How the Water Quality Control Board "Sherroded" 45 Los Osos Property Owners

"Members of this administration, members of the media... have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts. I think without a doubt Ms. Sherrod is owed an apology."
-- White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, 7/21/10, speaking about recently fired USDA head Shirley Sherrod, after learning that the comments that led to her firing were taken extremely out of context

TO: Jeff Young (left), Chairperson, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
DATE SENT: 8/6/10

Dear Chairperson Young,

I'm researching a story, and I'm hoping that I can get a comment from you regarding the enforcement actions that your board approved in Los Osos on January 5, 2006.

As you probably remember, those enforcement actions (Cease and Desist Orders) included 45 individual property owners in Los Osos, and, since your board ordered those enforcement actions, correspondence that has come across my desk from some of those 45 property owners include, "Faced with the CDO's causing condemnation of our home and causing us to have to vacate our home - well, it's more than anyone should have to live with," and, "(This prosecution) sends us to the hospital for emergency treatment for high blood pressure, heart conditions, and stress."

I'm writing you today, because, after nearly four years, and more than $7 million of careful analysis of the Los Osos wastewater project by SLO County officials, it appears that your board, in 2006, made a big mistake in issuing those enforcement actions.

Clearly, judging from the mountain of evidence that the County of SLO has produced over the past four years, your board, in January 2006, "made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts."

For example, the following quote is from you, and it comes from the official transcript of the January 5, 2006 meeting, available at this link:

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/board_info/minutes/2006/01_06_los_osos_hearing_transcript.pdf

... where your board voted to issue the enforcement actions against the community of Los Osos, including the 45 randomly selected property owners.

According to that official transcript, you said, "I can tell you one thing, that had the community not put the blocks on the current project (the Tri-W project) that we would not be here with an ACL hearing."

So, to be clear, according to you, had Los Osos voters, in September 2005, "not put the blocks" on the so-called "Tri-W project" by recalling three Los Osos CSD directors that were largely responsible for developing that "project," your board, in early 2006, would "not be here with an ACL hearing" to begin with.

Here's why that quote is extremely interesting in 2010:

Three-plus years and more than $7 million of careful analysis of the Los Osos wastewater project by SLO County officials now shows that the Tri-W project was an unnecessarily expensive, wildly unpopular, environmentally "infeasible," mid-town-sewer-"park" disaster, and your board was badly misinformed about that disaster when you issued those enforcement actions -- enforcement actions that were issued, solely, according to you, because the community voted to "put the blocks" on that disaster.

Mr. Young, it gets worse for you.

According to that official transcript, you also say, "What I heard in terms of complaints about (the Tri-W project) is it's not environmentally superior, it's not aesthetically superior, I mean those may be realities to some individuals. I look at them as being subjective and not objective."

You were wrong there, and, according to $7 million dollars worth of (relatively) objective County analysis, very wrong.

The following is what just some of that past three years, and $7 million dollars worth of careful County analysis says about the former Tri-W project -- a "project" that the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD spent (read: wasted) some six years and $25 million developing, and called for a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos.

Here's what the County's Pro/Con Analysis, available at this link:

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/TAC/TAC+Final+Pro-Con+Component+Analysis+8-6-07.pdf

... says about the LOCSD's former Tri-W project:

- "(Tri-W's) downtown location (near library, church, community center) and the high density residential area require that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."

and;

- "It (The Tri-W sewer plant) has high construction costs..." ($55 million. The next highest treatment facility option is estimated at $19 million.)

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

- "Small acreage and location in downtown center of towns (sic) require most expensive treatment"

and;

- "higher costs overall"

and;

- "Limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades, or alternative energy"

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

- "All sites are tributary to the Morro Bay National Estuary and pose a potential risk in the event of failure. Tri-W poses a higher risk..."

and;

- "NOTE: It was the unanimous opinion of the (National Water Research Institute) that an out of town site is better due to problematic issues with the downtown site."

and;

- "ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

Furthermore, according to the March 2009, "Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey," conducted by county officials, "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location (as their preference for the treatment facility)."

What I find very interesting about that quote these days, is that, according to a June 24, 2004, document, Roger Briggs, Executive Officer, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, said, "The (Tri-W) wastewater project is truly a community-based project."

Again, even your executive officer was/is wildly inaccurate regarding the Tri-W project.

He called it "truly community based," and then, five years later, an official survey showed that over 90-percent of the Prohibition Zone residents did not want an industrial (read: not ponds) sewer plant in the middle of their beautiful coastal town, after all... of course.

Additionally, in a June 2009 letter to the California Coastal Commission, the SLO County "Project team," writes, "The Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W project) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan [bolding mine], believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board (of Supervisors) to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."

I also recently asked SLO County environmental specialist, and Los Osos wastewater project planner, Mark Hutchinson, to, today, put himself in the shoes of the people that were responsible for wasting $25 million and six years on the "infeasible" Tri-W disaster. He just laughed... out loud. That was his answer to that great question; laughing.

Finally, out of all the documents the county produced on the Los Osos wastewater project, not one of them -- not one -- is favorable to the Tri-W "project," and, in the end, which was on June 11, 2010, when the Coastal Commission gave final approval for the County's proposed project (that includes an out-of-town sewer plant), the Tri-W "project" didn't even come close to working.

So, look at this situation, in 2010, it's very, very interesting:

In a February 6, 2004 document, Roger Briggs writes, "The LOCSD has developed a technically, environmentally, and economically sound project (with the Tri-W project)."

However, that wasn't even close to being accurate.

As we now know, thanks to almost four years and $8 million worth of County analysis, the Tri-W disaster wasn't "technically, environmentally, and economically sound."

Not even close. It was an embarrassing, "infeasible" mess.

However, according to you, the sole reason why your board issued enforcement actions against the community of Los Osos in 2006, is because they voted to "put the blocks" on the Tri-W disaster, which, as almost four years and $8 million worth of County analysis now shows us, was the exact right thing to do.

In fact, what it really looks like, is that the (2004 to) 2006 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (and staff) was badly confused regarding the Tri-W embarrassment, so the voters of Los Osos were forced to do your job, and had to form a recall election to vote to finally put the "infeasible" Tri-W disaster "on blocks" -- clearly the right thing to do -- yet, according to you, "had the community not put the blocks on the (Tri-W project) that we would not be here with an ACL hearing," in January 2006.

Which brings me to my three questions:

1) What is your response to the fact that there is now a mountain of official evidence that shows that the Tri-W project was a technical, environmental, and economical disaster, yet the only reason your board fined 45 Los Osos property owners, is because the town's voters put that mid-town sewer plant disaster "on blocks?"

and;

2) Considering the mountain of evidence that shows that the Tri-W project was a disaster, and stopping that disaster was clearly the right thing to do, and considering that the only reason your board fined the people of Los Osos is because they voted to stop that disaster, will your board now be abandoning the CDOs against the 45 Los Osos property owners, that are clearly innocent, and offering them an apology?

(And, what's even more interesting here, is, not only are those property owners completely innocent, but, if you think it through, your board should actually commend the voters of Los Osos for doing the right thing in 2005, and putting the Tri-W disaster "on blocks." They should be commended for that... because it was clearly the right thing to do.)

and;

3) How do you explain how your agency was so wrong about the Tri-W "project?" Why were your agency's conclusions about the Tri-W disaster almost the exact opposite of the county's conclusions about that embarrassment?

How do you explain that?

I look forward to your answers.

As always, much thanks,
Ron

P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[31 weeks down... 21 to go.]

- - -

[UPDATE (8/9/10): Oh, do I have a GREAT follow-up to my post.

This is excellent! -- a perfect example of your State government in action:

Last Friday, when I sent my e-mail (above) to Jeff Young, I sent it to Roger Briggs, because, when you click on the "Contact the Board" button at the CCRWQCB web site, it links to Briggs's e-mail address.

And then, I wrote at the top:

"[Hello Roger,

I'm trying to send the following e-mail to Jeff Young, but I didn't see his e-mail address on your web site, and I was hoping that you could forward it to him. You might find my e-mail interesting, too. Thanks!]"

Now, watch, and behold the comic genius found in the sequence of events that that one simple act -- trying to send an e-mail to a State Board member -- unfurled:

I sent my e-mail (to Jeff Young) to Roger last Friday, August 6th. He replied that same day, "I'm out til Aug 16. I'll read your email when I return, or please contact Carol Hewitt..."

[Really, Roger? I send you an e-mail -- especially THAT e-mail -- addressed to your boss (as per your web site) on August 6th, and you're not even going to read it until the 16th? Um... o.k.?]

So, of course, I contact Carol Hewitt, that same day:

- - -
"Hello Carol,

Apparently, Roger's out of the office until the 16th.

Could you please forward my e-mail (below) to Jeff Young.

Better yet, because all of the italics, and bold, and links stay preserved on my blog, could you please just send Mr. Young to:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com

My e-mail to Mr. Young is also published there."
- - -

Just, this morning, Hewitt cc's me on this e-mail:

- - -
"To Board Member Young (bc):

Please see attached email from Ron Crawford.
Thank you.

Carol Hewitt, Administrative Assistant II/Notary Public
Regional Water Quality Control Board - Region 3"
- - -

The very next e-mail in my in-box is from the "OPA Water Boards Public Affairs."

It reads:

- - -
"Hi Ron,

According to our directory, there is no Jeff Young working for the State Water Resources Control Board headquarters in Sacramento. Since Los Osos is under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, you might try contacting them instead. Here is their contact information:

Central Coast RWQCB (3)
Address: 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Phone: (805) 549-3147 Fax: (805) 543-0397
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/

Kind regards,
Cortney Stevenson

-----------------------------------
State Water Resources Control Board
Office of Public Affairs"
- - -

The unexpected places that beautiful humor pops up in this story, amazes me.

Well, thanks for that, Cortney. And, had I actually been trying to contact a "Jeff Young working for the State Water Resources Control Board headquarters in Sacramento," I would have found your e-mail useful.

Wait, maybe I still can find some use.

My girl, Cortney, wrote:

"Since Los Osos is under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, you might try contacting them instead."

Hey, there's a good idea. Why didn't I think of that?

Oh, Roooogggeeerr...]