Another Viewpoint
The following “Viewpoint” by CSD Boardmember, Chuck Cesena, ran in the Tribune Feb 26,09. Posted with permission.
The recent viewpoint from Bill Garfinkel and company was disingenuous in several ways. They paint anyone with a different opinion as a sewer obstructionist. Those who want a more energy efficient system utilizing proven technologies are lumped in with those who don’t even believe we need a sewer. All are painted as obstructionists who have held up the project for the past 20 years. Yet those signing the viewpoint are a who’s who of the very Solutions Group members who convinced the Coastal Commission to stop the County’s previous effort in 1998! After gaining control of the newly formed CSD, they gave us the TriW project. A project so flawed it did not even make the short list of preferred projects in the recent County analysis.
The County’s Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) determined that a STEP collection system is a feasible alternative that is essentially co-equal in terms of environmental impact as a gravity system. Yes, the DEIR did identify a gravity collection system as the (slightly) environmentally preferred system. And yes, many engineers have been involved with this evaluation. But what did the independent experts at the National Water Research Institute – who were hired by the County to provide a peer review of their consultants work - have to say? That the consulting engineers didn’t seem to be comparing apples to apples when examining STEP and gravity systems. They also stated verbally that they had a hard time not using the word biased to describe the County consultants work.
One of the reasons for the faulty comparison is that a STEP system would utilize small diameter plastic pipe which could be fuse welded to eliminate leaky joints. That state-of-the-art pipe is more expensive and so it was not factored into the gravity collection system estimates. Instead, the traditional PVC pipe with bell& spigot joints sealed by a rubber gasket was used. Using this pipe in an earthquake prone area, especially one with sandy soils and high groundwater, is sure to eventually result in a leaky collection system. Wastewater would leak out into the environment, inviting fines from Water Board. It will allow saltwater to leak into the system. This would cause problems for the treatment plant and could render the treated effluent unusable as a supplement to our water supplies. The County must supply an estimate for each collection system utilizing HDPE or similar fuse-welded pipe.
Another example of the gravity bias is the phantom requirement that STEP (septic) tanks would have to be pumped every five years. This was repeated probably 20 times in the draft EIR, and yet there is no regulatory requirement or scientific basis for this statement. The Water Board’s onsite regulations require inspections every five years (not every two) and pumping as needed
The deep trenches of a gravity collection system would cause a major disruption to the streets of our community during construction. The expense of street repairs would be much higher than that resulting from the horizontal boring associated with the small diameter pipe of a STEP system. On lot disturbance would actually be about the same with each system. Yes, septic tanks would be traded for upgraded STEP tanks. But the existing septic tanks would need to be uncovered as part of decommissioning for the gravity system anyway. And the County has stated that on lot disturbance could be minimized by placing the STEP tanks at the edge of the street right-of-way in some cases.
The STEP system would have a ½ horsepower pump in each yard to pump the STEP tank effluent to the treatment plant. But the gravity system would have 20 pump stations throughout town, with up to 60 horsepower pumps at these stations. Each pump station would require at least annual maintenance, exposing neighbors to noise and odors each time.
The monitoring and alarms of the STEP system would not be maintained by the property owner, it would be the responsibility of the agency operating the sewer system. This alarm system is actually a benefit; it notifies the operator immediately of problems with the system. A gravity system could leak for an undetermined period of time before a problem was noticed.
Much has been said of the need for haste in having a shovel ready project to capture economic stimulus monies that might be available. By definition, the design-build process the County has established is shovel ready.
The timing of the County’s community survey is curious. Why not wait until the responses to the DEIR comments have been released? The results of the proposals submitted as part of the design-build process would have revealed true costs and that is critical information. The key factor for many will be the cost of the project. The DEIR acknowledged that a STEP system would be cheaper to build than a gravity system. The only way to know this for sure is to allow a fair competition in the design-build process and have a STEP proposal among those under consideration.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Another (Follow-up) Viewpoint viewpoint
The following “follow-up viewpoint” was emailed to me from Gail McPherson (who had a Viewpoint in the Tribune recently, also posted here) with a request to post. So far, there’s been three “Viewpoints,” from Bill Garfinkle, the Sustainability Group and Gail.
On a personal note, I feel that Bill Garfinkle’s Viewpoint was a mistake insofar as he expresed a preference as to type of system this early in the Process. As head of the TAC, he knows full well that he carries with him a mantle of “authority,” and as such, should have refrained from expressing any preference, since it is simply human nature for many to assume that that preference has official sanction since Mr. Garfinkle was a County- appointed “official.” And before some of you start yelling about free speech, it isn’t about free speech, it’s about Caesar’s Wife. Everyone on the TAC needed (and needs) to remain bipartisan on this whole issue while this critical Process is still moving ahead. Any publicly stated preference for whatever system is being considered that is made by "official" folks will end up being divisive and counterproductive. In short, Official Personages need to stay above the fray while the non-Official second string enters the field and thrashes it out in the public theatre.
An added note, in an email from John Waddell ,is that the County Surveys were “anonymous” so there’s no way to know who responded or failed to respond (and why, or whether they even got the survey, & etc.) and so the county’s encouraging people to keep an eye out and if they didn’t get the survey, to call the County. The final count of how many surveys get returned will be interesting. Especially as compared to the last “survey.”
Comment
My intent has always been to highlight the water issues, and to move a project forward based on a good design and the community having a vote. In hindsight, it is hard to deny that the 2000-2004 CSD had lost control which resulted in the over-priced, over-designed, badly sited, and underfunded project. I saw a lack transparency and accountability in late 2004 as they steam rolled the community. I found errors in their process. I understand that in addition to pride, they had spent all the bond money and were at a point of no return. Thank goodness the project was halted, and we won’t know the final tally, if it costs us more or less for all that mess, resulting from 20 years of obstructions from all stripes until this process is completed and the valves to the plant open.
A few clarifications; the repeated misinformation on the blog about the lack of a plan- A draft project report was written and several wastewater professionals helped peer review it. Ironically, Stan stated publicly he would not allow it to be accepted unless it was stamped by a engineer. (recall MWH failed to stamp theirs) LOTTF did have an engineer that passed the work on to Blakeslee and Rob Miller to use after the recall. (I still have most of it in electronic format and the binder) The revised project was used in the October 2005 first Blakeslee compromise. The SRF engineers use the information to develop verifications of property sites, lower cost technology, and developed time schedules. Rob presented the plan in November 2005 publicly.
Another correction: I have never promised $100 a month for a sewer (that was CASE) and I was criticized bitterly for not providing or endorsing a fixed cost or circulating the draft report to the public. The vote was against the board and project. Something else pops up from time to time- the ABC regional plan, which was Joey Racano. I have been willing to look at many ideas for what might work, and the county thought it was worth exploring too, if the costs could be shared. Blakeslee agreed that we needed to take the time to explore all options. The County is doing that. Whatever is said about the TriW project, it is clear from the record that the CSD didn't have time to develop the best alternatives. They didn't have the judgment or industry expertise to counter the water board, consultant’s greed, special interests or political agendas at work. And last, rules for crossing creeks aren’t new, that was another lie.
I believe from a position of trust and leadership Bill's exhorting the close-mindedness just as the county and community most needs open-mindedness was a wrong move. He certainly has the right to speak his mind. My wrong move was to make personal references to his character. I have long suspected Paavo’s job of keeping the project for being hijacked back to TRI W was made more difficult by supervisor Gibson's close affiliation and friendship with the Taxpayers Watch.
My hope in the coming weeks is that everyone can take a deep breath and read the entire county status report word for word. You will see that we are at the apex of possibilities and we owe it to our community to begin to open a dialogue among representatives from all sides, and stop speaking past one another. This is especially important in weighing in on the definition of terms like minimal, affordable, green, sustainable, reuse, disposal, maximum benefit etc. and try for measurable criteria. Then let the short listed teams put the best and brightest to work developing competitive proposals with a guaranteed maximum price, including full life cycle operation and maintenance costs. Let them include both collection systems and treatment works and get creative in the process.
The following “follow-up viewpoint” was emailed to me from Gail McPherson (who had a Viewpoint in the Tribune recently, also posted here) with a request to post. So far, there’s been three “Viewpoints,” from Bill Garfinkle, the Sustainability Group and Gail.
On a personal note, I feel that Bill Garfinkle’s Viewpoint was a mistake insofar as he expresed a preference as to type of system this early in the Process. As head of the TAC, he knows full well that he carries with him a mantle of “authority,” and as such, should have refrained from expressing any preference, since it is simply human nature for many to assume that that preference has official sanction since Mr. Garfinkle was a County- appointed “official.” And before some of you start yelling about free speech, it isn’t about free speech, it’s about Caesar’s Wife. Everyone on the TAC needed (and needs) to remain bipartisan on this whole issue while this critical Process is still moving ahead. Any publicly stated preference for whatever system is being considered that is made by "official" folks will end up being divisive and counterproductive. In short, Official Personages need to stay above the fray while the non-Official second string enters the field and thrashes it out in the public theatre.
An added note, in an email from John Waddell ,is that the County Surveys were “anonymous” so there’s no way to know who responded or failed to respond (and why, or whether they even got the survey, & etc.) and so the county’s encouraging people to keep an eye out and if they didn’t get the survey, to call the County. The final count of how many surveys get returned will be interesting. Especially as compared to the last “survey.”
Comment
My intent has always been to highlight the water issues, and to move a project forward based on a good design and the community having a vote. In hindsight, it is hard to deny that the 2000-2004 CSD had lost control which resulted in the over-priced, over-designed, badly sited, and underfunded project. I saw a lack transparency and accountability in late 2004 as they steam rolled the community. I found errors in their process. I understand that in addition to pride, they had spent all the bond money and were at a point of no return. Thank goodness the project was halted, and we won’t know the final tally, if it costs us more or less for all that mess, resulting from 20 years of obstructions from all stripes until this process is completed and the valves to the plant open.
A few clarifications; the repeated misinformation on the blog about the lack of a plan- A draft project report was written and several wastewater professionals helped peer review it. Ironically, Stan stated publicly he would not allow it to be accepted unless it was stamped by a engineer. (recall MWH failed to stamp theirs) LOTTF did have an engineer that passed the work on to Blakeslee and Rob Miller to use after the recall. (I still have most of it in electronic format and the binder) The revised project was used in the October 2005 first Blakeslee compromise. The SRF engineers use the information to develop verifications of property sites, lower cost technology, and developed time schedules. Rob presented the plan in November 2005 publicly.
Another correction: I have never promised $100 a month for a sewer (that was CASE) and I was criticized bitterly for not providing or endorsing a fixed cost or circulating the draft report to the public. The vote was against the board and project. Something else pops up from time to time- the ABC regional plan, which was Joey Racano. I have been willing to look at many ideas for what might work, and the county thought it was worth exploring too, if the costs could be shared. Blakeslee agreed that we needed to take the time to explore all options. The County is doing that. Whatever is said about the TriW project, it is clear from the record that the CSD didn't have time to develop the best alternatives. They didn't have the judgment or industry expertise to counter the water board, consultant’s greed, special interests or political agendas at work. And last, rules for crossing creeks aren’t new, that was another lie.
I believe from a position of trust and leadership Bill's exhorting the close-mindedness just as the county and community most needs open-mindedness was a wrong move. He certainly has the right to speak his mind. My wrong move was to make personal references to his character. I have long suspected Paavo’s job of keeping the project for being hijacked back to TRI W was made more difficult by supervisor Gibson's close affiliation and friendship with the Taxpayers Watch.
My hope in the coming weeks is that everyone can take a deep breath and read the entire county status report word for word. You will see that we are at the apex of possibilities and we owe it to our community to begin to open a dialogue among representatives from all sides, and stop speaking past one another. This is especially important in weighing in on the definition of terms like minimal, affordable, green, sustainable, reuse, disposal, maximum benefit etc. and try for measurable criteria. Then let the short listed teams put the best and brightest to work developing competitive proposals with a guaranteed maximum price, including full life cycle operation and maintenance costs. Let them include both collection systems and treatment works and get creative in the process.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Sewer Viewpoint
The following appeared in the Feb 24, 09, Tribune. This is the Viewpoint with a few added notes by author McPherson.
Regarding Bill Garfinkel's Viewpoint, "It's time to speak out on sewer options" (Feb. 17):
All residents of Los Osos should have received a community survey in the mail from the county by now. It is important that every resident of LosOsos return this survey.
Apart from which system you might prefer, please let the county processwork. Paavo Ogren, County Public Works director, wisely proclaimed that ifneither side is allowed to hijack the Los Osos project, the county processwill result in a new Los Osos project that the community can embrace, evenif parts are not what each individual envisioned or advocated. Mr. Garfinkelseeks to short circuit the county process by eliminating options.
In accordance with the special legislation AB2701, the process developed bythe county has worked diligently to identify several viable options for theLos Osos wastewater project. The detailed project reports and permitdocuments put forth a co-equal analysis which will lead to competitivepricing and lower costs to the consumer/community. The county-managedwastewater project is now entering into the competitive design-build processto assure that a project is selected based on best value, not on amateurishopinions or scare tactics to eliminate options.
As pointed out in Mr. Garfinkel¹s Viewpoint, the most costly piece of theproject is the collection system, and two types of systems are proposed.Eighty million dollars is budgeted for whichever is selected as the bestvalue for the community. Estimates to date indicate gravity must beredesigned water tight, will save money if redirected out of town, and willcost more to install. STEP will cost less. This is quitethreatening to original Tri-W contractors, and will surely drive competitivepricing lower for either system selected.
I am not advocating either, and regardless of your position on the type ofcollection system, making the options compete head-to-head is what will giveLos Osos the real-world costs for an informed decision. So why narrowchoices now?
The county has focused on two strategies to lower the cost of the project:1) financing; The county has negotiated 30-year, 0 percent financing. The stimulus package has two significant features that concerns Los Osos; Provisions to forgive old debt for disadvantaged communities, and incentives for green projects to be funded above others.2)
Competitive pricing: To assure against price slip that killed the last project, the county is processing the design-build as a fixed price guarantee in the competitive proposals.Unfortunately, hijacking the competitive process byeliminating options is exactly what the Viewpoint is seeking to accomplish.
The group of original veteran obstructionists (Solutions group and nowcalled Taxpayers Watch) has used Garfinkel to violate all trust and decencytoward the county process (and community preferences’) to shamelessly lobby for just one choice---the gravity collection option. This effort to bypass the AB 2701 county community survey before it was in the mail stinks!
Isn't it enough they screwed up the Tri-W project with an amateur CommunityServices District and gobs of similar misinformation? That the project coststripled while they simply forgot a 218 assessment vote? Breaking ground on a rejected project bankrupted the district and shattered the community.
The Viewpoint seeks to achieve a noncompetitive sole source deal for the rejected collection design. Don't allow any group to defeat the countyprocess by eliminating options.
Let's stay the course and complete the Blakeslee AB 2701 vetting process, with full construction and lifecycle cost guarantees for both the STEP and gravity options. If one system costs substantially less and does the job, let the community decide if they want to choose it.
Please write in on your survey: "Dear supervisors: I want both systems (STEPvs. gravity) included in competitive proposals with a guaranteed maximumprice, including full life cycle operation and maintenance costs for bothcollection systems."Or e-mail the important message to the Board of Supervisors at:www.slocounty.ca.gov/bos/BOSContactUs.htm
Gail McPherson is a retired wastewater systems manager and serves asexecutive director of Citizens for Clean Water.
P.S. These two statements in Garfinkel’s piece absolutely misrepresent the County position and the facts:
1. “The “better solutions” have either not been tested in similar environments, been deemed highly unlikely to pass approval by governing agencies or been dismissed as too costly.”
“The options from the County process are ALL VIABLE—this finding is based on the alternatives track record, cost and community acceptability.” (Co. report)
2.”Those who claim it is not “green” enough are ignoring the large additional costs associated with developing alternate energy to drive the plant or treat solid wastes to higher levels.”
The TW obstructionists wrongly assumes Environmental 'Green' technology will cost more, In fact the County & industry reports indicate that project with "minimal environmental impacts" actually can lower costs in the construction phase and over the life of the project. Reserve for Green, Efficient, Innovative Projects: That, to the extent there are sufficient eligible project applications, not less than 20 percent of the funds appropriated herein for the Revolving Funds shall be for projects to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative activities” (SRF briefing doc)
Last, Green has lots of definitions, but it is a real stretch to call the collection system that flows by gravity “green.” Gravity flows down hill like the STEG until the hill stops. Then a lift station is required to pump it. Los Osos is hilly—at least 12 stations and pumps and back up power for each---hello? Disposal is up hill too!
I know either collection system if properly designed, constructed, and operated will work. NOW it is about preferences, but more IT IS ABOUT THE PRICE. Don’t you at least want to find out? Blakeslee thought we should, and so did the County, even with Puppet Bill Garfinkel as TAC Chair pulling strings.
The following appeared in the Feb 24, 09, Tribune. This is the Viewpoint with a few added notes by author McPherson.
Regarding Bill Garfinkel's Viewpoint, "It's time to speak out on sewer options" (Feb. 17):
All residents of Los Osos should have received a community survey in the mail from the county by now. It is important that every resident of LosOsos return this survey.
Apart from which system you might prefer, please let the county processwork. Paavo Ogren, County Public Works director, wisely proclaimed that ifneither side is allowed to hijack the Los Osos project, the county processwill result in a new Los Osos project that the community can embrace, evenif parts are not what each individual envisioned or advocated. Mr. Garfinkelseeks to short circuit the county process by eliminating options.
In accordance with the special legislation AB2701, the process developed bythe county has worked diligently to identify several viable options for theLos Osos wastewater project. The detailed project reports and permitdocuments put forth a co-equal analysis which will lead to competitivepricing and lower costs to the consumer/community. The county-managedwastewater project is now entering into the competitive design-build processto assure that a project is selected based on best value, not on amateurishopinions or scare tactics to eliminate options.
As pointed out in Mr. Garfinkel¹s Viewpoint, the most costly piece of theproject is the collection system, and two types of systems are proposed.Eighty million dollars is budgeted for whichever is selected as the bestvalue for the community. Estimates to date indicate gravity must beredesigned water tight, will save money if redirected out of town, and willcost more to install. STEP will cost less. This is quitethreatening to original Tri-W contractors, and will surely drive competitivepricing lower for either system selected.
I am not advocating either, and regardless of your position on the type ofcollection system, making the options compete head-to-head is what will giveLos Osos the real-world costs for an informed decision. So why narrowchoices now?
The county has focused on two strategies to lower the cost of the project:1) financing; The county has negotiated 30-year, 0 percent financing. The stimulus package has two significant features that concerns Los Osos; Provisions to forgive old debt for disadvantaged communities, and incentives for green projects to be funded above others.2)
Competitive pricing: To assure against price slip that killed the last project, the county is processing the design-build as a fixed price guarantee in the competitive proposals.Unfortunately, hijacking the competitive process byeliminating options is exactly what the Viewpoint is seeking to accomplish.
The group of original veteran obstructionists (Solutions group and nowcalled Taxpayers Watch) has used Garfinkel to violate all trust and decencytoward the county process (and community preferences’) to shamelessly lobby for just one choice---the gravity collection option. This effort to bypass the AB 2701 county community survey before it was in the mail stinks!
Isn't it enough they screwed up the Tri-W project with an amateur CommunityServices District and gobs of similar misinformation? That the project coststripled while they simply forgot a 218 assessment vote? Breaking ground on a rejected project bankrupted the district and shattered the community.
The Viewpoint seeks to achieve a noncompetitive sole source deal for the rejected collection design. Don't allow any group to defeat the countyprocess by eliminating options.
Let's stay the course and complete the Blakeslee AB 2701 vetting process, with full construction and lifecycle cost guarantees for both the STEP and gravity options. If one system costs substantially less and does the job, let the community decide if they want to choose it.
Please write in on your survey: "Dear supervisors: I want both systems (STEPvs. gravity) included in competitive proposals with a guaranteed maximumprice, including full life cycle operation and maintenance costs for bothcollection systems."Or e-mail the important message to the Board of Supervisors at:www.slocounty.ca.gov/bos/BOSContactUs.htm
Gail McPherson is a retired wastewater systems manager and serves asexecutive director of Citizens for Clean Water.
P.S. These two statements in Garfinkel’s piece absolutely misrepresent the County position and the facts:
1. “The “better solutions” have either not been tested in similar environments, been deemed highly unlikely to pass approval by governing agencies or been dismissed as too costly.”
“The options from the County process are ALL VIABLE—this finding is based on the alternatives track record, cost and community acceptability.” (Co. report)
2.”Those who claim it is not “green” enough are ignoring the large additional costs associated with developing alternate energy to drive the plant or treat solid wastes to higher levels.”
The TW obstructionists wrongly assumes Environmental 'Green' technology will cost more, In fact the County & industry reports indicate that project with "minimal environmental impacts" actually can lower costs in the construction phase and over the life of the project. Reserve for Green, Efficient, Innovative Projects: That, to the extent there are sufficient eligible project applications, not less than 20 percent of the funds appropriated herein for the Revolving Funds shall be for projects to address green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other environmentally innovative activities” (SRF briefing doc)
Last, Green has lots of definitions, but it is a real stretch to call the collection system that flows by gravity “green.” Gravity flows down hill like the STEG until the hill stops. Then a lift station is required to pump it. Los Osos is hilly—at least 12 stations and pumps and back up power for each---hello? Disposal is up hill too!
I know either collection system if properly designed, constructed, and operated will work. NOW it is about preferences, but more IT IS ABOUT THE PRICE. Don’t you at least want to find out? Blakeslee thought we should, and so did the County, even with Puppet Bill Garfinkel as TAC Chair pulling strings.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Meeting Updates
Thursday, Feb 26 [added note: agenda items have been switched, with one matter scheduled for the morning postponed for the afternoon, so the wasterwater presentation could be switched. Suggest anyone interested, better show up by 10, I presume, otherwise you may miss it all?) the Planning Commission will hold an informational meeting to hear from the County on the DEIR for the Sewer Plans. It's in the BOS chambers.
On Wed, March 4 at the SLO City/Co. Library, the WRAC will meet to decide whether or not to form a subcommitte to submit comments to the Planning Commission in April.
The Planning Commission has blocked out both April 23 & 30 for all day hearing on the LOWWP. It's likely they'll certify both the DEIR and grant the CDP.
If the BOS takes up the appeal in May or early June, they may finish to get to the Coastal Commission in July when the CC meets in SLO.
I have been told that the County will NOT be making the RWQCB meeting in Watsonville in March, which could be unfortunate since I believe the issue there could raise concerns about water recharge/salt-water intrusion, water loss, etc. by the present proposed plan. But then, when did the RWQCB concern itself with water? So whether the county attends or not will be moot, as will all things having to do with the RWQCB since it's all rubber stamp at this point.
Written comments on all of this must be submitted in a timely manner or forever hold your peace.
Dates and times may change, so stay tuned.
Thursday, Feb 26 [added note: agenda items have been switched, with one matter scheduled for the morning postponed for the afternoon, so the wasterwater presentation could be switched. Suggest anyone interested, better show up by 10, I presume, otherwise you may miss it all?) the Planning Commission will hold an informational meeting to hear from the County on the DEIR for the Sewer Plans. It's in the BOS chambers.
On Wed, March 4 at the SLO City/Co. Library, the WRAC will meet to decide whether or not to form a subcommitte to submit comments to the Planning Commission in April.
The Planning Commission has blocked out both April 23 & 30 for all day hearing on the LOWWP. It's likely they'll certify both the DEIR and grant the CDP.
If the BOS takes up the appeal in May or early June, they may finish to get to the Coastal Commission in July when the CC meets in SLO.
I have been told that the County will NOT be making the RWQCB meeting in Watsonville in March, which could be unfortunate since I believe the issue there could raise concerns about water recharge/salt-water intrusion, water loss, etc. by the present proposed plan. But then, when did the RWQCB concern itself with water? So whether the county attends or not will be moot, as will all things having to do with the RWQCB since it's all rubber stamp at this point.
Written comments on all of this must be submitted in a timely manner or forever hold your peace.
Dates and times may change, so stay tuned.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Start Yer Sewer Engines, Part II
Comments below from an email from the Sustainability Group, some Los Osos citizens who have been monitoring and commenting on the county project. The County “survey” arrived in my mailbox today, and, as suspected, there are, alas, some critical things missing, like price comparisons between STEP and Gravity. And, of course, no OM&R comparisons, Yet, weirdly, the survey does ask people how much savings a month are they willing to consider to choose STEP without ever being told what STEP would cost in the first place. How is that question anything other than laughable? For example, if we had real-world costs between STEP & Gravity, including OM&R, costs that included some ball-park figures each homeowner could use to figure out if they would incur hi, med or low installation costs, then a valid question would be, “A STEP/STEG System would have to save me at least XXX $ a month to make it worthwhile.” But without that original price comparison, (plus some pretty good guestimates for installation costs) the question is utterly silly.
And for sheer weirdness, there’s a question asking what locations for the treatment facility site folks want and there, at the top of the list of choices, is “mid-town: aka Tri-W site” even though all the reports made it clear the county had no intention of putting the treatment plant there, that Tri-W came in dead last on the TAC report and Dr. T’s report, yet there it is. (Note that the Turri Road side or Pismo St. site and other sites aren’t listed at all.) So why is that proposed site there, except to serve as some sort of political CYA security blankie? Very strange.
Wait, it gets better. This survey asks residents for their income. You mean to tell me the County is close to building this massive public works project, has already made it clear which type of system they’ll pick and yet doesn’t already know the income levels in this town?
Then, the next question asks residence owners if they plan to apply for financial assistance for low or fixed income households without giving any kind of indication what constitutes “low or fixed income.” I could be on a “fixed” income of $10,000 a month. Would I qualify for financial assistance?
And, of course, there’s always the ever-present problem: If you present a choice between A or B and, uh, forget to mention C and folks vote for A or B, then later find out that C was always available, then what’s the problem? They had a vote, they had a choice and if it wasn’t C, so what? It was a vote.
And so it goes. Well, if you’ve been watching the Sewer Wars for a few years now, you know that this survey is primarily designed as a CYA measure. The Process must not only be done, but The Process must be SEEN to be done so that no challenges to The Process can be made. Even if a project has been already quasi, pre-selected (wink nudge), for a variety of reasons, (and, remember, Dr. T’s group noted that both gravity and STEP/SEG systems are equally viable, with the only differences being in the various Devils in the Details and the price) all the steps to this dance must be completed in proper order, whether really needed or not, because once every step is completed, The Process cannot be challenged, in court or out. If it is, a challenge, whether legal or political, can be easily quashed by pointing to the documentation of The Process -- reams of paper, taped meetings, written responses, brochures, questionaires – all the proper steps done in the proper order.
Well, the Sustainability Group (below) has some questions and opinions. I understand there will be a sewer review, presentation before the planning commission this Thursday, (?) (later post: still trying to track this down, may be on another date?, so don't show up until you check w/county), so anyone interested can attend and learn more, and I hope everyone will take the time to fill out this form and/or add any questions or comments of their own.
This will be the only chance the people of this community can speak now or forever hold their peace. After all, the folks who supported the recall and opposed Tri-W asked for three things: an “affordable” sewer system (i.e. cheaper than Tri-W), a treatment plant out of town, and a “vote”/ voice/choice in which system they wanted to buy. It’s that last option that is tricky. In a game of spin, fudge, omit, manipulate, nudge, overlook, garbage in/ garbage out, if they don’t pay close attention, their “choice” will be made for them, and if they’re not happy with that “choice,” too bad. It’ll be too late and they’ll get the bill.
But, at the end of the day, no matter how it plays out, the people of this community will end up with two out of the three requests, and if they’re really, really lucky, they might get close to the third. Two out of three? Not bad.
Meantime, the Office Pool is still on, only this time I think the only interesting number to wager on is this: What percentage of the community won’t even bother to return their survey?
From the Sustainability Group:
Los Osos' Affordable and Sustainable Options
Los Osos can have an affordable, proven, "shovel ready" waste water project right now. We can have a project which keeps people in their homes, (the EPA guidelines state that waste water costs should not exceed 2% of the median house hold income, that's about $80 per month for us), provides clean drinking water, recharges our aquifers, stops salt water intrusion and protects the bay. For a winning system, the Los Osos Sustainability Group recommends:
Collection System:
(70% of the project cost)
Choose anything other than gravity collection. Gravity collection involves digging trenches in the middle of the street which need to be shored up and de-watered. This takes time and money as the trench water must be cleaned before it can be disposed of. Gravity pipes are large and laid deep in the ground,(6 to 20 feet). These unsealed pipes inherently leak sewage, polluting our ground water. This system will require a dozen, energy intensive, lift stations each with it's own back up generator. Gravity's large pipes require constant maintenance in order to avoid clogs which cause spills. Cayucos, Pismo and San Luis Obispo's gravity collection systems have all spilled sewage in the past month and the CMC was recently fined again by the Water Board for their various problems.
Other technologies, Vacuum and STEP/STEG, are sealed, small diameter pipe systems, installed by horizontal boring along the side of the street at a depth of about 4 feet, (think arthroscopic surgery vs. traditional cutting). This is not only less expensive and less invasive, but in case of an earthquake, ruptures are less likely and much easier to repair, (After the Northridge earthquake it took 14 years to fix their gravity system.). Vacuum and STEP/STEG do not inherently leak, so they are protective of our groundwater. STEP/STEG, in the LOCSD's 2006 report, was estimated to be $100 less per month than the County's current Gravity projections. Comparable Vacuum collection projects have been built for even less than these STEP/STEG estimates.
Treatment:
Nature-based Nelson Air Diffusion System (ADS) or ECOFluid. Why choose one of these? Both systems utilize limited acreage, are low energy users, treat waste water to the highest quality,(tertiary), naturally and produce minimal sludge. Their cost is one half to one third of the secondary treatment the County is proposing. The County's options also produce large amounts of sludge which is a bio hazard. The County is suggesting we purchase more than 600 acres of prime agriculture land to accommodate their inferior system when ADS or ECOFluid would require a fraction of the resources while providing more benefits at a greatly reduced cost to the homeowner.
Site:
Out of town - Branin, Giacomazzi, or Cemetery. Tonini is outside of our water basin and may cause urban sprawl on LOVR.
Essential Elements:
A strong conservation element and agricultural exchange is a must. Using less water means the waste water treatment facility can be smaller. Conservation will help stop salt water intrusion, preserving the aquifers, and provide us with drinking water indefinitely. Twenty five percent conservation can be achieved using common high efficiency appliances, bought, installed and paid for through the project. Agricultural exchange means that instead of the farmers pumping our drinking water and using fertilizers to grow their crops, they will use our treated water. The bacteria in farm soil filter contaminants in ways that our sandy leach fields can't. Salinas implemented a similar program. They too had a water issues including salt water intrusion. Now their problems are solved because they utilized a holistic, integrated, sustainable approach. It is even Central Coast Water Board approved!
What's Wrong with the County's Plan:
Hybrid gravity is 95% conventional big pipe system and only 5% Vacuum collection. Bio-lac and oxidation ditches are expensive, large, mechanical energy users, producing unwanted sludge. Spray fields throw away water. Broderson means very limited basin recharge, possible liquefaction conditions and re-introduction of endocrine disputers, (Putting sewer effluent into your potable water source is a health hazard and the California PTA has a resolution against these bio accumulative toxins). The County's conservation element is very limited, only partially paid for by the project and will not solve our salt water intrusion issues. This "Environmentally Preferred" system is least sustainable for our community, economy, environment and comes with the biggest price tag.
Los Osos can have an affordable, environmentally friendly, sustainable waste water project. Choose one of the Los Osos Sustainability Group recommendations. If you don't see it on the survey ballot, please write it in.
Thank You
More Sewerish Comments:
Aaron Ochs has some comments on the recent Bill Garfinkle Viewpoint in the Tribune over at Ochs Nation at http://www.ochsnation.blogspot.com/.
Your Sunday Poem
by Andrea Cohen, from her new collection of poems, “Long Division.”
In A Haystack
A needle must feel
deeply needled, ill-
suited to its skin,
to leave its arrow-
straight ways,
to stray
into a haystack,
to mean to lose
or find itself
in that soft
tangle, to fill
its one good eye
with the gold
filament of pasture,
to imagine
itself pillow
to the weary,
supper to bell-necklaced goats.
A needle like that?
It would be
criminal even
to report
it missing.
Comments below from an email from the Sustainability Group, some Los Osos citizens who have been monitoring and commenting on the county project. The County “survey” arrived in my mailbox today, and, as suspected, there are, alas, some critical things missing, like price comparisons between STEP and Gravity. And, of course, no OM&R comparisons, Yet, weirdly, the survey does ask people how much savings a month are they willing to consider to choose STEP without ever being told what STEP would cost in the first place. How is that question anything other than laughable? For example, if we had real-world costs between STEP & Gravity, including OM&R, costs that included some ball-park figures each homeowner could use to figure out if they would incur hi, med or low installation costs, then a valid question would be, “A STEP/STEG System would have to save me at least XXX $ a month to make it worthwhile.” But without that original price comparison, (plus some pretty good guestimates for installation costs) the question is utterly silly.
And for sheer weirdness, there’s a question asking what locations for the treatment facility site folks want and there, at the top of the list of choices, is “mid-town: aka Tri-W site” even though all the reports made it clear the county had no intention of putting the treatment plant there, that Tri-W came in dead last on the TAC report and Dr. T’s report, yet there it is. (Note that the Turri Road side or Pismo St. site and other sites aren’t listed at all.) So why is that proposed site there, except to serve as some sort of political CYA security blankie? Very strange.
Wait, it gets better. This survey asks residents for their income. You mean to tell me the County is close to building this massive public works project, has already made it clear which type of system they’ll pick and yet doesn’t already know the income levels in this town?
Then, the next question asks residence owners if they plan to apply for financial assistance for low or fixed income households without giving any kind of indication what constitutes “low or fixed income.” I could be on a “fixed” income of $10,000 a month. Would I qualify for financial assistance?
And, of course, there’s always the ever-present problem: If you present a choice between A or B and, uh, forget to mention C and folks vote for A or B, then later find out that C was always available, then what’s the problem? They had a vote, they had a choice and if it wasn’t C, so what? It was a vote.
And so it goes. Well, if you’ve been watching the Sewer Wars for a few years now, you know that this survey is primarily designed as a CYA measure. The Process must not only be done, but The Process must be SEEN to be done so that no challenges to The Process can be made. Even if a project has been already quasi, pre-selected (wink nudge), for a variety of reasons, (and, remember, Dr. T’s group noted that both gravity and STEP/SEG systems are equally viable, with the only differences being in the various Devils in the Details and the price) all the steps to this dance must be completed in proper order, whether really needed or not, because once every step is completed, The Process cannot be challenged, in court or out. If it is, a challenge, whether legal or political, can be easily quashed by pointing to the documentation of The Process -- reams of paper, taped meetings, written responses, brochures, questionaires – all the proper steps done in the proper order.
Well, the Sustainability Group (below) has some questions and opinions. I understand there will be a sewer review, presentation before the planning commission this Thursday, (?) (later post: still trying to track this down, may be on another date?, so don't show up until you check w/county), so anyone interested can attend and learn more, and I hope everyone will take the time to fill out this form and/or add any questions or comments of their own.
This will be the only chance the people of this community can speak now or forever hold their peace. After all, the folks who supported the recall and opposed Tri-W asked for three things: an “affordable” sewer system (i.e. cheaper than Tri-W), a treatment plant out of town, and a “vote”/ voice/choice in which system they wanted to buy. It’s that last option that is tricky. In a game of spin, fudge, omit, manipulate, nudge, overlook, garbage in/ garbage out, if they don’t pay close attention, their “choice” will be made for them, and if they’re not happy with that “choice,” too bad. It’ll be too late and they’ll get the bill.
But, at the end of the day, no matter how it plays out, the people of this community will end up with two out of the three requests, and if they’re really, really lucky, they might get close to the third. Two out of three? Not bad.
Meantime, the Office Pool is still on, only this time I think the only interesting number to wager on is this: What percentage of the community won’t even bother to return their survey?
From the Sustainability Group:
Los Osos' Affordable and Sustainable Options
Los Osos can have an affordable, proven, "shovel ready" waste water project right now. We can have a project which keeps people in their homes, (the EPA guidelines state that waste water costs should not exceed 2% of the median house hold income, that's about $80 per month for us), provides clean drinking water, recharges our aquifers, stops salt water intrusion and protects the bay. For a winning system, the Los Osos Sustainability Group recommends:
Collection System:
(70% of the project cost)
Choose anything other than gravity collection. Gravity collection involves digging trenches in the middle of the street which need to be shored up and de-watered. This takes time and money as the trench water must be cleaned before it can be disposed of. Gravity pipes are large and laid deep in the ground,(6 to 20 feet). These unsealed pipes inherently leak sewage, polluting our ground water. This system will require a dozen, energy intensive, lift stations each with it's own back up generator. Gravity's large pipes require constant maintenance in order to avoid clogs which cause spills. Cayucos, Pismo and San Luis Obispo's gravity collection systems have all spilled sewage in the past month and the CMC was recently fined again by the Water Board for their various problems.
Other technologies, Vacuum and STEP/STEG, are sealed, small diameter pipe systems, installed by horizontal boring along the side of the street at a depth of about 4 feet, (think arthroscopic surgery vs. traditional cutting). This is not only less expensive and less invasive, but in case of an earthquake, ruptures are less likely and much easier to repair, (After the Northridge earthquake it took 14 years to fix their gravity system.). Vacuum and STEP/STEG do not inherently leak, so they are protective of our groundwater. STEP/STEG, in the LOCSD's 2006 report, was estimated to be $100 less per month than the County's current Gravity projections. Comparable Vacuum collection projects have been built for even less than these STEP/STEG estimates.
Treatment:
Nature-based Nelson Air Diffusion System (ADS) or ECOFluid. Why choose one of these? Both systems utilize limited acreage, are low energy users, treat waste water to the highest quality,(tertiary), naturally and produce minimal sludge. Their cost is one half to one third of the secondary treatment the County is proposing. The County's options also produce large amounts of sludge which is a bio hazard. The County is suggesting we purchase more than 600 acres of prime agriculture land to accommodate their inferior system when ADS or ECOFluid would require a fraction of the resources while providing more benefits at a greatly reduced cost to the homeowner.
Site:
Out of town - Branin, Giacomazzi, or Cemetery. Tonini is outside of our water basin and may cause urban sprawl on LOVR.
Essential Elements:
A strong conservation element and agricultural exchange is a must. Using less water means the waste water treatment facility can be smaller. Conservation will help stop salt water intrusion, preserving the aquifers, and provide us with drinking water indefinitely. Twenty five percent conservation can be achieved using common high efficiency appliances, bought, installed and paid for through the project. Agricultural exchange means that instead of the farmers pumping our drinking water and using fertilizers to grow their crops, they will use our treated water. The bacteria in farm soil filter contaminants in ways that our sandy leach fields can't. Salinas implemented a similar program. They too had a water issues including salt water intrusion. Now their problems are solved because they utilized a holistic, integrated, sustainable approach. It is even Central Coast Water Board approved!
What's Wrong with the County's Plan:
Hybrid gravity is 95% conventional big pipe system and only 5% Vacuum collection. Bio-lac and oxidation ditches are expensive, large, mechanical energy users, producing unwanted sludge. Spray fields throw away water. Broderson means very limited basin recharge, possible liquefaction conditions and re-introduction of endocrine disputers, (Putting sewer effluent into your potable water source is a health hazard and the California PTA has a resolution against these bio accumulative toxins). The County's conservation element is very limited, only partially paid for by the project and will not solve our salt water intrusion issues. This "Environmentally Preferred" system is least sustainable for our community, economy, environment and comes with the biggest price tag.
Los Osos can have an affordable, environmentally friendly, sustainable waste water project. Choose one of the Los Osos Sustainability Group recommendations. If you don't see it on the survey ballot, please write it in.
Thank You
More Sewerish Comments:
Aaron Ochs has some comments on the recent Bill Garfinkle Viewpoint in the Tribune over at Ochs Nation at http://www.ochsnation.blogspot.com/.
Your Sunday Poem
by Andrea Cohen, from her new collection of poems, “Long Division.”
In A Haystack
A needle must feel
deeply needled, ill-
suited to its skin,
to leave its arrow-
straight ways,
to stray
into a haystack,
to mean to lose
or find itself
in that soft
tangle, to fill
its one good eye
with the gold
filament of pasture,
to imagine
itself pillow
to the weary,
supper to bell-necklaced goats.
A needle like that?
It would be
criminal even
to report
it missing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
