Deja Vu All Over Again -- The Trib's Idea of Newsworthiness

I don't know... maybe it's just me.

Maybe I'm wrong about what is newsworthy, and the Tribune is right, because one of us has got to be wrong.

For example, I thought it was newsworthy when a proposed sewer project -- developed by a small citizen's group in Los Osos, and sold to voters as "better, cheaper, faster," and was responsible for getting the CSD formed in the first place in 1998 -- failed in 2000. Its failure marked a $5 million waste to county taxpayers, because they got stuck with the tab for the project that "better, cheaper, faster" replaced.

To me, all of that was newsworthy. To the Tribune, it wasn't. None of it. That's the only reason I can think of why they have never written a word on the apparently important -- to me and New Times at least -- failure of the Solution Group's heavily marketed, yet dead-on-arrival project.

These days, the Trib has me questioning my idea of newsworthiness again.

Just a few weeks ago, the Los Osos CSD Board rescinded a little-known, 2001 document called the "Statement of Overriding Considerations."

The document, it turns out, is a bombshell.

It's a simple, 4-page document that was drafted and adopted by the 2001 Board, and it completely overrode the seemingly important environmental review process. The environmental review process for the Los Osos sewer showed that treatment facility sites out of town were "environmentally preferable," and therefore, the Board was required by state law to choose one of those sites, unless they quickly and quietly adopted a "Statement of Overriding Considerations," which they promptly did. The SOC is the sole document that locks in Tri-W.

It also turns out that the rationale behind the "Statement of Overriding Considerations" doesn't hold a drop of water. It's completely invalid.

Furthermore, since the SOC was recently rescinded by the District, there are now some serious lingering questions... with some serious implications.

Like:

"Is it now a violation of state environmental law to build at Tri-W considering there's now nothing around to override those laws?"

and;

"Was the Regional Water Quality Control Board aware of the SOC when one of their staff members wrote in a recent letter to the District:

WARNING REGARDING SALE OF TRI-W SITE, LOS OSOS

Your August 3, 2006 meeting agenda indicates that you are considering sale of the Tri-W site, an attempt to negate the Community Services District's previous environmental approval process for its selected project..."?

(Quick memo to the RWQCB: You might want to put the kabash on future references to the "Community Services District's previous environmental approval process." After all, they did decide to override that process -- a process that pointed to out-of-town, downwind sites, and I know you guys aren't down with those sites.)

To me, all of that is newsworthy, that's why I wrote a huge piece on it.

And again (again!) the Trib just doesn't seem to share my idea of newsworthiness. It's been about a month since the District rescinded the SOC, and the Trib has yet to write a word on it.

Deja vu all over again.

That's why I wrote the following letter to the Tribune's executive editor, Sandra Duerr:

8/28/06

Hello Mrs. Duerr,

Recently, the Los Osos CSD Board of Directors rescinded a 2001 document titled, the "Statement of Overriding Considerations."

That document was drafted and adopted by the 2001 LOCSD Board, and it overrode the entire environmental review process for the siting of the treatment facility in the Los Osos sewer project -- a process that showed that out-of-town sites were "environmentally preferred" because most have been environmentally degraded due to decades of agricultural use, unlike Tri-W.

The 2001 LOCSD Directors decided to override the environmental review process with their SOC, and that decision locked in Tri-W for their second project. (Their first project was a ponding system that was also proposed for Tri-W. That project failed in 2000, yet it was highly influential in establishing the CSD in 1998.)

Additionally, the two "benefits" listed in the SOC as the only reasons to override the environmental review process for their second treatment facility -- a facility that required exactly ten times less land than their first treatment facility -- are clearly invalid.

I wrote on the SOC, why it is invalid, and the dramatic effect it had on the entire LO sewer story here:
http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/08/loopiest-of-loopholes-recently.html
(Please scroll past my brief "pledge drive.")

The recent action by the current CSD Board to rescind the SOC is extremely newsworthy and timely, yet I have not seen a story on it in your paper.

Here are my questions:

Is your paper planning on covering that extremely newsworthy and timely story?

and;

If not, why not?

Thank you,
Ron
sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Mrs. Duerr has yet to reply. I also "cc'd" my letter to several other Trib staffers, and none of them have replied.

If you would like to contact Mrs. Duerr and ask her if they plan on covering this seemingly newsworthy and timely story, you can e-mail her here: sduerr@thetribunenews.com.

###

(By the way, the SewerWatch Fall Pledge Drive is still going on [details below]. THANK YOU so much to those that have taken the time to support independent journalism!)