Monday, August 23, 2010

If Only the Innocent CDOers in Los Osos were "Annie the Dog"


TO: SLO County Board of Supervisors (left to right in photo: Frank Mecham [Chairperson], Bruce Gibson, Adam Hill, "Katcho" Achadjian, James Patterson/PHOTO COURTESY: SLO COUNTY GOVERNMENT)
DATE: 8/23/10

Dear SLO County Supervisors,

For once, I'm (almost) at a loss for words.

For the past month, I've cc'd all of you on my e-mails to the chair of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, where I showed that $7 million and four years' worth of County analysis recently exposed that the RWQCB was badly confused about the former mid-town "Tri-W sewer project" in 2005, and solely because they were badly confused about that disaster, they launched enforcement actions (Cease and Desist Orders) on 45 randomly selected (and, ultimately, completely innocent) property owners in Los Osos -- enforcement actions that are so harsh (present tense), that they could "condemn" homes, and the stress associated with that real possibility sends (again, present tense) those innocent people to the hospital (just like it has for the past five years) and, during the exact same time that I'm showing your Board all of that (and while your Board did absolutely nothing for those completely innocent citizens), the "Annie the Dog" story, that involves a local man that lost his dog last month, has led to members of your Board making numerous media appearances, and the involvement of several top-level county government staff (including meetings with Chief County Counsel, Warren Jensen, according to Supervisor Hill, during one of his many appearances on the Dave Congalton Show over the past month to discuss the "Annie the Dog" story)... all at the same time that I made your Board aware that the 45 CDO recipients in Los Osos are completely innocent, and currently twisting in the wind, and you did absolutely nothing to help them.

Now, it's hard to find a bigger Australian Shepherd/Border Collie fan than I, so I do appreciate your effort with the "Annie the Dog" story, but, c'mon -- if you gave that kind of effort to help those 45 property owners in Los Osos (that I recently showed you, using your own excellent primary sources, are completely innocent) that you gave (and are giving) to the "Annie the Dog," story, you would really help those citizens.

To summarize:

Over the past month, I showed you how RWQCB chair, Jeff Young, said in 2005:

"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 (enforcement action) hearing."

I also showed you how RWQCB executive office, Roger Briggs said in 2004:

"The LOCSD has developed a technically, environmentally, and economically sound project (with the Tri-W project)."

I also showed how $7 million and four years' worth of your own careful SLO County analysis showed that the Tri-W project was the exact disaster that I first reported it to be in my 2004 New Times cover story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, archived at this link:

http://archive.newtimesslo.com/archive/2004-09-22/cover/index.html

... which all means, of course, that the voters of Los Osos in 2005, instead of being punished by the RWQCB, should have actually been commended by the RWQCB for stopping the Tri-W disaster.

And then I showed you that because the RWQCB was badly confused about the Tri-W disaster, they issued baseless enforcement actions in 2005, that have sent completely innocent people (many, elderly) to the hospital for the past five years-and-counting.

And, now armed with all of those indisputable, and amazing, facts, your entire Board does absolutely nothing for those innocent citizens in Los Osos, yet, at the same time, mobilizes that amount resources for "Annie the Dog?"

Huh?

So, yes, I suppose am at a loss for words here. I don't know what else to say, other than I'm going to continue to report on this amazing story, and if your Board wants to give the kind of attention to those 45 innocent property owners in Los Osos, as you have to Annie the Dog, well, that would be a very good thing for those completely innocent San Luis Obispo County citizens.

It may even save them more trips to the hospital.

Very sincerely,
Ron

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[34 weeks down... 18 to go.]

98 Comments:

  • An advance copy from a Los Osos Hero:

    Good afternoon Chairman Mecham and Board. 7/24/10
    Today my subject is Heroes.
    The people of Los Osos are wondering which of you are coming to our rescue or to speed our demise.
    Will you be the heroes that save our town from dictatorial cleansing or will you crush our throats with your boot?
    Will any of you will be wearing a white hat and riding a white horse to save Los Osos?
    Mr. Gibson for whatever reason will not look and evaluate new technology alternatives that would save us 50 million dollar's or more, even in the face of the current state of economy, state and federal deficits. It appears that County Staff is mindlessly marching in lockstep towards financial ruin in spite of all the advancement in technology that is so significantly less expensive. The use of readily available, off the shelf parts, would prevent the hardship that the proposed significantly more expensive technology would cause if used.
    I do not understand why Staff and why you Honorable Supervisors in your capacity as the guardians of the people’s purse, are in so much of a hurry as to not quickly review the study of alternatives that did not include technology that several Supervisors promised they would.
    Today after spending more than $7 Million of the county’s general fund, Paavo Ogren’s consulting engineers predict the cost of their preferred project may be $182 million before “change orders” which could drive the price north of this estimate.
    I hope you heard Mr. Ripley at the water board last month. He stated he could build our project for 50 million dollars less then Montgomery, Watson, Harza. A Vacuum collection system could be as much as $100 Million less, but Paavo Ogren’s engineers never studied that during their review of alternatives. STEP/STEG was dropped from the process before it could be included in the design build RFP and Vacuum was never studied with an even hand or given equal weight.
    It is certain that this project will continue receive ongoing independent scrutiny as it is being built and through the eyes of history. Los Osos may already be the most studied wastewater project in the history of the United States and there are many on all sides of the “which technology to use” issue, who are paying very close attention. How will your actions and votes be seen in hindsight? There is still time to save money on this project which in turn will sustain many who would otherwise be crushed and buried by the currently proposed project.
    I implore you to please stop this unnecessary proposed over spending of borrowed money. That is the heroic thing to do. Please do not continue to needlessly throw money away. The taxpayers simply cannot afford it. As Supervisors you alone will be making the choice that either protects the people or crushes and buries them in deep trenches along with that leaky proposed pipe.
    Amen Ben DiFatta, Los Osos

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 10:02 AM, August 23, 2010  

  • Does Annie the dog pee and poop in her own drinking water? No, I didn't think so.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 12:29 PM, August 23, 2010  

  • "Does Annie the dog pee and poop in her own drinking water? No, I didn't think so."

    No signs of intelligent life on that comment.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 1:45 PM, August 23, 2010  

  • Sewertoons, you... oops, never mind.
    Sincerely, M

    By Blogger M, at 2:15 PM, August 23, 2010  

  • Hi M, I do and I HATE it. Had no idea when we bought in 2005 that the sewer going in in 2005 would be stopped. I mean when your street is dug up you feel that it is going to happen. That is a little different than rejecting something only on paper, as had been done in the past. I thought that we would be part of the civilized world in a year or two.

    Anyway, the point of my comment was to step back a bit and not look at Los Osos under a microscope from our own viewpoint, myopically justifying every sewer misstep. People out in the rest of the world, especially other towns in the County, think that we are stupid and nuts. What's wrong with us that we can't get a critical piece of infrastructure built? So at this point, the less said about Los Osos, the better, as we don't need any more publicity to make us look like fools. Let's talk about Annie the dog instead of the nuts in Los Osos who can't agree on $#!t.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 3:02 PM, August 23, 2010  

  • ... not exactly.

    Here's someone who says, "Let's talk about the Los Osos wastewater project and the 'obstructionists' that tried to stop it," and spends four years launching an aggressive, guerilla virtual smear campaign of several community members -- that really does compare to the Goebbels propaganda from 1926. Then she says, "The less said about Los Osos, the better."

    Here is someone who has often criticized people like Ron Crawford for not living in Los Osos, but she will hastily rely on what the "people out in the rest of the world" (e.g. NOT in the Prohibition Zone) think. Again, it's the "pick and choose" principle that has contributed to the impression that LO homeowners are "stupid and nuts."

    I'm sure you're right, Lynette -- to an extent, that is. Stick to talking about Annie the Dog instead of Los Osos. Let the grown-ups talk about things that go beyond "pee and poop," okay? Thanks.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 3:55 PM, August 23, 2010  

  • OK, first Ron wants some kind of reasonable explanation for the hideous actions of a unaccountable regulatory board, then when he gets the silent treatment from them he wants an elected supervisory board to treat the aggrieved better than dogs.
    Ron, who ate your brain?
    Four of those five supervisors don't give a flying fig about Los Osos and the one that looks like an Ewok.
    Just wants the whole thing to blow over.
    What did Ann call it?
    Oh ya, hide the salami.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 4:44 PM, August 23, 2010  

  • Sewertoons said...
    Does Annie the dog pee and poop in her own drinking water? No, I didn't think so.

    12:29 PM, August 23, 2010

    There is NO way to measure leakage from a bell and spigot gravity sewer while it silently leaks 24/7.

    Why are you in support of burying a pipe that will leak untreated human waste into your drinking water?

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 6:02 PM, August 23, 2010  

  • Anyone would be hard pressed to ignore the evidence you have presented. The Powers That Be, however, have managed to do so quite effectively for a very long time in the face of reams of documentation. Their doggedly persistent consistency might be admirable if it weren't so devastingly damaging to so many.

    The actions and the failures to act of every public official involved in any way with the enforcement actions against randomly selected Los Osos families challenge the intellect. The contrast between our ordeal and the issues that lately pique official interest numbs the mind and discourages the heart.

    By Blogger Bev. De Witt-Moylan, at 11:36 AM, August 24, 2010  

  • That it boggles the mind that this particular part of this sewer is still in action is grossly understating it. How does this action do anything to get the sewer going? What harm could possibly come from abandoning the CDO's that were issued? Actually I think it all comes down to accountability. They cannot admit that it possibly was an action that was only a scare tactic. Just as the County cannot voice anything about how 1100 properties were permitted after 8313 because that would be assuming accountability. Just as the Regional water board cannot voice anything about why they allowed the solutions group to abandon the County project and implement their own plan which the Board had already stated would not work. We've had guaranteed offers to build the sewer for milions and millions less than what apparently is going to be implemented and no one involved in the process will address why those options are not being pursued. Through all of the meetings that have ever taken place about this project public comment runs to "no,no,no,no,no,no,yes,no,no,no,no and then that agency goes with the yes. And the supposed impression of us by outsiders is that were wacky? Wonder how we got that way? And Sewertoons, can you say with any certainty that all 45 CDO recipients are peeing and pooping in their drinking water?
    Sincerely, M

    By Blogger M, at 3:31 PM, August 24, 2010  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 12:08 AM, August 25, 2010  

  • Hi M, all of those with CDOs live in the PZ, and the entire town - lies over the aquifers. So places where there is not an acre or so to absorb and neutralize the -- the -- yucky stuff -- the water is not cleaned up properly -- so yes, being crowded onto these tiny lots, the CDOers are polluting the drinking water. I am one of the polluters, but I have an NOV. Do we drink from the upper aquifer anymore? No, it is too polluted, we don't.

    I agree with you though. That 1100 properties were built with no infrastructure demanded was WRONG. Realistically speaking, the County is not going to be able to fix what was done incorrectly then. Also, we had a chance to almost get it done for free, but the community turned that down. That needs to be mentioned. One bad mark for each side.

    Did the RWQCB have anything to do with the CSD being formed to build the sewer instead of the County? I don't think so. LAFCo decides if A CSD will be formed or not, not the RWQCB. Here is the configuration of the present LAFCo board:

    http://www.slolafco.com/
    (go to the commissioners link)

    -- and I do not see a representative of the RWQCB on it - I doubt that the members are now drawn differently than they were then in 1997 and 1998.

    I am confused - the RWQCB said AFTER the CSD presented their project that it would not work - this wasn't before the CSD was formed.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 12:09 AM, August 25, 2010  

  • (It all wouldn't fit.)

    Do you believe what salesmen tell you M? In other words, this car or refrigerator will do XYZ and you agree without doing any research? Also, is the County in a position to tell a salesman that they are a liar?

    The "options" were not being pursued because they would not work here at the price advertised. Were you ever a salesperson working on commission? But the County did not really explain ALL of why it wasn't going to work throughly until the Planning Commission hearings. That's when it became very clear. I see why they did that, but it didn't get the word out quickly enough in my opinion.

    If you want an example of salesmanship, look at Ripley. Before the County was involved, during the "Al" days, 95% of the tanks needed replacing. Then, when chances of getting the project were at a very low percentage - suddenly it was, "keep the tanks and line them," to lower the cost to what it would really be. Sounds like a bait and switch to me.

    Perhaps the CDOs WILL be abandoned AFTER the County accepts the project. I'd be hoping for that.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 12:11 AM, August 25, 2010  

  • I was the deletion - the message box said my comment was too big - I broke it up into two and then suddenly the original, long one was above them. Strange.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 12:14 AM, August 25, 2010  

  • Again, I'm not going to fact-check point by point, but here are some key facts that are non-debatable:

    1. Pollution of the groundwater is not solely contingent on the small lot size. The buck stops with your septic tank. Each property is different. Some properties may discharge more than others, and some may be in compliance with discharge requirements. There is no way to logically say that everyone who has property with a certain lot size is polluting without evidence.

    2. The County is solely responsible for the poor infrastructure development of Los Osos during the late 1970s, but accountability is suddenly transferred to PZ homeowners immediately following their majority vote (voter coercion) to move the sewer out of the Tri-W site. In theory, it's illogical to condemn the homeowners with enforcement action when you're also placing fault on the County for putting said homeowners in jeopardy.

    3. Every design-build process in this country (pursuant to DBIA standards, at least) creates a competitive bidding environment, meaning there will always be "salesmen" bidding, and that includes MWH Americas, W.M. Lyles. Nobody is "safe" from the "salesman" title -- so to use "salesman" in a disparaging context doesn't make any logical sense.

    4. Calling someone like Ripley a "liar" (impugning the integrity of the individual's business and trade) and not showing truth for comparison is defamation of character prima facie. Given who's calling the "salesman" a liar, a lawsuit against those individual(s) could happen. Lesson learned: back up your statements or lose your stepson's inheritance and Cal Poly pension.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 9:50 AM, August 25, 2010  

  • Toons:
    "I am confused - the RWQCB said AFTER the CSD presented their project that it would not work - this wasn't before the CSD was formed."

    Yes you are confused, two words "Cuesta Study"

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 10:30 AM, August 25, 2010  

  • MG wrote:

    "Toons:
    "I am confused - the RWQCB said AFTER the CSD presented their project that it would not work - this wasn't before the CSD was formed."

    Yes you are confused, two words "Cuesta Study"
    "

    Yep, and like I've reported forever, including at this link, beginning in early 1998, waaaay before the November election that formed the LOCSD for no reason whatsoever:

    - The RWQCB told the Karners that their made-up "project" wasn't going to work.

    - The County of SLO told the Karners that their made-up "project" wasn't going to work.

    - The Questa Study told the Karners that their made-up "project" wasn't going to work.

    - And the Coastal Commission told the Karners that their made-up "project" wasn't going to work.

    And Pandora, true to form, ignored ALL of that, and, instead continued to aggressively market her and her husband's DOA project as "better, cheaper, faster" with a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75/month," all they way up to the election, and her behavior based marketing worked, as usual, and the Los Osos CSD was formed for no reason whatsoever, and then two months later, as vice-president of HER newly formed CSD, she killed the County's "ready to go" project, at an expense of over $6 million to County taxpayers.

    And the Karners have been cashing checks off of that scam ever since... as I showed at this link:

    http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html

    And now, because it worked $oooo good in 1998, the Karners are now running that exact same SWA Group scam at the SLO Botanical Garden, right now... today, and I've made County Supervisors aware of that, and, of course, they do absolutely nothing.

    My favorite part of that entire sequence is that the Karners popped out their made-up project in mid-November, 1997, and by January 1998, less than two months after Pandora first hit the "print" button on her disastrous "better, cheaper, faster" scam, the RWQCB told her it wasn't going to work, and, of courser, she ignored them.

    And the hilarious(er) part of all of that? There she is, the current Parks Commissioner for District 2, appointed by BrucEwok.

    Unbelievable!

    God, I love this story.

    Los Osos, you guys are the best!

    By Blogger Ron, at 11:04 AM, August 25, 2010  

  • Reality check: Since when is any "fact" not debatable in Los Osos? Hilarious!

    How about we just deal with reality?

    How much does it cost to put a lysimeter under each house to determine its contribution to our pollution? Who orders that and who pays for that?

    If a lysimeter is installed at each house, and if houses A, G and M on a particular street do not pollute at present, but the rest do, should they be exempt from hooking up to the sewer and let the remaining houses pay the costs for everyone? When conditions change, (i.e. 6 other people move into the houses and cause the non-polluting status to move to one of polluting), houses A, G and M then must hook-up. How do the neighbors who paid more overall get compensated when the costs are lower?

    Who gets paid to monitor the lysimeters?

    There is a reason that septic tank/lot size regulations exist, to "on average" determine what are the effective parameters for septic tanks to work. Eight to twelve houses per acre on septics do not qualify in removing pollutants, as seen by the high nitrate levels in our upper aquifer. The rule is, in general, one house per acre, per septic tank. Accountability and payment is shared regardless of individual contribution because it is too costly to do otherwise. Its kind of like each of us paying a little to support the elderly, the incapacitated, the mentally ill, the poor in our society. That is what civilized nations do -- that AND have sewage systems.

    Accountability for the pollution has always been given to homeowners. Who sits (or stands) above the aquifers anyway? The blame for doing nothing about it falls both to homeowners and the County. The fact that the homeowners got away with not paying for so long was sheer luck or in our case perhaps, stupidity, duplicity, stinginess, AND not paying attention to the requirements to keep a water supply viable.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 11:50 AM, August 25, 2010  

  • Thanks Mike Green, I'll look that up now. Maybe this question is premature -- but --maybe someone can point out the difference between the Solutions Group plan and the Lisa Board wanting to do Step/Steg with ponds and Piper and Linde claiming we only need to sewer the low-lying areas - ? How would that be allowed if the Solutions Group plan was not going to work?

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 11:58 AM, August 25, 2010  

  • Sewertoons said...
    Reality check: Since when is any "fact" not debatable in Los Osos? Hilarious!

    How about we just deal with reality?

    There is NO way to measure leakage from a bell and spigot gravity sewer while it silently leaks 24/7.

    Why are you in support of burying a pipe that will leak untreated human waste into your drinking water?

    6:02 PM, August 23, 2010

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 12:39 PM, August 25, 2010  

  • ron,

    Are Piper and Linde friends of Pandora?

    Do you think that the voters read the Cuesta Study? Did the County read the Cuesta Study? Did LAFCo read the Cuesta Study?

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 1:34 PM, August 25, 2010  

  • Cuesta Group or Study is spelled "Questa." Sorry Q. G..

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 1:40 PM, August 25, 2010  

  • Reality check: Lynette Tornatzky lost the debate. In fact, she lost a long time ago. Now it's time to put the crazed ideologues out to pasture.

    #

    Wastewater treatment systems are the natural, evolutionary step to making a community -- riddled with septic tanks -- whole, but when the CCRWQCB pursued enforcement action against Prohibition Zone homeowners (under the gross assumption that all septic tanks were discharging into the groundwater), they presumed that those homeowners had the ability to install a community sewer on their own. The PZ was treated like a district inside of a district with no clear, determinable remedy or compromise.

    Before AB2701 came along, it took people like Mr. Bishop and Mr. Shipe to reach out and establish a compromise; acknowledge under duress that they were "polluters" when they knew there was no evidence to establish that fact. Bev Moylan can attest to that. They had to endure months -- and now years -- of unrelenting anguish because the water board (and a few people who wanted PZ residents to be "fined out of existence") blamed the wrong party under false pretenses.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 1:44 PM, August 25, 2010  

  • 'toons, I think you've gone of the deep(er) end.

    You wrote:

    "Are Piper and Linde friends of Pandora?"

    I honestly have no idea what that means.

    Are Piper and Linde friends of Pandora?

    Huh?

    and;

    "Do you think that the voters read the Cuesta Study? Did the County read the Cuesta Study? Did LAFCo read the Cuesta Study?"

    ... or what that means.

    Did LAFCo read the Cuesta Study?

    What?

    I have no idea how that's relevant, or what it's even supposed to mean.

    You're posting pure gibberish... even worse than your usual gibberish.

    C-ya at P's 20th Year as Parks Commissioner "celebration," eh?

    By Blogger Ron, at 4:32 PM, August 25, 2010  

  • "…when the CCRWQCB pursued enforcement action against Prohibition Zone homeowners … they presumed that those homeowners had the ability to install a community sewer on their own."

    The community wanted control of building a WWTF. It took a lot of effort to convince LAFCo to allow a CSD to form to build a WWTF. The community went through various efforts to build a plant. Then the community chose to stop construction once it had begun to be built. It was all done by community voting.

    Sometimes the lessons of growing up are painful and costly.

    Right, razor!! We are not polluting!!! The nitrates and trace chemicals in our water are from ancient buried forests and cows with human DNA. Thinking processes like these are how we managed to be in the mess that we are in today.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 5:14 PM, August 25, 2010  

  • Oh ron, stop playing dense. Do you not know that Linde and Piper are recommending what the old Community Plan advocated for right now? That the County's WWTF is all wrong and we need to basically do what the Questa Plan said to do? You know, the plan that the Questa Study said wasn't going to work!

    Why would LAFCo give the green light to form a CSD to build the very thing the Questa Study said wouldn't work?

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 5:19 PM, August 25, 2010  

  • Lafco is a body of ELECTED representatives, each one is beholden to their ELECTORATE. Jeez Toons are you that stupid?
    Why the hell didn't they let Los Osos dissolve?
    Here is a hint, THEY ARE ONLY BEHOLDEN TO THEIR OWN ELECTORATE!!!!!!!!!
    And that aint Los Osos!
    Lafco is a way to insulate communities from one another
    The RWQCB is a way to punish communities without accountability.
    The SLO board of stupidvisors is a way to legitimize the failings of government.
    Who ate your brain?

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 9:36 PM, August 25, 2010  

  • Funny. That's not what Linde and Piper are saying.

    Also, it's probably not the wisest idea to be bringing up their names and using them as a pin cushion, especially when they don't make a habit of clarifying misconceptions on the blogs.

    And Mike G., Toons is that stupid.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 10:30 PM, August 25, 2010  

  • Hi Mike Green,
    Ha-ha - no one ate my brain - unless the 3-month-and-counting kitchen remodel counts as a mental impairment! There was so much electrical wire and cabinetry jumping around in here today that I completely forgot about my dental appointment!

    Here is the LAFCo scoop:
    LAFCo commissioners are comprised of seven (7) Regular Members (two county, two city, two special district, and one public member), and four (4) Alternate Members (one county, one city, one special district, and one public member), each serving four-year terms.

    The County Board of Supervisors appoints two regular representatives and one alternate representative from the County, the Cities convene a special committee composed of the Mayors from each City to appoint two regular and one alternate representative, and the Special Districts follow the same procedure. The LAFCO Commission appoints public representatives to serve on the Commission.

    So yes, some are "elected" although not to the LAFCo position (Katcho and Bruce) and some are not (Roberts and Murray).

    They didn't let Los Osos dissolve because of the liability and debt. My question is - why did they OK the creation of this sewer-inspired CSD if the plan the Solutions Group was intending to use was not going to work? Wasn't the Questa Study out in the world? That is my question. I wasn't here then.


    Razor,
    Apparently you don't or can't tune in to the BOS - that is what they have been saying, there and at the June Coastal Commission hearing. They are free to clear anything up that they do not like - and I'm sure that you will pass the word on if it is so important to you. I'm sure that all 12 of us reading these blogs are riveted to these words we write. However, scolding is not your strong suit. Your name calling isn't much better.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 11:40 PM, August 25, 2010  

  • My reading comprehension skills are not what they should be, but after reading the Questa Study report it read to me like the County requested it. With the history of this sewer, the County indeed probably did not read it. Certainly they didn't pay heed to it. I found the last paragraph in the study interesting. Something about the 218 vote. As I said my reading comprehension skills not what they should be, it read to me like one would have been required with the Community Plan and that a 2/3 majority would have been troublesome. Aha! Could somebody explain this?
    Sincerely, M

    By Blogger M, at 6:37 AM, August 26, 2010  

  • Ah... " 'toonstory," 'toons' version of history.

    Hey, 'toons, remember in 1767, when America fought the Civil War against the Russians, after our Founding Mothers signed the Constitution?

    Or, 1958, when President Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in Washington D.C. after giving his "I Had a Dream" speech in Los Angeles?

    Or, how 'bout when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor in 1924, and then that started WWI?

    M? If you ever want of feel MUCH better about your reading comprehension skills, just read some of 'toons' posts.

    By Blogger Ron, at 9:10 AM, August 26, 2010  

  • I don't believe Lafco could stop any community that overwhelmingly voted to become a CSD no matter what the underlying reasons are (unless it's to secede from the US)
    Besides, it goes right back to the problem of the makeup of the members of Lafco.
    Since they are overwhelmingly committed to their respective electorate, either through direct election or appointment, there is no compelling reason to protect anyone except their constituents.
    The feeling I got from the county at the time was if Los Osos wants to take responsibility for their own infrastructure, let em. Who cares if they don't know shit.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 10:35 AM, August 26, 2010  

  • Hi M,

    The 218 mentioned in the Questa Study is what lives on some of our tax bills right now - the $20 million bond to pay for land, permits and WWTF design. It did pass. Some paid up front, but some didn't.

    Funny how Measure B only required a simple majority.

    The old Board way was to pay back the cost of the SRF loan through rates and charges. Because of the default on the $134 million loan, we were required to assess ourselves the $25,000 (approximately) to guarantee that we wouldn't default this time around.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 11:02 AM, August 26, 2010  

  • Mike Green, I think that you are right. I think that the County just wanted to get the problem of the fighting citizens off of its back and let them duke it out among themselves. Boy, did that lack of taking responsibility backfire.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 11:06 AM, August 26, 2010  

  • ron, what you don't get is that the Questa Study said that the ponds/Step thing wasn't as good as what the County was doing and that their plan wasn't perfect either. You simply focus on every tiny aspect of the "Pandora" issue and forget the "elephant in the room" rest of it.

    My question remains - and no one seems to be willing or able to answer it - if these two things were NOT going to work (Step/ponds) - why did Lisa, Julie, Chuck, John and Steve say that is what they wanted to do? Blame the County and LAFCo fine - but repeating the same mistake - why?

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 11:08 AM, August 26, 2010  

  • Toons, Not quite correct, you certainly can make a good argument that the post recall board screwed the pooch when they decided to not have a 218 vote to move the WWTP, but to equate the Ripley plan with the "Ponds of Avalon" "Cheaper, Better,Faster" lie is wrong, even the county TAC agrees that a STEP plan such as Ripleys is feasible.
    (Which of course is a whole nother can o worms)

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 11:20 AM, August 26, 2010  

  • There is no comparison. There were fliers that were sent around town by Gail McPherson prior to the recall, which said that the sewer will be only $100/month. That's akin to the "Better, Faster, Cheaper" campaign, but that campaign doesn't even compare to the Ripley Plan and its variations.

    Also, Linde and Piper are not advocating the "old community plan" from the Questa Study. That's purely fiction. Don't bring those guys up. They're irrelevant to the subject matter at hand, and I'm fairly sure they wouldn't want words being put in their mouth by someone who they don't talk to.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 11:51 AM, August 26, 2010  

  • Are you saying that was a 218 vote that was an unsealed ballot turned into the CSD office? Whatever it was it wasn't for the Community plan the Questa Study was for. The study also stated that the Community Plan would not be compliant with the Water Board. Did I read something different than you did? Did you read Pandora's copy of it or something. Did the post recall board have a plan or not? You drone on about how they had no plan and then you state their plan was ponds. Which is it? If as you say there are only 12 people reading this then that's a good thing. With the mis-information you spread as fact it would be troublesome if it went to a large readership.
    Sincerely, M

    By Blogger M, at 11:57 AM, August 26, 2010  

  • Mike, I wasn't saying that - maybe I wasn't writing clearly enough. The Old Board DID have a 218 for the design, permits and land - (not one to cover repayment of the SRF loan, like we have now),and it is that charge some of us see on our tax bills. Seventeen or eighteen years left to pay.

    True, the Lisa Board did NOT do a 218 - for reasons that have never been explained.

    Ripley claimed his plan was cheaper, better and faster than Tri-W! Maybe not as a slogan, but each of those points was made by him EMPHATICALLY! He left off the costs of land and permits and lawsuits and the cost to the homeowner and then changed his tune for what the project would be by the time he spoke at the Coastal Commission (95% replacement of tanks during the "Al" years and lining the tanks by the CC). Was he claiming tertiary treated water, which was a given with the old project and a necessary add-on with the County project, NO. He was claiming beneficial reuse of nutrients - which may hold too much nitrogen for the plants to take up, thereby putting excess nitrogen back into the ground. Plus where was all that extra water going to go during rainy season if you don't have Broderson?

    FEASIBLE absolutely - I would never say that it wasn't feasible - but cheaper and faster - that's where I disagree. Better is in the eye of the beholder, as the NWRI report says either.

    Let me share what the TAC had to say on STEP:

    "100% tank replacement is a conservative estimate. For an existing tank to be reused it would have to be pumped out, inspected, and pressure tested, which would be costly. If the test failed, the tank would still have to be replaced. Existing tanks would also have to be retrofitted for STEP pumps. Both Ripley and Dr. Tchobanoglous agree that the community should expect to replace all septic tanks for a STEP system."

    http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/document+library/Working+Group+Questions-Engineering+8-1-07.pdf

    Not mentioned would be the costs of the concrete tanks needed to hold the fiberglass tanks on the 25' lots where the driveway is the only place to put the tank.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 1:32 PM, August 26, 2010  

  • M, I don't know what the 218 of then looked like - unsealed ballot? Mike Green - do you know? Right - the Community Plan would not satisfy the Water Board. That is why the pond/Step idea was abandoned by the early CSD.

    Didn't the County pay for the Questa Study?

    Let me clarify, it was Lisa that said they had no plan. They had an idea of what they wanted, but there was no actual plan. Remember in the spring of 2006 when the Lisa Board put out an RFP and 3 companies came in with their pitches? It was Lombardo, Ripley and one other guy that didn't stick around. Had they known what they were going to do, they would not have done that - two different technologies were proposed.

    During the election the 3 lined up to replace the 3 sitting directors pitched $100 based on some Ripley-Al stuff, but recall Lisa and Julie going on about Step & ponds later - did they change their tune? Isn't that what they always wanted? A plan is having drawings at the very least, right?

    You are not the only one confused here M. We knew what the Old Board proposed - we were sold $100/ out of town like a promise for cheap land in Arizona.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 1:47 PM, August 26, 2010  

  • razor, I do talk to Linde and Piper. You need to fact check more often, don't you think?

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 1:53 PM, August 26, 2010  

  • Sewertoons said "The 218 mentioned in the Questa Study is what lives on some of our tax bills right now - the $20 million bond to pay for land, permits and WWTF design. It did pass. Some paid up front, but some didn't." Except that the vote you are talking about was for Tri-W. You see how I get confused when you write. You also said "Right - the Community Plan would not satisfy the Water Board. That is why the pond/Step idea was abandoned by the early CSD." They knew this before they became the CSD. So why did they abandon the County project that was ready to go?
    Sincerely, M

    By Blogger M, at 2:15 PM, August 26, 2010  

  • Lynette, both of the individuals -- that you've made a pastime out of attacking throughout the years -- have discussed bringing STEP/STEG back to the design-build process, which is a far cry from the "old community plan" presented in the Questa Study. Pure nonsense.

    At the BOS, they've publicly advocating a different schools of thought compared to the study.

    Even though 12 people are reading these blogs... even if it's a few people or a hundred people, putting words in the mouths of those -- who clearly do not express the views that you claim that they express -- is extremely disrespectful. You need to stop injecting so much poison and misinformation in Los Osos unless you're willing to embrace the consequences.

    Give up the spin.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 2:35 PM, August 26, 2010  

  • M, the Community Plan didn't fly, the CSD Board at the time went for something that COULD pass the requirements of the RWQCB - the change went from the ponds that wouldn't work to Tri-W which would. Someday I'd like to see the meetings if they were taped. I don't get why people didn't see the reasons behind needing to get away from the ponds - and Step too, for that matter. Where was Lisa and Julie in 2000 and beyond? Were they at the meetings? Why did they want to go back to that stuff?

    I guess I should ask you this question - how was the 218 written? What did it say? I wasn't here then so couldn't say if it was specific to the pond design or left it open as what it was to be.

    The people that I have talked to that lived here in 1997 and rejected the County's plan, said that the County was very slippery as to what the boundaries to the project would be. They had a kid in the middle school and chlorine gas was going to be stored next to the school. They got caught up in having a CSD, so voted for the ponds. But then saw how that wasn't going to work so got behind Tri-W. Maybe there are other people reading this who could explain more about this.

    I hear all of this "green" talk about ponds and Step - maybe that is what they wanted. Those things obviously work other places, but for many reasons wouldn't work here.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 5:33 PM, August 26, 2010  

  • razor, what are differing schools of thought about Step? Step is Step. The Questa Study said it wouldn't work.

    Stop with the scolding already - you're looking like a noodge.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 5:43 PM, August 26, 2010  

  • The Questa study said a STEP system for ONLY the low lying areas combined with the too small ponds wouldn't work, The STEP plan the TAC studied was RWQCB compliant.
    This is an apple , that is an orange, both round but completely different.
    The $10.000.00 218 vote was for the ponds.
    Which of course morphed into the TriW sewer park with FEES to make up the now HUGE difference from what Los Osos was told when we formed the CSD.
    Is it any wonder that the recall was successful?
    How would you like to defend that track record?

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 6:43 PM, August 26, 2010  

  • I was just thinking something,
    There is absolutely no proof anywhere that the original system wouldn't have cleaned a goodly portion of the upper aquifer.
    Think about that and weep.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 6:54 PM, August 26, 2010  

  • Mike Green - did you read the Questa study? It talks about problems with Step that apply to any area of use and cleaning out the upper aquifer will be slow with any project. Each delay has cost the aquifer. The Tri-W project could have been cleaning the upper aquifer too for the past few years.

    You might note that we don't yet know what the current County project will cost. We know the $100 out-of-town was smoke. I was at the Bruce Gibson meeting today. He said he was hopeful, but we have heard nothing yet from USDA.

    Had Tri-W gone in as planned without the 15 lawsuits to slow it down, it would not have cost what it did in 2005 either.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 8:49 PM, August 26, 2010  

  • Mike Green said it best:

    The Questa study said a STEP system for ONLY the low lying areas combined with the too small ponds wouldn't work, The STEP plan the TAC studied was RWQCB compliant.
    This is an apple, that is an orange, both round but completely different.


    Apple, meet orange.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 10:16 PM, August 26, 2010  

  • Here are some quotes from the Questa Study. If you just substitute in "stepping" the entire district, how would doing that change these problems?

    "Pump Failures. The chances of an individual STEP pump failures and overflow are not great due to reliable equipment and safety features; however, the shear number of such units (>2,500 pumps) make this a significant potential risk."

    (Of course, we'd be looking at 4500+ pumps.)

    "STEP Line Leakage. The STEP collection line will be pressure-tested during installation and can operate as a water-tight system. However the PVC piping used in the system is buried at relatively shallow depth and could be damaged or could develop leaks over time (e.g., at valves or junction). Significant leaks should be detected; but leaks at service connections and other joints could go undetected."

    (Hmmm - isn't this the complaint STEP advocates use about gravity systems?)

    "STEP sewers usually are not well suited in high density developments because of the cost of replacing and maintaining septic tanks. Electrical service may need to be upgraded at many older homes in the service area."

    (We just spent a day of an electricians time to figure out what was going on in our electrical box. We have no open slots for a dedicated STEP pump. Of course I asked for the cost of replacing the electrical box to a larger one: $1,500. This cost would not be part of the sewer project.)

    Continued in next post.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 11:55 AM, August 27, 2010  

  • "…STEP sewers require easements for maintenance and repair of on-lot facilities along with considerable interaction between District personnel and property owners and greater attention to public relations."

    "The other significant concern with a STEP system in Los Osos is the continuing need for on-lot inspections and maintenance of more than 2,500 individual pumps and associated electrical controls."

    (Substitute in for 2,500 - 4,500+ individual pumps.)

    "Power outages are one potential problem (addressed by having reserve storage capacity), but "brown-outs" may be the greatest source of concern. "Brown-outs" can cause equipment damage or, at a minimum, require resetting each pump. This would require a major expenditure of manpower."

    (Ripley thought 95% of the tanks needed replacement. Capacity was one of the issues.)

    "Both County and Community plans will have to establish easement and right-of-access for District inspectors to perform routine inspections; however, the Community plan will have to address the issue of ownership of replaced system components if the District provides and installs the system. The question of system abuse and secondary replacement may be problematic. In addition, disputes with property owner regarding placement of replacement system components must be anticipated."

    Looks to me like it is the system itself that raises these issues, not just a partial use of it in certain areas. The County raised a number of these issues over STEP and more.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 12:28 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • Toons, Here is the deal. If the solution group had proposed a STEP system that was RWQCB compliant EVEN AT $100 dollars a month, there would be NO CSD now. Why? Because the almost ready-to-go county plan was $90 dollars a month.
    What they promised was a sewer for $38.50 a month.
    (knowing full well that it wouldn't be approved).
    Which morphed into $200 a month.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 2:56 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • Mike,
    You are right, at $100/mo. it would not have flown at all. It wasn't so much that the STEP system that wasn't compliant - had it covered the entire town, it would have been compliant. However, it was a lot more costly than it was advertised to be. And the pond wasn't going to work, period.

    I think it was a case of wishful thinking by the Solutions Group for:
    1. A system that they thought was "greener" than what the County proposed.
    2. A system and water that would be controlled by locals, not by County government.
    3. A dissatisfaction with the County's handling of various local issues.
    4. Wishful thinking then entered the picture of cherry picking the facts to make it cheaper - because how were they going to sell it - greener, local-control - and oh yeah… MORE EXPENSIVE? I think naivete played a part in this also.

    Once in power and in control, they wised up, educated themselves and changed what wouldn't work into something that would. If they hadn't encountered all the lawsuits, it would not have been $200/mo. either.

    So my burning question is - why did the Lisa group try to sell the same thing as cheaper? Again, thumbnail analysis, naivete, wanting to poke a stick at the Water Board - and support from a group that learned they could stop a sewer - or perhaps stop from getting any sewer by looking like they were going after a sewer, but could stall getting anything by use of the law.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 3:56 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • Toons, you already answered your burning question.
    Why say nice things about the solution group and then castigate the post recall board for the same thing.
    If you want to put some blame somewhere, why not the pre-recall board for failing to win the recall?
    All they needed to do was educate the electorate and hold the election at the earliest possible time IMO.
    ( I know Ron hates that idea, but it makes tons of sense, I mean, really, why give opponents more time to expose your failings and harp on the fact that what you originally promised was pure horseshit?)

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 4:19 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • Again, why did the great group of original CSD who learned and accepted that their plan wasn't going to work,(learned before they got themselves elected) why did they abandon the County project? The project that already had plans, a site, and was ready to go until they stopped it. We've been 5 years now and still at least a year away from any construction. The Tri-W project they had breaking ground in less than four years. How did law suits impede the process? What made the price go up was all the extras that needed to be added to go in that spot. Clear and simple. Please quit trying to make the old CSD as an honorable bunch. They were far from it.
    Sincerely, M

    By Blogger M, at 4:37 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • M, For the very same reason all politicians refuse to resign when their promises can't be kept.
    Ego.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 5:19 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • Mike Green says,
    "Why say nice things about the solution group and then castigate the post recall board for the same thing."

    Um, because the Lisa bunch didn't learn from past mistakes? The Solutions Group learned from the lesson and moved on. The Lisa bunch picked the failed plan and ran with it.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 7:03 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • I should have said - CRASHED with it…

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 7:09 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • M asks,
    "How did law suits impede the process?"

    This is a document that I got from from the Water Board. It ends in 2004, but I think we know the rest:

    Los Osos Wastewater Project – Timeline and Project Costs Increases

    Date Project Cost Basis of Delays & Cost Estimates

    1984 $34.6 million Phase II Facilities Planning Study by Brown & Caldwell
    1987 $48.5 million Final Los Osos Wastewater Project EIR by The Morro Group
    1991 CAWS v. SLO County & RWQCB (Superior Court)*
    1992 CAWS v. SLO County (Superior Court)*
    1995 $62.3 million Los Osos Wastewater Study Task G Report on Detailed Evaluation of
    Alternatives by Metcalf & Eddy
    1997 Supplemental EIR addressing treatment plant locations
    1997 TAPPS Appeal Coastal Development Permit to Coastal Commission
    1997 Coastal Commission requires additional Alternatives Evaluation
    1997 CAWS v. SLO County (Superior Court)*
    1999 CSD formed, begins new project development
    2001 $84.6 million Final Project Report by Montgomery Watson
    2001 Coleman v. Los Osos CSD (Superior Court)*
    2001 Keller v. Los Osos CSD (Federal Court)*
    2001 Keller v. Los Osos CSD (Federal Appeals Court)*
    2002 Keller v. Los Osos CSD (request for en banc review)*.
    2002 Grand Jury Investigation Report*
    2002 CASE v. California Coastal Commission (Superior Court)*
    2003 $93 million 50% Design cost estimate
    2004 Cal Cities v. RWQCB & Los Osos CSD (Superior Court)*
    2004 CCLO/CASE Appeal Development Permit to Board of Supervisors
    2004 CCLO/CASE/Bhuta Appeal Development Permit to Coastal Commission
    2004 $110 million Redesign cost estimate

    *All litigation has been ruled in favor of the wastewater project

    CCLO = Concerned Citizens of Los Osos
    CASE = Citizens for Affordable and Safe Environment
    CAWS = Citizens for Affordable Wastewater Systems
    TAPPS = Taxpayers Against Percolation Ponds

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 7:13 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • M, don't you recall when the Old Board had to keep getting extensions from the Water Board? It was because the project was tied up in court.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 7:14 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • M, the nascent CSD did not like the County project. They formed a CSD to stop the County project and do their own project. STEP would have been stupid, but it would work. The pond was the problem - there wasn't 10 years of data to back up the claims of Oswald. They took him to court and won because he had told them it would.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 7:20 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • Toons:
    "Um, because the Lisa bunch didn't learn from past mistakes? The Solutions Group learned from the lesson and moved on. The Lisa bunch picked the failed plan and ran with it."
    Oh NOW you claim they had a "Plan"
    Toons you are full os bullshit.
    Both CSD's BOS should have resigned.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 7:41 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • Lynette is right about one thing and one thing only. I am noodge, but the only reason I am one is because I don't want people wasting their time on someone who makes false statements and exaggerations repeatedly without corrections, source documentation or common sense.

    Mike, you're going to get into a circular argument that will never end with her. I'll been down this road before, and debating her is like talking to a brick wall. She's what people my age call a "troll": someone who intentionally gets under your skin for their personal amusement because they have nothing else to live for.

    Don't feed the trolls.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 8:03 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • Mike Green,

    Semantics. Let's not get hung up there. They had an IDEA of what they wanted, but no actual PLAN that would satisfy the Water Board to assure them that the new board knew what it was doing. You are not stupid - history has proved that that board had no control over anything - they just began reacting to the boatload of grief that ensued from stopping the project in progress. They were proactive about nothing. It's not as if they were not warned about the consequences. It wasn't as if they could create a new governmental body to start afresh as the Solutions Group was allowed to do. Yes, the Lisa Board should have resigned - they were failures. The old Supervisors who failed us in the 80's and 90's should have resigned too.

    razor, please contact Sorrel Marks at the RWQCB if you would like your own copy of what I pasted above.

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 9:43 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • but but but , I like trolls, It's amusing, and here is what makes it so funny to me.
    I have a house right on the beach with a septic tank and a pump.
    It works great.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 9:44 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • Toons,:
    "Yes, the Lisa Board should have resigned - they were failures. The old Supervisors who failed us in the 80's and 90's should have resigned too."
    My work is done here, ta, ta.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 9:58 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • I'll end this conversation by posting a video that shows Lynette Tornatzky's debate tactics in motion.

    Click here.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 10:14 PM, August 27, 2010  

  • Watch out Lynette! If you aren’t careful, Ed's creepy little weird kid might show up and post a link about you.

    Revealing you for who you really are!!!!
    You should know not to tango with a compulsive master-blogger, schoolyard lawyer, solver of the Affordability conundrum. Protector of the naivete maidenhood of LO.

    Mickie G.
    No one is clean, everyone who touched the project screwed it up?
    Our work here is done!

    Nothing left but for chumming, mooching and trolling

    P.S. Where is your leachfield? (relative to beach sands) Do you rotate it?

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 10:35 AM, August 28, 2010  

  • Hi Alon!
    Thanks for the warning! Sheesh - I see razor is up to his old tricks again - when you have nothing to say - like a discussion of the Questa quotes and the timeline that I posted, ATTACK the poster! Ah well, some things never change…

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 11:09 AM, August 28, 2010  

  • It's a little sad that you had to call Alon to protect you on the blog. Get a sense of humor.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 11:24 AM, August 28, 2010  

  • Call Alon? Nope, I didn't and why would I do that for this anyway?

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 2:07 PM, August 28, 2010  

  • Alon, My house sits on a fifty foot bluff that slopes upward from the tank, the pump pushes the effluent uphill, the ground is rock mixed with clay for the first thirty feet ending into a mesozoic mud that is literally full of fossil clams and other bivalves.
    The beach is world class agate picking in the winter and smooth sand in the summer, the surf fishing is excellent for perch.
    South Beach, Oregon.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 4:20 PM, August 28, 2010  

  • Your Check Valve would never be permitted in the pz where common sense among government officials appears to be outlawed also.

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 9:46 AM, August 30, 2010  

  • So Mark Low in Mesa, AZ doesn't know the difference between a bivalve and a check valve? Why am I not surprised... The Arizona Ass strikes again!

    By Blogger alabamasue, at 11:47 AM, August 30, 2010  

  • alabamasue said...
    So Mark Low in Mesa, AZ doesn't know the difference between a bivalve and a check valve? Why am I not surprised... The Arizona Ass strikes again!

    11:47 AM, August 30, 2010

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_valve#Applications

    Some types of irrigation sprinklers and drip irrigation emitters have small check valves built into them to keep the lines from draining when the system is shut off.

    Also used with most home made snowmakers.

    Check valves used in domestic heating systems to prevent vertical convection, especially in combination with solar thermal installations, also are called gravity brake.

    Sue, Mike's point is (now pay close attention)My house sits on a fifty foot bluff that slopes upward from the tank, the pump pushes the effluent uphill,-

    Which would require the use a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Check_valve

    I see that you and your "friend" are still beating the drum of ignorance. It appears that you are confused, again. Are you so poor that you cannot pay attention, are you simply intellectually dishonest or morally bankrupt?

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 1:39 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • After reading TOE's comment regarding Alon over on Ann's Land I laughed hard which causes me to want to rephrase my response to ASue:

    ASue: It apers that you do not know the difference between a check valve and a bivalve.
    Do you procure your seafood meals from a "Sewer(watch)?"

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 1:50 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • appears- Spell check victim, I am, I am.

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 1:51 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • Yes, it has a check valve and a lateral leech line in case of pump failure.

    By Blogger Mike Green, at 3:10 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • A Belt and suspenders...Good Show!

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 3:36 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • Nothing is real
    Fields of leeches forever

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 9:05 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • For our Los Osian proclivities - videos with a foreign flavor plus very classy music… Handel of course is turning in his grave.


    http://www.pinz.com.sg/wc/video.html

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 9:20 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 9:32 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • comment continues-
    Incidentally: This relates to Malibu where it was reported that leachates were making it to the beach. A location where in my opinion, given the mountainous terrain close to the ocean and linear feeds of canyons to a narrow shoreline road, that either STEP or Vacuum technologies would had passed as an optimal solution.
    But maybe you are easily distracted from that topic, Mark. A trait that could mark you as one of us, a more displaced Los Ososian. Which will it be you cross next, Marcus;
    The RUBICON or PONS ASINORUM?
    Word verification; comanap
    (Side affect of reading vain posturing by the Jokes of the Coast)
    Those who can't do...
    teach.
    Those who can't teach become critics.


    Thanks, and cool that you have Fossils >Mike G.

    Rasping radulas of extinct Gastropods and soft bodied leeches non-withstanding.

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 10:08 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • part 2
    I was sure Mike G’s System was up to code. And most likely with the leech field high on the property and away from the beach. With at least one check valve (sometimes integral to the pump). The CA Waterboard has required on some occasions I am aware of, that there be a secondary leech field acting as reserve and as a switched alternate. I’ve doubted that that requirement is often followed.
    Mike answered in some respect to the lateral leach line.
    I asked the question because this is a blog posting and I was not interested in looking up Oregon code, or reviewing CA. code.

    (THis post was split in three. seems large posts arent stable and disappear)

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 10:26 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • Ha!

    By Blogger The Razor, at 10:34 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • Part 1a
    Marcus.
    You really shouldn’t take my name in vain, especially since I was not aware the discussion was still going on here.
    TheOchsEd was not even at the top of his little game. That post on Calhoun’s was something he put out previously, probably when he as posting as Phil (Ochs). A Re-Phil so to speak.

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 10:56 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • Part 1b (now 4 parts)
    I don’t usually respond to him or Mini-Ed. If you were entertained by it, I’m afraid it Marks you as “Easily Amused”. I don’t usually respond to them, (nothing in between), not that I begrudge them of their simple pleasures of living vicariously through me.(Start sentence with “I” and end with “me”-Check)

    It is simply a waste of my time. I do a lot more in Los Osos than post on blogs.
    Although today is different.

    Ha! A faint echo or rampant plagiarism. Nothing to get hung about

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 10:58 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • By Blogger The Razor, at 11:33 PM, August 30, 2010  

  • razor,

    Snore.

    Sadly, you seem to be in violation in more places than just on youtube - there must be a steep learning curve for you to discern the difference between acceptable craziness and just plain wrong - like maybe publishing my home phone and e-mail address and a bunch of made-up stuff was what tipped this silliness over the top? (Hilarious though, how you threaten me with your scolding around issues of libel and slander toward others and then - this -- from you! I guess your rules do not apply to you.)

    By Blogger Sewertoons, at 12:57 AM, August 31, 2010  

  • My dear, it is you who is "just plain wrong." If only you knew.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 10:22 AM, August 31, 2010  

  • It's very healing to showcase hypocrisy in a creative manner. If you don't like it, don't sling arrows at others. If you can't stop slinging arrows, get out of town.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 11:12 AM, August 31, 2010  

  • This comment has been removed by the author.

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 11:47 AM, August 31, 2010  

  • Ron, You post on this side and >1500 characters.
    Have you had posts appear to post, time stamp and all, then disappear? Is it a character count thing? I knoww those can be restricted, but the auto-editor should give a diagnostic line before posting?
    Dem bugz dem bugz dem blog web bugz.

    By Blogger Alon Perlman, at 11:56 AM, August 31, 2010  

  • alabamasue said...
    So Mark Low in Mesa, AZ doesn't know the difference between a bivalve and a check valve? Why am I not surprised... The Arizona Ass strikes again!

    11:47 AM, August 30, 2010

    So Asue, Why would someone from Coastal San Pedro be helping someone in Los Osos with her disinformation campaign?

    I see you are speechless regarding our check valve debate. Check?


    Hey Alon, I noticed you didn't comment as to your opinion about the "Debating w/LT" vid. Didn't you find it amusing?

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 1:40 PM, August 31, 2010  

  • Hey Razor,

    Maybe Lynette could move in with her buddy in San Pedro.
    She has a sewer, which should satisfy her burning desire for one.

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 1:42 PM, August 31, 2010  

  • Hi Mark,

    Lynette's friend in San Pedro will probably kick her out the moment she moves in. If her friend has an opinion, she will disagree with it. The end-result might be termination of her friend's employment.

    I'm disappointed that I won't be able to place a fish pond in my driveway if I install a STEP/STEG system.

    By Blogger The Razor, at 2:06 PM, August 31, 2010  

  • Apologies for the double-post, but I'd like to note that the original video is now back online. YouTube agreed with Hitchblock's reasoning to put the video back up, since her personal information is already publicly available. There's no "reveal" of any kind, therefore no clear violation of their privacy terms.

    A - 1 / L.T. - 0

    By Blogger The Razor, at 9:51 AM, September 01, 2010  

  • Asue, I wonder why there is no outrage from Mimi?

    By Blogger Watershed Mark, at 3:30 PM, September 01, 2010  

Post a Comment

<< Home