of size comparable to Los Osos which have adopted your system. Had you a track record they might have bought. Would you buy a theoretical car, a EcoLow which was, on paper, 1/5 the cost of a Honda and saved you on your gas costs as well? I would think your first question would be "can I test drive one?" and the second would be "how many have you sold?" If the answers were "no you can't test drive one" and "we have sold five and they are built to order and the five other customers are very different than you are" you might be wanting to stick with the tried-n-true.; 7:26 AM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,

The county hasn't actually "bought" anything yet. The DEIR comment period and response, etc… is part of the study process.

The county has spent money it does not have and has not yet officially decided if they'll do the project.
You continue to demonstrate your ignorance and bias both as you still haven't read the information I sent you.

As soon as I get the detailed billings that were paid for by the county we will have know how much was spent studying what.
I think that putting this kind of "review and scrutiny" in the public domain as I will do, may be a first for the industry!

LO/BP continues to "make history", whether you like it or not.

I Love LO!

BTW you haven’t answered the question regarding vacuum or grinder pump. Are you overlooking it intentionally?; 8:57 AM, March 15, 2009
Unknown said...: Yes Shark... It should be a very simple task to provide a list of references when asked...and he was asked...more than once...and very plainly...

However, he has done nothing but beating around the bush while throwing out quotes and questions and pure misrepresentation of systems engineering... sort of reminds me of asking the CSD5 for their Plan...and the only answers were outright lies, diversion from the question and blame of others... We've had enough of that form of rhetoric, now is the time to let the County produce their Plan and for the vocal "anti-sewer", "move the sewer", "you can't use gravity" and "this time my latest sewer is best" extremists to shut up... This damn sewer would have been completed and all this would have been flushed away...; 9:03 AM, March 15, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Shark,

Sorry I didn't make myself clear enough.

The State Water Board interfered with our (Measure B) election by telling the CSD to get rid of it basically. Not cool of them. They are not supposed to tell us what kind of a system to select, but they not only did, but tried to influence who designed the thing and where the plant would be located. Again, not cool. It only shows that they're in bed with Montgomery/Watson/Harza and if they are exposed on this, so will the County. I hope with a new President that things will finally be exposed.

I recall seeing some paperwork from the State Water Board showing that they did send Daryl P. down for talks, yet later said he was just an employee, the memo showed that Tami said to use careful strategy with that Daryl P.'s involvement during the time of the compromise.

Also, you blame the Julie/Chuck/Lisa board for mistakes that Julie Biggs should be accountable for. All this happened under her watch. And, it was Gail's advice (over Biggs) that ruled that CSD...same sewer out of town for development.. But again, the State Water Board looks to have lead them that CSD to believe they could have moved the plant.

Again, what a mess, no CSD could pull this big of a project off. The County gets off the hook (yet again) and pays nothing for their mistakes that lead to a delay of a project for many many years. There is fraud involved and the County will have to answer to some of it even if they try to rush and pave over some of the illegal actions on their part.; 10:34 AM, March 15, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Shark says,
"…those who value out of town might prefer things now, but they should be quick to admit that the desire to move from TriW to another site has caused the cost to go up."

I'd just add that apology would also be in order to those on fixed incomes and who are struggling to make ends meet - there will be more of them this go-round. Maybe they'd chip into a support fund for these people?; 10:37 AM, March 15, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: GetReal - why do you thing the CSD refused to do that 218 needed by the compromise?

The Tri-W plant was designed only to accommodate build-out - in town, so you are saying it would be used for build-out outside of town, forget the build-out in town as it wasn't designed big enough to do both?; 10:45 AM, March 15, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Lynette,

I don't know why the CSD didn't do a 218 vote. I guess they were afraid it wouldn't pass. I heard Julie Tacker once said that.

After all, even the County needed the RWQCB to threaten the voters to get their 218 passed. And it was nothing short of BLACKMAIL! (WHAT COUNTRY DO WE LIVE IN???)

If the County would have done the 218 correctly then they would have had a general vs. special benefit since the entire basin benefits from clean water. But the County also knew THEY couldn't pass a 2/3's vote either. In reality, the 218 makes the PZ illegal. But, we'll see about that.

You wrote to Shark saying, "I'd just add that apology would also be in order to those on fixed incomes and who are struggling to make ends meet..."

Lynette, let me remind you that Stan, Gordon, and Richard accepted bids that were about 50% higher. They didn't have to do that.

Los Osos could have built a project they could afford. Since Montgomery/Watson/Harza was in the picture it had to be a big city mega sewer for a small community. That doesn't make sense. It would only make sense if the water board was in bed with M/W/H and some kick-back money was going around.

The Mega Sewer you are promoting is one that VERY FEW can afford. Look around, do you really see that these people can pay $400 plus a month? You've got to be kidding if you say "yes"!!; 2:32 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE,
You seem to be missing the point about leaky bell and spigot conventional gravity and lift stations being used in a PZ littered with CDO's.
These systems leak which would be a discharge that would be subject to enforcement and round it goes.

If there must be conventional gravity it must be sealed, otherwise the pollution is not halted.

When the county steps up and prices out welded gravity the price won't be covered with the first $25,000.00 per home, unless you can guarantee us how much more welded would be.
Welded gravity was not co-equally evaluated with the only alternative studied. Why?

The only way the 2011 deadline can be met is with something other than conventional gravity, sealed or not.

You might want to take a break from Ann's Land as things will be heating up and not going away as you might have hoped.
Lyneete keeps demonstrating her desire to be deceitful and that needs to be addressed sooner or later and every time by me.

So as not to be colored as recklessly throwing accusations about I will again demonstrate what I mean when I say Lyneete has acted in a very deceitful manner.
Lyneete, would you please tell us who told you that Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name) represented ECOfluid?; 2:55 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: "EcoLow" I like it!! Thank you Steve.; 2:59 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: ECOLOW

I really do like it and I think I'll put it on my license plate.
Thanks again Steve.; 3:01 PM, March 15, 2009
Unknown said...: GRO.... YOU have a choice... If you don't take it, you will indeed have a stroke worrying so much...

You are on the right track though about Gail... and just why didn't the Post Recall team go after Biggs and Company...??; 4:23 PM, March 15, 2009
Billy Dunne said...: "So as not to be colored as recklessly throwing accusations about I will again demonstrate what I mean when I say Lyneete has acted in a very deceitful manner."
--------

"...As the federally compliant LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution is already underway...
I'll let the "professional" tag go for now as I know change can be difficult for some and I see you are feeling the "change".
We can always visit that later;-)... Los Osos is to become the national/and first world headquarters for the AES RECLAMATOR so we can talk then.

AES RECLAMATOR technology is superior to anything GE or Siemens represent, it is simply the "best".
Mike, LO/BP need to cease the discharge of pollutants that is why we are here with the best technology at the best price.
It is a statement of fact that "best" is to be implemented by law USC 33/26.
California doesn't have a more stringent law in this regard, which is also fact..."
Marcus Low Calhoun's Canons January 26, 2008

"After his departure in late May, Low started sending a string of e-mails to environmental bureaucrats, politicians, and reporters that poke holes in the Reclamator’s effectiveness, and Murphy’s business model."
New Times July 30, 2008

“They’re like sorry losers,” he (Murphy) says of the public agencies that criticize him. “They’re like Mark Low.”
New Times July 30, 2008; 4:38 PM, March 15, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Here's an interesting thing about Mark -- and I wanted to share this because it's something that has been on my mind for a while now.

Mark was enlisted to work for AES before it turned out that the situation wasn't something he was comfortable with. When he left, I think he realized that he -- more than anyone else -- knew of the Reclamator's flaws because he worked intimately with Murphy and knew the system from the inside out.

If I were in his shoes and I was slandered and harassed repeatedly on the blog while having people petitioning for me to lose my job, I'd be upset. Keeping that in mind, when I look at the criticism he's received, I can't help but to find the behavior toward him absolutely reprehensible.

I don't care whether you agree with him or disagree with him. The abundance of disrespect is inexcusable. Instead of coming up with solutions, you people have been chiding him and nitpicking his words needlessly.

Give it a rest.; 5:04 PM, March 15, 2009
Alon Perlman said...: Well, the Tolosa Press link does not appear to have the current copy of the Bay News and Jack Beardwood’s article but this link (in blue) Agencies
leads to the Draft EIR comments by Agencies including US fish and game.

I may as well, clarify my own position- though opposed to the mid town site sewer based on what was later community preference (that is currently accepted by the county)- the vote to oust 2005 directors won by a margin of approx. 200 votes per Director. The strategic (hindsight always being 20/15 or better) mistake by former directors was to NOT hold the election ASAP. Their opposition, marshaled by Gail McPherson, and including myself and a cast of hundreds had an opportunity to organize. And, as per loonytoons. The Tri W sewer would be under Construction today. If only 20 people had not voted or 10 had not changed their minds, measure “B” would not had passed. We would be living in a different world today. Note also that only about 3000 (?) ft of pipe were laid while much more trench was dug (winter was coming, Blesky was distracted etc… CSD action-Absent).
In a meeting about the time of the formation of the TAC, I stated (with Paavo and Noel King (his then boss) close by) “There is a worse thing than a Tri-W sewer in the middle of Town, and that is a Tri W Sewer out of town” sometime in that period I interviewed for the TAC and during the interview said to Mr. King “I have been against the site , but if you can put a Sewer into Tri-W for under a Hundred bucks (Millions), I will support it all the way” He responded “ I don’t understand how some people in Los Osos still don’t get that Los Osos will get to choose their own Sewer” needless to say I wasn’t appointed. Since then, the CSD had not operated efficiently and in 2008 I ran to replace a director. It matters little to me that I did not win because the current directorship will prevent the CSD from going under, something that Ann’s sole candidate would not had prevented.
Gravity is not the best and may not be appropriate here. GRLO said it but for a slightly more scientific explanation, go here- eighth commentDeep versus shallow pipes
on Aaron’s - website . As for my expertise- ? The JIR, “Journal of Irreproducible Results” states that an expert is “Anyone who has made at least three predictions, which later became true”. And don’t forget that I am the Los Osos resident expert on the Kitts study.
The farm bureau appears not to have made comments but the Ag. commission has made DEIR comments, they are located in the first link (Agencies).
Here are the Non-Governmental organizations comments “NGO’s & Public” .
I do not regularly read newspapers (other than those that publish Jack Beardwood, that is). Thanks Richard for the quote. The Water board’s comments (DEIR, see “Agencies link above) include their understanding that high groundwater areas will have sealed pipes-hybrid. How much of the 25,000 assessment will pay for that? The water board also predict an accumulation of Agland-destroying salts at Tonnini , predicted also Here (Zen Koan-What is the sound of my own horn, tooting).
And by the way “Magic sands”, who thinks up this stuff?
Richard; TRI-W, Tertiary to Broderson? Post MBR? Included in 2005 cost? I asked Gail about this a few days ago, dja think you know why I didn't get the same answer?
The word verification for today- a lite nit; 5:06 PM, March 15, 2009
alabamasue said...: mike-
"You might want to take a break from Ann's Land, as things will be heating up"??? Does wsm think this a real place? As in, "git yer womenfolk in the house and the cattle in the barn, it's high noon at the OK corral"? Wonder what lynette did to get his panties in such a bunch...; 5:22 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: After watching John Diodatti made his March 3rd, 2009 monthly E-1 Update on the Los Osos Wastewater Treatment Project; 2nd District.it occurred to me that Orrick, Herrington, Sutcliffe’s Sam Sperry was very involved before and during the 218 but has since not been visible since that time, so I thought I should find out what has been happening with Sam and the Supervisors. I met Sam during one of the BOS Board Meetings and again at the county offices that day the votes were counted. I really am interested in how much time was spent and how much it cost the taxpayers.

It appears the county has “scrapped” its efforts to sell bonds for the wastewater project currently being studied.
John Diodatti’s presentation was very interesting in that after acknowledging the President Obama doesn’t want any earmark legislation he would ultimately be studying a way to attach variance language legislation “to any bill” in order to get funding.

Isn’t that the definition of an ”earmark?”

Technology extends our natural senses…
I love this hobby!!! I Love LO!

From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:35 PM
To: 'twright@co.slo.ca.us'
Cc: SamSperry@Orrick.com
Subject: FOIA Request for

Greetings Ms. Wright,

Please provide all billings from Orrick, Herrington, Sutcliffe, LLP 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2625 for services rendered to San Luis Obispo County for all work performed on the Los Osos wastewater project.

Your prompt attention in this matter will be appreciated.

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"; 6:05 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Watch out Willy, Mother Calhoun doesn't like reposting...I sure wish you could get your hands on what Lyneete and Steve have. Doesn’t mean you would understand it any better, so you are doomed to be stuck…

Abs angrily wrote: Wonder what lynette did to get his panties in such a bunch...

Answer: Appears she “lied”…; 6:14 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Hello Aaron,

Your thoughtful words are appreciated as is your point of view.

I understand bias, fear, loathing and lack of actual subject matter knowledge as exhibited by some, but not all, of the anonymous bloggers and “r”.

Given my temperament and desire to obtain the correct result from government for her citizens’, a few stupid comments is a very small price to pay, so if that’s what it takes, I’ll gladly pay it.
Comments reveal the writer and I already know full well who I am. Thank you for sharing yourself here and now, your words speak volumes. You Sir are a Gentleman.

Regarding Murphy et al: I will be making a very full and complete statement at an appropriate time of my choosing. That said, I will say he has been marginalized, largely by his own hand.; 6:43 PM, March 15, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: HI Alon,

You Wrote :'Richard; TRI-W, Tertiary to Broderson? Post MBR? Included in 2005 cost? I asked Gail about this a few days ago, dja think you know why I didn't get the same answer?
The word verification for today- a lite nit.'

Response: Tri-W was going to treat the waste water to teriary levels; and discharge some of the water at Broderson, some on the golfcourse, some on the playing fields at Monarch grove, and the remainder at leach fields under Santa Maris Street. There were also three other discharge sites, but their construction was to be postponed until the discharge rate studies were done after the WWTP was operational. These additional sites were postponed because they might not be needed if the discharge studies showed that the other sites were adequate and that water tables remained constant all over town.

Tri-W was to use MBR filtration Technology. MBR was chosen for 3 reasons;

1. Average treated water discharged would have been, on average, 2-4 mg/l N; which is substancially lower than the max. discharge of 7 mg/l N as required by the RWQCB discharge permit. Because of the lower N, cleanup of the upper aquifer would have been accelerated by many years.

2. MBR is a precuror treatment required for RO filtration. While RO is not now required, in the future we anticapted that the water laws would become stricter to remove 'emerging contaminant'...which need RO to remove them. We worked into Tri-W all the plumbing from the MBR to the future location of and RO unit in anticapation of future needs.

3. MBR got rid of the need for (2) 60' diameter by 30' tall secondary clarifiers. The clarifiers would have had to be built under open sky; as MBR needs only a small 200 SF footprint and could be enclosed in the positive atmosphere building to control any ordors.

-R; 6:55 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: “r” the MBR design you are referring to is very energy intensive, submerged in the mixed liquor and is subject to biofouling.
Every design of that type I have seen uses chlorine contact tankage for disinfection as the BOD removal results fluctuates and is nowhere near as reliable as USBF™ which delivers tertiary water to a “post membrane” by gravity flow.

The USBF™ design has the sludge blanket membrane is free of charge contained in the clarifier that is located in a single basin design which capitalizes upon gravity and hydraulics which we know are energies that are free of charge.

I look forward to the co-equal comparison, don’t you?

Ask Steve to shoot you the PowerPoint or I can do it if you want, just let me know Mark@NOwastewater.com
Same goes for anyone out there …; 7:26 PM, March 15, 2009
Unknown said...: Just how difficult is it to publish a short 5 to 10 city list of US cities who have the ECOfluid system installed...????

Have none been installed in the US....???? Is ECOfluid hiding something or just not qualified...????; 7:54 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8:02 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Oh one more thing "r" about the Tri-W collection system design. IT LEAKS!

The Upper Aquifer will forever be exposed to unknown qualities of pollution when leaky bell and spigot gravity pipes are used.

Which shuts down your contention that: "Because of the lower N, cleanup of the upper aquifer would have been accelerated by many years."

MIKE, Visit the website, contact Lyneete, Steve or me for a list.

How many times to I have to write this? Willy?; 8:03 PM, March 15, 2009
Unknown said...: Why the reluctance...??? There aren't any in operation in the US are there...???

Maybe that is why the County has excluded ECOfluid from consideration....???; 8:12 PM, March 15, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: GRO said,
"…Stan, Gordon, and Richard accepted bids that were about 50% higher. They didn't have to do that."

I believe the figure was more like 40% higher. I'm sure if the contractors had not received death threats and threats against their equipment, the bids might have been a tad better. The climate was different then too - as there was more than enough work for everyone, it was a seller's market. Let's not forget either, The Stan, Gordon, Richard CSD has a TSO from the Water Board that they took very seriously to protect the both the CSD and the community from fines. Something the Lisa Board disregarded, gifting the community with CDO's and NOV's

Since the County is listing $250/mo. as their possible top figure, I wonder if Tri-W were re-bid how much lower that $205/mo. figure would go. We already own the land and the design.

I'm curious - if they weren't going to have a 218 - just how did they expect to design a new plant? Even of the SRF money continued, that money cannot be used to pay for a design.

I couldn't make the leap from having a 218 to that making the PZ illegal. Could you please explain?; 9:15 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE, Visit the website, contact Lyneete, Steve or me for a list.; 9:15 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: The county hasn't studied welded gravity so the cost of the project hasn't been defined yet.
Of course the county hasn't officially decided to "do" the project either.

When are you going to tell us the name of the person who told you that Mr. Dean (I forget his last name) was an ECOfluid rep?

This issue isn't going away and won't get better with age.; 9:21 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: ...just how did they expect to design a new plant? Even of the SRF money continued, that money cannot be used to pay for a design.

Answer: Buy an ECOfluid USBF(tm) design, of course.; 9:27 PM, March 15, 2009
Mike Green said...: Toons projected:
"Since the County is listing $250/mo. as their possible top figure, I wonder if Tri-W were re-bid how much lower that $205/mo. figure would go."

Very good question, why hasn't the original bidders re-bid a more reasonable quote?
Why hasn't a competing company jumped all over this like a pack of flies to, well literally, excrement?
Its a complete project, right? With a dedicated 218 vote pot-o-money.
Maybe there is no competing company?
Now that might be something to wonder about.; 10:18 PM, March 15, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Lynette,

On Prop 218, everyone who benefits pays.

Everyone in the entire district benefits from clean water.

The assessment should have been (by law) a general benefit, not a special as the County made it to be.

We have a wastewater system, the septic tank system, our only benefit was not getting threats and/or fines from the RWQCB. Ask Rob Miller.

So, with the entire district to benefit, there is no PZ. The PZ has no special benefit with the wastewater project.

This is what has been explained to me by a few lawyers that deal with the Prop 218 law...and it sounds right to me.; 10:22 PM, March 15, 2009
Mike Green said...: "We have a wastewater system, the septic tank system, our only benefit was not getting threats and/or fines from the RWQCB."

The RWQCB has levied fines on another government entity, namely the Men's Colony

If a government entity considers escape from RWQCB fines a benefit, what do we as individuals claim as a difference?

The benefit never was about clean water, its about regulatory authority and the consequences of unfunded mandates.

Two things that so-far have done little good for Los Osos
Elections
Lawsuits

Another thing to wonder about.; 10:46 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Isn't the original bidder sueing the CSD in BK court?
That was a leaky pipe project
hooked up to an energy intensive treatment technology, why would anyone want to use that, given what is known now?

The county's track record for keeping on track isn't so good and it doesn't appear to be getting better anytime soon.; 11:10 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11:13 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 11:14 PM, March 15, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: That project was not under the control of Paavo "If there is a technoloy that is significantly less expensive, then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away" Ogren and this one is.

Also Federal money comes with the promise of accountabilty, transparency to utilize energy efficient, more bang for the buck technology.

Now that's a change we can all live with don't you think?; 11:20 PM, March 15, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

You suggest that Julie Biggs should be blamed but Steve, Chuck and Lisa not so.

Well ... they are the board and if their lawyer was lying to them, presumably BWS could be sued for malpractice. Why haven't Lisa, Chuck and Steve come out and said that Julie misled them?

However, even if their hired staff misleads them, the board is still the group responsible for making decisions. I guess they should have gotten a 2nd opinion at least.; 11:23 PM, March 15, 2009
Unknown said...: Apparently ECOfluid is NOT QUALIFIED or they would be able to publish a short list of all the towns with a population of around 5,000 in the US where the ECOfluid system is currently in operation... They sure don't have a list of US towns on their website...!!!!

Could it be that there are none...????

Why is WM not publishing a list when he publishs reams of words trying discredit gravity...??? What is he hiding...??? He seems to be trying to deflect any discussion of the qualifications of the ECOfluid. Does the ECOfluid system really perform or is it just another leaky, stinky experimental system...???? What is ECOfluid hiding...???? Why is WM trying so hard to come in the back door in attempting to ram the sludge bed down Los Osos throat...????; 5:17 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE:
You are an anonymous blogger with no authority to actually do anything and a “short list” of demands, so you can understand why I won’t be “doing as you say”.
Everyone who counts and those who have provided their contact information has the information regarding ECOfluid’s installations in North America and the United States.

I’m actually seeking a result from my efforts not just to prove a point to you. Steve and Lyneete have been given very complete information they ignore, don’t understand or disregard.
Why not as I have suggested, make contact with them or me so that you can be playing with a full deck as I won’t be attempting to jump through any of your hoops anytime soon.

OK just this once: Word Verification- MOUSCE, I'm not lying!; 6:52 AM, March 16, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark says that he's e-mailed me that list and seems to put the burden on me suggesting I should e-mail the list to others.

Besides the fact that I know the e-mail address of, say, four participants here, there is another problem with Mark asking me to do his job ... he hasn't pre-qualified for my interest by having any references.

When you apply for a job, you list off the various activities you've done in the past which could be viewed as relevant experience for the job you are applying for.

If EcoFluid cannot provide ... here ... a list of which places that are like Los Osos where they've put in their systems, I would suggest that the County was never gonna consider their system as a viable option.

When a person has a life-threatening disease, they are rather unlikely to go to the MD and ask for medical treatment which is 80% cheaper than the standard ... you know, the experimental procedure which theoretically should work on paper ... the one where the real risk is unknown because the procedure hasn't actually been tried on more than a handful of patients ... patients with substantially differing characteristics.

Maybe the desperate cases do. Maybe those who cannot afford the standard treatment do. But by-n-large, few others so.

The affordability angle plus the fact that most towns already have sewers pretty make us an ideal target for Mark's salesmanship.

We don't know that his product is bad or good or whether it would help us or fail miserably within two years. We only know that his argument to get it adopted is with the County.; 6:59 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: I believe the point has been made...!!!

ECOfluid IS NOT A QUALIFIED SYSTEM for use in Los Osos....; 7:21 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Wrong again Steve:
Why not as I have suggested, make contact with them or me so that you can be playing with a full deck as I won’t be attempting to jump through any of your hoops anytime soon.

I understand bias, fear, loathing and lack of actual subject matter knowledge as exhibited by some, but not all, of the anonymous bloggers and “r”.

The USBF™ design has the sludge blanket membrane is free of charge contained in the clarifier that is located in a single basin design which capitalizes upon gravity and hydraulics which we know are energies that are free of charge.

I look forward to the co-equal comparison, don’t you?

Fortunately Mike, it doesn't matter what you believe.
Get yourself a full deck before the next hand, OK?

No one has answered the question regarding the co-equal vacuum/grinder pump vs bell and spigot question, yet. Why not? Hmmmmm...

The Welded gravity and water quality problem should be addressed in the upcoming: special session presented by The San Luis Obispo County Water Resources Advisory Committee (WRAC) on April 4, Saturday, starting at 8:30 a.m. in the Supervisors Chambers in SLO. The meeting will discuss "the relationship between the county's wastewater efforts and the water managment efforts of the community water purveyors."

If the county intends to install a system that will pollute daily into the aquifer because Paavo “If here is a technology that is significantly less expensive, then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away” Ogren "isn't cocerned about it", then folks including the water purveyors, should be able to question that authority.; 7:45 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,
You mentioned that there is wastewater standard.
Please define and qualify your statement.
What is that standard?; 7:49 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: As is very plain for all to read... WM is only a salesman who only likes to talk the talk with glowing words about how his "product" is better than any other product out there... But why can't he put on this blog, a simple list of where in the USA, in communities of 5,000 +/- homes, that the ECOfluid system is currently in operation....???????

Why is anyone listening to that salesman who toots his own horn so very very much and yet can;t provide a simple answer....????

I don't care what you think of this whole sewer conflict, but I do care that an outsider, who only wants a huge commission, won't be straight out honest and publish a short list... I sure don't put any credibility on the many many many words of someone who won't answer a very direct question regarding his "product".... Why is he hiding that information....????; 8:07 AM, March 16, 2009
Churadogs said...: Get real Los Osos sez:"I saw the paperwork from the State Water Board saying they had to do a 218 and get rid of Measure B first before any additional money came through (interfering with an election....)" while Inlet sez:"That is, to get the payments reinstated, the LOCSD would have had to hold a 218 and to stop supporting Measure B. This they almost agreed to do. (Why they didn't, we don't really know.)"
And Inlet also sez:"Even if they had a goal of getting the plant out of town, they could have handled the Measure B and SRF/SWRCB issues far more carefully and they would have had a far greater chance of success. It seems like they just assumed that the SWRCB would view Measure B as limiting the SWRCB options just because the LOCSD board wanted them to." while Get Real sez:" recall seeing some paperwork from the State Water Board showing that they did send Daryl P. down for talks, yet later said he was just an employee, the memo showed that Tami said to use careful strategy with that Daryl P.'s involvement during the time of the compromise." and so forth.

"We don't really know." Nor do we have the answer to these questions, among many others: Why send Darrin then later deny his role? Why DIDN'T the RWQCB and the SWQCB want this compromise to work? Was the SWB and RWQC actually "electioneering?" Why didn't a 218 take place? etc. Sure, Briggs was pissed and Pandora and others asked him to fine the CSD out of existence, & etc, but the SWB, which should have had a far cooler head, COULD have made the October compromise work, if they had wished. Which is where and why it all gets so interesting. A Truth & Reconciliation hearing with suboena power and legal sanctions available for people who lie, MIGHT be able to get to the bottom of such issues. In reality, unraveling this tangle and getting a result that would be as forthcoming as if we were all a fly on the wall, is likely impossible. but an awful lot of dots are tantalizingly connected so that even the gaps still present a pattern.

Mark sez;"You seem to be missing the point about leaky bell and spigot conventional gravity and lift stations being used in a PZ littered with CDO's.
These systems leak which would be a discharge that would be subject to enforcement and round it goes.

If there must be conventional gravity it must be sealed, otherwise the pollution is not halted."

This presumes the RWQCB cares about water quality and treats all "discharges" equally and fairly. But consider, 45 Los Osos Citizen s were "tried and hanged" while the city of Morro Bay (gravity collection system since the 1950's) sees some of it's wells shut down due to high nitrates in the water and nothing hapens. Selective prosecution? If so, then the Los Osos 45 will remain with CDOs while "leaking" county7 sewer pipes will get a pass. Go figure.; 8:09 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Ok, You insinuated that there is a wastewater treatment standard.
What is it?; 8:11 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE wrote: who only wants a huge commission...
MIKE:Please define.

MIKE wrote: WM is only a salesman who only likes to talk the talk with glowing words about how his "product" is better than any other product out there...

MIKE: I guess you missed this:
From: Mark Low [mailto:Mark@NOwastewater.com]
Sent: Sunday, March 15, 2009 5:35 PM
To: 'twright@co.slo.ca.us'
Cc: SamSperry@Orrick.com
Subject: FOIA Request for

Greetings Ms. Wright,

Please provide all billings from Orrick, Herrington, Sutcliffe, LLP 405 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-2625 for services rendered to San Luis Obispo County for all work performed on the Los Osos wastewater project.

Your prompt attention in this matter will be appreciated.

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"

6:05 PM, March 15, 2009; 8:14 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
Thomas Jefferson
Government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth.
Abraham Lincoln
A government for the people must depend for its success on the intelligence, the morality, the justice, and the interest of the people themselves.
Grover Cleveland

We live under the terms and laws of a Constitutional Republic, which some mistake for a pure democracy.
If the WaterBoard will not protect the quality of the water then the people must.

Where are all the people?; 8:22 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: I really don't care about how well you think you are deflecting the question, but you still have never answered the straight forward question... Where are 5 communities the size of Los Osos which are currently utilizing the ECOfluid system....????? Name 2 if you can't name 5.....!!!!!!; 8:23 AM, March 16, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

I neither mentioned nor insinuated that there is a wastewater treatment standard.

Unless you prove I did, your fussing here only shows how poorly you read.

Sheesh. Imagine how much easier Mark would find his job of convincing others that his device is simply awesome if he would just provide references that show his company is up to the job.

I just don't get the petulant whinny thing he's doing. It makes sense if he's here in Ann's blog for sport but not if he's a rational person trying to actually sell us on his device. ... unless ... there aren't any towns comparable to Los Osos which have adopted his device ... which is probably why he's so outraged that we've caught on.; 8:28 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: If EcoFluid cannot provide ... here ... a list of which places that are like Los Osos where they've put in their systems, I would suggest that the County was never gonna consider their system as a viable option.

When a person has a life-threatening disease, they are rather unlikely to go to the MD and ask for medical treatment which is 80% cheaper than the standard ... you know, the experimental procedure which theoretically should work on paper ... the one where the real risk is unknown because the procedure hasn't actually been tried on more than a handful of patients ... patients with substantially differing characteristics.

Maybe the desperate cases do. Maybe those who cannot afford the standard treatment do. But by-n-large, few others so.

Steve it is your anology, you must deal wit it.; 8:37 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE, Steve: You do not understand wastewater treatment process or "the process" by which it gets "selected" and why.

I understand bias, fear, loathing and lack of actual subject matter knowledge as exhibited by some, but not all, of the anonymous bloggers and “r”.

As I work this blog provides a distraction and device by which I demonstrate, illminate and will ultimate promulgate "the process".

You guys are part of a very sound solution, you just haven't caught on yet.; 8:44 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve it is your anology, you must deal with it.; 8:45 AM, March 16, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Ann,

About the "negotiations" and Polhemous and the like ...

No, we don't know what would happen if they had done a 218 vote, but we do know that the LOCSD got what they asked for and only had to hold a vote, which they refused to do based on a claim that they didn't have enough money to cover the interest on a bridge loan and we know this to be a lie based on the fact that just a few meetings later they had enough money to hire Ripley at a total cost well over the cost to cover the bridge loan which they said they could not afford.

If someone agrees to all your terms and you later have regrets you might take any opportunity to get out of the deal ... even if you have to lie to do it and even if you sell out the community to the RWQCB for enforcement actions when you say your goal is to protect your community.

I seriously think that after they got the best deal they could get, the activist, "move the sewer no matter how much it costs" board decided that they didn't like the 2 year deadline on getting another location, design and permitting because if it they couldn't pull off the miracle of achieving that, they would be obliged to move forward with TriW.

Nope, the post-recall board screwed up when they quickly stopped TriW without first reading the contract with the SWRCB which says they are not allowed to even pause construction without first obtaining permission from the SWRCB unless there is an emergency, like finding some archeological site or the like.

So ... we know full well that the post-recall board failed. Would admitting that they made choices which put us in our horrible position today be such a sin? Isn't it obvious that they could have played their cards differently? Isn't it obvious that they took poor advice and believed that it was sound? Isn't it obvious that they made a bad situation worse?; 8:45 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: "If EcoFluid cannot provide ... here ... a list of which places that are like Los Osos where they've put in their systems...."

Guess that means there are NONE...!!!!

No basis for comparison, no truth, only a theoretical model of what "might work"... and a whole lot of words to change the subject in order to hide the fact that there is no accepted ECOfluid system currently in service in communities the size of Los Osos in the USA... the closest possible comparisons being some smaller resort villages in Canada...

ECOfluid is possibly a viable waste collection system in rural, spread out regions, but not in a densely compact suburban community...; 8:46 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve,
Maybe it will help you if you can think of USBF™ as Pennicillin only with hundreds of installations all over the world, some in operation for 40 years.

It works where ever it was tried.; 8:51 AM, March 16, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark,

An analogy is an analogy ... a parable if you will.

The only way my analogy would be in error as an analogy is if your device isn't experimental ... if there is a lot of data from many large communities (you know, places like Los Osos) from which we could know whether the system really works as promised.

But I notice that you didn't argue that point. Instead you choose to fuss about minutiae which isn't even key to the analogy.

It is almost as if you are using logical fallacy to distract us from the truth, that you are refusing to provide references like pretty much anyone else (you know, like a dog walker or an electrician or a stock broker) would do. Are you hiding something or do you not have any installations comparable to Los Osos or are you somehow caught up in this blog for your own amusement and not because you really want to convince us?; 8:54 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Wrong again MIKE:
ECOfluid does not provide "collection".
However it does provide wastewater treatment designs and equipment.

You never said how much I'll be making as I save you energy and money. Why not?
You aren't making claims you cannot back up are you?; 8:56 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: If "...it works where ever it was tried", then please post a few towns in the USA where "it" is currently working....; 8:58 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: Are YOU making claims YOU can't back up....????; 8:59 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: I'm sorry Steve, I'm not in the arguing business.
I inform and supply data to those willing and able to understand it, which you have demonstrated you for some reason don't.

We have discussed the "experimental" tag many blogs ago.
So, yea' you are in eror when you refer to USBF(tm) as experimental.
It demostrates your lack of understanding about wastewater biology and design.
Get that info over to to a school mate and I'll be happy to go over it with him or her.; 9:02 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: I'm, not "selling" anything... so I don't have any "claims" to back up...

YOU are the salesman... where is the list of towns...???? Can't you back up your claims that ECOfluid is perfect for Los Osos...???? Just provide a simple list...actually name 1 since you can't list 5 or even 2.... Just give us one town, in the USA, the size of Los Osos, currently operating a full scale ECOfluid system......; 9:05 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE, come on out of that closet, get yourself a "gmail" account and shoot me an email.

But if you are having difficulty following what ECOfluid actually sells then you will probably have trouble understanding the data.

I'm not trying to insult your intelligence,I'm questioning your bias and motives.

You are so angry all of the time...; 9:05 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: I'm, not "selling" anything... so I don't have any "claims" to back up...

YOU are the salesman... where is the list of towns...???? Can't you back up your claims that ECOfluid is perfect for Los Osos...???? Just provide a simple list...actually name 1 since you can't list 5 or even 2.... Just give us one town, in the USA, the size of Los Osos, currently operating a full scale ECOfluid system......; 9:05 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: What's wrong Mark....??? Have you been less than honest about ECOfluid...???? Just provide the name of one US town...; 9:07 AM, March 16, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark writes that he's not in the arguing business.

Hahahahaha ... thanks for the best laugh I've had in a week!

Seriously ... like a wood rat flushed out of his nest, Mark is first scurrying around then pretending to fight and then running away.

Again, if you had evidence of comparable projects (not some small place in Canada) somewhere, I am sure that you would provide it to us here (unless you are an idiot). I must conclude then that you have no comparable projects anywhere.

The only thing I am taking as a matter of faith here is that the County will simply not bother with any unproven technologies. Certainly if the County wanted to go with something experimental, like the use of Penicillin for treating headaches, the RWQCB would not approve the plan. I suspect that pretty much most of Los Osos would also complain about Mark's proposal. After all, if one of the biggest sticking points about TriW was that it is near homes and a church and a park, you can imagine the complaints about several sewage treatment facilities scattered all over town. Nope, Mark's idea is a no-sell from day one.; 9:12 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve:
You really ought to open up the 1MGD proposal and readthrough it carefully.
Thank you for proving my point(s).; 9:16 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: More empty words Mark...why can't you be honest and just type the name of one US town the size of Los Osos where the ECOfluid is in operation...?????; 9:27 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: MIKE:
I have previously posted this information on Ann’s Land but here goes again:
When the City of Lake Alfred decided to upgrade their existing 1 MGD trickling filters wastewater treatment plant, they looked at a number of technologies and after an evaluation decided on the USBF process.

Feels like ground hogs day…I hope the suns shines soon.

The load and flow differential between a Lake Alfred and other USBF™ installations are easily adjusted to fit the particular scenario/need.
Some have commented here about the number of people being a requisite or barrier for one technology but not another, they could not be more incorrect.

I have a paper on Sun Peaks that I think you will find informative, just let me know if you want me to send it to you, or you could ask Steve or Lyneete, if you are afraid to communicate with me directly.; 9:43 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: Lake Alfred, FL is an incorporated city with a population of approximately 4,500... Have not found anything mentioning ECOfluid, but am checking...I do have relative living in nearby Winterhaven....

Sun Peaks, British Columbia is a resort... Not even wasteing time checking...; 10:22 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Ski resorts present extreme loads and flows in very cold and high altitudes in pristene environments so when a technology works well there, it can work well anywhere.

It's a shame you won't make time to review the 7 years worth of influent and treated water rsults of the Sun Peaks Facility.

I think I understand your motivation...; 10:38 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: All the system needs is the California State Water Board approval... and the blessing of the County of San Luis Obispo, CA...

Still no replies from Lake Alfred, Fl...; 10:47 AM, March 16, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Good morning Mike and Shark,

Great posts gentlemen!

wsm ought to read his own literature. We are asking for town that use his technology that will be acceptable by the Water Board and he comes up with one town in Florida with a smaller population that has a plant that has been in operation since 2007. We need 10 years of data. Clearly he is not responding to our request, nor can he.

I will quote from the reply I got from Justin Hebner, the ECOfluid representative I contacted regarding wsm.

"3. We were not privy to Mr. Low's blogs. Mr Low is a free agent and while we support his efforts on the technical level, his blogs do not represent ECOfluid's opinions and business practices. "

Since his blogging does not represent ECOfluids opinions and business practices, what really is he offering us here? Clearly it can only be something personal.

Alabamasue, this is what has gotten "his panties in such a bunch!"

PS Mike, Sun Peaks does not clean to tertiary. It went into operation in 2003. No data as to population on ECOfluid site, but I looked it up - 250.; 11:28 AM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: Good Morning 'toons...

Now... where's the next perfect technology for Los Osos....???

Maybe we CAN delay any sewer for the next 30 years if we research every new technology existing and in the pipe dreams...

I don't want to pay for a sewer any more than the rest of the community, maybe we should all band together and tell the State Water Board that we don't want a sewer....so there!!!!; 11:58 AM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: The spin cycle is running now with Lyneete's dodge again of “Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name)” who claims to represent ECOfluid.
Attempting obfuscation doesn’t work on me.

We should have plenty to talk about soon.
Let’s see how much money consulting engineers make studying the same result shall we?

Lyneete, did you hear about the 10 year data point requirement from the same person you relied upon about the Mr. Dean (I forgot his name)who represents ECOfluid?

And you think I'm getting personal.
Why do you feel the need to ______?; 1:24 PM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Sun Peaks WWTP, SunPeaks, BC

This advanced wastewater treatment plant serving the modern ski village at Tod Mountain was started up on November 19, 1999.

Page 1 of 6
BCWWA 2007 AGM & CONFERENCE, PENTICTON, BC
SUN PEAKS UTILITIES WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
7 YEARS OF OPERATIONS
PAPER PRESENTED BY PAT MILLER, MANAGER OF SUN PEAKS UTILITY CORPORATION
There are now over 12 USBF plants in operation in British Columbia. The facility at the Sun Peaks Resort is
today the largest (in BC) and, installed in 1999, one of the earliest. This presentation will outline the plant’s
operating experiences and operating data, and touch on the resorts’ future considerations towards
environmental sustainability, including water reuse for golf course irrigation and snow making.
HISTORY
Sun Peaks Resort is situated at the base of Tod Mountain approximately 40 kilometers northeast of Kamloops,
British Columbia. Tod Mountain, with a summit elevation of 2,152 meters was originally developed as a ski
operation in the early 1960's. In 1972, the former operator decided to develop a few residential lots and formed
a private utility to operate a simple community water supply and wastewater leaching field that was replaced in
1987 with a simple lagoon system. While the permit granted a maximum disposal of 230 m3/day, discharge was
intermittent, if at all.
In 1992, the property was purchased by Nippon Cable Company Limited and the resort's name was changed to
Sun Peaks. Nippon's strategy for Tod Mountain was to upgrade the ski lift and trail system and transform the
area into a major four-season, destination mountain resort with all the amenities.
In 1993, the resort operator, Sun Peaks Resort Corporation completed the Tod Mountain Master Plan and
entered into an agreement with the Provincial Government to take the resort from a winter only ski hill to a
year round community that will eventually support as many as 24,000 residences and visitors during any period.
Sun Peaks' base development has been rapidly expanding since 1993. As a consequence, wastewater flows at the
Sun Peaks Utilities' treatment facility have been steadily increasing. Sun Peaks Utilities Co. Ltd., (known as
SPUCL) has made a number of improvements to the lagoon system to keep pace with the increasing hydraulic
and organic loading. These improvements ranged from surface aeration mixers to sub-surface fine bubble
diffusion piping.
SIMPLE TO COMPLEX TREATMENT
After the 1998 Christmas period when the holding time in the 6,000 cubic meter lagoon dropped to under 6
days, Sun Peaks Utilities decided to replace the lagoon with a system that could deal with the growing flows.
After evaluating a few alternatives, SPUCL decided to go with the Upflow Sludge Blanket Filtration (USBF)
system supplied by Ecofluid Systems Inc. The Design/Build contract was awarded to Knappett Construction Ltd.
in the latter part of July 1999, the construction began on August 24, 1999 and the plant started receiving
wastewater on November 19, 1999. By December 15, the effluent was below 10 mg/l BOD5 and 10 mg/l Total
Suspended Solids.
PLANT DESIGN
The overall design of the system allowed for four bioreactors, each containing an anoxic zone, an aeration zone
and a clarifier that contained a floating sludge blanket that acted as a filter media through which the final effluent
was filtered. It is the floating sludge blanket in a “V” shape clarifier that makes handling of flows that can change
10 fold within a month and double from weekdays to weekend possible.
Year 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007
Highest Flow 930 997 1,244 1,206 1,303 1,362
Lowest Flow 35 42 127 157 186 198
Page 2 of 6
The decision to go with the USBF system was based on a phased
modular design of the plant allowing for incremental expansions that
would match the growth of the resort. The first phase installed in 1999
included 2 bioreactors with 3 clarifiers and a waste sludge storage
tank.
Depending on the flows, the sludge tank was pumped out from once a
day to once a week. The sludge at about 0.5% solids was then trucked
off site.
PLANT UPGRADES AND EXPANSIONS
The resort’s growth required a number of upgrades and expansions
since its start up in 1999. In 2001, fourth clarifier was added to the
initially installed three.
With the trucking costs to move the waste sludge off-site rising, the
Utility went to community for approval in 2002 to increase usage rates
in order to purchase a sludge dewatering centrifuge and to move
towards composting on site.
In the summer of 2003, the plant biology was expanded by an addition
of two biological compartments, anoxic and aeration.
Last year the plant airlift RAS pumps were exchanged for mechanical pumps to save air, and a new waste sludge
pre-thickener was installed to improve sludge handling. Unfortunately only one third of the pre-thickener
installation was completed in time for 2006/2007 winter operation.
Unfortunately or fortunately, it never stops when you grow as rapidly as Sun Peaks, and so this year we will be
upsizing the existing dewatering equipment, complete sludge pre-thickener installation, and add another air
blower (bringing us to three).
Page 3 of 6
At present the plant nominal average day capacity is 900 m3/d, (300 kg BOD5/d), with peak hourly flow of 120
m3/h. With more air capacity and enhanced sludge management, we will be able to process increased flows
expected this winter. As with any resort community, it is recognized that any additional plant expansion at the
current site is limited by the available real estate.
Operating the plant for over seven years enabled us to gather the plant operating and costs data, and acquire
experience, which may be of interest to you and which we will share with you in the following.
OPERATING DATA
Each fall is like starting a new plant when we double the size from summer to winter mode. We take bets on
what the new season’s flows will be and whether we guess correctly on the number of homes built.
We have learned to track lift tickets sold and occupancy rates to help us get prepared for each week. We track
when holiday fall and weather trends. You wouldn’t believe how powder ski days and rain events can affect
flows.
INFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Ski resorts (and this may apply to resorts in general) are not your ‘typical influent’ generators. Flows change
dramatically from day to day and holiday period to holiday period. At Sun Peaks, we implemented the plumbing
code similar to Australia for water conservation and thus the average daily flow per resident is currently 220
liters per day and dropping (the Canadian average is 375 liters per day). Then you add day visitors to the mix
adding about 40 liters per person per day (very high ammonia content).
To get a better reading of the incoming influent, we analyzed hourly composite samples collected every hour
throughout the day. The results illustrate a very uneven pattern of influent characteristics throughout the day as
can be demonstrated by one such sample below.
2007 Low
mg/L Hour High
mg/L Hour Average
mg/L
BOD5 120 6:30 am 590 9:30 am 385
COD 310 5:30 am 1300 9:30 am 813
N-NH4 30 1:30 pm 107 8:30 am 61
SPUCL WWTP Flows
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
1,400
1,600
Dec 15
Dec 22
Dec 29
Jan 5
Jan 12
Jan 19
Jan 26
Feb 2
Feb 9
Feb 16
Feb 23
Mar 2
Mar 9
Mar 16
Mar 23
Mar 30
Apr 6
Apr 13
Apr 20
Apr 27
Influent 2004-05 Influent 2005-06 Influent 2006-07
Page 4 of 6
The variable biological loading throughout the day is a challenge on its own but it is not limited there. We also
measured reduced alkalinity, and at times very high COD (possibly due to the type of cooking oils and cleaning
detergents used in the resort’s restaurants and hotels). Add to this, the fact that the influent temperature may
change 5-7 deg C within a matter of days, and the highly fluctuating flow (as high as 110 m3/h instantaneous
hourly peak), and … well, you are getting the picture.
HOW DO WE COPE?
To ‘smooth-out’ the variable biological loadings, our air blowers are controlled by a continuous DO
monitor/VFD (variable frequency drive) system (this helps, except for being short of air at times, which will
change with the installation of another blower this year).
Our well water has very little buffering capacity and with 3000 day skiers adding mostly ammonia to the
wastewater stream, we have some issues with pH during the treatment process. To ‘control’ alkalinity we have
been adding slaked lime (Ca(OH)2) into the anoxic and aeration compartment – as much as 100 kg/day. This
year, we have gone through almost 100 – 25 kg bags. The good news is that the slaked lime is available locally
and is not expensive (about $11 per bag). It has proven very useful.
There is not much we can do about the rest of the challenges, except be more vigilant controlling FOG (fat, oil
and grease) at source.
EFFLUENT PARAMETERS
Our MSR requires the effluent not to exceed 30 mg/l each for BOD5 and TSS and as a rule we do much better.
BOD5 is typically less than 10 mg/l, TSS from 5 to 20 mg/l, ammonia less than 1 mg/l and Total Nitrogen in the
10 to 20 mg/l range. When we do not waste sludge and return the supernatant from the sludge dewatering
process back into the influent flow, the Total Phosphorus is biologically reduced to 2 to 3 mg/l.
The following is an analysis of grab samples taken at about 11 am on March 7, 2007
Bioreactor 1 Bioreactor 2 Bioreactor 3 Bioreactor 4
TSS mg/l 5.7 9.7 3.7 3.7
Ammonia (as N) mg/l 0.067 0.077 0.073 0.079
Nitrate (as N) mg/l 6.75 4.17 7.42 6.58
Nitrite (as N) mg/l 0.0504 0.0969 0.0545 0.0468
Total Nitrogen mg/l 8.1 7.6 8.9 6.96
Total Phosphorus mg/l 6.86 9.87 5.78 6.04
Chloride mg/l 110 111 112 109
pH mg/l 7.99 7.70 7.78 7.80
Conductivity 853 900 900 880
This sample was taken right after our highest day-flow period and after the US President’s week (2nd highest
annual occupancy period). Unfortunately BOD was not analyzed however, based on the other parameters it is
safe to assume it was less than 10 mg/l. Together with averages of 5.7 mg/l for TSS, 0.074 mg/l for ammonia, and
7.9 mg/l for total nitrogen the results are well under the most stringent MSR requirements.
Total average phosphorus of 7.1 mg/l is much elevated from what we have experienced before the centrifuge
installation. Almost all ‘biologically uptaken’ phosphorus returns to the system with the centrifuge supernatant
recycle to the equalization tank.
Page 5 of 6
CAPITAL COSTS
The total capital cost since 1999 to date, including the initial construction of the wastewater treatment plant, the
upgrades and the sludge dewatering system, works out to a total of approximately $2,550 per m3/d, or $7,700
per kg BOD/d.
Looking back, SPRC and SPUCL have invested just over $2.5 million between the initial installation and
subsequent upgrades to build a plant that can handle 1,000 cubic meters of peak sustainable flows (vs. peak day
flows). If we were to build the same size plant today, (assuming no infrastructure other than the lagoon in place)
the costs would be between $4 million and $5 million. This confirms that the decision in 1999 by the Board of
Directors to proceed with wastewater treatment system that could grow in phases at the rate needed was the
correct choice for a capital investment.
Operating Costs
Total operating cost includes many contributing costs of which the main ‘direct costs’ are the costs of
electricity, wages and benefits, chemicals, repairs and maintenance, waste sludge disposal, and lab analysis.
Averaged over the respective years these direct operating costs shown in the following table:
Direct Costs Fiscal 2001 Fiscal 2002 Fiscal 2003 Fiscal 2004 Fiscal 2005 Fiscal 2006
2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06
Wages & Benefits 65,577 81,071 89,100 103,332 98,870 134,161
Electricity 8,334 8,143 8,025 10,654 12,254 12,167
Chemicals 5,825 5,135 10,771 9,048 6,338 9,522
STP Disposal 23,309 41,660 15,256 23,020 7,300 2,835
Sewer analysis 11,976 13,106 10,140 9,666 10,174 9,091
Total 115,021 149,115 133,292 155,720 134,936 167,776
Total Flows (m3/year) 129,398 143,606 151,763 168,352 175,782
Total BOD (kg BOD5/year) 42,701 47,390 50,082 55,556 55,366
Operating Costs
$ per m3 $1.15 $0.93 $1.03 $0.80 $0.95
$ per kg BOD5 $3.49 $2.81 $3.10 $2.43 $3.03
(Influent 330 mg/lBOD5)
By tracking our costs on a biological loading basis, we know what expansion is going to cost from an operating
point of view and can structure future rates that are in line with the costs. The operating costs are year round
average costs and they are of course negatively affected by the high seasonality of our operation.
General Operating Experience
At Sun Peaks we developed ‘per bed factors’ to gauge both our water demand and the biological loading as
opposed to the daily flows determination in a traditional municipal environment. The factors allow us to predict
when each expansion will be needed rather than in the past where something had to break down before the
system would be expanded.
After all, you have to get it right for the Christmas/New Years holiday period or you might as well go home.
Nothing is more fun that going into the General Manager’s office on New Year’s Eve and saying that if the
lagoon goes up 1 more inch, you are going to shut the town’s water off. I had to do this December 31, 1998 and
by November 1999, we had a new treatment plant.
Page 6 of 6
Future Challenges & Considerations
With very little dilution and unhealthy eating habits, the upstream management of FOGs is becoming very
important. We are currently working with the restaurants in the resort to become more proactive in dealing
with their grease traps and oil trapping systems.
Sun Peaks is currently under a trial for biosolids management using composting. However there is a number of
challenges that range from too cold in the winter, to too dry in the summer, to the price of land to perform
composting. We are currently exploring options that may include gasification or gravel pit reclamation.
Our next challenge is the disposal of effluent. Our current use of rapid infiltration trenches only allows for a
maximum daily discharge of 850 cubic meters. The resort is built on the side of a mountain and more land for RI
trenches is limited. Options currently under study include stream augmentation, snow making and golf course
irrigation. The challenge with the last two options is weather.
As you saw from the early flow graph, influent flows can change significantly from hour to hour and from day to
day. Upstream flow balancing would allow more consistent flows into the plant and better treatment of the
waste stream. From the first of November each year to the end of December, influent flows can increase five
plus times.
The Operator’s Experience
Our key challenge at Sun Peaks is that in addition to the wastewater treatment plant, we operate three water
treatment plants and a gas distribution system. We have now reached a critical mass that allows us to have 5
operators on staff so that we can focus two of the operators on wastewater treatment to give us seven day
week coverage.
Like many small utilities, getting, training and keeping operators is an increasing challenge, no matter what type
of system you operate. The USBF system has been very tolerant to operator involvement and support on each
expansion has been great.
The ownership of the resort is very happy with the modular expansion options of the USBF system and its
ability to expand the system as needed when needed. After all, expansion costs are paid by new users being
added to the system (via the developer) rather than the existing customers.
The community is very proud of the plant and that it uses a natural process to treat the wastewater. To confirm
this, compare our wastewater rates of $2.17 per cubic meter with many other communities
Would we select the USBF system again – knowing what we know now? - YES!
Thank you for your attention and time permitting, we would be pleased to answer any questions you might
have.; 9:16 PM, March 16, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Shark,

You say, "..if you have to lie to do it and even if you sell out the community to the RWQCB for enforcement actions when you say your goal is to protect your community..."

Shark, why don't you get it?!?!

The RWQCB's "enforcement actions" were ONLY to get the 218 passed!!

Sam Blakeslee told this to the Howard Jarvis Assoc. and Jeff Edwards knew this too. Everyone knows -- but you?!

Besides, the RWQCB is to be "fair, firm, and consistent" -- Now, that's a joke. CDO's....45....and ignorning Morro Bay while harassing Los Osos. What about the Golf Course in Morro Bay..."Fair, Firm and Consistent" WHAT A JOKE. And you want us to take them (RWQCB) seriously? They should all go to jail in my opinion!

I told you before, no CSD was able to pull off a project like our sewer. Pandora shouldn't have formed a CSD. The County should have paid and spread the cost countywide. They let the developers build over 1,000 homes and they permitted all these septics. They delayed the project for 20 plus years. They collected tax dollars from LO all those years and spread to everywhere else but to Los Osos.

Yeah, it looks like Pandora did a big favor for the County with her Measure K. She's the King Pin for the big mess Los Osos is in.

It's very sad as I look around and see that hardly anyone could possibly afford what's coming their way with the County's project. They refused to look at alternatives. The TAC was a set-up -- it was supposed to be community members but they brought in anyone they could that liked gravity. Dan Berman (funded by the RWQCB) the guy from Golden State Water, etc. hardly community members -- it's all horrible.

Many people have invested so much money, time and love into their homes and now they'll have an extreme amount of stress for 30 years if they're able to stay at all. The price will go up each and every year. What kind of a life is that?

It's all wrong. It's probably illegal (see my note to Lynette below).; 9:17 PM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: As you can see Sun Peaks was not designed to a tertiary standard but does very well anyway.; 9:18 PM, March 16, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Lynette,

On Prop 218, everyone who benefits pays.

Everyone in the entire district benefits from clean water.

The assessment should have been (by law) a general benefit, not a special as the County made it to be.

We have a wastewater system, the septic tank system, our only benefit was not getting threats and/or fines from the RWQCB. Ask Rob Miller.

So, with the entire district to benefit, there is no PZ. The PZ has no special benefit with the wastewater project.

This is what has been explained to me by a few lawyers that deal with the Prop 218 law...and it sounds right to me.; 9:18 PM, March 16, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: GRO,
Common sense is in very short supply these days.; 9:33 PM, March 16, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Mark,

So is common decency...; 9:54 PM, March 16, 2009
Unknown said...: GRO.... Too bad that "sense of common decency" wasn't and still isn't afforded to all the pre-recall Directors and volunteers who worked so hard to produce a legal and fully permitted WWTF for Los Osos...

Lisa, Julie, Chuck, John, Steve, Gail, Ann, Ron, Al, Kieth, Jeff, Joey all come to mind when thinking "common decency"... You think Pandora created the mess LO is in...??? Sorry, but if you want to throw rocks, you better start with the above list... They threw our money away and drove a huge wedge in this community...; 5:00 AM, March 17, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: GRO says on the 218:
"our only benefit was not getting threats and/or fines from the RWQCB. Ask Rob Miller"

What, WE in the PZ WON'T get any clean water?

GRO, who exactly, with the density in the PZ of as many as 8-12 houses per acre, is FOULING the water? WE are 85% of the town! Some wastewater system - that septic system - do you actually think anyone knows how to care for these things unless water is backing up into their house? Is 8-12 homes allowed ANYWHERE else? Do you know why it isn't?

The entire district will pay, don't worry - through their water bills for use of the secondary water cleaned up by the purveyors once the ISJ is finished.; 10:18 AM, March 17, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Lynette,

I'm talking about the law.

We, in the PZ, have a wastewater system -- like it or not.

Our ONLY benefit was not getting threat/fines from the RWQCB (and they've never proved our so-called pollution...we have to take their word for it) --

...and each home in the PZ will probably go to $100,000. per home when all is said and done.

THE ONLY REASON FOR MONTGOMERY-WATSON-HARZA'S MEGA SEWER IS FOR US TO PAY FOR THE DEVELOPERS TO DEVELOP!!!!! Period.

As far as the density issue, talk to the County, they are to blame, they should pay into the sewer. The homeowners didn't let the density happen. The County wanted more homes to pay for a sewer. (BTW, what about the horse stables at the end of Highland, are they in the PZ, they don't pollute either???!!!)

You think this is all fair. You think the PZ is fair. You think kicking out 75% of the PZ is fair. You think shit doesn't run down hill (maybe up, like Cleath says water runs????)

Lynette, you are a "piece of work"!

The County's 218 should have been a general benefit.

Why should only 4,500 homes have to pay for everyone's clean water or salt water intrusion issues, etc.

The PZ will have those increased water bills you speak of too, don't worry.

You say, "What, WE in the PZ WON'T get any clean water?..."

Lynette, what kind of a stupid question is that?! We've been assessed for a blank check.

The PZ is not legal, nor fair firm or consistent. There was NO science behind the PZ and clearly everyone benefits.; 10:43 AM, March 17, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: GetReal,

You are asking the rest of Los Osos to have to pay too even though they are not inside the PZ.

That's an interesting idea. I did the calculations one time and found that there would be little impact on your bill or mine if Cabrillo were forced into paying. However, there is no legal mechanism now to force them into paying.

Last I asked the County, they said that the would be asking the water companies to pay a lot because they would benefit from cleaner water ... the general benefit is covered via the water companies who will pass those costs on to everyone equally (well, that depends on the amount of water used). There clearly is a special benefit from having a mandated wastewater treatment system.

Even if the PZ wasn't defined reasonably, it is a fact now and we can't wish it away.

I would suggest, however, that just like there may be little science to justify the PZ definition, there is perhaps even less which shows those outside the PZ as the source of pollution in our aquifer. Even trying to force those outside the PZ to join in will be very problematic because of the past definition having held up in court. The inflation in construction costs during any legal proceedings to get Cabrillo in would more than wipe out any benefit of having them included.

Sorry, your wish for justice and equality isn't worth it in this case. If there were a windfall out there I would be in your camp, but it just ain't so.; 11:07 AM, March 17, 2009
Unknown said...: Geez GRO.... You really should move somewhere where you won't be in such an angry mood all the time... The County DA won't listen to you, the County Engineers and BOS won't listen to you... and apparently you aren't listening to your doctor... You are a prime candidate for a massive stroke... You keep bringing all your personal "opinions" up as if they are "facts" and so far no one is listening here either... You are causing your own stress and poor health... Maybe you ought to move to Arizona or one of the ECOFlush communities, oh... there may only be one... down in Florida...maybe...

In the meantime, keep taking your pills...; 11:09 AM, March 17, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lyneete wrote: What, WE in the PZ WON'T get any clean water?

Answer: Not if a leaky bell and spigot design get's laid. It will forever pollute.

MIKE: Are you a county engineer?
You are on the right path regarding ECOfluid's USBF(tm), When it gets installed, all is good, so no one need move.; 1:13 PM, March 17, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: GetReal said:
"THE ONLY REASON FOR MONTGOMERY-WATSON-HARZA'S MEGA SEWER IS FOR US TO PAY FOR THE DEVELOPERS TO DEVELOP!!!!! Period."

Wouldn't ANY sewer do that?; 1:54 PM, March 17, 2009
Realistic1 said...: 'Toons,

What GRLO fails to realize is that the mid-town site would have limited development to full build-out of 19k (4k more than now). The size and capacity of the plant was limited by geography. Put a sewer outside of town, and you open the entire Los Osos valley, from South Bay Blvd to Foothill Blvd to development. One need only look around the State and see the sewer sites that were once out of town, but are now surrounded by development.

There is no point in debating GRLO, he/she is an angry person who believes the government (and everyone who doesn't agree with him/her) is out to steal his/her every possesion. Oh, and lets not forget, the County is conspiring to steal every senior citizen's home...(to what end, I have no idea).; 3:23 PM, March 17, 2009
Realistic1 said...: I forgot to add that there are only 700 buildable lots in the PZ (some of which are zoned multi-family), so where GRLO thinks all this development that would result from the midtown site would come from is anyone's guess...; 3:38 PM, March 17, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Mark writes that a leaky gravity system will assure that we will never get clean water.

Let's think about this a bit and do some calculations. If exactly 2% of the sewage leaks out of a gravity collection system, each year of delay before a leak-free system is installed will be the equivalent of 50 years of leaky gravity in terms of the total nastiness put into our ground. If voting for the recall results in a 5 year delay in a system getting online it is the equivalent of 250 years of leakage from a "leaky" system.

To me it sounds like arguing for urgency in getting something online would do far more for the environment than arguing for perfection if that perfection results in delay.

Note: Mark might now argue that 250 years isn't forever. Fine. Probably his collection system and the gravity system would both have needed repairs multiple times and maybe both would have needed replacement. Even if my assumed 2% for the purpose of these calculations is way wrong, the point is still clear ... sooner as opposed to later is the key to cleaning up the environment. If the County site and technology is really gonna be quicker to get online than TriW, it's a better choice. If TriW could be done sooner, it is better. If a Charles Nelson Ripley system would be soonest, that's the best choice.

What will the RWQCB, State of California, CCC, USEPA, USFWS and Army Corps permit? Permittable systems are the only ones which should be considered. If Mark has evidence that his device has been approved of within the State of California for the purpose of denitrification, I'll consider that evidence in his favor. If not, it's not even a possibility just like the fancy ponding system of the Solutions Group was not approved of.; 4:02 PM, March 17, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Hi Realistic1!

You are right. Tri-W - (cheaper than what we'll get now), controlled growth. A point that seemed to escape the "out-of-town" folks, although some were "no-sewers" in "out-of-town" clothing.

Not much point in explaining to GRO, as this person doesn't seem to grasp the "what is" of this situation. Doesn't want to let go of the angst, in fact seems to enjoy repeating it. Like we could cause a change in law from this blog! Sad, really.

On the out-of-town location, there is other water (not from our aquifers) out there to be had for growth, (and an expandable sewer pretty soon) so while LO may not grow much due to lack of water, the valley can have mini-ranchettes, ag clusters, etc. instead of crops. All thanks to the "put-it-out-of-towners."

I've heard there were only 500 lots left unbuilt (don't know it that includes those 2 grandfathered subdivisions tho). The CSD, if not bankrupt, could buy up those lots like the Cambria CSD did with theirs, taking them out of play for water needs, controlling even the in town growth.

Oh well…; 4:09 PM, March 17, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Here is a little nugget a pal sent today: (This is especially for you GRO)

(Not from the local surfrider which is interesting)
http://surfrider.org/Factoids_Detail.aspx?FT_Id=20090316

AND

http://www-csgc.ucsd.edu/NEWSROOM/NEWSRELEASES/2009/CoastalWaterQuality.html

Los Osos got a teeny mention.; 5:02 PM, March 17, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Too bad the pollution from Morro Bay's leaky sewer isn't being "looked for"...

Maybe Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name) knows something like he did about ECOfluid.; 6:25 PM, March 17, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: To: Shark

I'm only saying that the County didn't do a proper/legal 218. That it is a general benefit. The PZ got no special benefit. We all know that the special benefit required a 2/3's vote and the County KNEW that they couldn't pull that one off. You can talk all you want about the water companies charging later -- That's not the point (and you know it) -- The County did the 218 illegally.

To: Lynette

A couple developers have told me that they need a big gravity system to build. I don't understand why they feel they couldn't with Step/Ponds or vacuum. But....

And no, Lynette, what's so sad is that the County had to trick, lie, go around the law, etc. to push for a project to suit the developers. And what's sad is that you all will be busted in time.

I'll keep repeating myself (just like you and Steve Rein do) because people have to know the truth -- unlike the bullshit you and Steve put out there to defend the County and the over-priced mega sewer that is totally unnecessary for a town this size. This is what your assignment was -- to monitor the blogs and promote M/W/H's project. My assignment is to tell the truth. People read this blog, the County reads this blog. Outsiders read this blog.

Oh, and do you care to address the horse stables off Highland. They're not in the PZ. They don't pollute either?!?

I do realize that Tri-W wouldn't promote the build out that out-of-town would. Stop trying to make me sound stupid, you know I'm not. Actually, I'd prefer Tri-W over out-of-town with the way the County is doing it. I always wanted ponds out of town with Step or Vacuum -- Not a super-sized traditional plant to collect septage from the entire County for developers!!

Don't try to blame me for out-of-town. Thank Jeff and Julie!! It was all a trick from Julie Tacker (sorry Ron)...

To: Real

I'm not saying that the County will only take the seniors homes. But they are the ones who will be hurt the most since their homes are paid for and they won't be able to come up with a few extra thousand dollars a year. The tax collector can sell their homes within three to five years with the liens on their homes. Many other homeowners will be hit the same way, but it's the seniors who already paid off the house.

The County is dirty rotten to not pick the most affordable solution. Rotten!; 9:38 PM, March 17, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Mark,

Not only has the RWQCB not looked at the leaking pipes in Morro Bay, they also ignored the Golf Course in Morro Bay (if anyone is polluting the Bay it's them -- big time).

It's all about Montgomery/Watson/Harza. That's it. End of story. And the relationship between the State Water Board and M/W/H. Not only does the State tell us what kind of system for Los Osos, they try to tell us where to put it and who puts it in!

Bad. Bad. Bad.; 9:42 PM, March 17, 2009
alabamasue said...: Hey Sewertoons -
I sam looking at past DVDs and may be able to give you Dean's last name. I will send you an email confirming what I have found, and you can decide whether to share it with wsm, or not. This has apparently sent him into a complete hissy fit. Good job, girl!; 9:42 PM, March 17, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: WOW! Thanks Alabamasue!

I have posted this before, but I am sewertoons@gmail.com AKA Lynette Tornatzky. Got home late - St. Patrick's Day at the Merrymaker, so I maY HAVE TO GET SOME DINNER AND CRASH BEFORE I CHECK MY E'S! Oops - caps lock on - sorry!; 11:26 PM, March 17, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: abs: I'm happy to see you have been driven to find Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name) and I am flattered that you would make time to review "the tape" in an effort to help Lynette Tornazky defend her honor and hope it works. It seems that you do not want to accept the correspondence from the company itself as proof that Mr. Dean (I forgot his last name) is not a representative which is proof that you and some others are engaged in something other than wastewater collection and treatment.

It's a shame you don't spend some time on something that would actually help your situation, given that, a welded energy intensive gravity pipe hooked up to a energy intensive treatment design that must be built to be "upgradeable to tertiary" at some later more expensive date is silly given tertiary technology that uses half the energy of Oxidation Ditch, nearly 1/3 the energy of Bio-Loc(tm) and is less expensive to build, operate and maintain, is available and appears to not have been studied.; 6:08 AM, March 18, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Vacuum and grinder pump "collection" appear to not have been studied either.; 7:40 AM, March 18, 2009
Churadogs said...: Inlet sez:"I would suggest, however, that just like there may be little science to justify the PZ definition, there is perhaps even less which shows those outside the PZ as the source of pollution in our aquifer. Even trying to force those outside the PZ to join in will be very problematic because of the past definition having held up in court. The inflation in construction costs during any legal proceedings to get Cabrillo in would more than wipe out any benefit of having them included."

Be very careful what you wish for . . . . the Stealth Basin Onsite Update being rushed through up in Sac. will mean that all you outside the PZ will be in Roger Briggs gunsights. Say your prayers as some of the cheapest onsite systems delivering 7 mgl etc. run, what? $40,000? People outside the PZ may rue the day they bought a house outside the PZ. That is, IF the RWQCB will be concerned without fear or favor with clean water. Bwa-hahahahah.

Get real sez:"I'm not saying that the County will only take the seniors homes. But they are the ones who will be hurt the most since their homes are paid for and they won't be able to come up with a few extra thousand dollars a year. "

At some time, when the hard numbers get finalized, I'm going to do a column on reverse mortgages. Seniors on fixed incomes with high equity seriously need to go ask about these loans. They've changed a good deal from the "bad old days," have quite a bit of flexibility, require a neutral evaluation (a vetting before any documents are signed to keep people safe from predatory sellers) and before some of you scream, ask yourself this: Will your house appreciate, say, more than 4-5k$ A YEAR? Once this slump is over, and it will be over, house prices and appreciation in this green-belt-locked, water-limited "gold coast" will continue to stay strong. If it's a choice between cost of selling, moving costs, increase taxes in a new home etc. a reverse mortgage can be waaaaayyyy cheaper and because of the home values here, you'll still come out ahead. I would encourage you to seriously check this out. As well as the financial help offered by the state for low-incomes seniors & etc.; 8:43 AM, March 18, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Thank you Ann for speaking the truth about reverse mortgages. I think a lot of people will benefit from the info you provide when you do write that column. You are absolutely correct.; 11:16 AM, March 18, 2009
Realistic1 said...: GRLO,

You're not saying the County will take the senior's homes?

Really?

Below is a direct quote from a previous thread...

"The County, OBVIOUSLY, wants the seniors' homes. These homes are probably paid off, and when they can't pay the big lump sum every year, a lien will go on their homes and will be taken by the County within three to five years!"

The County "wants" the senior's homes...that's what you said.

More fear mongering, your favorite past time.; 11:18 AM, March 18, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: 5 Questions To Ask Before Considering a Reverse Mortgage; 10:27 PM, March 18, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: If anyone is trying to sell you something and recommending you use a reverse mortgage to pay for it, that’s generally a good sign that you don’t need it and shouldn’t be buying it.

2) Can you afford a reverse mortgage? These loans are very expensive, and the amount you owe grows larger every month. The younger you are when you take out a reverse mortgage, the more the compound interest will grow, and the more you will owe. On the other hand, due to high up-front costs, these loans can be especially costly if you sell and move just a few years after taking one out.; 10:30 PM, March 18, 2009
alabamasue said...: WSM-
Why on earth would you be "flattered" that I spent time looking up references for a friend? It has nothing to do with you. Do you ever get it? I guess not; you are still trotting out the old, useless,debunked data. Yawn.
GRLO-
The banks, or county agency or whomever do not want our houses. What on earth would they do with them, beside selling them for a loss. The real money is in keeping people in their homes, with money to spend.; 10:34 PM, March 18, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: AMEN!; 11:02 PM, March 18, 2009
Alon Perlman said...: Ann? PZ definition? more of a engineering/political convenience. Others may say Social/engineering.
but no longer I.
Waterboard Science?
Military Inteligence?
Oxymoronic Concordance?

Unfortunately I've simply seen too much
non-science coming from "environ-mental-lists"

The Kitts study, paid for by Waterboard fines? ya think they would have embraced it.

Lynette- Great article on your link, Iv’e copied it below with inserted comments and highlights.
However...
The Dr. Kitts Study showed with 5000 overall(?) samples that the Los Osos Bacterial Coliform contribution to the Bay is miniscule (as in LESS than 1/10 of one percent).
The two seeps into the Bay; One at Baywood Pier and another about 50 yards South are the predominant sources contributing bacterial pollution in the Bay. I have photographs of extreamly violent flows coming out of the south one (spraying water five feet high). Several minutes later when the flow ended, there was a little fine flat surface foam (more then biofilm, less than suds) that dissipated another minute later, indicating that there was very little soap (dishwater or laundry detergent) present. Contrast that with foam several feet high, not dissipating in a photograph that Dan Berman TAC Member, Dir. MB NATIONAL Estuary program showed under the pilings under the MB restaurant row on the wharf. If the Baywood Actual storm drain "system" shows very little graywater effects, after collecting from our most flooded areas, how much Nitrates are in it? - Not a hecka lot. And no, the nitrates are not ALL ending up in our ground water (stable values).
Save the Bay from our Nitrates?
SAVE THE BAY FROM THE ENVIRONMENTALISTS I say
I no longer refer to my self as an Environmentalist when in Los Osos, The entry criteria was lowered somewhere around '07. (You have to say something bad about developers and not disagree with the Envirobabble spouted by similarly qualified "Environmentalists" and you are "In")
In Morro Bay I am proud to refer to myself as an Environmentalist, and am referred by some activists there as the Scientist, but more on that later.
The article on Lynettes link;
PALO ALTO – California Sea Grant researchers have strong evidence that septic tanks in Northern California are leaking nitrogen and phosphate into coastal waters that can trigger algal blooms.
Reporting in the journal Limnology and Oceanography, they report finding elevated levels of these “nutrients” in the surf zone during periods of high groundwater flows to the beach.
Following one of these freshwater pulses, they observed a four-day elevation in chlorophyll-a levels – a proxy for phytoplankton concentrations. Though it is extremely difficult to attribute any single algal bloom to the presence of higher than normal nutrient levels, the general link between nutrification and algal blooms is widely recognized for both marine and freshwater ecosystems.
“Our project is one of the first in California to show definitively that septic tanks can affect coastal water quality through submarine groundwater discharge,” says Alexandria Boehm, a professor in the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering at Stanford University.
Schematic of septic system and how waste enters groundwater. Credit: Michigan State University Extension
Most research on septic systems has focused on their effects on terrestrial ecosystems, Boehm explains. The value of this project is that it shows they can also impact marine ecosystems via polluted groundwater discharging directly to the ocean.
In theory, the nutrient spikes detected in Northern California could have come from polluted creeks or runoff. This, however, is not what scientists believe is happening because their fieldwork was conducted in summertime when, they say, groundwater is the only source of freshwater to the coast.
Fertilizers spread on lawns and crops could also potentially be sources of the nutrients they detected. Again, however, scientists rule out this possibility because of the concomitantly high levels of human fecal indicator bacteria detected in groundwater samples collected between the septic systems and shoreline.
NOW READ THIS
Interestingly, bacteria counts in beach water samples did not rise and fall with changes in groundwater fluxes, suggesting the beach aquifer removes pathogens, says Stanford doctoral student, Nicholas de Sieyes, the lead author of the journal article. “Some of our current research is focusing on this point.”
[The beach aquifer? actually its the Sands. Stinson Beach has sands only on the beach. That's what filters out the bacteria. The SEPTIC TANKS AND LEECHFIELDS ARE MORE THEN LIKELY LOCATED ON CLAY SOILS. IN LOS OSOS WE HAVE SANDS EVEN EAST PAST SOUTH BAY BLVD. yep
Baywood Fines (Sands) Extend East Past the PROHIBITION ZONE boundary]
From a scientific perspective, the researchers were not surprised to find a link between septic systems and beach water quality. “It is what we expected,” Boehm says.
The unanticipated discovery was the way in which tidal cycles modulate freshwater fluxes to the coast. Indeed, their prediction was that fresh groundwater flows would peak during spring tides, when the tidal forces of the Sun and Moon reinforce each other. Instead, the greatest pulses of exiting groundwater occurred during neap tides, when weak tidal forcing results in minimal differences between high and low tides.
In particular, they measured a fresh groundwater discharge rate of 1.2 to 4.7 liters per minute per meter during neap tides, compared with .1 to .5 liters per minute per meter during spring tides. During neap tides, nitrogen levels rose 35 percent, phosphate levels 27 percent and silicate levels 14 percent, as compared with spring tide measurements.
Their technical explanation for the pattern is outlined in detail in their peer-reviewed work. The gist of it is that ocean water fills the beach aquifer during high spring tides, creating a sort of hydraulic mound in front of fresh groundwater. During low tides, all of this saltwater must drain back to sea before fresh groundwater can begin to exit. During neap tides, the absence of a formidable hydraulic mound results in a greater release of fresh groundwater to the beach during low tide, hence their results.
All of the fieldwork, which will continue into the summer of 2009, was conducted at Stinson Beach in Marin County because of the community’s interest in protecting its beach water quality.
“We don’t think our findings are unique to Stinson Beach,” de Sieyes says, noting that septic systems are common along coastal counties north of San Francisco, as well as in more densely populated areas such as Morro Bay, Malibu, Rincon and Los Osos.
[TA-DA... Life in Los Osos is a Beech, and then you get a CDO]
In recognition of the potential environmental implications for beach, ocean and river ecosystems, the California legislature has directed the State Water Resources Control Board to establish regulations on septic systems. California and Michigan are the nation’s only two states without statewide regulations on septic systems.
Critics of the proposed changes cite a lack of data showing septic systems contribute to actual water-quality problems. “I think it’s really important for people to know that we’ve quantified the impact of septic systems on the coastal ocean at one location, that there were documentable effects on groundwater and coastal water quality and that, in general, on-site wastewater treatment is indeed an important environmental concern and may require additional regulatory attention,” de Sieyes wrote in an email exchange.; 11:03 PM, March 18, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Real,

The Real Estate "food chain" will begin when the seniors (and everyone else) can't afford the sewer.

Seniors shouldn't have to give up 1/4 (or more) of their income for a sewer.

It will be stressful for everyone. Year after year. It's not like buying a car and paying it off in five years.

The cost will rise every year. So will the stress.

Hey, why don't you tell us all what happens if someone doesn't have the cash up front for the hook up/lateral costs?

Does the County want the homes, sure they do, they'll take them.

Remember how David Edge and County Tax assessor got all those lots up north? And what, for about $100 a piece? That was like insider trading to me...; 9:25 AM, March 19, 2009
Realistic1 said...: Don't deflect, GRLO.

You said the County "wants" the senior's homes. That's what you wrote, and that's what you meant.

As for what happens if people don't have the cash to hook up - there is a fund established through the San Luis Obispo Community Foundation (I think it's called the LO Low Income assistance fund, or something close to that) that has quite a bit of money in it for just that purpose.

Instead of constantly trying to sabotage the effort to build a sewer, people should put their considerable energy into raising more money to aid the low income property owners.; 10:53 AM, March 19, 2009
Realistic1 said...: I also choose to believe that the County will attempt to assist those who can't afford to hook up - I choose not to view the County as vultures circling low income property owners, waiting to pick their bones.; 11:09 AM, March 19, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Real,

I feel like I'm talking to Maria.

Yep, the County wants our homes, our water and our tax dollars.

They give nothing. No roads, nothing.

County employees like David Edge and the tax collector buy up lots in Cayucos for nothing.

You say, "...sewer, people should put their considerable energy into raising more money to aid the low income property owners...."

Yeah, right, Real. You want the people to raise money to aid.

We all need Aid. The County should have had the state and federal pay their share of benefit for the wastewater project! That would have been "aid" -- what do you have to say about that?!; 6:49 PM, March 19, 2009
Realistic1 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 8:36 AM, March 20, 2009
Realistic1 said...: That it's ancient history, that people like you obstructed the sewer when we could have had it practically for free, and that it's time to move on and get things done.

We need to move ahead get it done before it gets anymore expensive.; 8:38 AM, March 20, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Real,

You're not very realistic at all.

You say that people obstructed a sewer when we could have had it practically for free.

Now, that's a stretch.

It was the County that didn't do it, please stop blaming anyone else.

Yes, we can move ahead and get things done, but it has to be done right.

If a plant won't correct any pollution problems for 30 years or so, what's you hurry???

Do it right, real, not wrong.; 9:55 PM, March 20, 2009

Pages

Friday, March 13, 2009

167 comments: