I'm gonna miss 'em

Now I know how late night talk show hosts felt after President Clinton left office. Such a rich source of material, gone. All of a sudden, this is just a boring sewer story again.

My only hope is that the new Los Osos CSD Board does something stupid like, for no apparent reason, insist on a multi-million dollar park in the sewer project and then have that park dictate the downtown location, against the will of the people, add millions to the project, and then rip the community apart.

That would make it a good story again.

But, until then, it's time for some accountability.

$30 million.
Seven years.
Five Solution Group/CSD members.
Two failed sewer systems.
One shredded community.

What happened?

Stay tuned.

###

What a "strongly held community value" looks like in Los Osos

Here's what a "strongly held community value" looks like in Los Osos:

"Our waste water treatment facility(s) is based on a natural biological process rather than mechanical system approach to the highest extent possible. These facilities have become a visual and recreational asset to the community."

That quote, from the 1995 Vision Statement, is the sole reason why Los Osos is ripped apart today.

To this day, the Los Osos CSD points to the Vision Statement as the source of the "strongly held community value" that any sewer plant in Los Osos also double as a "visual and recreational asset." That "value" led to the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities." And that "project objective" led to the only "centrally located" sewer plant site -- Tri-W.

One line, from a 10-year-old document, has led to the downtown sewer plant location and added multi-multi--millions of dollars to the project... and has ripped Los Osos apart. That can not be argued away.

Eight people have their name attached to the 1995 Vision Statement. Two of them are Gary Karner and Pandora Nash-Karner.

###

"Bait and Switchy" Pays Off for the Los Osos CSD

(Note: For this installment of SewerWatch, I'll be using one of my favorite SewerWatch characters: Me as the Los Osos CSD Public Information Officer, where I finally get excellent answers to my own questions.)

ME: Why did California Coastal Commissioner Dave Potter call the Los Osos CSD "bait and switchy" last year?

ME AS LOCSD PIO: Excellent question, as usual.

Well, sure it's a bit awkward to be called "bait and switchy" by a member of a powerful State agency, but you're right, that's exactly what he said.

And there's a good reason why he said it, because that is exactly what we did... and we did it to the California Coastal Commission! Can you believe that? Yep, we done bait-and-switched 'em somethin' good.

Here's how we did it (and you other communities might want to pay attention here because our "bait and switchy"-ness paid off big-time in the end... more on that later):

We "baited" the Coastal Commission by telling them that our sewer plant had to be downtown to meet the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities" -- you know, that multi-million dollar park you always talk about here on SewerWatch -- so, we showed them -- ohhhh, I'd say around 2001 -- this pretty drawing of our sewer plant and it had all kinds of pretty, expensive, things all over it. Things like, tot lot, amphitheater, community gardens, bike paths, public restrooms, and a lot more very expensive park items.

But the Commission was skeptical. They practically begged us to move the facility.

They were kind of like, "Are you sure that's what you want to do? A park in your sewer plant? Do you realize that park is going to lock in the downtown location, and there's all kinds of environmentally sensitive stuff at that site? Are you sure that's what you want to do?"

And we told 'em, "Damn straight that's what we want to do! Listen up Coastal Commission, how many times do we have to tell you? There's a "strongly held community value" in Los Osos that our sewer plant also contain really expensive "centrally located community amenities." So, you better sign-off on the "centrally located" Tri-W site, or our community that holds that "value" is going to be really pissed off at you.

So, we talked 'em into signing off on the Tri-W site, but not before we made them jump through about a million hoops because of the complex and expensive logistics of siting a sewer plant downtown, on land that contains all kinds of environmentally sensitive stuff.

We thanked 'em, and went about our sneaky little business.

I say "sneaky" because, after we "baited" the Commission to sign off on the Tri-W site due to the park, we "switched" them by ripping the park out of the plan almost entirely as soon as we got back to Los Osos.

You see, our problem was, and this is very important, although we had all those pretty items all over the pretty drawing of our sewer plant, we didn't account for one damn dime to actually pay for any of those expensive park items. Also, and this is kind of important, that "strongly held community value," of course, never existed in the first place. We just made it up to keep the Tri-W site around, because that was the site where we promised our "better, cheaper, faster" ponding plan that flamed out in spectacular fashion just a few months earlier. We figured, if we could keep the new plan at the Tri-W site, we could just call everything else a "design change" and no one in Los Osos, or at least the media, would notice that we were forced to abandon the "better, cheaper, faster" plan that got us elected. By the way, that almost worked until SewerWatch came along. Nice job. None of the other local media caught on to our little sewer plant sleight-of-hand.

Now that I think about it, thank God a Commissioner didn't ask these two questions in 2001:

1) How are you going to pay for all of that pretty park stuff because I ain't seeing it in your "cost estimates?"

and

2) What's the source of this "strongly held community value" to include a park in you sewer plant? (And if you point to the Vision Statement, I am going to slap you.)

Oh boy, if they would have asked those questions we would have been s-c-r-e-w-e-d. Dodged a bullet there.

So, there we were, two years later, in 2004, sweatin' it out. Would our "bait and switchy" park-in-park-out-so-we-could-get-Tri-W-at-whatever-cost scam work?

Boldly, we went back to the Coastal Commission to get our Development Permit, but this time all of those pretty park items were no longer in the drawing of our sewer plant, because we had no money to pay for them. Our fingers were firmly crossed.

Well, as you know, they caught on to our little scam fast. We couldn't slip it by ol' Commissioner Potter. Bright guy, that Potter, and that's when he called us "bait and switchy." Ouch.

Boy, I'll tell ya, we couldn't sweep that line under the rug fast enough.

You still with me SewerWatch?

ME: Yea, but this is getting kind of long, can you wrap it up?

Me AS LOCSD PIO: Yea, but here's the good part.

When the Coastal Commission caught us in our "bait-and-switchy" scam, we were in a BIIIIIG pickle. Think about it. What the hell were we going to do?

On one hand, the only reason the Coastal Commission allowed us to build on Tri-W was because of the "strongly held community value" to include all of those pretty park items that we showed them two years earlier, but then ripped out of the plan entirely.

But on the other hand, we didn't have any money to pay for that multi-million dollar park.

The Commission told us to figure something out, and figure it out fast, and they gave us one stinkin' month to do it. As you can understand, they were not happy with our act.

What were we going to do? Move the sewer plant out of town because there's no longer the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities" in the plan? Do you have any idea how embarrassing that would have been? First, we waste two years chasing the deeply flawed Community Plan, then, we have to pull the plug on our second plan because we were "bait and switchy?" I DON'T THINK SO!

We were stuck in a tight spot. So, we panicked and did the only thing we could do -- the entire LOCSD Board, that included current recall targets Stan Gustafson and Gordon Hensley, voted to "reincorporate" the amenities, now estimated at $2.3 million plus the estimated $150,000-and-counting a year it will take to maintain those amenities.

But you're not going to believe what happened next -- our "bait-and-switchy"-ness paid off big-time in the end! You see, because the Coastal Commission wouldn't allow us to move forward with the project at the Tri-W site without the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities" in the plan, when the CSD Board did vote to "reincorporate" the park, it somehow ended up as part of our development permit, and so everyone's calling it "mitigation." Can you believe that? An amphitheater as "mitigation." A tot-lot as "mitigation."

Why, we just about danced a jig when we heard that.

Because, by calling our amphitheater and all of that other crap "mitigation," well, that means we can get all that stuff paid for by taxpayers everywhere, not just in Los Osos. California taxpayers. United States taxpayers. Why, right now, ol' Congresswoman Lois Capps is trying to get $35 million from the Federal government that can be used to pay for our multi-million dollar park... errrr... "mitigation." Same with the State. Our gigantic and bloated loan from them is fair game for the park/mitigation funding as well, along with all of the other expensive things needed to accommodate the park like the "wave wall" and the buried facilities... you know, big, expensive stuff like that.

And that is a really good thing, because, like I said, we had no money to pay for it.

So think about it. If we had properly accounted for the park in our project when we first went before the Coastal Commission, the park would have never been considered "mitigation." But since we decided to play "bait and switchy" with the park, it ended up in our development permit as a "condition of approval," and so it's considered "mitigation," eligible for State and Federal tax money.

"Bait and switchy" paid off in the end. Other communities might want to keep that in mind.

We lucked out on that one, huh?

ME: I guess "luck" is one word for it, but I do appreciate your excellent answer to my question.

ME AS LOCSD PIO: You're welcome. Anytime.

###

The Mangling of a Sewer Project (Revisited)

(Note: I originally posted the following article on July 27, but I resposted it to bring it back to the top of SewerWatch... because I like it.)

Six Years of Unimaginably Poor
Decision Making by the LOCSD

by Ron Crawford
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

No matter how the sewer issue finally plays out, one thing is for sure, the Los Osos Community Services District's clumsy handling of the project over the past six years will become legend in civics circles. To be honest, I already hear the snickering and snide remarks from knowledgeable government officials when I interview them on this subject.

But their reaction is understandable. Since the day the CSD took over the sewer project from the County, they have steered it straight into the wall, with a grand display of unimaginably poor decision making. They couldn't have handled the project worse.

To be accurate, because the majority of the first CSD Board was comprised of members of the Solution Group -- a 16-member community group that formed in 1997 to develop an ill-fated alternative sewer plan in Los Osos -- the sewer blundering actually began long before the establishment of the Los Osos Community Services District in November, 1998.

No, Solution Group... you do not get off that easy.

In 1997-98, through an aggressive and scrupulously questionable marketing campaign developed by Pandora Nash-Karner, marketing director for the Solution Group and eventual number one vote-getter in the first CSD Board election, Los Osos voters were lured into believing that the "Community Plan" -- the name of the Solution Group's alternative sewer project -- was "better, cheaper, faster" than the county's project. Due to the slick and less-than-accurate marketing campaign, 87-percent of Los Osos voters buy in to the Solution Group hype and, in November 1998, overwhelmingly establish a Community Services District to take over the sewer project from the County and implement the Community Plan. Two previous attempts to establish a CSD in Los Osos failed.

However, little known at the time (and even to this day, surprisingly) was that the Community Plan relied on "risky" and virtually untested technology, and was simply not going to work in Los Osos. To complicate matters for the LOCSD and the Solution Group, several credible water quality professionals and studies confirmed that fact months before the 1998 election that established the CSD on a "better, cheaper, faster" platform. Members of the Solution Group, including Nash-Karner, worked closely with those water quality professionals throughout 1998 and were intimately familiar with the information.

For example, in the summer of 1998, an independent study known as the the Questa Study compared the Community Plan with the County's project. The study noted, among other things:

• "It would be very risky and inappropriate to utilize the proposed (Community Plan's technology) for the Los Osos project - especially given the limited resources of the community."
  
  
• "The County Plan provides far more assurance of the ability to correct the existing groundwater nitrate problem than is offered under the Community Plan."
  

Another credible example that demonstrates how unviable the Community Plan was, before the 1998 election, comes from California Coastal Commission staff member, Steve Monowitz. Monowitz, throughout 1998, crushes the Solution Group's project with prophetic accuracy in several reports including his department's own comparison of the Community Plan and the County's plan. Observations found in Monowitz's reports include:

• "Pursuit of the Solution Group alternative also has the potential to result in significant delays to the implementation of a wastewater treatment project for the Los Osos area."
  
  
• "(The Questa Study) also identified practical problems with the Solution Group treatment method that called into question the technical feasibility of this alternative."
  
  
• "This analysis identified numerous project costs that had not been included in the Solution Group’s original estimations."
  
  
• "The Solution Group Alternative poses greater economic risks."
  
  
• "As currently proposed, the Solution Group alternative is inferior to the County project..."
  

Yet, despite a mountain of credible evidence that showed, months before the election that formed the CSD, the Community Plan -- a plan that relied on a "risky" series of ponds as a treatment process -- was not going to work in Los Osos, Nash-Karner, as marketing director for the Solution Group, in the run-up to the election, continued to aggressively publicize the deeply flawed plan as "better, cheaper, faster" with a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75."

According to the LOCSD, the future monthly sewer payment is now estimated at over $200.

The Solution Group marketing strategy included newsletters, bumper stickers, public presentations, numerous press releases, advertisements, posters, slogans like "Do-Doing it Right", "YES", and "Better, Cheaper, Faster", t-shirts, and more. The Solution Group would spend "hundreds of hours" and some $30,000 of their own money developing the unviable plan. Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, who was also a prominent member of the Solution Group and is a landscape architect, called the local talk radio program, The Dave Congalton Show, last year, and admitted, on the air, that his wife placed a $700,000 bid to the LOCSD for public relation services after her first and only term on the CSD Board. She did not get the contract, according to Karner. At a recent LOCSD Board meeting, Nash-Karner said that her husband took a year off his job as a Cal Poly professor to work on the Solution Group's plan.

A credible source close to the story told SewerWatch recently that San Luis Obispo County staff, in mid-1998, prepared a long list of flaws in the Community Plan that were not being addressed by the Solution Group -- flaws that would have killed the project, according to the source. "This was stuff any developer would have to deal with," the source said. "(Former County Supervisor) Bud Laurent hand delivered that list to the Karner's, but they just sat on it."

Laurent, a long-time acquaintance of the Karners, told SewerWatch he doesn't recall the incident.

The CSD was established with 87-percent of the vote in November, 1998.

On March 4, 1999, the first CSD Board, comprised of three Solution Group members, Nash-Karner and current board members and recall targets, Gordon Hensley and Stan Gustafson, and two other like-minded members, unanimously voted to abandoned the County's viable, and nearly approved, project, and pursue the Community Plan, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence that clearly showed the plan was not viable in Los Osos.

Shortly after the CSD's decision to pursue the Community Plan, Executive Director of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Roger Briggs, said the figures used by the LOCSD to compare the cost of its sewer project with the county’s project were "incorrect and very misleading." He added, "the County's project remains the most feasible and timely project." The RWQCB had also been extremely critical of the Community Plan before the election.

After nearly two years of delays and costs associated with pursuing the ill-fated and deeply flawed Community Plan, the CSD was forced to abandoned the project due to, among many other reasons, the lack of evidence that it would actually work. Both the Questa Study and Monowitz would prove to be amazingly accurate in their analysis of the Community Plan.

Information on the demise of the "Community Plan" is not forthcoming from the CSD.

On their web site, the LOCSD says:

• "The following year (after the election in 1998 that formed the CSD), the LOCSD assumed responsibility for designing a wastewater treatment facility and the county plan was abandoned.  After exhaustive technical study, consultation with engineers, health experts, regulators, residents and numerous public hearings the LOCSD chose a wastewater treatment facility believed to be the best option for the community."
  

That is not accurate.

According to reports submitted by the LOCSD in 1999, the deeply flawed and ill-fated Community Plan was originally selected as the sewer project of choice on March 4, 1999, just two months after the formation of the CSD.

Quietly, in late 2000, the CSD Board finally turned to a viable, yet more costly, sewage treatment technology, similar to what the County had proposed four years earlier.

However, when deciding where to build the dramatically redesigned treatment facility, the CSD Board, in yet another display of head-shakingly bad decision making, inexplicably identified a "strongly held community value" that the site of the sewer plant also double as a centrally located "recreational asset."

According to the LOCSD, “The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The (other potential sewer plant) sites on the outskirts of town, could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents." (Note: That quote is from the Facilities Report for the sewer project. The CSD does not have a .pdf file of the report for me to link to.)

All other potential sites on the outskirts of town were "rejected" on the basis that they did not accomplish the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities."

The park element of the plan locked in the centrally located Tri-W location, and, due to its central location, multi-millions of dollars have to be added to the project for extra environmental, odor, and visual mitigation, on top of the cost of the multi-million dollar park amenities and their operation and maintenance.

Proponents of the current $151-million project contend that the "primary benefit" of locating the facility at the centrally located Tri-W site is that its central location will reduce energy costs associated with collecting the sewage. However, according to a CSD memo, the extra energy cost required to pump the sewage out of town would add only about $400,000 to the cost over the next twenty years. The estimated cost to maintain the park over the next 20 years is $3 million, on top of the park amenities themselves, now estimated at $2.3 million.

The five original CSD Board members were Rosemary Bowker, Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley, Pandora Nash-Karner and Sylvia Smith. Nash-Karner, Gustafson and Hensley, as well as former CSD Board members Frank Freiler and Bob Semonsen were members of the Solution Group, according to a Solution Group newsletter.

Gustafson and Hensley remain on the board today. They are facing a recall election in September.

- - - -

The LOCSD's Blundering Sewer Timeline
SewerWatch Style!

• 1997-98: The Solution Group, a 16-member community group established in 1997 to develop a deeply flawed alternative sewer project for Los Osos -- launches an aggressive, and scrupulously questionable marketing campaign for their alternative sewer plan. The Solution Group plan, known as the "Community Plan," is based on "risky" technology that the Solution Group insists is "better, cheaper, faster," will "save $30 million," and be "drop dead gorgeous," when compared to the County's proposed (and nearly approved), project, despite ample information from several credible sources that corroborate the fact that the Community Plan is simply not going to work in Los Osos. Members of the Solution Group are intimately familiar with the information, yet their marketing director, Pandora Nash-Karner, continues to aggressively sell the deeply flawed plan to Los Osos as "better, cheaper, faster."
  
  
• November, 1998: The Los Osos Community Services District, on a platform of "better, cheaper, faster" is established with 87-percent of the vote. The initial board consists of three Solution Group members, including number one vote-getter, and Solution Group marketing director, Pandora Nash-Karner. (Two prior attempts to form a CSD in Los Osos failed.)
  
  
• 1999-2000: The initial CSD Board, on March 4, 1999, unanimously votes to abandoned the County's viable sewer project and pursue the deeply flawed Community Plan, despite a large contingent of credible water quality professionals corroborating the fact that the plan is not going to work in Los Osos.
  
  After nearly two years of delays and associated costs pursuing the Community Plan, the CSD realizes that the plan is not going to work in Los Osos and is forced to shelve the ill-conceived project for many of the same reasons that were mentioned years earlier by credible water quality professionals.
  
  
• 2000-01: The CSD finally (and quietly) turns to a technically viable project, similar to what the county was proposing four years earlier, but, inexplicably, the board also decides to include a multi-million dollar park in the project, despite almost non-existent community support to include a costly park in a very costly sewer project. The board, for no apparent reason, identifies a "project objective" that the site of the sewer plant also double as a "recreational asset" and contain "centrally located community amenities." The decision locks in the centrally located Tri-W site. All other potential sites on the outskirts of town are "rejected" on the basis that they do not accomplish the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities."
  
  
• 2002-2004: The LOCSD pulls the park out of the plan almost entirely as a "cost saving measure."
  
  
• 2004: The California Coastal Commission tells the LOCSD that they can not move forward with the project without the amenities in the plan because the park facilities "factored into the previous decision to allow the treatment facility to be located on (the Tri-W) site, since other alternatives were rejected on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."
  
  
• The Los CSD conducts a cost comparison study to see if there is "economic incentive" to relocate the sewer plant out of town. The analysis concludes: "There does not appear to be any economic incentive to relocate the WWTF from the Tri-W site to the Andre site." However, the comparison does not account for the now $2.3 million park included in the sewer project, or the estimated $3 million in operation and maintenance of the park for the next 20 years. If it had, it would have shown that multi-millions of dollars could have been saved by moving the facility out of town. The cost comparison study was completed almost at the exact time that the LOCSD votes to "reincorporate" the multi-million dollar park.
  
  
• 2004: Coastal Commissioner Dave Potter calls the Los Osos CSD's tactics "a little bait-and-switchy."
  
  
• The CSD votes to "reincorporate" the now $2.3 million park, despite the fact that Los Osos voters have already voted that they do not want to be taxed $10 a year for public recreation in Los Osos.
  
  
• Two "move the sewer" candidates, Lisa Shicker and Julie Tacker, are elected to the CSD Board by a wide margin.
  
  
• Today: Due to the central location of the Tri-W site to accommodate the park, multi-millions of dollars have to be added to the project for extra environmental, visual and odor mitigation. That cost is on top of the estimated $5.3 million needed for the park and its maintenance.
  
  The nearly two year delay resulting from the futile pursuit of the deeply flawed and ill-fated Community Plan adds millions of dollars to the cost of the project, and, very importantly, due to mounting time constraints, blows Los Osos' only chance of proposing an alternative to the current $151-million project.
  
  More delays result, understandably, from irate Los Osos citizens angry over the very real possibility of $100-a-month sewer bills, and the false promise of the Solution Group's "better, cheaper, faster" sewer system.
  

At the time of the 1998 election that formed the Los Osos Community Services District, the monthly sewer bill for the county's project was estimated at about $60 - $75. Future monthly sewer bills in Los Osos are now estimated at over $200.

###

Please support independent journalism:

Checks to:
Ron Crawford
P.O. Box 120
Santa Margarita, CA
93453

"Better, Cheaper, Faster?" No."Better, Cheaper?" Yes.The Los Osos CSD's Alternative Sewer Plan

"Faster?" No.

But does the Los Osos Community Services District have a "better, cheaper" and viable sewer alternative to their current $150 million controversial plan? You bet. And it's sitting in a file cabinet in their office.

The "better, cheaper" alternative sewer plan developed by CSD engineers includes cost estimates down to the hundreds of dollars and specific details on the scope of the project. It would move the sewer plant out of downtown and save multi-millions of dollars, according to the LOCSD. However, that plan was not pursued by the initial CSD Board (that included recall targets Stan Gustafson and Gordon Hensley) because it did not accomplish the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities."

The "better, cheaper" plan can be found in the form of this document:
MWH Memo comparing costs of TriW with Andre.


Everything you need to know about a "better, cheaper" viable alternative sewer project in Los Osos is detailed in that document -- down to the electricity costs -- and it was developed by CSD engineers.

In a nutshell, the CSD's alternative sewer plan keeps the same collection system as the current project (which is, by far, the bulk of the project), but instead of locating the sewer plant in the middle of town at the Tri-W site, the plan moves the facility to one of the two Andre sites east of town, about two miles downwind. The plan calls for a small pumping station at the Tri-W site, and a 14-inch sewer main that carries everything to the Andre2 site, as SewerWatch has termed it.

CSD officials are correct when they say that the larger of the two Andre parcels includes deed restrictions from PG&E that prevents any buildings on the property due to power transmission lines. However, according to PG&E sources contacted by SewerWatch, those deed restrictions do not apply to the smaller, adjacent, Andre2 property -- a site that CSD engineers have already said could accommodate a sewer treatment facility.

The Andre2 site was "rejected" in 2000 by the initial CSD Board because it did not meet the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities." (Straight from the Project Report: "[The Andre site] is 1.5 miles from the edge of the community and would not be able to provide the community with a readily accessible recreational area.")

Interestingly, the CSD's alternative project -- a project that would save millions of dollars and move the treatment facility out of town, according to the LOCSD -- is Los Osos' worse case sewer alternative scenario.

For example, one scenario is that a realigned CSD Board could immediately pursue the alternative project developed by CSD engineers, while concurrently and quickly (and I want to emphasize the word "quickly") examining treatment facility alternatives. If there's a treatment alternative that's technically viable (and I want to emphasize the word "viable"), then that could be used at the Andre2 site, or another property about two miles downwind of town (there are several).

"Better?"

If your definition of "better" is not having a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos, then, yes, the CSD's alternative plan is much "better."

"Cheaper?"

According to CSD documents, yes.

"Faster?"

No. It would take about an additional two years, according to CSD engineers, to rework the treatment facility plans and secure the required permits and documents. The collection system, which makes up most of the project, would remain the same.

"Better, Cheaper, Two Years."

Sewers are forever.

###

[10/2/09: Quick note: Now that I'm linking back to these stories, I want to clarify something... On some of the posts here at SewerWatch, especially back in the 2005 days, you'll see (below) how it says "0 comments" in the comments section.

That's not because no one was readingSewerWatch back then. In fact, it's just the opposite.

The reason some of these posts have "0 comments," is because, on rare occasions, I would intentionally turn off the ability to leave comments, and this story is one of them.

You see, a HUGE part of SewerWatch is showing that Los Osos AND regulators were tricked by something called "behavior based marketing," and part of that marketing strategy involves USING the media as "tools."

So, back in 2005, during the run-up to the LOCSD recall election, SewerWatch was so widely read that the people that practice "behavior based marketing" were USING me as one of their "tools," and would leave blatantly misleading, and deliberately confusing comments, and it was awful. I was giving the "behavior based marketers" a venue to operate.

Put yourself in my shoes... here I was exposing the fact that the reason there's such a gigantic train wreck in Los Osos is because the town, AND state regulators, are all victims of a "behavior based marketing" campaign, yet, here I was allowing that exact "behavior based marketing" to occur on my own blog. Me, being used as a "tool," and I just couldn't allow that.

So, when it got down to crunch time, like the lead-up to an election, I'd shut down the comments section entirely. No one could leave a comment.

Can you blame me?]

View Point Rebuttal -- SewerWatch Style

(Note: I sent the following commentary to the Bay News on September, 5 in response to Gary Karner's Bay News View Point. They chose not to publish it in favor of another Opinion Piece from the Karners. [Update: The Bay News says they received the rebuttal "past deadline." However, none of my three e-mails over the next week to The Bay News were returned with something quick like, "Can't make it, past deadline." That would have been fine. Do I forgive them? I guess. After all, I am an alum.] Fortunately for Los Osos taxpayers, I call the editorial shots at SewerWatch. Enjoy...)

- - - - - -

In Gary Karner's View Point ("Solution Group Failed, Here's Why," The Bay News, September, 8, 2005), he says, "Since the Solution Group is the current target of the wrath of the opponents, I thought, since I was the Coordinator of the Solution Group and the primary author of the Comprehensive Resource Management Plan ("CRMP"), first released on November 24, 1997, that I would reply to those allegations with the actual facts."

You call those "facts?"

Well, at least Karner has one thing right -- there was a comparison (the Questa Study) between the county's viable and nearly approved project and the Solution Group's deeply flawed project (the Community Plan). But the Questa Study did not take place in 1999, as Karner states as "fact," it took place in 1998, and that is a very, very important distinction.

Karner did not just get that "fact" wrong, obviously, he lied about it. He has to lie about that "fact." Because if he didn't lie about that date, then he would have been caught in the truth, and the truth is ugly for the Solution Group. Very ugly. The truth is, the Solution Group knew months before the election that formed the CSD in 1998, that their deeply flawed Community Plan was simply not going to work in Los Osos.

Not only did the Questa Study, in mid-1998, clearly show that the terribly ill-conceived Community Plan was simply not going to work in Los Osos and was far inferior to the county's viable and nearly approved project, another study, this one conducted by the California Coastal Commission in 1998, also showed that the deeply flawed Community Plan was simply not going to work in Los Osos.

To add to the sketchy-ness of the Solution Group (that also included current recall targets Stan Gustafson and Gordon Hensley), those two studies were supported by an army of water quality professionals -- all corroborating the fact that the deeply, deeply flawed and terribly ill-conceived Community Plan was simply not going to work in Los Osos, and the Solution Group was aware of this mountain of evidence well before the election that formed the Los Osos CSD.

But, unfortunately for Los Osos taxpayers and the community fabric of your lovely town, the Solution Group chose to ignore that mountain of evidence, and continued to aggressively market their terribly ill-conceived project throughout Los Osos with a fluff-filled marketing campaign. It was that less-than-scrupulous marketing campaign that gave Los Osos the now infamous line, "better, cheaper, faster," along with, "Do-Doing it Right." That highly questionable marketing campaign was the brainchild of Karner's wife, and fellow Solution Group member, Pandora Nash-Karner. It was that terrible marketing campaign that lured (that's right, lured) 87-percent of the town's voters into backing the formation of a Community Services District in Los Osos in 1998 (two previous attempts had failed). Incidentally, Nash-Karner is also the same person responsible for the current "Save The Dream" marketing campaign.

If the Solution Group had not proposed their deeply flawed project and then aggressively marketed it throughout Los Osos in the run-up to the November, 1998 election, the county's project would have been up and running years ago, at about half the price of the current massive project, with the community fabric of Los Osos intact. There is also a very good chance that the Los Osos CSD would have never been formed.

Yes Gary, "the Solution Group is the current target of the wrath of the opponents."

Wrath understandable.

Ron Crawford writes and edits the blog sewerwatch.blogspot.com, where all the documents mentioned above can be downloaded, including the 1998 Questa Study.

###

The Tribune Endorses Sewer Pork Over Hurricane Relief

www.RedCross.org
- - - -
It's no secret that curiously strong parks advocate, scrupulously-questionable marketer, former Solution Group member, and initial Los Osos CSD Board director, Pandora Nash-Karner has had a long, and uncomfortably cozy relationship with The Tribune's Opinion Page editor and fellow Los Ososan, Bill Morem, but these days, it seems that Nash-Karner has sent one too many fruit baskets to the offices of The Tribune and The Sun Bulletin.

Because now, that uncomfortably cozy relationship seems to have clouded Morem's judgement. For example, The Tribune is now recommending Nash-Karner's "drop dead gorgeous" sewer-park over hurricane relief for the victims of Katrina.

Fortunately for United States taxpayers, Nash-Karner is not sending fruit baskets to the editorial offices of the New York Times, because, unlike The Tribune, The Times is not swayed.

In a recent editorial (Time to cut pork, fund storm relief), The Times calls for members of Congress to give up their local pork projects, and instead give that money to hurricane relief.

According to The Times, "The overwhelming need of the victims of Hurricane Katrina, coupled with the nation's shock at government ineptitude, should inspire members of Congress to sober up and become something approaching responsible policy-makers. If they do decide to reform, there's an easy way to prove it. They could turn in their pork."

The editorial continues, "Imagine what would happen if each member of Congress announced that he or she would give up a prize slab of bacon so the government would be able to use the money to shelter hurricane victims and rebuild New Orleans.

The Democratic minority leader, Nancy Pelosi, could afford to donate back some multimillion-dollar plums -- just one bike and pedestrian overpass, perhaps, or a ferry terminal. Another Democratic standout, James Oberstar of Minnesota, would have a hard time choosing from his cornucopia, but that $2.7 million for what is already described as the nation's longest paved recreational trail looks ripe."

SewerWatch would like to add to the Times' list a local "prize slab of bacon" that "looks ripe" -- the $2.3 million public park included in the Los Osos sewer project that Congresswoman Lois Capps is attempting to fund with Federal tax money. The park includes, among other pork products, an amphitheater, tot lot, public restrooms, public parking lot and community gardens.

Unfortunately for hurricane victims, The Tribune does not agree with SewerWatch.

In their editorial from Sunday, September 4 (Osos must go ahead with sewer), The Tribune says, "It's imperative that our local legislators, from state Sen. Abel Maldonado to Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee to Rep. Lois Capps search every avenue to secure financial relief for (Los Osos's) economically fragile residents...".

However (and The Tribune should know this, but apparently does not), the problem with the $35 million that Capps is seeking for the project is that it isn't earmarked for "the town's economically fragile residents" at all. According to Capps' office, that $35 million is fair game for park funding. (You guys at The Trib might want to actually make that phone call, like I did, before you start popping out editorials on this subject.)

Additionally, since the park is dictating the downtown location of the sewer plant, all the costs needed to mitigate that controversial downtown location are also on the park. The costs of the odor scrubbing facilities, the burying of the plant, the "wave wall," the expensive land cost of the Tri-W site, and the extra environmental mitigation required, are all on the park. Yep... that $35 million should just about cover it.

But that's alright, Tribune. I'm sure those sleeping in their 2-foot by 6-foot cots on the floor of the Astrodome would gladly give up that $35 million so Los Osos can have an amphitheater at the site of their sewer plant -- an amphitheater that the town's taxpayers have already voted they do not want to pay for.

Why does The Tribune completely ignore the impact the multi-million dollar park is having on the entire Los Osos sewer project? Why does The Tribune refuse to cover that vitally important angle of the story? Please tell me the answer is not a long history of Nash-Karner fruit baskets.

Unlike The Tribune, SewerWatch agrees with the New York Times -- it's time to put New Orleans above "drop dead gorgeous" sewer pork.

###

Hurricane Relief Benefit Concert, Pozo Saloon, Sunday, Sept. 18
Click here for details

www.RedCross.org

The Tribune Has Hurt Los Osos with Unforgivably Bad Journalism

Over the next week or two, as I systematically shred the editorial that appeared in The Tribune last Sunday (Osos must go ahead with sewer), I will be pulling out select quotes from that piece, and destroying them.

I want to start with this quote:

"... the ponding system with its "drop dead gorgeous" park-like setting had now morphed into a traditional treatment plant..."

"Morphed?"

Tribune, that word is infuriating.

"Morphed?!!"

Hey Tribune, the ponding system did not "morph" into anything. The ponding system (a.k.a. The Community Plan) was a terrible idea and was never going to work in Los Osos, and so it was dumped completely by the CSD Board, but not before they wasted TWO YEARS chasing it.

Worse, as I reported on this blog (and I'm the only one that has reported on this angle, by the way... nice job, Tribune) the first CSD Board was informed by numerous credible and knowledgeable water quality professionals that the deeply flawed Community Plan was not going to work in Los Osos BEFORE the Board voted to pursue it.

Credible and knowledgeable water quality professionals told former Solution Group member Stan Gustafson that the Community Plan was not going to work in Los Osos.

Credible and knowledgeable water quality professionals told former Solution Group member Gordon Hensley that the Community Plan was not going to work in Los Osos.

Credible and knowledgeable water quality professionals told former Solution Group member Pandora Nash-Karner that the Community Plan was not going to work in Los Osos.

But Nash-Karner, Gustafson and Hensley, all part of the first CSD Board, chose to ignore those credible, skilled and knowledgeable water quality professionals, and voted to pursue the deeply flawed Community Plan, and then futilely chased it FOR TWO YEARS. Then, AFTER TWO YEARS, it finally fell apart for the exact same reasons that all of those skilled, credible and knowledgeable water quality professionals mentioned -- TWO YEARS EARLIER! (Nash-Karner, Gustafson and Hensley wasted TWO YEARS of everyone's time and money chasing their terribly ill-conceived project, but they couldn't wait four weeks before ripping down a beautiful grove of mature trees in the heart of town. Shameful.)

And The Tribune calls that "morphed"? That is a gross and unfair misrepresentation of the bungled history of the project.

It is the opinion of SewerWatch that Gustafson and Hensley should not only be recalled, they, along with Nash-Karner, should also be investigated by the County Grand Jury for their role in pursuing the Community Plan, and, especially, for inexplicably including the park in the project after the deeply flawed Community Plan "morphed" into the current $150 million downtown project. That decision has ripped Los Osos apart.

If that investigation were to take place, and if it focused on the park that is currently adding multi-millions of dollars to the project and is dictating the downtown sewer plant location, I've got $20 bucks that says indictments are a-comin'. Obviously, something fishy happened.

By the way, Tribune, since apparently you are not aware of this, the "park-like setting" is still in the project, and, like I just said, it is adding multi-millions of dollars to the project, as well as dictating the sewer plant's central location. Unfortunately for Los Osos taxpayers, that part of the deeply flawed Community Plan didn't "morph" away with the rest of that awful plan. You guys at The Trib might want to bounce around SewerWatch for a while and read up. Then, you might finally cover that vital part of the story. To date, you have not, and that is unforgivably bad journalism. You have let Los Osos down.

###

Another SewerWatch Exclusive: Uh-Oh for LO -- Morro Bay Park Decision Could Spell D-O-O-M for LOCSD Project

LOCSD, you should just stop now.

Forget the recall election, just stop now. You f'd up... bad.

A recent decision regarding a park in Morro Bay could easily doom the entire Los Osos sewer project. It would be a slam dunk.

According to today's Tribune, "A judge has ruled that the city of Morro Bay can't single out one subdivision to pay for a public park."

That exact argument can be applied to the LOCSD sewer project, because that project, inexplicably, includes a public park that the entire community will benefit from, but only a portion of the community will pay for.

According to the article, "Some Cloisters residents said forcing them alone to maintain the park is both illegal and unfair because everyone can use it."

Judge Hilton agreed.

If he were to rule the same in the Los Osos sewer project -- and considering the precedence, there's really no reason why he wouldn't -- then a funding mess for the LOCSD would result.

The question is obvious:

Does this mean the property owners outside of the "prohibition zone" -- that have so far been completely immune to any sewer related fees -- would now have to pay for part of the sewer... the part that contains the $2.3 million park along with its estimated $150,000 yearly maintenance?

According to Judge Hilton, the answer to that question is "yes."

Which poses another question:

How will the property owners outside of the prohibition zone feel about suddenly being forced to pay for an expensive park, slap-dab next to a sewer plant? A park that they never had a voice in.

Of course, SewerWatch will continue to follow this very interesting story.

###