Calhouns Can(n)ons

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

Formal Complaint to BOS

The following was presented to the Board of Supervisors on May 5th, 2009 with supporting documents now on the public record

Dear Supervisor Gibson and Board Members:

As promised, here is a copy of my presentation from today (I got through about 1/4 of it during public comment) with the additional reference documents attached. Please include these in the public record and post in the official minutes for the meeting.

It has taken quite a bit of time to gather all of these documents for you, and many of these were referenced in several of my earlier communications with your Board.

Mr. Jensen, the AB2701 advisory vote was not in the bill, that was my error, but it was something that Assemblyman Blakeslee and I discussed extensively and I believe it is included in his personal notes that accompany the Bill, along with his request that the State audit the LOCSD waste water project; he understood the seriousness of these issues. I will look for his notes and I suggest you discuss this with him, too. Paavo and I also discussed the timing of an advisory vote regularly, perhaps he can shed additional light on this topic for everyone.

Please Mr. Gibson, do not "shoot the messenger", my comments today were not opinions, nor were they "unsubstantiated claims", as you stated in your closing comments. I presented both facts and questions to your Board that require clarification. These facts presented were derived from my first hand experiences and observations and I am simply presenting these facts to the current decision-makers for their evaluation.

It is my duty and responsibility, that is how I see it. And just like you said about your decisions, "its not personal" for me either.

I believe that my concerns have merit, and I have no ulterior motive for making this effort to collect all of these documents for you other than keeping my promise to the people of Los Osos.

My promise to my community was to deliver an affordable 21st century sustainable water and waste water project as soon as possible, and I worked night and day towards that goal for over six years now, first as an activist and then as an elected official, despite unbelievable adversity.

My promise to my community was if the LOCSD supported AB 2701, we would be assured a fair, honest and open process and that all alternatives would be explored - including gravity and step and everything in between - so the people would get the best project for the best price.

That is why pre-empting the decisions of the Planning Commission, by expediting Public Works' recommendations to short-list gravity collection teams with the MWH design only is a bad idea - it circumvents the fair and coequal process that you promised the people, and it stifles the creative solutions that we need, and that is what is currently causing this recent citizen upheaval.

My goals are ones that I think we all share. The only way we can get there is by working together, citizens with their elected officials in an open democratic process, through these very tough issues and with mutual respect for our various points of view.

Thank you in advance for reviewing these additional materials.
Sincerely,
Lisa Schicker, Past President and LOCSD Board Member 2004-2008

...............................

SUMMARY

In light of the information that has been provided to your Board and to the public and for the record, I request that your Board take action:
1. Vote to agendize a review of the LOWTP design build procurement process and rescind the current consultant shortlist, if it has been approved, until a complete investigation can occur and implement independent third party oversight for the Wastewater Project design build process.
2. Vote to agendize an audit of all County/Agency contracts that the Public Works Director has managed, including the Lopez Lake Dam Retrofit project, and including his past relationships with consultants such as RMC, Carollo, Carella, and MWH, among others. These same firms were the shortlisted bidders for the design of the LOCSD waste water project and most of them are already working on your project, too.
For your consideration:“Elected and public employees are charged with a legal duty to report a suspected crime or illegal activities… If Board members knew about the illegal activity, their vote approving the final contract affirmed and condones it and all subsequent actions approving warrants and amendments to the contract simply continued the fraud on the public. They essentially participated in the criminal activity.” (Excerpt from the D.A.'s letter to LOCSD and their Attorneys, March 2, 2006)

This quote is timely for you; as you now have in your possession information and disclosure of illegal acts that have tainted the shortlisting and design build procurement process for the Los Osos project. This information will apply to all subsequent decisions that you make.

As I have said many times before, all Los Osos has ever asked for is a fair and honest process. We can still get there. Thank you for consideration of these materials.
May 5, 2009

RE: Formal Complaint: Mr. Ogren’s Illegal MWH Contract, Conflict of Interest with MWH and Flaws with the Short listing of MWH and the Design-build Procurement Process for the Los Osos Wastewater ProjectDear Honorable Chairperson Gibson and Board of Supervisors:As part of my duties as a previously elected person with direct knowledge of events that will influence decisions you will soon make on behalf of Los Osos citizens, it is my duty and responsibility to make you aware of information and activities that are unethical, illegal, and/or a suspected crime.This will be my tenth communication and correspondence with you regarding a formal complaint filed a month ago, alerting you to past illegal activities of the Public Works Director, Paavo Ogren that are related to current County business and to unethical activities by consultants hired by Mr. Ogren for SLO County projects, including the LOWTP.I have confirmed that your Board and/or County Counsel received my previous correspondence and documents which provide Attorney, DA and Engineering documents describing how Paavo Ogren (as IGM), directed the execution of an illegal MWH contract for the LOCSD's LOWTP. Mr. Ogren appears now to have also violated the design-build code and contract procurement requirements for the County's project by hiring MWH in the fall of 2006, ignoring the refusal of the LOCSD to issue the necessary conflict waiver, and then short listing this same MWH firm again in April 2009.

MWH is a firm that has already made millions in Los Osos from this illegal contract, for a project that no one wanted (see your recent survey results), and has filed lawsuits against the citizens/LOCSD that are still active. They are also under investigation by the DOJ and FBI in Florida - for bid rigging and unethical billing practices. How did MWH ever make it past the reference check that was conducted by the County's Design Build interview panel? Who conducted this interview and what were their prior relationships with MWH? Did MWH disclose their current lawsuits, their legal problems in Florida or complaints still pending against them at the Construction Management Association to the County, as is customary?My purpose is to assure, for the public record, that you are fully aware of the seriousness of these allegations. I recommend that each of you request that County Counsel compile a complete set of materials sent to you regarding this matter and that you have all the supporting documents, too, in order to remain completely informed. I also request that you take prompt action to protect the County taxpayers and Citizens of Los Osos from any further financial harm. Please do not allow the continuation of a tainted procurement process being led by the Public Works Director, when at the very least there now is a perceived conflict of interest; both MWH and your Public Works Director must be immediately removed from working on this project.I have attached additional supporting documents in PDF format for your review; most are new, and some have been previously referenced in writing and/or during my public testimony from March 28, 2009 to the present.Here is a list of the enclosed attachments:1. Official Memo from GM Bruce Buel, sent to LOCSD Board: January 6, 2006, stating that Interim GM Paavo Ogren directed him to backdate the first MWH contract for $288,000. According to the County DA, this is considered a “violation of Penal Code Section 424 and Government Code Section 6200, both of which prohibit falsification of public records such as the backdated contract...” Paavo Ogren knowingly directed the backdating of the original contract, affecting all subsequent amendments and contracts for over $16 million with MWH, which were executed after the fraudulent first contract. 2. Copy of the LOCSD/MWH backdated contract. The Attorney (and "approved to form" statement) and the Board President signatures are missing, as are required on LOCSD public contracts. Dated September 1, 1999, Paavo Ogren, IGM was in charge, before Bruce Buel, eventual GM, was even employed.3. LOCSD Resolution 2005-47, requiring DA to investigate the MWH contracts. December 2005.4. Letter 1 to DA, all attachments, citing illegal acts and false claims, and including false claim letter to MWH (12-8-05), and an invoice showing Ogren's approval of $29K invoice from MWH without board authority in Nov 1999. This letter to the DA constituted the reporting of a crime, which by receipt of this note, you now have also been notified.5. Letter 2 to DA, citing illegal acts - March 2006.6. Letter to AG with all copies of DA correspondence, citing illegal acts - March 2006.7. LOCSD letter to Construction Management Association, citing illegal acts, conflict of interest and examples of MWH poor engineering judgment. March 2006.8. LOCSD letters 1 and 2 to MWH, terminating contracts and detailing all False Claims. August 2006.9. Newspaper articles regarding these issues. In light of the information that has been provided to your Board and to the public and for the record, I request that the BOS:
1. Vote to agendize a review of the LOWTP design build procurement process and rescind the current consultant shortlist, if it has been approved, until a complete investigation can occur and implement independent third party oversight for the Wastewater Project design build process.
2. Vote to agendize an audit of all County/Agency contracts that the Public Works Director has managed, including the Lopez Lake Dam Retrofit project, and including his past relationships with consultants such as RMC, Carollo, Carella, and MWH, among others.One last thought, for your consideration:“Elected and public employees are charged with a legal duty to report a suspected crime or illegal activities… If Board members knew about the illegal activity, their vote approving the final contract affirmed and condones it and all subsequent actions approving warrants and amendments to the contract simply continued the fraud on the public. They essentially participated in the criminal activity.” (Excerpt from the D.A.'s letter to LOCSD and their Attorneys, March 2, 2006)

This quote is timely for you; as you have in your possession information and disclosure of illegal acts that have tainted the short listing and design build procurement process for the Los Osos project. This information will apply to all subsequent decisions that you make.

As I have said many times before, all Los Osos has ever asked for is a fair and honest process. We can still get there. Thank you for consideration of these materials.

Most Sincerely,

Lisa SchickerPast President and Director, LOCSD 2004-2008
Cc: The citizens of Los Osos, members of my community will also receive copies of this formal complaint
County Counsel, Design Build Institute of America, Construction Management Institute of America, DOJ, DA and AG
This Formal Complaint was presented in person during public comment at BOS Meeting - Los Osos Wastewater Update and hand delivered to each supervisor and the County Clerk for inclusion in the record

This formal complaint with all attachments was emailed to the BOS, and County Counsel on the evening of May 5, 2009.

114 comments:

FOGSWAMP said...: Sad tale.

I'll bet the SLO County counsel "damage control unit" is working ovetime nowadays.; 8:11 AM, May 06, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Lisa and the rest of the CSD5 knew of the 'alleged illegal behavior' of MWH back in 2005 as reported to the CSD board by then GM Dan Blesky and the CSD's WWTP Construction Contract Consultants WRA; and had the ability to sue over this issue (even while in bankruptcy); the CSD did not pursue such a lawsuit with vigor. This fact raises the issue that the CSD5, knowing of the 'alleged illegal behavior', failed to carry out their responsibilities to protect the public from fraud. If the case against MWH is so 'undeniable' then why did the CSD5 not pursue it vigorously in 2005? If Lisa and the CSD5 did not do so then, then why is Lisa bringing up the MWH issue NOW years after the alleged events?

The legal theory is if the initial MWH contract can be made void per the alleged fraud, then all subsequent contracts with the LOWWTP are suspect too and possibly void. Only problem is that nothing improper or illegal happened on the initial contract as the CSD had already publicly directed MWH to perform the work with the understanding that the actual contract would come later. In essence, the CSD had a binding contract prior to the actual signing of the official document. In short, the lawsuit against MWH is a real loser as nothing improper happened.

What Lisa wants is the LOCSD's WWTP contracts are made void due to the 'alleged fraud'. In her mind, the old LOCSD WWTP was based upon fraudulent (illegal) acts; hence she was justified in her actions pertaining to the WWTP while acting president of the LOCSD BOD. She is being so insistent and vigorous about this issue today as she seeks to redeem herself personally and in the public’s eye regarding her failures while in public office; and in doing vindicate herself and the CSD5 as a whole.

Problem is that she is incorrect. Lisa is in complete denial of the incredible damage she has caused by her mismanagement of the CSD.

-R; 8:17 AM, May 06, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Richard has a really good point in one way.

If there was some sort of a fraud here and there hasn't been new information found since 2005, the LOCSD board under Lisa's direction failed to act to protect the public interest and should be held personally responsible for my increased costs.

Someone ought to sue Lisa over this matter because she dropped the ball.

Word Verification: orenco; 9:43 AM, May 06, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: SharkInlet,

Exactly! Lisa & the CSD5 really failed in her/their responsibilities to protect the public interest back in 2005 re: the MWH allegation of fraud! The CSD5 really believes that fraud occured YET DID NOTHING!

The simple truth is that nothing was done because there is no validity to the allegations; hence a civil lawsuit would have been a big loser and waste of CSD funds!. Atleast the CSD5 got that one right! LOL

-R; 9:55 AM, May 06, 2009
Billy Dunne said...: It’s almost surreal watching the obstructionist faction the past weeks as the project creeps forward. Their reactions to events that are contrary to their “demands” are just so embarrassing, and for me, increasingly loathsome. Their tactics are simple and obvious: impugn the integrity of anyone and everyone who does not agree with them, claim conspiracy and victimization at every turn, employ fuzzy math or downright lie if surveys and elections and opinions don’t go your way, and constantly claim you represent all of Los Osos, even though it is quite obvious you don’t.

I’m not sure how Paavo and Bruce Gibson and everyone else from the BOS to the RWQCB to any other agency in authority can sit there and let these people impugn their character and ethics and intelligence week after week after week. But I know how I feel when these people piss all over my intelligence and the intelligence of the majority of Los Osos homeowners who support the county process; who support a conventional gravity collection system; and support the building of a sewer as expeditiously as possible, when they say we’re ignorant, or uninformed, or “just go along with everyone else” or are a member of Taxpayers Watch. Or the new, galling, pathetic, incredibly insulting mantra that we support the county and a gravity collection system because we want to get rid of the riff raff in Los Osos. Disgusting. Galling. But not surprising after watching these antics for years now from the sewer-as-religion cult.

And I know how I feel when these people piss all over the democratic process when it doesn’t conclude what they want it to conclude. When Bill Moylan can wave a magic wand and say, with a straight face, that 70% didn’t vote for gravity, only 50% did…..poof….magic….”it’s a dead heat” according to magician Bill. When Piper Reilly could wave her magic wand and say, with a straight face, that 80% didn’t vote to assess themselves through the 218 vote, only 57% did…poof….just like that…magic…. Or when people scoff at the election victories of pro-county process candidates Maria and Marshall, but somehow called it a “mandate” when 150 votes or so determined the outcome of the recall, only 20 votes determining Measure B.

I know how I feel when someone like Lisa Schicker can pretend she stands up for all those in Los Osos: for truth, justice and the American way, but can’t explain to me why her pal Gail McPherson and her PZLDF buddies have not paid their 75% share of a lawsuit I do not, and never did support. Where’s the money? MY money? Where’s the outrage Ms. Stand Up For Justice for Los Osos? And by the way, when you’re at it, please explain “$100.00 a month, we’ve got a plan, we won’t get fined, we’re ready to go.” You want to talk integrity, and justice, and corruption? Start with the person in the mirror.

Bruce Gibson’s description of the antics of these people as “offensive” is an understatement. Here’s hoping the time has come that the supervisors, and the majority of Los Osos homeowners who support the county process, recognize the tactics of these people for what they are: scurrilous; lowbrow; crude; disingenuous; and desperate, and say “enough!!.” Here’s hoping the majority of the Los Osos homeowners who support the county process—good, decent, hardworking, fair people, not the monsters the obstructionists want people to believe they are—continue to voice their support to the BOS, and continue to question the desperate actions of the desperate few who see a sewer in Los Osos and will do anything and everything to stop it.

Remember these numbers: 80% voted to assess. 70% voted for gravity. A clear majority voted for a pro-county process CSD. No amount of legerdemain can erase these numbers. No amount of flippant excuse-making or insulting accusations of misconduct can change these facts.; 9:58 AM, May 06, 2009
Ron said...: "Richard" wrote:

"Only problem is that nothing improper or illegal happened on the initial contract as the CSD had already publicly directed MWH to perform the work..."

MWH should be fired due to sheer incompetence.

For god's sake, they wasted six years, and raked in millions developing a sewer-park-plant in the middle of Los Osos for the sole reason that the people of Los Osos could easily get to the park in their sewer plant.

The GINORMOUS problem for MWH? As I've been reporting forever, no one other than Bruce Gibson's Parks Commissioner, and former LOCSD vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, wanted a mid-town "sewer-park" to begin with.

"The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The sites on the outskirts of town could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents..."
-- Tri-W Facilities Report, 2001 (As first reported in New Times, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, September, 2004)

"... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the Los Osos CSD) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
-- California Coastal Commission, Tri-W Development Permit, 2004, now expired (As first reported in SewerWatch, June 15, 2005)

"Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
-- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

How 'bout that exclusive graphic I posted at SewerWatch, where I overlayed the SECOND Tri-W site plan on top of the FIRST Tri-W site plan?

Waaaaay cool!Kinda stares you in the face, huh?; 9:58 AM, May 06, 2009
Richard LeGros said...: Ron,

GEE....no big suprise to all of us as to what your response about MWH would be.... just more of your conspiracy fantasy / pandora-bashing baloney. Sheesh!

-R

PS Billy Dunne: I whole-heartedly agree.; 10:17 AM, May 06, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Copy and pasted from the previous article's comment section.

Responding to Lynette:

First, I would like [Lynette] to address the Cape Coral issue.

Second, I wanted to state that talking about what is and isn't "viable lawsuit" material is not what I'm discussing.

I've plainly stated that MWH has a previous history with Los Osos and pending litigation with the district and to see MWH on the design-build RFQ shortlist for both collection system and treatment facility, it shows that the County has substantial preference for MWH.

At the Board of Supervisors meeting yesterday, when Paavo Ogren rattled off MWH's qualifications, it just struck me in a way that he's selling MWH instead of assuring the people of Los Osos that there are other contractors beside MWH on the design-build RFQ.

With the backdating contract issue looming over his head, to speak about the wonders of MWH sheds some light on what Gibson has broadly labeled the accusations as "unsubstantiated assertions."

I'm surprised that none of you have said to me, "But what about ARB, Sundst Construction for collection? Auburn and CDM for treatment?" Instead, I find that many of you here have been defending MWH as if they've already been sole-sourced by the County. That's not exactly encouraging a fair, competitive design-build process.

When you say, "Time is up," it makes me wonder whether you're talking about the statute of limitations or that you have inside information about the County choosing MWH. Then again, you're assuming that I'm trying to pursue something with them. I'm just laying the facts out on the table.; 10:58 AM, May 06, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Cheers to Billy Dunne!!!!! Beautiful writing and you tell it just like it is!!

(Jeers to ron --- again. Boring!!!!); 11:07 AM, May 06, 2009
Ron said...: Well, lookee what Homeboy's uncovered (damn, I'm good):

- - -
LOS OSOS COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT WASTEWATER FACILITIES PROJECT DRAFT PROJECT REPORT:

Prepared by

OSWALD ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, INC.

JANUARY 31, 2000
- - -

I suppose it can be argued whether or not Montgomery Watson (Harza) did or didn't do something illegal in Los Osos, but what can not be argued, is that, as an engineering firm, they flat-out suck.

"To assist in the planning and preliminary design and implementation of the ("better, cheaper, faster") Wastewater Project, the (1999 - 2000) Los Osos CSD has assembled a team of professional consultants. The list of Wastewater Project consultants and their respective responsibilities includes: ( 1 ) Montgomery Watson, Project Manager..."
-- Oswald Engineering, January 31, 2000

Great. Perfect.

Not only did Montgomery Watson waste five years (2000 - 2005) developing an industrial, $200-month "bait and switchy" sewer-park-plant in the middle of Los Osos for no reason whatsoever, but they ALSO wasted another TWO YEARS (1999 - 2000) developing a "70-acre Resource Park" sewer system that was never going to work, and, it never worked.

Heck of a job, guys!

Not to go Trump, or anything, but MWH, "You're fired!"

Talk about a must read! That Oswald report, in the context of 2009, absolutely rocks.

Check out some of these quotes:

"We are especially indebted to Gary Karner and Pandora Nash-Karner, Rosemary Bowker, Dr. Les Bowker, and, Wade Brim, Frank Freiler, Jerry Gregory, Geof Gurley, Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley, Dave Mayfield, Virgil Just, Paul Reynolds, Dr. Thomas Ruehr, Bob Semenson, and Stan Stein. Each one of these individuals has contributed enormously to the sustained development of the current Wastewater Project, both individually and several as members of the Los Osos Community Services District Board of Directors and/or the several CSD committees."

and;

"Paavo Ogren, Interim General Manager of the Los Osos Community Services District (CSD), provided assistance in obtaining County mapping and relevant engineering reports and during our contract negotiations with Los Osos CSD attorney Jon Seitz. Bruce Buel, the new Los Osos CSD General Manager provided great assistance and encouragement during the preparation of this Draft Project Report; Wastewater Project Manager Mark Ysusi of Montgomery Watson provided strong leadership in coordinating the Wastewater Project"

and;

"We wish to acknowledge Frank Freiler, Jerry Gregory, and Bob Semenson who have been especially helpful to us and our STEG/STEP design engineer"

AWE-SUM!; 11:11 AM, May 06, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Billy,

Some would fault you for use of the term "obstructionist" because it isn't helpful ... because it drives a wedge between people in Los Osos. I would tend to agree.

On the other hand, when we consider Lisa's actions about MWH (um .... when she had the power and authority to actually do something about a possible wrongdoing she did nothing) and her claims to the County on Tuesday (and repeated in Ann's blog) ... it is clear that there are only two possible conclusions.

Either Lisa was an incompetent board president ... or she is an obstructionist who is attempting to throw up road blocks because she wants to stop the current County plan. I guess there is a third option as well ... both.

If there is another explanation for why someone who could have taken action at one point in time but chose not to is now choosing to complain that others are not taking action on that exact same issue today.; 11:14 AM, May 06, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Aaron, I'm not going to address the Cape Coral issue. Neither of us know enough about that to discuss it. But if you want, feel free…

The County preferred THREE contractors. MWH is the only one heavily discussed as it is the only one the obstructionists can try to place fault with. The pending litigation with the District may very well go in favor of MWH, but in any case, it has no bearing here. (Unless they win the job - in which case, should they win the "pending litigation," there might be an advantage to the payback from us - namely the LOCSD. And that is just my non-lawyerly speculation.) It is of no concern to the current project according to County Counsel, so unless you are planning a lawsuit (and you don't indicate that you are), that is where it stands.

Paavo spoke of their qualifications because their qualifications were questioned. Had he been asked, he could have spoken to the qualifications of the other two contractors as well. No need to read anything else into that, is there? You are entitled to your feelings otherwise, of course.

Please cite where we have been "defending" MWH as if they have been sole sourced.

I have no "inside information."

I feel that you have been reading a bit too much into the scare tactics of the anti-MWH group and too little into the words of Warren Jensen.; 11:33 AM, May 06, 2009
TCG said...: I don't see it as an "either, or" situation with Lisa Schicker. She was both an incompetent and dangerous CSD Director and is now a blatent obstructionist.

Her past actions caused much mental anguish and a lot of financial peril to the town. Her current actions are an attempt to do more of the same.

With Mr' Ogren's key involvement, the County has cranked out some very large, beneficial, and successful public works projects in the past decade or so (Lopez Dam Retrofit, Cayucos regional water treatment system, Nacimiento Water Project, among others) while the CSD, under Lisa's direction, did very little positive, and much negative. I disagree with virtually everything that this women stands for.; 11:33 AM, May 06, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: I want to address Billy Dunne because he has a lot of pent-up anger and resentment that I find to be symbolic of the ground-swell of animosity that's been brewing in town.

It's almost surreal to watch people obsess over the notion that homeowners -- who are uncomfortable with the County process -- are "obstructionists."

The fact of the matter is that you have a lot of people with differing viewpoints. Everyone, including you Billy Dune, has the fundamental right to speech. You just don't have the right to quash it.

Since the American people were given the first amendment right to freedom of speech on June 21, 1788, when the U.S. Constitution was ratified, people have been entitled to speak without being oppressed by their fellow man.

You said, "Their tactics are simple and obvious: impugn the integrity of anyone and everyone who does not agree with them, claim conspiracy and victimization at every turn, employ fuzzy math or downright lie if surveys and elections and opinions don’t go your way, and constantly claim you represent all of Los Osos, even though it is quite obvious you don’t."

I could say the same about you. I could say the very same about most of the bloggers here. Pot calling the kettle black.

It's my belief that none of us can say that we represent any faction, any "majority" or any "minority," because everyone has a unique, individualistic structure of beliefs. We can only represent ourselves and stand proudly next to those who have similar ideologies.

Then at the end of your post, you write, "Here’s hoping the majority of the Los Osos homeowners..." Neither you nor I know what the majority is.

When it comes to the County, there are questions: important questions, doubts, suspicions that still have a foundation when you remove the bitterness pulp from them. Some people have raised the same topics ad nauseum at the podium for years, creating the sewer-as-religion cult mentality. The repetition is tiresome and the constant character attacks are genuinely obscene, but maybe, just maybe those topics aren't thoroughly addressed. Maybe the County isn't doing something right. Maybe the County isn't perfect. We're not perfect.

You wrote, "And I know how I feel when these people piss all over the democratic process when it doesn’t conclude what they want it to conclude."

The County has followed the mantra: if they didn't participate, they don't count. There were many people who didn't participate in the 218 vote and some who voted "yes" felt they were coerced by the RWQCB to do so or else they would be at the receiving end of enforcement. Those who didn't participate, during the 218 vote, would have swayed the vote significantly if they did -- to what direction, I don't know, but somehow, the vote was a "mandate" by the community when many in the community did not vote or felt coerced to vote in a certain way. As far as the community survey, it's true that we had a extraordinary return rate of 34%, but 66% of the community did not send their surveys in so it's not exactly a clear representation of what the community feels. On top of that, without any additional sources included in the packet, Opinion Studies crafted questions that made gravity collection look far more favorable than STEP/STEG so we had a survey with push-poll results. My observations aren't based on fuzzy math or conspiracies. They're heavily grounded in reality.

Your generation, your demographic holds very jaded views. Let's hope that my generation sees things differently.; 11:44 AM, May 06, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Lynette,

I know about the Cape Coral story because I researched it for the publication.

You really need to stop presuming what I know or don't know, what I can or can't do. It's just so condescending, and in the long run, it attests to your personal integrity. The remarks are so consistently, constantly and flagrantly crude that I don't have to illustrate it by my own design.

Paavo's remarks were unprofessional. His gushing of praise and awe over MWH was an overkill. He should have left it at, "We're not blacklisting anyone. That would be unethical." That's all that he needed to say.

MWH's current involvement with the district shows a conflict of interest. Once again, a close shave.; 11:55 AM, May 06, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Aaron, until you show me that you are part of the Cape Coral case, or at the very least your JD sheepskin, no one on the outside knows enough to comment as to MWH's integrity. It is just speculation at this point. Do you know more than I? Absolutely.

The rest is in IYHO.; 12:02 PM, May 06, 2009
TCG said...: Aaron,

MWH has a legal claim of lost expenses pending with the CSD. The County may contract with MWH for it's possible project (provided that firm is the low bidder and meets other stipulated requirements of the RFP).

The County is not the District. AB 2701 states thate the CSD must stay out of the project.

Based on these circumstances, please clarify why you believe that "MWH's current involvement with the district shows a conflict of interest" with the County's potential project. Thanks.; 12:13 PM, May 06, 2009
Realistic1 said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 12:13 PM, May 06, 2009
Realistic1 said...: "With the backdating contract issue looming over his head, to speak about the wonders of MWH sheds some light on what Gibson has broadly labeled the accusations as "unsubstantiated assertions."

The backdating of the MWH contract is not looming over anyone's head. Contracts are signed retroactively all the time. Verbal agreements in principle are made, with contract details to be ironed out later. You seem to think you have something - you don't.

Lisa's spectacle at the BOS yesterday was embarrassing for everyone. She did nothing but make herself look like a crazed lunatic. Her and Gail's attempts to deflect attention from their own miserable failure to present a viable plan was downright pathetic. I wouldn't be shocked if MWH slapped both of them with a restraint of trade & defamation lawsuit. I wonder who they'll get to pay for that defense...maybe Shaunna's available.; 12:14 PM, May 06, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Richard,

I'm so glad you're LOL. It's real funny, huh?!

Real funny you ripped up ESHA and viewshed to start a project before the recall and before a 218 vote! Yep, real funny.

You wanted to make sure that Los Osos would be known as the place with the sewer in the middle of town. Yep, real funny.

Now, when the County, according to a few laws are to seek the most cost effective chose to select the most expensive. Yep, real funny.

It sure didn't take YOU long to high tail it out of the (illegal) PZ now did it?! BTW, I say illegal because clean water benefits the entire district Richard. You have studied the 218 and how to avoid it. You know better than anyone here how illegal this whole thing has been from day one! But that's okay, you live up there in your home in Cabrillo, of course, LOL at all the PZ people you screwed. Yep, real nice Richard!!!!!

P.S. YOU left Lisa with one BIG mess and you and Pandora planned it that way. It's all in writing, now isn't it?! Yep, real funny Richard!

And to Shark,

You promote Tri-W for years, you say it's cheaper. You've never shown your face at any CSD meeting, and so please tell us again why all the interest on your part??? How much were you assessed?; 12:39 PM, May 06, 2009
Billy Dunne said...: Aaron says: "Neither you nor I know what the majority is."

Billy Dunne says, uh, well, as far as the recent survey, I DO know what the majority is. 70% prefer gravity. Would it be better for you if I qualified the statement by saying 70% of those who voted preferred gravity? OK. 70% of those who voted preferred gravity.

Aaron says: "The County has followed the mantra: if they didn't participate, they don't count."

Billy Dunne says, well, uh, yep, the county says that. And so says the Federal government. More than 35% of the American people didn't vote in the 2008 presidential election. I'm not about to give the election to John McCain because of that. And yes, I will say this: the majority of Americans who voted preferred Barack Obama to john McCain.

Billy Dunne said: Their tactics are simple and obvious...claim conspiracy and victimization at every turn, employ fuzzy math or downright lie if surveys and elections and opinions don’t go your way...."

Aaron says: There were many people who didn't participate in the 218 vote and some who voted "yes" felt they were coerced by the RWQCB to do so or else they would be at the receiving end of enforcement. Those who didn't participate, during the 218 vote, would have swayed the vote significantly if they did -- to what direction, I don't know, but somehow, the vote was a "mandate" by the community when many in the community did not vote or felt coerced to vote in a certain way. As far as the community survey, it's true that we had a extraordinary return rate of 34%, but 66% of the community did not send their surveys in so it's not exactly a clear representation of what the community feels. On top of that, without any additional sources included in the packet, Opinion Studies crafted questions that made gravity collection look far more favorable than STEP/STEG so we had a survey with push-poll results."

Billy Dunne says: Thanks for proving my point Aaron.

Aaron says: "You just don't have the right to quash it."

BD says: Who is quashing your right to free speech Aaron?

Aaron says: "Your generation, your demographic holds very jaded views. Let's hope that my generation sees things differently."

BD says: Tell me Aaron, who is my generation and who is my demographic?; 12:44 PM, May 06, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Billy, or are you Richard too??

Whoever you are, you are way off base and pretty stupid at that!

It was not an 80% yes vote. A whole 30% didn't vote at all.

The 218 was a blackmail vote and the County played their part with the good cop bad cop along with the RWQCB. That's not okay!!!!

MWH is not okay!!!!

The TAC was not okay!!!!

Maybe some people don't like getting ripped off and played for fools all the while having to deal with a $250-$300 extra a month that will increase year after year for 30 years. And all for a hoax!

The system won't correct nitrates. It's a hoax, you fool!

It's been collusion and corruption since the 80's -- everything based on a lie.

Looks like you're the fool, unless of course you one of the people who will cash in when all these homes are available cheap.

And BTW, these County people get paid plenty of money for their dirty work. What's Paavo's salary again? How about John, Mark, and John?

Give us a freakin' break!; 12:58 PM, May 06, 2009
Billy Dunne said...: Thanks for proving my point GRO.

BD; 1:04 PM, May 06, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: TCG, where do you think the sewer is being built? According to AB2701 in the Legislative Counsel's Digest, the sewer is designed to meet the needs of the Los Osos Community Services District. In other words, the County and the District have a symbiotic relationship even though they are two completely different entities.

The legality of the backdating of contracts varies depending on how the contracts were retroactively signed.

At this point, I'm simply going to say that it will be up to the courts to decide what is and isn't tangible evidence. Asking me for answers will be futile.; 1:05 PM, May 06, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: I'm on a blogging spree today!

Billy Dunne, you're quite entertaining, but you're not putting up a good fight, especially when you refer to yourself in third-person. Unless you're Barry Bonds or Bo Jackson, that's not going to work for you.

You wrote, "Uh, well, as far as the recent survey, I DO know what the majority is. 70% prefer gravity. Would it be better for you if I qualified the statement by saying 70% of those who voted preferred gravity? OK. 70% of those who voted preferred gravity."

The majority of the sampling. You're right about that, but the community? We don't know. The 2008 presidential election? If more people voted, we don't know what the outcome would be, but you'll often see broadcasters saying, "The majority of those who voted in the election voted for Barack Obama," and we don't see people often saying, "The majority of America voted for Barack Obama," because that's hasty generalization.

Going back to Los Osos...

We must come to terms with uncertainty and refrain from making absolute statements (i.e. "The majority feels this way... the minority are a bunch of obstructionists...").

By labeling people as obstructionists, that indicates that you frown on dissent and you want it to be suppressed for the sake of moving the process forward. That's quashing one's right to disagree, period. It's the wrong way to approach the issue. If you want to have a discussion, let's have that discussion and spare the essays about how idiotic some people are.

And Billy Dunne, you are definitely not from my generation.; 1:19 PM, May 06, 2009
Billy Dunne said...: I couldn't agree with you more about using the third person, Aaron. But blogging in a place with multiple users whereby you are referencing quotes from many people, including oneself, I think it's preferable to help keep confusion down.

"By labeling people as obstructionists, that indicates that you frown on dissent and you want it to be suppressed for the sake of moving the process forward. That's quashing one's right to disagree, period."

Now that's a ridiculous stretch Aaron, and you know it. By calling people obstrucitonists, I'm not in any way, shape or form quashing their First Amendment rights, or supressing their dissent. What I'm simply doing is calling 'em as I see 'em:

obstructionist: One who systematically blocks or interrupts a process, especially one who attempts to impede passage of legislation by the use of delaying tactics, such as a filibuster.

As in, we don't want a sewer, and we'll do whatever we have to not to have one to I don't want a sewer at Tri W and we'll do whatever we have to to move it to we don't want a gravity collection system and we'll do whatever we have to not to have one to we want public input to we can't believe public input to public input is corrupt becasue the public doesn't get the right information to you don't let us speak to an entire afternoon once a month isn't enough to speak to we want a survey to the survey is corrupt!! to we have a plan to what plan? we'll go bankrupt instead to we don't need a sewer to "The system won't correct nitrates. It's a hoax, you fool! It's been collusion and corruption since the 80's -- everything based on a lie.
Looks like you're the fool, unless of course you one of the people who will cash in when all these homes are available cheap. And BTW, these County people get paid plenty of money for their dirty work. What's Paavo's salary again? How about John, Mark, and John? Give us a freakin' break!"

You see to me Aaron, being an obstrutionist means you're never wrong, because you can win EVERY argument just by playing the conspiracy card. So to use your logic, aren't YOU supressing MY right to dissent by telling me I'm 'naive" to all the conspiracies? C'mon.

And lastly, Aaron says: "And Billy Dunne, you are definitely not from my generation."

And I, Billy Dunne say: Why, because I can write complete sentences and spell correctly? (This answer is not for Aaron but actaully for my 23 year old son and his friends, whom I love dearly and razz constanly about their, um, spelling and sentence structure challenges.)

Take care Aaron.
BD; 2:03 PM, May 06, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: GRO asks makes a bunch of interesting statements and asks some questions of me: "You promote Tri-W for years, you say it's cheaper. You've never shown your face at any CSD meeting, and so please tell us again why all the interest on your part??? How much were you assessed?"The questions first.

Why do I care? Because I care about my community? If only people who live inside the PZ are allowed to play a role in our discussion, our good buddy Ron and quite a few others who are actual players would be banned. If we get the cheapest possible solution with the greatest benefit (environmentally and water-wise) we will be better off as a community.

Even so, if I were to be entirely self-interested, my neighborhood will be tying into the Community system and we want the best deal we can get.

In terms of our assessment, it will be approximately the same as what people in Vista deOro will be paying. Because we already have our sewer lines in and they only need be connected to the main sewer line, we're gonna pay about 3/4 the cost of what most of the PZ folks will be paying ... much the people over on Tierra.

As for whether I've been promoting TriW or not .... I have not. A careful reading of my comments would reveal that I've simply said that the other options most likely more expensive than TriW. The recall and resulting County plan (along with the bankruptcy) have shown me to have been correct. There is nothing wrong with wanting a sewer out of town ... but there is if you lie to people, telling them that out of town will be less expensive when it really isn't.

I don't really know that TriW is cheaper. I do know that every time someone has floated numbers to suggest out of town is less expensive, I've done a careful look and found that their claims of "cheaper" don't add up.

As for whether I've gone to CSD meetings or not, it shouldn't matter at all. We all know that the Lisa and Chuck boards ignored all public input other than what they wanted to hear. We also know that the same can be said of the County BOS.; 2:31 PM, May 06, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: This will be my last post for the day because I spent too much time on this subject.

And Dunne, I probably know your son. I knew a guy my age who had differing views than I and he seemed to be a decent kid. He told me that his father had a knack for sewer-related discussion online and last time I spoke to him, I said that I'd like to meet his dad.

BD,

I remember you saying that the obstructionists should "shut up" in an earlier post. I've seen people say on here to the so-called obstructionists, "Put up or shut up." When the label "obstructionist" appears, so does the call for their opinion to be moot.

There are some people who don't want a sewer, there are some people who want a sewer because of health concerns with the quality of drinking water and there are some who want the sewer as a means of modernizing the town. That's where I fit in. I want a sewer in hopes that it would modernize the town and accommodate growth that would boost the local economy.

I want a sewer but I also believe that the RWQCB's basis for having one is questionable. Does that make me an obstructionist? No. I speak at the BOS meetings once in a while to provide input, but does that make me an obstructionist? Not at all. I've been in active communication with the County and have provided constructive input to fine-tune the process. Does that make me, or anyone else like me, an obstructionist? Far from it.

I can't speak for the Piper Reillys and the Linde Owens of the world, but what I can say is that every view matters, every view counts. If I call someone "naive" for conveniently ignoring something, that's my opinion, but I refuse to demonize people for having an opinion contrary to mine. I take issue with what people say, not who says them.

Keep an open mind and maybe others will follow.; 3:08 PM, May 06, 2009
Billy Dunne said...: "I remember you saying that the obstructionists should "shut up" in an earlier post."

Uh, Aaron, could you please find that post and copy it here. I rarely, if ever, use the phrase "shut up, " so I'd be really surprised to see that.

Or maybe you have me confused with Getrealosos, who called me "stupid" and "a fool."

And I don't know Aaron, I think you might be riding your horse just a bit too high today. It is great you refuse to demonize people for having an opinion contrary to yours. Kudos. But didn't you just recently write this:

"In short, Bruce (Gibson) doesn't have the courtesy, the ethics and the morals to establish priorities and ensure fairness."

Wow.

Anyway, I agree if you keep an open mind, maybe others will follow. BD; 3:35 PM, May 06, 2009
Realistic1 said...: "It was not an 80% yes vote. A whole 30% didn't vote at all."

Yep. And as with all democratic elections, the 30% who chose not to vote gave their tacit approval to the majority of the remaining 70% who did.

Get over it.; 3:46 PM, May 06, 2009
M said...: So am I led to believe that contracts in the 150 million range could be back-dated, signed by an not yet employee, no big deal? Happens all the time?
Do you think maybe MWH is seeing some play now instead of 2005 is because they seem to have the fast track on this project?
Why would a "global" company like MWH take {took} a risk with such a controversial project like ours?
Me thinks ginormous profits might be at the root of it.
With all of your atta boy's to billy dunne for his first post, it makes me glad I didn't read too far into it before I moved on to the next.
Sincerely, M; 4:34 PM, May 06, 2009
Realistic1 said...: Bruce was employed by the LOCSD at the time he executed the contract previously negotiated by Paavo and the LOCSD board. And yes, it happens all the time.; 5:04 PM, May 06, 2009
Unknown said...: M... just what do you think Schickers' motive was in making her "formal complaint" to the BOS....???

...also, ask if you think Ms.Schicker violated any laws while acting as the President and Director of the LOCSD...??? Any non-agendized, sole-sourced contracts and/or "agreements"...??? I won't even ask about Brown Act violations....; 6:01 PM, May 06, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: TCG,

You state, "The County is not the District. AB 2701 states thate the CSD must stay out of the project. ..."

Well, TCG, who helped write this???

The County's very own Gail Wilcox.; 9:37 PM, May 06, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Lisa Shicker surely daubed the walls of the SLO Sups with a large volume of documents to dance around.

There's an old theory that goes "throw enough mud at the wall & some of it will stick".

No matter which side of the Los Osos fecal matter issue one is on you got to admire her perseverance.

If enough accusations are made against a person or group, whether warranted, false, reckless or not, their reputation will probably suffer.

Some call it "branding".

Just imagine what the fly on the wall heard in the Sups back room after that meeting.

Perhaps a Grand Jury could sort it all out.; 6:39 AM, May 07, 2009
Churadogs said...: Inlet sez:"If there was some sort of a fraud here and there hasn't been new information found since 2005,"

The curious question is why the DA did nothing? As I observed in a previous comment section, the FACTS about the contract backdating, etc. aren't in dispute, but the meaning is. And the meaning is what the BOS were asked to look at, in the present context, and they decided that, for them, there was and would be no meaning. That's what's most interesting: the case of the dog that didn't bark in the night.

Bill sez:"When Bill Moylan can wave a magic wand and say, with a straight face, that 70% didn’t vote for gravity, only 50% did…..poof….magic….”it’s a dead heat”"

Actually, 66% of the people sent surveys didn't bother to return them, which means only about 34% actually "voted." (Survey says it was a 34% return rate) The Survey's Table 18, p. 22, "System Preference" shows "Prefer Gravity, not interested in STEP/STEG at any cost savings," it's 48% for the assessment group. (if you add up the other options, ignoring the "don't knows," you end up with 36%,) so perhaps 48 to 34 is the "dead heat" Moylan's refering to?

Billy also sez:"Bruce Gibson’s description of the antics of these people as “offensive” is an understatement."

Here's what's important about Lisa's formal complaint. The facts of what was included in the complaint are not in dispute, i.e. Buel did back date that contract, the DA did say backdating a contract is illegal, etc. But, the meaning of the facts is up for grabs (and the dots up for connection). As I have said before, something is illegal only when and if a DA (or judge) decides it is illegal. Something is unethical or troubling or questionable only if a regulatory agency or BOS, for example, decides it is troubling or questionable. It is their responsibility to look at the facts and decide what they want those facts to mean. The BOS decided they didn't find any meaning in the facts, even undisputed facts, presented in this formal complaint. That's their call. And on the upside, now nobody can ever say, oh, gosh, we didn't know.They now know. That, too, is all part of The Process.

Bill also sez:"Remember these numbers: 80% voted to assess. 70% voted for gravity. "

Actually, it's 69% of 34%. That's the problem with these numbers. They always sound amazing until you consider that more people DIDN'T vote than DID vote, so that always skews the broad claims of "everybody" wants this or that. On that basis, I suppose the only thing we can say about the Los Osos Sewer issue is that "EVERYBODY", i.e. the majority, doesn't care about any of this.; 7:12 AM, May 07, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Chuadogs

One can only guess the reason for the poor return of the surveys may well have been because it was dripping with bias (to put it mildly)for one system over the other. The folk were promised transparency, were they not? Maybe this pissed them off.

Also, a lot of residents are just bloody well fed up with the ranting and raving and just tossed it as I did with five of them.; 8:13 AM, May 07, 2009
Ron said...: FOG wrote:

"Perhaps a Grand Jury could sort it all out."

Tried that once... filed a formal complaint detailing, using nothing but over-the-top excellent evidence, exactly how there was no REAL reason whatsoever why the SECOND "5-7 acre" Tri-W project had to go in the exact same place as the FIRST "50-70 acre" Tri-W project, other than to cover-up the fact that the first project had failed.

The GJ told me they, "didn't have enough time" to look into the matter, and that was that.

I'm not making that up.

Here's the link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/01/sewerwatch-calls-for-grand-jury.html -

Ann wrote:

"That's the problem with these numbers. They always sound amazing until you consider that more people DIDN'T vote than DID vote, so that always skews the broad claims of "everybody" wants this or that."

The one GIGANTIC exception to that, is this:

"Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
-- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

I can guarantee you, that the nut jobs behind the wildly unpopular Tri-W project squeezed every last "pro-Tri-W" vote out of the town that they possible could, which means, that if the other 63-percent of the town were to have returned the survey, there would have been exactly ZERO more "mid-town" votes, which also means that IF the 63-percent HAD returned their survey, that quote above would have read something like this:

"Only (.001-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
-- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009; 9:31 AM, May 07, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Fogswamp,

I'll disagree that the survey was biased. You and Aaron (and others) have mentioned this but I suggest that it isn't all that bad and that any survey would likely be viewed as horribly biased by some in town. Maybe if you explain from specific questions the sort of bias you perceive we can be more convinced.

Certainly it can be said that if someone doesn't answer because they think the survey is stacked against their point of view they are deliberately making their viewpoint look even less popular than it might be. A poor choice and people who cut off their noses just to spite their faces should not complain that it hurts.

Certainly the analysis presented to the BOS didn't emphasize the one thing that jumped out to me. On the question which asked what considerations people considered key in development of the project where respondents were asked to rate on a 1-5 scale, the highest average score was for lowest cost. The other options (including "away from homes") had noticeably lower average scores. From this we can conclude that, on average, people would prefer cheaper versus out of town.

The whole paying extra for gravity is then a bit of a puzzle. I suspect it is because of the perceived additional hassle and cost of a STEP system.; 9:42 AM, May 07, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9:54 AM, May 07, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Shark,

From what I'm told, you are a Statistics professor. You must have seen all kinds of surveys in your lifetime. Have you ever stumbled upon any surveys that have leading questions, especially ones that seem to favor one preference heavily over another?

If you look at question #17 of the survey, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discover that STEP/STEG appeared unfavorable within the question asked. It's a push-poll question and it yielded a push-poll response.

One problem I had is that there really was no point-counterpoint within the survey. The survey mentioned the EIR and the NWRI, which was the basis of Opinion Studies' own analysis, but none of those documents were included in the packet mailed out to homeowners nor did Paavo Ogren provide a guide to accessing those documents online.

Sure, nobody is going to unanimously like one survey or one sewer, but at the same time, every presentation the County had laid out for us is problematic in terms of their statistics, inconsistent statements from personnel, their conclusions etc.

It's been a mess and people have proudly stood behind that mess.; 11:29 AM, May 07, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Maybe this needs to be put into perspective.

Can you Aaron, name a public works project past or present that met/meets all of your expectations? Are you outlining a standard that is impossible to reach? What other public works projects are you familiar with?

No, I am not an expert on them either, but the care and attention put into this thing is probably rare and extraordinary.

Can anyone out there familiar with public works projects comment on this?; 1:13 PM, May 07, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: In my lifetime, I've seen the following kind of people:

1. The perfectionists - Professionals who strive to get the job done notwithstanding their shortcomings. If there's inconsistency, they address it and learn from their mistakes.

2. The sloths - Professionals who reach conclusions, but the evidence leading to those conclusions is inconclusive or questionable, but since their objectives are met, they feel it's not worth to review their methodology since it would be a waste of time.

3. The corrupt - Professionals who find that the best way to get the job done is to work with previously established connections, deny that such connections exist and complete objectives that shows loyalty to said connections.

Paavo Ogren is between 2 and 3.

I'm not going to answer your questions, Lynette.

I never said anywhere that I had a specific set of expectations for a public works project. In fact, I have said on this blog, on my blog and in previous correspondence to you that nothing is perfect, but when there are so many bumps on the road to progress, perhaps that road needs to be repaved.; 1:30 PM, May 07, 2009
Unknown said...: ...The 4th Type is the Decision Makers who get the job done...; 2:12 PM, May 07, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Aaron,

The wording in Question 17 reads:

“Two different collection systems are being considered: ‘hybrid’ gravity system and a STEP/STEG system. The Project team has found both options to be technically viable for Los Osos. A Project peer review by the National Water Research Institute also found the two systems are ‘functionally equivalent.’ However, the Draft EIR has determined that a gravity system has slightly less environmental impacts than STEP/STEG. A gravity system will also be less disruptive to individual properties and have less initial out of pocket costs for
property owners, because it does not require the installation of new septic tanks in front yards, nor upgrading of your electrical panels. A STEP/STEG system might result in a lower overall project cost for property owners and residents but that is uncertain, especially considering the time required to design a new collection system and that further delays could jeopardize grant funding. Which system do you prefer?”
Other than the last clause about jeopardizing grant funding (which is at least arguably true) everything in the question is a statement of fact.

How would you have preferred the question to have been written? Would you have not provided those facts? Would you have provided others?

Certainly not providing those facts would do a disservice to the community and the quality of the survey results would be lessened.

I still contend that in any question of about the same number of words as this question, it would be hard to craft it any better, any clearer statement of the relevant facts which would be met with more general agreement among either the experts or among those of us who pay more attention.; 3:39 PM, May 07, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Aaron says:
"I have not seen any community leaders condeming the innuendo that has divided the community for so many years."

Bruce Gibson did so Tuesday at the Supes meeting.

For one who says,"People have put so much bad karma out there. When it comes back around and things don't go your way, what then? Who are you going to blame? Look in the mirror."

So Aaron - how does it feel to contribute to that innuendo? How's that mirror looking today?; 4:11 PM, May 07, 2009
M said...: The survey said "convince us not to gravity." End of story. Didn't it just come out recently that some official said early on that it was always going to be gravity?
Everywhere you turn there is somebody impeding a fair process.
Sewertoons, has there ever been a public works project before where 5,000 property owners are footing the bill for an 150 million dollar sewer? A sewer that that benefits many more than just the 5,000 that have too pay for it?
Pay for it ourselves. What is the largest grant we have ever received? Hell, even promised? A coupla hundred thou?
Then theres bloggers that don't live in the PZ and have nothing to do with the process of getting a sewer built, but there they are. Telling us what we should be doing. Constantly. Obsessivly.
Citing facts and figures of the current project. Well alleged facts and figures. All seemingly for the most expensive technolgy we can get.
Some might say that they fall into the category of obstructionist.
Sincerely, M; 5:15 PM, May 07, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Shark wrote, "Other than the last clause about jeopardizing grant funding (which is at least arguably true) everything in the question is a statement of fact."

Yes, that was a statement of fact that deliberately omits additional facts regarding the benefits of STEP/STEG. To answer your question, I would provide additional facts: a little from Column A and a little from Column B because, let's face it, gravity collection does have its benefits but so does STEP/STEG.

Lynette,

I do not contribute to the innuendo. Even when nobody is around, I don't spend a great deal of time belittling individuals and causes. If I have an issue, it's often an issue with what was said, not solely based on who said it.

You're still in the hole, Lynette. Maybe you should stop digging.; 5:41 PM, May 07, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: So Aaron ... what would you write up with the same number of words which you would say is preferable?; 5:59 PM, May 07, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: I would first look at the TAC pro/con analysis, Page 9.

I'd take three of the most significant pros, three of the most significant cons from each collection system. Or better yet, I could just reword the first two paragraphs and convert it into a form of a question.

NOTE: This analysis was published in August 6, 2007 so stimulus funding was not part of the discussion, but using that as a reason to not pursue STEP/STEG takes away from discussing the pros and cons of the system as is.

Receiving stimulus funds is uncertain. It's more or less a gamble.; 6:38 PM, May 07, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Aaron, last I heard, a person was innocent until proven guilty. You are accusing Paavo of being a sloth or that he is corrupt. These are not words coming out of a courtroom. How is that NOT contributing to innuendo?; 6:55 PM, May 07, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Okay, fair 'nuff.

Perhaps had those two paragraphs and the chart on that page been included as a one-page hand-out included in the ballot packet it would have been better.

I still don't think that ... with the available space on the survey form ... that the question could have been written much clearer or in a way which would have been perceived as less biased by a majority of folks in the know.

We don't really know what would have happened had such a flier been included in the ballot envelope, but I really suspect that the results wouldn't be largely different on the STEP versus gravity front. After all, as Ann points out, some people indicated they would be willing to pay gobs more per month just to get gravity. Wacky ... but true.

Whatever the case, I think that sniping at the survey for purported bias in the STEP/question is a small potatoes issue by comparison to issues like location and cost.

That there was not a statement about the need to spend some $20M on a design for the out-of-town location when TriW has already been designed was another huge bias, wasn't it? Just not one which has been trumpeted by those complaining the loudest about the horrible biases in the survey.

By the way, we're still waiting for Ron to explain how $250/month is cheaper than $200/month. I would almost say that a refusal to answer that question is tantamount to a lie.

Taunting stuffed shirts who take themselves far too seriously is a bad habit of mine. Apologies ...; 7:03 PM, May 07, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Lynette,

My comments were not innuendo. An innuendo is a an indirect, bad or rude remark about somebody. Most of what I say is quite direct and blunt. I'm also entitled to my opinion, an informed opinion, which is what I often provide.

Did you rush home after closed session to drum up that response to me? You sure have strange priorities. Maybe you could have said something to me while I was there, but I noticed you didn't even bother looking up.

#

Shark,

I agree. If the chart was part of the packet, that would have been acceptable.

"Small potatoes." I suppose so, but since recipients of the survey did not have any leading references included in the packet, they could only go by the statements presented in the questions. In the end, the folks in the know, would have probably voted the same way regardless. I concede to that.

I don't think location and cost was something that Opinion Studies handled too well in the survey. It was an issue of organization and clarity more than anything, really.; 7:46 PM, May 07, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Shark inlet

I wholeheartidly agree with you when you clearly stated these words "Certainly it can be said that if someone doesn't answer because they think the survey is stacked against their point of view they are deliberately making their viewpoint".

You're certaintly right, the vast majority of Los Osos residents did not agree with the survey.

That is the message I wanted to send when I threw my surveys in the dumpster.; 7:46 PM, May 07, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Well, thanks for telling us FOGSWAMP because without your statement we would not know that was your message.

I don't see how you make the leap to the vast majority disagreeing with it as the reason they did not return their survey. That is not what Shark said. (Their are many other possibilities.); 12:00 AM, May 08, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Aaron, I think we are splitting hairs here. Whatever.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, and mine is just the opposite. But I don't see what you think you are going to accomplish with these statements. Heal the community? Get someone to pay for a lawsuit? What? What connections has Paavo hidden? His Los Osian history is know. So what? Should qualified bidders be rejected because they bid before - well, that sure would have let Ripley out had he made the short list.

I doubt you heard what I had to say as you left before the pre-closed session meeting was over - which is why I could not talk to you. Plus I arrived late and did not hear all that you said then. I leave meetings when they are over. (And you left again tonight before the 7:00 meeting was over.) No, I did not rush home to blog, but to talk to the tile man. He'd left though, so I had time to blog. And I was taking notes - which usually requires that I look at the paper I am writing on. Nothing twisty in that I'm afraid.

As to the survey, I wish it had said "do you want to pay less for Tri-W or more to have it out of town," but I am not complaining about it. (For anyone who wants to know.); 12:22 AM, May 08, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Lynette,

My opinions are not set to accomplish anything. You're always trying to attribute motive to the argument and assume more than you should -- and that kind of mentality makes me want to say, "I'm moving on from this." It's not worth it because you clearly seem to miss the point.

This is like having a conversation with Sarah Palin sans the flute-playing, the hockey moms and the pitbulls. I'm starting to think I might have better luck talking to Charo.

The issue I have is NOT with their qualifications. The issue, as I stated clearly several times already, is their past involvement with the district and with a certain County employee who has a connection to MWH.

However, I'll be looking forward to what Jensen has to say. I'd like to see his analysis.; 12:49 AM, May 08, 2009
Sewertoons AKA Lynette Tornatzky said...: Will seeing Jensen's analysis put this to rest?

Whether or not you think that you have no "motive" - you are putting a very negative value judgement out into a public forum about the person that is in charge of the wastewater project. How he is viewed is important to trust in the process, which this community needs badly. Unless you can prove some malfeasance, not just speculate about it, what really is the point but to stir things up and add to the suspicion and distrust already out there (and commented on weekly at some meeting or another). This seems contrary to "healing the community" which you have espoused before.

County Counsel has already opined at the last BOS meeting. Will reading his words along these same lines help you to understand that there is nothing wrong - (despite the fervent wishes of the pot-stirrers that it would be true)? You are playing into their hands you know.; 2:30 AM, May 08, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Lynette,

Have you located Mr. Dean "sorry, I forgot his last name" yet?; 7:33 AM, May 08, 2009
Churadogs said...: Ron sez, regarding suggestion that this whole mess be taken to the Grand Jury:"The GJ told me they, "didn't have enough time" to look into the matter, and that was that.

I'm not making that up."

I know you aren't. Isn't that priceless -- a Grand Jury that doesn't have time to look into a major, uh, problem. Hahahahah. Anyway, supposed they had looked into things, they would issue a report, it would be turned over to the DA who would toss it in the round file, it would be turned over to the county which also would toss it into the round file. Bwhahahahhhhh. Ah, only in SLO County.

Inlet sez:"Maybe if you explain from specific questions the sort of bias you perceive we can be more convinced."

Two Supervisors closely questioned the Maker Of The Survey about the paragraphs describing STEP vs. gravity, it was clear they felt there was a bias in the way the descriptions were handled, wherein "negative" hook up issues were mentioned for STEP but no "negative" hook up issues were metnioned for gravity, & etc. so apparently they felt that particular section was biased. criptions were handled about gravity vs step

Inlet also sez:"The whole paying extra for gravity is then a bit of a puzzle. I suspect it is because of the perceived additional hassle and cost of a STEP system."

If actual (or even a best guestimate) costs for each system had been in the survey, would that have made a difference? That "extra" $49.99 is really interesting, especially in light of the survey contained NO costs, so how can anyone really jusge what "more than" actually is if you don't know the bottom line? For example, if a best guestimate listed step at $150 a month and gravity at $200 a month, would the majority have said, Naw, I want gravity? Those numbers weren't there so we'll never know.

Inlet also sez:"I still don't think that ... with the available space on the survey form ... that the question could have been written much clearer or in a way which would have been perceived as less biased by a majority of folks in the know."

The survey COULD have included all kinds of really useful info, INCLUDING really good, hard cost guestimates, and what's to say that 66% still wouldn't have bothered to return that survey either? You can lead a horse to water . . . .

Fogswamp sez:"You're certaintly right, the vast majority of Los Osos residents did not agree with the survey.

That is the message I wanted to send when I threw my surveys in the dumpster."

Actually, you can't say the "vast majority of Los Osos residents did not agree with the survey." YOU didn't agree with it which is why you threw it in the dumpster, but you cannot know what our neighbor was thinking when he tossed his in the dumpster. Perhaps your neighbor didn't even bother opening it, or his dog ate it, or he simply didn't care one way or the other or . . . . or . . . We'll never know because you can't know a void.

Toonces sez:"As to the survey, I wish it had said "do you want to pay less for Tri-W or more to have it out of town," but I am not complaining about it. (For anyone who wants to know.)"

THAT's the question that should have been done when the Ponds of Avalon went ker-blooey AND the question that should have been asked BEFORE the pre-recalled CSD started digging holes in the ESHA ground.; 7:35 AM, May 08, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Sewertoons

You're right, there could be many other good reasons why 66% didn't return the survey.

Our townfolk are probably suffering from political septic shock.

Paavo knocked on every door in town and 66% didn't even open the
door or talk to him.

I guess it's all moot at this point in time.; 7:37 AM, May 08, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: There's a Latin saying, ’False in one part, false in all,’ and there's jury instruction on credibility of a witness: ‘A witness faults in one part in his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others.’

Lynette,
It's important to find Mr. Dean "sorry, I forgot his last name"...; 8:41 AM, May 08, 2009
Ron said...: Ann wrote:

"Isn't that priceless -- a Grand Jury that doesn't have time to look into a major, uh, problem. Hahahahah. Anyway, supposed they had looked into things, they would issue a report, it would be turned over to the DA who would toss it in the round file, it would be turned over to the county which also would toss it into the round file."

That's probably true, but at least I would have had that GJ report to HAMMER away at the Tri-W#1/Tri-W#2 cover-up.

FOGSWAMP, as someone that has worked (as a reporter/editor) many a-summer in Los Osos, I find your login name hilarious.; 9:11 AM, May 08, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Lynette,

Unfortunately, County Counsel analysis is not Gospel. Lawyers can be wrong. The County can be wrong.; 11:45 AM, May 08, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Hi Lynette,
While you search for a solution to the Mr. “sorry, I forgot his last name” issue, you may want to consider ”this” information.; 12:58 PM, May 08, 2009
Billy Dunne said...: "There's a Latin saying, ’False in one part, false in all,’ and there's jury instruction on credibility of a witness: ‘A witness faults in one part in his or her testimony is to be distrusted in others.’

Lynette,
It's important to find Mr. Dean "sorry, I forgot his last name..."

Excellent, excellent quote Marcus!!

And excellent, excellent stuff on integrity and ethics!!!

--“Exceptions and Variances from the QCB? Septic Tank Survey...We don't it...Think!!LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solution here!!!”

--“Any CAO would automatically be satisfied with a RECLAMATOR installation/septic tank replacement"

"The LOSTDEP RECLAMATOR Solutiom costs $15,000.00 qualifiesfor federal grant assistance and the monthly cost is contractual beginning at 45.75 and is tied to the cost of living index.
Oh and it also provides for 100% beneficial reuse because it does not discharge pollutants. It also remediates the soil think (CAO Here)at no charge.
Can you say Cha CHING?!!! ...ibidy,ibidy, ibidy...that's all folks!”

"The AES DES PPP LOCSD BK Re-org plan due out shortly, will be a once in a lifetime story Sona. It is going to make HISTORY whether the Tribune covers it or not. Let's stay in touch.”

“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.”

When's the press conference to explain YOUR, er, credibility Marus? Or did you just make a mistake, in which case admit it?Until then, as I've said over and over again to you, glass houses and all....; 1:41 PM, May 08, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Willy,

It is cute how you attempt to run interference for Lynette, real cute;-)
Please don’t worry yourself Willy, I’ll handle the: “sorry, I lost his last name” issue so you don’t have to.
It is interesting that someone who cannot reveal their own identity seeks to position themselves as someone with integrity.

All the statements you cut and pasted are “self” explanatory.
I have stated previously: I won't be getting into the details of "that issue" at this time.
At the appropriate time of my choosing, I will be happy to provide an interview to an agency with integrity. Besides The ROCK, can you suggest one?; 7:45 PM, May 08, 2009
alabamasue said...: To get back to the thread topic: This is what Schicker considers a 'Formal Complaint'? This rambling pile of innuendo, accusations, and just plain rumors? I guess she learned nothing as president of a government entity. No big surprise.
ps: Billy Dunne. You are amazingly on target, and fun to read. Keep it up.; 9:19 PM, May 08, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Sue,

Speaking of targets:
Weren't you going to share the date and time of the meeting that you thought you saw: Mr. Dean "sorry, I forgot his last name" with Lynette?; 10:55 PM, May 08, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: I don't know if this is the proper venue for these questions, but here goes.

Now that SLO County has sort of settled on a Gravity sewage system for Los Osos shouldn't we demand the best available technology and thus lower our future maintenance costs.

We will not have much financial assistance later when things fail and the fines are costly.

Perhaps this is the time to lift the lid and see what we're getting.

Welded pipes come to mind vs slip joints.

Stench emanating from "Lift Stations" is a common source of nearby resident complaints.

Location - will residents raise a stink about having one next door, or any input at all?

How many are planned?

Are they going to be near our schools or eating places?

What's the plan for when the lift station fails or electricity goes out? Does the brown liquid flow from the smelly manhole cover?
Will downsteam residents be able to flush or will it back-up into the bathtub?

Will each lift station have an odor scrubber, if so what type (uv etc)?

Is there a back-up plan should the scrubber fail?

Just thought I would flush some of these concerns out.; 8:17 AM, May 09, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: FS:
You are behaving in a manner which purports that you will actually be paying for the project.
Please stop asking your very direct and pointed questions, you are making way too much "common" sense!

The folks sentencing LO/BP to the thirty year payment program don't live near any proposed lift stations and won't pay for it, so why would they want to address your concerns?

SHEESH...; 8:54 AM, May 09, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Watershed Mark

What concerns me the most about the project is that SLO County fathers may well put together a nightmare system that will be costly to maintain down the road.

We have in place a sort of "hold harmless agreement" namely AB2701 allowing them to just do it and dump it in our laps.

I'm not sure we have a watchdog in place. Of course I could be wrong. Unless of course one considered Paavo a trustworthy watchdog.

Odor control and dependable backup systems at lift stations are significant issues.

Look at Oakdale, Ca today where the city is facing a $l.8 million lawsuiit from residents claiming damages to the value of their homes from failed lift station (14times).Plus waterboard fines.

Victorville, Ca installed undersized lift stations just to get it done and for the past 8 years residents have had to live with the stench because the stuff didn't move fast enough.

"Often wrong, but seldom in doubt"; 9:58 AM, May 09, 2009
M said...: From the information packets i've received in the past, it appears that I may need a pump even with a gravity system. I am right near I believe the 3' mark where I would need a pump. How many situations are there like mine?
Sincerely, M; 11:32 AM, May 09, 2009
Unknown said...: Well M and Swampfog... There is a sewer design that would have taken care of all your perceived concerns... What did you do with that design....??? Oh, you voted for those very knowledgeable CSD Directors; Lisa, Julie, Chuck and of course got to have the counsil of their the extremely knowledgeable legal advisor Ms McPherson... Guess you are all dacing in the streets that the CSD haulted the project and used their very well thought out PLAN to get us a sewer out of town...or maybe not...??? I take it from all YOUR concern, that you are more knowledgeable about sewers than the County engineers... My goodness, where would we be without all YOUR concern...

And lets not forget the over-the-hill cheerleader who has refused to pay her share of the failed PZLDF lawsuit against the State... My God you people are so perfect, you had a Plan and yet only got around to sueing the State and ended up flat on your butts with the County taking over... Lisa still thinks her past failed performance as a "Past President and Director" of the CSD has somehow endowed her to think she represents Los Osos, hell, she's a total embarassment to this community... But she had a PLAN...and that folks was to create the most delays she could and would still like to create....

M and Foggy, you are merely representatives of the failed sewer war that you let yourselves get sucked into... Go wring your hands and cry with the rest of you failed sewer obstructionists...; 12:05 PM, May 09, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Mike

Your sharp teeth are shining brightly.

Why do you default into attack mode?

Get over it.

Yesterday is history
Tomorrow is a mystery
Today is a gift
That's why they call it the present

Eleanor Roosevelt (I think); 12:26 PM, May 09, 2009
M said...: Uh mike, that response didn't address my question. By previous literature I meant Tri-W. Whether the treatment plant is at Tri-W or out of town, I would probably still need a pump with a gravity system. I asked the question to gain some knowledge.
After my previous post I got to thinking I wonder if the 1,000 or so septic tanks that were installed after 1983 provided for easy removal or service, since at that time a collection system certainly wasn't already chosen was it?
Keep up with the name calling, or labeling, whatever you want to call it. It just keeps on driving home the point of how irrational your thoughts are.
Sincerely, M; 1:00 PM, May 09, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Fogswamp,

I think your questions are quite reasonable.

I also think that Mike's question of you is pretty reasonable even though a bit snotty. A re-phrase might read Fogswamp, did you support the recall and if so why and don't you feel a bit betrayed by the gang who promised to save us from TriW but who have evidently put us in a financially worse place?Honestly, I can't say that $50 more per month for out of town is a mistake. Even though I disagree with that decision, there might very well be many many people (the number is really unknown) who would prefer out of town even at that higher cost.

My chief frustration with the pre-recall CSD board: they chose to schedule the vote for after the start of construction when they could have scheduled it earlier. (I actually think that they might have not been recalled had they not started the project first.)

My chief frustration with the post-recall CSD board: they stopped TriW in a very unwise fashion, in a way which forced the SWRCB's hand and hosed up any ability they had to possibly move the project out of town.

My chief frustration with the RWQCB: their continued heavy-handed tactics (while understandable) aren't helping us make progress because they tend to breed resentment and frustration and stifle progress more.

My chief frustration with PZLDF: their hoodwinking the LOCSD board into paying pretty much all the costs in their legal crusade.

My chief frustration with Ann: her unwillingness to consider financial issues when making comments.

My chief frustration with Aaron: his tendency to see malice and incompetence in the County staff when it is more likely that they're just doing their best to walk a fine line between legislative requirements, politics and engineering realities.

Should I go on?; 1:08 PM, May 09, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Shark Inlet

Respectfully, you are also seemingly off topic with historical ranting.

What relevancy has whether I supported whomever got to do with the topic?

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear.

I was not pitting one system against the other, what's the point of such nonsense at this time?

I support whatever the hell it will take to move forward. At this point in time it appears to be gravity, like it or not.

There's an old Arabian proverb that goes "If the camel gets his nose into the tent, his body will soon follow". Gravity is in and all others step/staggerd out.

Don't you think we should find out what we are buying and how it will function long term or how we can offset further train wrecks etc by having some input?

The senarios I described are know facts about lift stations, pipe joints and backup systems etc.

Should I say more?; 2:01 PM, May 09, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: Shark wrote, "My chief frustration with Aaron: his tendency to see malice and incompetence in the County staff when it is more likely that they're just doing their best to walk a fine line between legislative requirements, politics and engineering realities."

I want to be clear on one thing.

As I've stated time and time again: nothing is perfect, nobody is perfect. When you're dealing with all these administrative and legislative components, you're likely going to screw up somewhere, but it's easy to see those mistakes, learn from them and move on.

The problem is when a black hole of doubt appears and then there are so many questions that are left unanswered, people are left to assume that the public officials who created this doubt are malicious, incompetent or they're simply too far along in the process to admit that they made mistakes -- and really, it's okay to admit to mistakes. Everyone is capable of making them.

When people disagree with the County process, others see those people as being purely emotional and repetitive, casting blame on everyone else but themselves, or in other words, "obstructionists." Unlike the typecast, I sit down with several resources but I never establish the thesis that those involved with the process are fundamentally corrupt, malicious or incompetent.

You should get to know me better, Shark. I'm not as one-dimensional as some think I am.; 5:29 PM, May 09, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: FOGSWAMP: Why are you persisting with your sensible questions about value/cost and operational and practical concerns?

Of course Paavo “If there is a technology that is significantly less expensive then that technology becomes the new standard and all others fall away” Ogren is a watchdog.

Although dogs have a keen sense of smell they still lick their “hind quarters” and they do not pay for it, you will.
Please stop raising the issue of the stench in the LO/BP wastewater project as that just isn’t an issue for Paavo, yet.; 5:53 PM, May 09, 2009
Shark Inlet said...: Fogswamp,

I agree that my historical ranting is off topic and probably won't help accomplish anything productive.

Aaron,

Yes, Paavo and the County need to do a better job demonstrating they're being careful and that they've considered all reasonable options. The problem, IMHO, is that there are some who are so predisposed to distrust the County, so predisposed to distrust anyone who would support gravity and so predisposed to disagree with anyone who might be called a Dreamer.

Please rest assured, I don't think you're one-dimensional at all. In fact, I think that most of the players or personalities in town are far more one-dimensional than you.; 6:45 PM, May 09, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Steve wrote: …they've considered all reasonable options.

The problem is: “they didn’t”
The question everyone who will “pay” should be asking is:”why not?”; 5:13 AM, May 10, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: No matter what “label” anyone tries to apply.; 5:15 AM, May 10, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: No matter what “label” anyone tries to apply.; 5:16 AM, May 10, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: What should Los Osos name their upcoming sewer plant?

This was in FOX News.com

In 2008 a San Francisco Liberal movement suggested to rename their Oceanside plant as the "George W Bush Sewage Plant".

The ballot measure got 8,500 signatures --- 1,300 more than the 7,168 needed.

Some sponsors said it was a fitting tribute to a president who made a big mess.

A local plumber stated that Bush "has always done well for the affluent...anyone that does well for the affluent should be named for the affluent".

Other poop-related puns were aired, but the matter was dropped.

How about "LOS OSOS SEWER LABYRINTH".; 1:32 PM, May 10, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Shark,

You said, "Whatever the case, I think that sniping at the survey for purported bias in the STEP/question is a small potatoes issue by comparison to issues like location and cost...."

But, Shark, you NEVER responded to my question regarding the County never wanting the State or Federal help pay for their benefit on the Prop 218.

If the County did care about affordability (obviously they don't) they would have had the State and Federal help pay under the 218 law. It's a Federal Bay and the State's groundwater. More than a few attorneys have said the same. Why should the PZ pay for clean water for the entire district or salt water intrusion issues for a Federal Bay or the State's groundwater? I've heard Lynette's excuse, but I'd like to hear from you on this.

Not only is it not fair, it's not going by the law.

Can you stop harping on Ron about the cost, or Mark on Phoenix and address my issue?

BTW, if your area would hook up to the sewer it would not be 2/3's of the assessment, it would be more like 1/2....I thought you were a numbers man. And, 1/2 is too much for Vista De Oro and Bayridge since their benefit is only a pipe to the main sewer line. They already have pipes under their streets.

Also, regarding the survey, I too believe it was biased.

The nerve of the County to ask for people's income, but couldn't and wouldn't include project costs. How could anyone take the survey seriously with no costs to make an intelligent decision? Besides, you had the Trib, Garfinkle (tabling at Ralphs), and others pushing REAL hard for gravity and saying Step was no good (they lied about Step facts too)...

...everything has been a lie. Blakeslee sure lied, the RWQCB sure lied, Paavo and the County sure lied (especially about considering alternatives).

Maybe the corruption has been going on for so long that these people think it's normal?!

It's all quite amazing!!!; 9:08 PM, May 10, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 9:31 PM, May 10, 2009
GetRealOsos said...: Fog,

Shame on you.

You say, "I support whatever the hell it will take to move forward. At this point in time it appears to be gravity, like it or not..."

But, of course you would say that.

Just move forward? What's the problem with doing it right, especially when it will cost $150-$200 million for only 4,500 (or less) homeowners to pay for? And you and I know there's certainly no health risk (like Gibson and Blakeslee have stated) so what's the rush, why would you not want to do it right?! We know a plant won't correct nitrates anyway...right Shark??

Fog, you don't live in the PZ either. Maybe your family does, but that doesn't seem to bother you either. All I can say is wow!

P.S. It is entertaining to see you and Richard tango again though!!; 9:39 PM, May 10, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: GetRealOsos

You're right about the so called nitrate problem because it is only a symptem of a problem.

Scientists all over the world are rethinking the nitrate issue. Based on new studies some also believe the limits set in 1948 were based on fuzzy logic and have suggested they be raised.

Also I am certainly not convinced
that a step/steg system would cost anywhere near the price of gravity (even with the thumb on the scale). That in my view and many many others is why it was taken off the table.

I believe that we would be causing more harm to the enviroment over the long haul by installing a gravity system.

The EPA projects that sewer overflows (CSO) discharge 1.2 trillion gallons annualy. Enough to keep Niagara Falls roaring for 18 days.

I doubt there is a city in California that hasn't had spills. Statewide mediam spill rate for small systems with less than l00 miles average arond 5 annualy. Fines around $32,000.00 per spill. In 2004 Los Angeles settled their spill agreement for 2 billion. Septic tanks do not leak trillions of gallons of raw sewage into the enviroment.

Having said all that, at this point in time I believe that Paavo has his arms locked around a gravity system and the camel is in the tent.

I hope I am wrong.; 11:47 PM, May 10, 2009
Churadogs said...: Mike sez:"Well M and Swampfog... There is a sewer design that would have taken care of all your perceived concerns... What did you do with that design....???"

If you're refering to Tri-W, ALL the issues Fogswamp brings up applied to Tri-W, including disposal of water, which we are NOW told, hadn't been figured out at the time, and had been left for somebody in the future to figure out, thereby making it cleare that this "perfect project" wasn't.

Inlet sez:"they stopped TriW in a very unwise fashion, in a way which forced the SWRCB's hand and hosed up any ability they had to possibly move the project out of town."

No frustrtion with the SWRCB -- you know the folks who sent down Polhemus for the "negotiations that -- heh-heh- suddendly weren't negotiations?" who could have found a way to make that Oct "compromise" work, but who, for whatver reason, (CYA on the original loan?) thought it the wiser course to ensure that the compromise crash and burn, thereby losing two years?; 7:21 AM, May 11, 2009
franc4 said...: Richards says:
"Only problem is that nothing improper or illegal happened on the initial contract as the CSD had already publicly directed MWH to perform the work with the understanding that the actual contract would come later. "
......and that is proper and legal?......OK go ahead and start work on this multi-million dollar project, we'll get to the details and stuff later.
Gimme a break! That's why there's such a mess,because that's the way you 3 bimbos did business....half-assed!; 7:35 AM, May 11, 2009
franc4 said...: real 1 sez:
"Bruce was employed by the LOCSD at the time he executed the contract previously negotiated by Paavo and the LOCSD board. And yes, it happens all the time."

...maybe in SLO County, but not in the "realworld".; 8:12 AM, May 11, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Churadogs

Whether one believed in the recall of the three Kamikaze pilots or not, I think a lot of people in town lost much respect for them after their scorched earth departure.

I don't think that was called for and you can't convince me they didn't see the writing on the wall before they did it. It was sort of childish behaviour.

However that is all "sewer spill under the bridge" let's all hope and pray the stinky plant will be planted out of town.; 8:15 AM, May 11, 2009
franc4 said...: BD:
You are into yourself alot, aren't you? It must be tough being perfect......like you,'Toons and Richard.....sigh!; 8:17 AM, May 11, 2009
franc4 said...: BD sez;
"I know how I feel when someone like Lisa Schicker can pretend she stands up for all those in Los Osos: for truth, justice and the American way"

What makes you think she is "pretending"? For someone who is so in love with himself, you sure can't comprehend when a person is speaking (acting)from the heart. Why don't you just say you don't like her and leave it at that. Your "essays" are, at the least, boring and take up alot of space which could be used by others with something important to say.....why am I fighting the urge to say "shut up already" since all you seem to be capable of doing is pointing out every ones faults, but failing to see your shortcomings?...oh ye, I almost forgot, you are a pillar of perfection...in your own mind, at least.; 8:28 AM, May 11, 2009
franc4 said...: 'toons sez;
"County Counsel has already opined at the last BOS meeting."

So what? He surely hasn't read ALL the evidence presented by Lisa and others, both in writen and documented evidence. Don't you think that a retired judge (w/34years experience) has some creditabilty?...and same for Lisa, she was there and saw it all unfolding...from the inside! Where were/are you?...other than a know little critic with an axe to grind!; 8:44 AM, May 11, 2009
franc4 said...: My favorite, Shark sez;

"My chief frustration with Aaron: his tendency to see malice and incompetence in the County staff when it is more likely that they're just doing their best to walk a fine line between legislative requirements, politics and engineering realities"

...(to quote your dramatic entry)...Huuuuum or ...uh, isn't that just about what the post recalled board was doing..."doing their best"? You, and others say that the CSD (Lisa, mostly) should have done something "at the time". Doesn't asking the AG for an audit kinda count?; 8:58 AM, May 11, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Re Sewage Spill Prevention

Marin County, Ca has just agreed to pay $1.6 million for spilling "raw untreated" sewage into San Francisco Bay.

On Jan 25, 2008 they spilled 2.45 million gallons into the bay.

Again, on Jan 31 they spilled 962,000 gallons!

This is happening all over the nation with gravity systems at alarming rates. If one doesn't believe it just google "sewer spills" and get enlightened.

One state is suggesting a $25,000 a day fine in an attempt to slow it down and force the use of Spill Prevention Technology.

My point is that if we are going to be forced to use "antiquated" technology (as a past Supervisor described gravity) we should demand and implement the best preventative technology now rather than later.

Welded pipes will help stop joint leaks, however unlike our present leach lines, RWQB have no problem with it. I don't get that one.

Backup line pressure sensors that alert managers before the overflowing happens are available.

Lift Station failures are a major problem. Standby diesel pumps are sometimes preferred over standby generators when electrical failures occur because they keep the flow while the component failures are repaired and/or power is back up.

Bypass piping etc.

I am sure there are many more preventative devices available.

When you consider the cost of fines and the enviroment damage is it not wise to get it done now rather than after the fact.

What preventative measures are in the plan, this time around?; 11:08 AM, May 11, 2009
Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...: We all need to understand that sewer systems leak, pipes leak, s**t happens. In any event, if I'm reading the statistics correctly, the sewer leaks in Los Osos would hurt more than help.

FOGSWAMP said $25,000 a day, which is a lot of money out-of-pocket for the taxpayer if the project doesn't have the the proper preventative measures in place.

On a relevant note, I've heard Waddell say that any system wouldn't be able to clean up the groundwater for at least 25 years. Factor in the occasional sewer leaks and we're still in the red.; 11:45 AM, May 11, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Franc4 wrote: ...maybe in SLO County, but not in the "realworld".

Fanc4,
I respectfully request that you stop providing such clear and concise commentary.
It does nothing to speed the county's process.

FOGSWAMP,
Discussion of infiltration and overflow does not belong in this process.
How dare you...?

I do not understand what has gotten into some of "you people" recently...SHEESH!; 12:20 PM, May 11, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: I like it when the WB a state agency fines another state agency "The Men's Retreat" for spillage which is paod for by the taxpayer.

It is interesting that the SLO City treatment facility sometimes runs at 4X it's average daily flow of 5MGD at 20MGD for days at a time, due to infiltration and that facility has never been fined.

What's up with that?
Where is the investigatie reporting?; 12:24 PM, May 11, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Of course there are solutions to varying heavy flows and loads. Better Technology like USBF™; 12:28 PM, May 11, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Where is the investigative reporting?; 12:29 PM, May 11, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Aaron wrote: On a relevant note, I've heard Waddell say that any system wouldn't be able to clean up the groundwater for at least 25 years. Factor in the occasional sewer leaks and we're still in the red.

For crying out loud Aaron, please knock it off!
Show some respect for your elders, MIKE could be dead in 25 years.; 12:32 PM, May 11, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: 5MGD @ $10.00 a gallon would make anyone who is actually paying the fine consider a
change" to something/anything better.; 12:34 PM, May 11, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: A FOIA request to the WaterBoard for flow reports seems in order.
What if 20,000 gallon State Agency spills are fined and 5,000,000 gallon municipal spills are not?

Things that make one say hmmmmmm...; 12:54 PM, May 11, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Sewage Overflows

"FOG" causes 40% of all sewage overflows according to studies!!

Because "FOG" poured down the drains accumulates inside sewer pipes builds up, restricting the flow, causing untreated sewage to back up into homes and businesses.

Don't we have a lot of "FOG" in Los Osos?

"FOG" in sewer talk means Fats, Oils & Gease.

The number two worst enemy of the sewer pipe is Roots, so now we can call it FROG. The roots creep into pipe joints catching everything that flows by. A good reason to have welded pipe joints eh.; 1:46 PM, May 11, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: There doesn't seem to be any desire to discuss the cost of weleded gravity.
Welded gravity cost so much more than welded low pressure because the pipe is larger and planted deeper.

hmmmmmm....; 2:12 PM, May 11, 2009
FOGSWAMP said...: Watershed Mark

From information gathered I understand that welded pipe stops root intrusion, a big problem nationwide.

By "welded" do they mean solvent weld, which to me means fusion weld?

I understand that Polyethlene pipe is a versatile material and comes in 6" to 24", even larger. Is that the material they use?

Just curious.; 3:09 PM, May 11, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: FOGSWAMP:

Your questions are appreciated and your thinking that welded/fused pipe is better is correct.

There are several ways to get sealed pipe installed and here are two places to look:
McELROY is one name in “fusion”. www.HDPE.com has good information for your review.

I hope this helps, let me know if you would like me to provide more info.
If you send me an email I can send you some very specific exhibits.

Best regards,
mark@nowastewater.com

Sewage is mostly transported by gravity from the customers to waste water treatment plants – through concrete pipes. Because of gravity, the upper part of sewage pipelines remains empty, which leaves an area of concentrated bacteria. The bacteria germinate due to the content of the transporting substances. As a result of this bacterial activity, the strength of pipelines’ concrete weakens and leads to the destruction of pipes.; 8:43 PM, May 11, 2009
franc4 said...: Finally, the last few comments with real INFORMATION ! Noticeably absent are the name callers and critics. How refreshing! The noted absent voices: Billy Droan and his essays to demonstrate to all, his ability to spell and construct real sentences (sans,Together from another blog long gone, laced with caustic remarks. Sewertoons, who is just plain bitter towards anyone not embracing her point of view. Shar, standing his ground for TRI-W ;-). And then there is Mike, living in the past with his 6th grade mentality calling names and gossiping, still caring the torch for Julie. (Hey Mike, she looked pretty HOT at the May 5th BOS, didn't she)
While the few of her haggle with each other, chiding 3 folks who do nothing but report facts (Ann, Ron and Aron) you are oblivious, so it seems, to The BOS orchestrating a mini-Holocaust on 5000 PZ citizens.....you know, drive them out of their property then dividing up their possessions between themselves and cronies. A few people have the "gonads" to voice their complaints (Lisa and the Goldins to name two) and you find fault with that, too! You act like a flock of sheep being led to slaughter, letting the BOS "ram-rod" still another faulty project, which makes TR-W look like Oz, and bicker amongst your selves. If you read the Bible , doesn't the BOS remind you of the Pharisees?; 6:12 AM, May 12, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: franc4,
The core subject matter recently posted on Sewerwatch and Ochs Nation remains unaddressed by those blowhards you refer to in your post above.

As Aaron pointed out on another Ann's Land thread, the core issue isn't being addressed because it's too tough for some.

I'm glad to see that you "get it" and sorry you may be dragged down by those who do not...; 7:51 AM, May 12, 2009
Watershed Mark said...: Consequently, the city estimates it will be discharging up to 3 million gallons of wastewater per day until repairs are made. No word on how long that will take.Too bad they didn't use a USBF(tm) design. Fewer moving parts and all...; 8:07 AM, May 12, 2009
franc4 said...: It certainly was helpful, considering the problems at hand to see Richards report on what/who was deleted by Ron, over at Sewerwatch. Relevancy or accuracy has not (nor ever has been) Richards strong points.......now excuses (for the mess he Stosh and Gordy perpetrated, is some else and more befitting, perhaps.; 9:45 AM, May 13, 2009

Pages

Wednesday, May 06, 2009

114 comments: