SLO County Supervisors, Can You Hear Me Now?

[You know what my favorite part of this story is? The Board of Supervisors are doing exactly what they are accusing Dan De Vaul of doing -- violating building codes... ahahahahahaha!]

TO: William Ausman, SLO County Personal Injury Attorney
Daniel J. O'neill, SLO County Personal Injury Attorney
Jeffrey Locke, SLO County Personal Injury Attorney
Jacqueline Frederick, SLO County Personal Injury Attorney

CC: Warren Jensen, Chief County Counsel, SLO County Government

DATE: 9/27/10


Dear Mr. Ausman, Mr. O'neill, Mr. Locke, and Ms. Frederick

I'm a local writer, and I just wanted to quickly let you know about a story that I am researching, that I think you are all going to find very, very interesting.

On my blog, SewerWatch, I recently published a story that shows how the SLO County women's jail facility is consistently overcrowded, and that puts the facility in violation of State building codes.

Just this past Tuesday, September 21, SLO County Supervisors were presented, by Chief Sheriff's Deputy, Rob Reid, with an option that would immediately solve the overcrowding problem, and, thereby, correct the building code violations.

The option is SB 959 -- a state law, signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2007, that allows counties in the state to enact a mandatory home detention program. The law was specifically designed to help counties that are experiencing jail overcrowding, to fix the problem in order to avoid litigation due to the overcrowding.

However, at Tuesday's meeting, after they were presented with the information involving SB 959, they did not enact a mandatory home detention program, as allowed by SB 959, that would have immediately solved the overcrowding at the women's jail.

So, here's the current situation:

The SLO County women's jail facility is currently overcrowded, and, therefore, in violation of state building codes.

SLO County Supervisors are aware of the overcrowding, and, last Tuesday, were presented with an option that would immediately remedy the illegal overcrowding -- SB 959 -- but they failed to adopt a mandatory home detention program at that meeting, which means they are aware of the overcrowding, AND aware that they can do something to immediately fix the problem, but are not doing it.

According to Reid at his presentation, there are currently about 55 inmates at the women's jail, and it has a maximum capacity of 43 inmates.

Apparently, the overcrowding has led to mattresses on the floor of the facility. That is illegal, according to state building codes.

Anyway, I just thought that SLO County-based personal injury attorneys would find all of this very interesting.

Just thinking out loud here... but I wonder what would happen if those 55 inmates, that are overcrowded in the jail, were to all of sudden start tripping over those illegal mattresses on the floor, when all it would take to get those mattresses off the floor would be a quick vote by county supervisors to adopt a mandatory home detention program?

Seems awfully negligent to me.

Here's the link to the audio of the 9/21/10 Supervisors' meeting:

http://podcache-101.granicus.com/slocounty/slocounty_f2d7eddf-346d-41df-9406-3d1b8e608c3c.mp3

You can hear Chief Deputy Reid present SB 959 beginning at the 2:32:00 mark.

You don't have to reply to this e-mail (unless you want to), I just wanted to make all of you aware of the current situation involving the overcrowded SLO County women's jail, the SLO County Board of Supervisors, and SB 959... thought it might be good for my story, and your business.

Thank you for your time,
Ron

###

[39 weeks down... 13 to go.]

Worser and Worser for SLO County Sheriff's Department

TO: SLO County Supervisors, Jim Patterson, and, Bruce Gibson
DATE: 9/22/10

Dear Supervisors Patterson and Gibson,

I'm researching a story, and I just have one quick question:

At yesterday's meeting, both of you voted to put the design of the women's jail expansion on hold until February 2011.

However, at an October 14, 2008 budget hearing, where the exact item was before your board -- an update on the women's jail expansion -- both of you voted to proceed with the design.

At the October 14, 2008 meeting, Chief Deputy, Rob Reid, gave a presentation on that item, however, at that meeting, Chief Deputy Reid failed to mention alternatives to incarceration, like 2007's SB 959, and, as you'll see if you review the video of that hearing, the only two choices that were presented to your Board by Reid were to either move forward with the expansion, or put the county at risk for litigation due to the overcrowded women's jail.

However, at yesterday's meeting, county staff gave a similar presentation to your board, as they did in 2008, involving the women's jail project, but this time, Chief Deputy Reid included a discussion on "alternatives to incarceration."

So, look what happened here:

At the October 2008 meeting, when you were presented with only two alternatives -- expand the jail or face potential litigation -- both of you voted to proceed with design (at a cost of over $1 million), however, when you were presented with a third alternative -- the "alternatives to incarceration" discussion (including SB 959) -- by Chief Deputy Reid, then both of you voted to put the project on hold.

Here's my one question:

Considering that the only major difference in the two presentations of 2008 and 2010 was that Chief Deputy Reid included the "alternatives to incarceration" in his second presentation to your board involving the funding of the women's jail expansion, is it fair to say that had Chief Deputy Reid included the "alternatives to incarceration" in his FIRST, 2008 presentation to your board on funding the expansion, that you two would have voted to put the project on hold back then?

Is it fair to assume that? Because, I have to admit, it sure looks that way, and I'm going to report all of this, so, I wanted to give you a chance to comment.

As always, much thanks,
Ron

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[38 weeks down... 14 to go.]

Single-Handedly Terminating the SLO County Women's Jail Expansion, and Saving SLO County Residents Multi-Millions of Dollars

by Ron Crawford

Every once in a while, SewerWatch will veer off course to cover another story, as long as said story is excellent.

The is one of those detours, and this is flat-out, SewerWatch-caliber, time-stamped, primary-source-backed-up, kick-ass excellent!

As if things couldn't get any worse for the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Department, they're about to get a lot worse... over a million dollars of SLO County taxpayer money worse.

A SewerWatch investigation reveals that the Sheriff's Department failed to fully inform the SLO County Board of Supervisors in 2008, about the need for a $35 million expansion of the county's women's jail facility, and, because the Sheriff's Department failed to fully inform Supervisors in 2008 on that subject, potentially, more than one million dollars of public, SLO county money, was wasted, and this Tuesday, they were about to do it again... that is, until I caught them.

This... is... great!

In July of 2008, I authored a story that showed how a 2007 state law -- SB 959 -- signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, and was supported by the California State Sheriffs' Association, and local Assemblyman, Sam Blakeslee, allows individual counties in the state to enact a mandatory home detention program for county jail inmates, in an effort to reduce illegal (read: litigation-able) overcrowding in county jails.

Also in that story, I show how SLO County is in the minority of California counties to not adopt a SB 959 style mandatory home detention program for non-violent offenders. (It's important to note that SLO County currently has a voluntary home detention program, but not a mandatory home detention program. Huge difference.)

I also show in my story how the County of SLO is currently in the process of designing a $35 million expansion to their women's jail facility, solely to reduce the overcrowding (thus, potential litigation) that presently exists in their current women's jail facility.

Then, in that story, I asked Chief Deputy for the SLO County Sheriff's Department, Rob Reid, why his department, instead of expanding the current women's facility, at a cost of some $35 million, wasn't simply recommending to the Board of Supervisors a SB 959 style home detention program. After all, SB 959 was supported by the California State Sheriffs' Association.

Reid responded, "Incarceration allows a vast majority of individuals who are 'one-timers' the incentive to never return... (without incarceration) these individuals may not benefit from the wake-up call received by many, and thus prevent their return which increases our population."

Gets worse for Deputy Reid.

Just three months after my story was published -- a story where I discussed SB 959 with Chief Deputy Reid -- he appeared before County Supervisors, on October 14, 2008, at a budget hearing involving the new women's jail facility, where Reid told Supervisors that there really was no other choice than to proceed with the expansion. The choices, he explained, were to either build the expansion, or get sued for overcrowding.

However, what Reid failed to tell the Supervisors at that meeting, was that the Governor recently signed legislation -- SB 959 -- that was passed specifically to allow California counties that are experiencing jail overcrowding an alternative to the early release of inmates.

If you watch the video of that meeting, you can actually see that the Chairman at the time, Supervisor Jim Patterson, wasn't fully informed on the subject. He actually reiterates Reid's assertion, that the only choices the county has are to expand the jail, or get sued for overcrowding, and SB 959 is never mentioned.

At that meeting, Supervisors voted 5-0 to move forward with the design process of the new women's jail facility, and budgeted over $1 million for design.

Several attempts by SewerWatch to contact Supervisor Patterson for this story, to ask him that if he had been fully informed about SB 959 at that October 2008 hearing, would he still have voted to proceed with the expansion, failed.

If his answer to that question is "no," then that means that, because Reid failed to fully inform County Supervisors about SB 959 in 2008, $1 million was wasted on the design of an unnecessary jail expansion.

Now, thanks to me, we're about to find out the answer to that question.

Here's where this already over-the-top interesting story, gets blow-your-hair-back interesting.

This Tuesday, the women's jail expansion project comes before the Supervisors again.

According to the staff report for that item, Supervisors have three alternatives on what to do with the project. They can either vote to proceed, put it on hold, or terminate the project entirely.

Also in that report, it doesn't mention SB 959, at all... again.

So I phoned the author of that report, Vincent Morici, of the County's Administration office, and asked him who was giving the presentation for that item to Supervisors next Tuesday.

He told me that both Deputy Reid, and himself would be giving the presentation.

I then asked him if they were going to mention SB 959 in their presentation.

At first, he said that they were not, and when I asked him what it would take to include that discussion in his presentation, he told me that he would have to first speak with Chief Administrative Officer for the county, Jim Grant.

I phoned Morici back (today), and he told me that they are now going to mention SB 959 in their presentation on Tuesday.

So, look what happened there. It's flat-out awesome:

Again, Reid was going to give a presentation to the Board of Supervisors involving the $35 million women's jail expansion, and, again he wasn't going to inform them on SB 959.

And now, thanks solely to me, they are.

And look at the unbelievably beautiful dynamic that now presents:

Will County Supervisors still vote 5-0 to proceed with an expensive women's jail expansion, when there is a much more cost effective alternative to deal with jail overcrowding, than simply early release for inmates?

Frankly, I don't see how they can. I think I may have single-handedly just killed the women's jail expansion.

Check out these eye-popping numbers:

According to the staff report, there's enough space at the current facility to legally house 43 inmates. However, also according to the staff report, the average population at the facility is 73 inmates, so, we're talking about 30 inmates here... 30... on average.

According to a 2009 Pew study, the cost to incarcerate one inmate, on average, is $29,000 a year in the U.S.

According to Morici's staff report, the cost to the county to build the project is estimated at about $10 million (with another $25 million coming from a state grant).

I'm going to take that number -- $10 million -- and spread it out over 20 years, for $500,000 a year.

Then I'm going to add that $500,000 per year to the estimated cost of staffing and running the new women's jail facility of $1.8 million a year, for a total of $2.3 million per year, over the next 20 years, to build and operate the facility.

At that number -- $2.3 million per year, to build and operate the facility -- the cost per over-the-limit inmate, for the current average of 30 over-the-limit inmates, is over $76,000 per year... per over-the-limit inmate!

In his staff report, Morici states that as the county's population continues to grow, it's safe to assume that so too will the women's jail population.

At 40 over the limit, it's $57,500 per year.

And at 50, it's still $46,000... per year... per over-the-limit inmate.

The cost to incarcerate one inmate, on average, is $29,000 a year in the U.S.

According to the 2007 bill analysis of SB 959, "The cost of involuntary home detention electronic monitoring is about $10 per day."

$3,650 versus $76,000.

The bill analysis continues, "SB 959 will allow counties to place inmates on involuntary electronic home monitoring when faced with early release. This will not only free up bed space for participating counties but it will also save counties money because the cost of home monitoring is substantially less than the cost of incarceration."

Under SB 959, only non-violent offenders are eligible for involuntary home detention.

SewerWatch contacted Rob Bryn, spokesperson for the SLO County Sheriff's Department, to see if his department has a statistic for the average percentage of women inmates at their facility, that are considered violent offenders.

As of press time, he did not reply.

If Supervisors vote to proceed with the jail expansion on Tuesday, another $1.2 million will go to design, according to the staff report.

Also, look what happens if, upon hearing about SB 959, Supervisors vote to terminate the project. This is amazing:

That will mean that, had deputy Reid fully informed the Board in October of 2008, then, almost certainly, the Board would have adopted a SB 959 style program then, and the over $1 million that's been spent on the design of the project since that hearing, would have been saved.

As hard as it is to believe, this story gets better.

If the Board of Supervisors vote to terminate the project on Tuesday (and, after this SewerWatch presentation, I really don't see how they have much of a choice. I mean, c'mon... a $35 million jail expansion, with an annual operational cost of about $2 million, for 30 non-violent women inmates, at a cost of over $75,000 per year, per inmate? It really looks like they don't have much of a choice on Tuesday but to terminate the project entirely), that means I will have single-handedly saved the county $10 million in construction costs, and nearly $2 million a year in operational costs, so, now I feel that I am entitled to a say where a tiny fraction of that truckload of money, that I just saved the county, should go.

Today, I contacted Frank Warren, Division Manager at the county's drug and alcohol prevention office.

I asked him if his office currently has a drug and alcohol prevention program only for women.

He told me that he has heard of such programs, and that they are preferred by women (as I thought, that's why I asked), but that the county currently does not have a women only drug and alcohol prevention program.

When county supervisors terminate the women's jail project this Tuesday, I will, considering that I just saved them $10 million in construction costs, and nearly $2 million a year in operations cost, lobby that a tiny, tiny fraction of that money goes to start, and fund, a women only drug and alcohol prevention program in the county.

According to Morici's staff report:

"... the near term result of not proceeding with development of the facility is likely to be the early release of female inmates."

Not accurate. Mandatory home detention would immediately solve that.

and;

"Alternative sentencing programs may provide some relief, but the costs of these programs are unknown and could be substantial."

Costs are known, and they are substantially cheaper.

Finally, I sent the following e-mail to Sheriff's Department spokesman, Rob Bryn, on 1/7/09:

Hello Mr. Bryn,

Last month I sent you the e-mail below, however, probably due to the holiday season, I've yet to receive a response.

Now that's it's the new year, and things have calm down a bit (relatively ; - ), I was hoping I could get a quick answer to my question.

Thanks again,
Ron

--- 

[Originally sent 12/12/08]

Hello Mr. Bryn,

I'm an independent journalist in SLO County, and I'm researching a story that involves the proposed expansion of the county's women's jail facility.

A couple of months back, during the budget hearings at the Board of Supervisors, I noticed that, when addressing Supervisor Patterson's question regarding the need for the facility's expansion, Deputy Reid failed to mention an alternative to incarceration that was recently signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger -- SB 959 -- that allows counties in California to create mandatory home detention programs for "low-risk" inmates in order to prevent overcrowding in the state's jails.

As you may know, SB 959 was supported by, among other law enforcement groups, the California State Sheriffs' Association, and local assemblyman, Sam Blakeslee.

So, here's my question:

What happened there? Why did Deputy Reid not tell the Board of Supervisors about SB 959? How does he respond to that?

Thank you for your time,

Bryn never replied.

###

[Note: If I receive any updates to this story between now, and Tuesday, I'll either publish them here, at the bottom of this post, or in the comments section for this post. And, don't forget to support independent journalism. Details on the right side of the front page at sewerwatch.blogspot.com.]

The End: Celebrate Pandora Nash-Karner! Celebrate Hard

"The Los Osos sewer story is simply a side-bar of the blow-your-hair-back amazing, Pandora Nash-Karner story."
-- SewerWatch

As those that follow SewerWatch know, I'm in the process of writing a book about my 20-year involvement with the "blow-your-hair-back amazing Pandora Nash-Karner story" in Los Osos, dating back to when I was first hired as a reporter in Los Osos/Baywood Park, in 1990.

And, I think I may have (finally) found the perfect ending to my book.

As I first reported, next January (2011), Pandora Nash-Karner will have "served" on the SLO County Parks Commission for 20 years. She was first appointed to the Commission in 1991 by then-newly elected 2nd District Supervisor, Bud Laurent, after working as his "campaign materials manager" throughout 1990, Laurent told SewerWatch.

In that election, Laurent defeated then-Supervisor, Bill Coy.

As a local reporter in Los Osos at the time, I covered that election extensively.

In 1990 (1990!) Coy was a "yes" vote to continue with the county's process of developing a sewer system for Los Osos.

Laurent, and Nash-Karner, both opposed that plan.

That 1990 election would lead directly to 20 years (and counting) of delay in building a sewer project for Los Osos.

About a month ago, after noticing on a Supervisors' meeting agenda, that they were honoring several 20-year county employees for their longtime service, I e-mailed, Tami Douglas-Schatz, human resources director for SLO County government, to find out if the county also recognizes its longtime (20-year) Commissioners (i.e. Parks Commissioners) like it does with its longtime (20-year) employees -- with a public ceremony, complete with an official Resolution, at a Board of Supervisors' meeting.

Douglas-Schatz never replied to my simple question. So, I then sent my question to Jim Grant, chief county administrator, but he also never replied. So, I then asked my simple question to my local County Supervisor, Jim Patterson, be he also never replied. So, then, I asked chief county counsel, Warren Jensen, my question, but he also never replied.

[NOTE: Someone at SLO County government might want to inform your IT department that, apparently, there's something very wrong with your e-mail server. It doesn't seem to work.])

Which brings me to my great ending.... yep, I'm going to give away the great ending to my book, right here:

From now, until next January, I will vigorously lobby County Supervisors (see example below) to "Celebrate Pandora Nash-Karner" early next year, for her 20 years of "service" on the Parks Commission.

And that celebration will be the perfect ending to my book, because...

I first reported how Nash-Karner used her over-the-top "behavior based marketing" to get Laurent elected in 1990, and how that immediately led to eight years (two Laurent terms) of sewer delay.

Then, after those eight years of delay, I then first reported how Nash-Karner used her over-the-top "behavior based marketing" techniques to trick the voters of Los Osos into killing the County's "ready to go" project in 1998 -- the same project that Coy was a "yes" vote for in 1990 -- and starting the Los Osos CSD.

Then, I first reported how Nash-Karner and her husband, after fabricating a dead-on-arrival "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project that was the sole basis for forming the CSD in the first place in 1998, yet never worked, as predicted, would go on to cash checks off of their fake project, for several years, because she was able to trick Los Osos voters in 1998.

Then I was the first to report how Nash-Karner, after the town's voters finally woke up in 2005, and killed her (and her husband's) money machine (a nonsensical, and disastrous, sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos), how she actually contacted Roger Briggs, executive officer of the local Water Quality Control Board, and lobbied him, through a "strategy" (her word) that she developed, to have the entire town of Los Osos, including many elderly residents, "fined out of existence" (also her words).

Then, I was the first to report how Nash-Karner, today, right now, is running the exact same scam as a director for the SLO Botanical Garden AND a SLO County Parks Commissioner (where the SLO Botanical Garden is discussed extensively at Parks Commission meetings, yet Commissioner Nash-Karner [always, of course] fails to disclose that she's on the Garden's Board of Directors) that she, and her husband, ran in Los Osos in 1998, when they founded the Los Osos CSD for no reason whatsoever... other than to cash checks, apparently.

So, look how great this is!

Over the years, I've shown ALL County Supervisors ALL of that excellent (time-stamped) primary-source-only reporting (which means, it's all officially documented in county government files), and this January, with a bit of luck (and strong lobbying on my part), those same Supervisors will now HONOR Nash-Karner, with a public ceremony (complete with LOTS of public comment, preferably from LOTS of those same people that Nash-Karner, beginning in 2005, had "fined out of existence"... if they're still around by January.

(By the way, her little "strategy" appears to be working [present tense]... I hear that more and more of those people that she had "fined," are going "out of existence"... literally.)

I'd always hoped that the ending of my book would be along the lines of Federal agents, after reading my reporting, would ask Nash-Karner, and her husband, questions like:

"Beginning in 1997, when you and your husband first fabricated your "better, cheaper, faster," scam, and you two wrote in your fake documents:

'The Solution Group is deeply indebted to the following firms and individuals who have contributed their services in developing this Plan at pro-bono or reduced rates... We recommend (these) firms be retained for professional design services when this (Better, Cheaper, Faster) Plan is accepted... SWA Group, of Sausal¡to, California'

.. why didn't you disclose in your scam's fake documents that the SWA Group was your husband's own landscaping firm?"

and;

"Why did you, as the 2000 Los Osos CSD vice-president lie to California Coastal Commission planner, Steve Monowitz, about the siting of the Tri-W sewer plant, and then that lie led to a lot of money going to you and your husband, and your friends?"

... and then, of course, immediately arresting them (and their friends) for their obvious fraud... and possible terrorism charges for what they put Los Osos through for the past 12 years.

That would have been a sweet ending.

But, considering that the embarrassing local media, the State of California and SLO County governments are ALL tangled up in this beautiful mess, because they all believed Nash-Karner's "behavior based marketing," unfortunately, my preferred ending to my book doesn't look like it's going to happen. (As Los Osos writer, Ann Calhoun, like to points out, "It's Chinatown, Jake." She, apparently, is right. There will be no accountability. None.)

So, it looks like I'll have to turn to my alternate (excellent) ending.

Sure, officially celebrating Nash-Karner, after the utter devastation she's caused in Los Osos over the past 20 years, is kind of a bleak, Grapes of Wrath-y type ending, but, much like that book's great ending, it's the unimaginable bleakness that makes it great.

Finally, something we can all agree on: Celebrate Pandora Nash-Karner!... celebrate hard.

- - -

TO: SLO County Supervisors
DATE: 9//14/10

Dear Supervisors,

Recently, I e-mailed Tami Douglas-Schatz... then Jim Grant... then Supervisor Patterson... then Warren Jensen, a very simple question:

Does the County recognize its longtime (20-year) Commissioners (i.e. Parks Commissioners) like it does with its longtime (20-year) employees, with a ceremony at a Board of Supervisors' meeting?

I never received an answer to my simple question, so now, since I don't know the answer to my (very simple) question, I'm actually going to lobby your Board, and ask that you do -- that you "honor" 2nd District Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, at a Supervisors' meeting early next year -- complete with an official Resolution and photo op -- for her 20 years of "service" on the Parks Commission.

As I recently showed all of you, she was first appointed to the Commission in January 1991, by then newly elected Supervisor, Bud Laurent, after working as his "campaign materials manager" throughout 1990.

So, please, I'm now asking that you formally recognize her 20 years on the Commission with a Resolution and public ceremony next January.

Finally, just in case I (again) don't hear back from a county official that your are (or are not) going to recognize Nash-Karner for her 20 years of "service" early next year, I will continue to (strongly) lobby for that agenda item.

However, if a county official were to simply tell me something like, "Yes, we're going to officially honor Nash-Karner's 20 years next January," then I would immediately stop lobbying you on this issue.

As always, much thanks,
Ron

###

[37 weeks down... 15 to go.]

New Times is Almost to the Party

TO: Colin Rigley, Reporter, New Times
DATE: 9/10/10

Hello Colin,

Just a quick note to say that I enjoyed your story in yesterday's New Times involving the Wallace Group.

I can help advance that story.

About a month ago, I published a piece on my blog, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/cha-friggin-ching-for-los-osos-project.html

... where I show how, beginning in 1999, a small group of people and consultants (including the Wallace Group) were directly responsible for creating the disaster in Los Osos, and ever since they created their disaster in Los Osos, that small group of people and consultants have been cashing checks off of their self-made disaster... ever since... and still are.

Included in that list of individuals and consultants that created the disaster in Los Osos, starting in 1999, and have been cashing checks off of it ever since, are current SLO County Public Works Director, Paavo Ogren (interim general manager of the Los Osos CSD in 1999), and current SLO County Parks Commissioner (appointed by Supervisor Bruce Gibson), Pandora Nash-Karner (LOCSD vice-president in 1999, and responsible for hiring Ogren as her interim GM).

That's right -- since he helped kill the County's 1999 "ready to go" sewer project in Los Osos, Ogren has made a fortune off of his self-made disaster. Same with MWH, the Wallace Group, Crawford, Multari and Clark, Cleath & Associates, and more.

ALL of them.

And just about a month ago, as I showed in my piece, there they all are -- STILL cashing fat checks off of the disaster they all created -- checks that none of them would be cashing, had they not created the disaster in Los Osos in 1999, to begin with.

[From a 2010 SLO County staff report involving the Los Osos wastewater project: Crawford, Multari and Clark: $145,455, Wallace Group: nearly $400,000, Cleath & Associates: Almost $100,000]

It's an amazing story.

(Boy, you folks at New Times should really read my blog, sometime. You're missing out on all of the fun ; -)

If you have any questions about how people like Paavo Ogren (and his consultant friends [i.e. the Wallace Group]) helped create the disaster in Los Osos in 1999, and have been cashing fat checks off of it ever since (including in 2010), please just ask. I'm sure I can answer them... using nothing but excellent, primary sources, as usual, of course.

Thanks again,
Ron

P.S. It's Friday, and I need an "at least weekly" post, so I published this e-mail on my blog:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[36 weeks down... 16 to go.]