Friday, June 25, 2010

Los Fábrica del Fertilizante" -- The Series: Sierra Club, I Thank You in Advance for Your Support

TO: Andrew Christie, Director, Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
DATE: 6/25/10

Hello Andrew,

Long time, no talk ; -)

Hey, real quick...

I just read your letter to the editor in a recent New Times where you write about the "Sierra Club's work to promote clean energy solutions," and I was hoping that I could get your organization's support for something I'm working on that involves "clean energy solutions."

On my blog, SewerWatch, I recently exposed how the SLO County Public Works Department failed to include composting toilets in their EIR for the Los Osos wastewater project, and how the one reason they gave for not including composting toilets in the EIR proved to be faulty.

They assumed that, because "the majority of residents" in Los Osos MAY not want composting toilets, that it made that option "infeasible," and therefore, because only "feasible" options can be included in an EIR, composting toilets were left out.

However, as I showed in my piece, the composting toilet option is entirely up to the individual property owner, which means that the "majority of residents" argument when it comes to composting toilets in Los Osos, is completely irrelevant, which, in turn, means that composting toilets SHOULD have been included in the EIR, and HAD they been, almost certainly, that option would have come out on top as the most "environmentally preferable" option... by far.

Furthermore, I also uncovered (three years ago) a Regional Water Quality Control Board document -- Item 19 -- where they all but rave about composting toilets in Los Osos, and even considered "requiring" them in the Prohibition Zone, saying that composting toilets are "one of the few alternatives" that "will" lead to improved water quality, and are "not subject to Coastal Commission approval."

Also, I personally know people in SLO County that are currently using composting toilets (with the county's blessing), and they love them.

Additionally, according to composting toilet web sites, "The widescale use of composting toilets would be very beneficial to the environment. Reduced water use would minimise storage and piping impacts, elimination of sewage would reduce nutrient flows into river and oceans and subsequent rejuvenation of marine systems."

So, considering that the SLO County Public Works Department failed to include composting toilets in the Los Osos wastewater project EIR due solely to faulty reasoning, and if they HAD included that option, it would have, almost certainly, come out on top... by far, I'm now urging property owners in the PZ that either 1) can't afford the pending $200 - $300/month sewer assessment, or 2) want to do the environmentally correct thing, or 3) both, to take the initiative to just go and buy a composting toilet system, install it, and then argue "no benefit, no assessment," as an alternative to the County's proposed $180 million community-wide sewer system.

And here's where the Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club, and your "work to promote clean energy solutions" comes in.

Can I get your organization's support for my effort -- to encourage the use of composting toilets in Los Osos -- which are, by far, the most environmentally sensitive "alternative" for Los Osos, that the RWQCB once considered "requiring in the Prohibition Zone, and was left out of the Los Osos wastewater project EIR due solely to the county's faulty reasoning?

Considering your organization is all about the environment, and "works to promote clean energy solutions," my request seems like a no-brainer, so I thank you in advance.

If you have any questions, please just ask.

As always, much thanks,
Ron

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

- - -
- - -

[NOTE: Neither Paavo Ogren or Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, responded to my recent e-mails to them, here, and here]

###

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

"Los Fábrica del Fertilizante" -- The Series: Can't Afford the Sewer Assessment? Don't Put Your House on the Market. . . Yet.

TO: Paavo Ogren, Director of Public Works, SLO County
DATE: 6/22/10
[Note: Ogren, like SewerWatch, is a big, and long-time, Laker fan.]

Hello Paavo,

Howya been?

How 'bout those Lakers!

Hey, real quick, I think I may have found a gigantic mistake that was made back in 2008 by your hand-picked Technical Advisory Committee for the Los Osos sewer project.

It appears that the composting toilet option for Los Osos wasn't considered in the project's Environmental Impact Report due to faulty reasoning.

A 2008 TAC memo reads:

    "Q. Will other on-site options be considered, e.g. composting toilets?

    A. It is important to understand that the EIR can only consider alternatives and mitigation measures that are “feasible”. In the context of an EIR, “feasible” means “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.”

    We are concerned that the community’s response to the majority of the alternative systems being suggested (such as the nitrogen sequestering system and composting toilet systems) would render these approaches infeasible. That is, the majority of residents may not wish to modify their daily lives to the degree required to make these systems a success on a community-wide basis."

And that's the end of the discussion.

Your team, it would appear, made a HUGE mistake there... big time mistake.

If I may, allow me to inform your TAC what really is "important to understand."

It is vitally "important to understand" that when it comes to composting toilets in Los Osos, this: "the majority of residents may not wish to modify their daily lives to the degree required to make these systems a success on a community-wide basis," is completely irrelevant.

When it comes to composting toilets in Los Osos, who cares what "the majority" of prohibition zone residents think?

That decision, according to many sources, is entirely up to the individual property owner.

And, just like I showed you in your office on March 21, 2008, and then followed up with the next day with this e-mail:

- - -
Hello Paavo,

Just a quick "thank you" for meeting with me. I very much enjoyed the conversation.

Afterwards, I went and had a beer at Gus's where I read the New Times story involving your "green" practices (which I applaud), and I saw how you just installed a greywater system at your house, and that reminded me, did you ever get a chance to read Item 19, specifically the part about composting toilets?

Because, I have to admit, after reading Item 19, and after reading about your greywater system, I don't see why a PZ property owner with a little bit of construction skill and a few extra grand can't do this:

Wake up Saturday morning, pump out their septic tank, fill it with sand, drive down to Home Depot, purchase a composting toilet system, install it, develop an "appropriate greywater system," and by Monday morning, that property owner would be 100-percent (legally) compliant, because they would no longer have a drop of discharge coming out of their decommissioned septic tank.

What's stopping anyone from doing that?
- - -

... there's doesn't appear to be anything stopping a prohibition zone property owner from doing that, today. They simply don't need permission from "the majority of residents" to drive down to Home Depot, and purchase a composting toilet, and they certainly don't need it from the TAC.

And, just like I personally showed you over two years ago in your office, if just ONE property owner in Los Osos goes the composting toilet route, ALL will eventually be economically forced to do the exact same thing. Because for each property that's exempt from the Prop 218 assessment ("no benefit, no assessment") that means it'll make all of the other already-through-the-roof assessments that much higher, and so on, and so on, until ALL PZ property owners will be economically forced to do the exact same thing.

And if the sewer assessment reaches, oh, say $1,000/month, trust me, the "majority of residents" will be overjoyed to make composting toilets systems "a success on a community-wide basis."

So, do you see what happened there, with that TAC memo? It's extremely, unbelievably, over-the-top interesting -- your TAC mistakenly thought that they actually had a say in whether a PZ property owner went the composting toilet route. Obviously, they don't.

Which means that, due to my super-tight rationale -- that once ONE property owner goes the composting toilet route, ALL will eventually be economically forced to HAPPILY "make these systems a success on a community-wide basis" -- the composting toilet option is a HIGHLY "feasible" "alternative" and, therefore, should have been "considered" in the EIR.

Heck, even the RWQCB in Item 19 called composting toilets "one of the few available alternatives," that "will lead to improved water quality."

And the even MORE interesting thing is that, if the composting toilet option HAD been considered in the EIR, like it clearly should have been, that "viable option" almost certainly would have come out on top as the "environmentally preferable" option... by far.

Something tells me that the EIR's analysis of composting toilets -- had it occurred, like it clearly should have -- would have sounded an awful lot like the RWQCB's Item 19, where it all but raves about composting toilets, and that, according to the RWQCB, are "not subject to Coastal Commission approval."

But, I guess we'll never know the EIR's take on composting toilets, because your department failed to consider that option in the EIR, due to terribly faulty reasoning.

By the way, you never responded to my 2008 e-mail from above, so I'll ask again (two years later): What's stopping a property owner in the PZ from buying a composting toilet and installing it today, and then arguing "no benefit, no assessment" to the pending sewer assessment?

I recently contacted a lawyer with a leading property rights association (both shall remain nameless... for now), and, when I asked him if a California property owner can get out of an already-passed Prop 218-style sewer assessment by installing a composting toilet, he told me, "I honestly don't know the answer to your question, which is whether a property owner can avoid paying an assessment for a public improvement that (will benefit) his property by taking steps to render the benefit obsolete. There is no case law on this issue to my knowledge. The text of Proposition 218 doesn't specifically address it."

He added, "I just don't know how a court would rule on that."

Which appears to make everything County/Los Osos sewer related seem VERY much up in the air, if you ask me, at least. Think about it, according to an attorney, we "just don't know how a court would rule" on any of this, because there's "no case law."

And -- and this is very, very important -- I'm also personally advocating to him, that his organization take this extraordinary, precedent-setting case, and argue that a property owner in the Prohibition Zone should be exempt from the sewer assessment, if that property owner installs a composting toilet(s), just like the RWQCB considered "requiring" in Los Osos as far back as 2004, and use an "appropriate greywater system," which could be as simple as their existing septic tank.

And who cares what "the majority" thinks... well, OTHER than your confused TAC.

If you would like to comment on your TAC's faulty position regarding composting toilets, I'd be very interested in hearing it.

As always, much thanks,
Ron

P.S.
A source has informed me that at least one property owner in Los Osos will be putting their house on the market this week, because that property owner feels that they can not afford the upcoming sewer assessment, estimated at over $200 a month.

So, if I could get an answer from you (this time) on this question:

"What's stopping anyone from installing a composting toilet in Los Osos?"

... as soon as possible, that'd be great, because, "it's important to understand" the extreme urgency of this matter.

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[25 weeks down... 27 to go.]

Thursday, June 17, 2010

The Tribune's Coverage of Los Osos Just Gets Weirder, and Weirder

TO: David Sneed, reporter, The Tribune
DATE: 6/17/10

Hello David,

You seem to have missed two extremely critical points in your story today, "Judge OKs Osos sewer suit settlement."

You wrote:

"Taxpayers Watch sued the district in 2005 after three of the district’s board members were ousted in a recall election..."

What you failed to mention is that Taxpayers Watch IS "three of the district’s board members (that) were ousted in a recall election."

That is a very, VERY important point, and you didn't include it in your story, at all.

Recalled Director, Gordon Hensley's name shows up all over Taxpayer Watch documents, recalled director, Richard LeGros is their #1, vocal, and very public cheerleader, and recalled director Stan Gustafson's name shows up alongside Hensley's name in at least one Taxpayer Watch document that I have.

["Taxpayers Watch Information Contact: Gordon Hensley and Stan Gustafson"
-- Water Board Comment Letter, December, 2005]

But you didn't mention any of that.

I also noticed how, a few years back, when the recalled directors/Taxpayers Watch officially attempted to immediately "dissolve" the very government agency that they were democratically recalled from, the local agency that handled that dissolution attempt -- LAFCO -- was so disgusted with the "9 month" effort, that LAFCO actually sued Taxpayers Watch to recover the some $40,000 (that LAFCO wasted on administrative costs on the matter), AND WON.

But the Tribune never covered THAT super interesting angle of the story, like I did, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/08/unlike-my-moms-garden-club-taxpayers.html

... AFTER your paper wrote several stories involving the dissolution attempt, itself.

You never followed-up... on that amazing story.

Why?

Finally, in today's story, you write:

"... stopped construction of the sewer started several months earlier by the previous board."

and;

"Stoppage of the sewer resulted in numerous legal challenges."

and;

"The sewer project has since been taken over by the county Public Works Department, which recently received final regulatory approval for a new project."

As usual, the Trib totally ignores the over-the-top important question of "whatever happened to the 'previous project?'"... that the 1998 -- 2005 LOCSD (consisting of Taxpayers Watch types) spent 7 years and $25 million developing.

I have to admit, it just gets weirder and weirder with your paper, and the Los Osos sewer story.

I sent the following e-mail to, (Tribune editor) Sandra Duerr, the other day, but, of course she never replied:

- - -
Hello Sandra,

Thank you SO much for taking my question today on KCBX.

I'm working on a story for my blog, and I just have a very quick follow-up question, please:

Considering that you said that the editorial board does not influence your news gathering, will the Tribune soon be publishing a story on the collapse of the Tri-W project -- a project that the Los Osos CSD spent $25 million and seven years (1998 - 2005) planning?

Because, I have to admit, what's currently happening with your paper, and that over-the-top important story, is kind of weird.

Think about this...

After your paper published three editorials endorsing that project in 2005, four years and $7 million worth of careful SLO County analysis would later show that exact same project to be a complete "infeasible" embarrassment.

However, your paper has yet to publish a story on that "project's" dramatic collapse... AFTER the Tribune published three separate editorials endorsing it.

And THAT's where it gets weird. You've yet to report on that unbelievably newsworthy story, AFTER publishing three editorials supporting it.

So, will the Tribune now, after your appearance on KCBX today, publish a story detailing the dramatic collapse of the Tri-W project?

After hearing your answer to my on-air question, I'm a little confused on that one.

Finally, was Bill Morem (a Los Osos prohibition zone resident) a member of your editorial board in 2005, at the time of those pro-Tri-W project editorials?

As always, much thanks,
Ron
- - -

I also don't expect a reply from you, so that's why, when I already know that I'm not going to get a reply to an e-mail, I just go ahead and publish the e-mail on my blog, so, that way, I can at least show that I sent it, which is what I did with this e-mail:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Thanks,
Ron

And, my quick follow-up to Sneed:

- - -
Hello David,

It took me about a minute to dig this up:

"Taxpayers Watch Information Contact: Gordon Hensley and Stan Gustafson"

http://swrcb2.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2005/dec/item3/comment_ltrs/letter072_albright.pdf

Since, clearly, the Trib isn't aware of this...

Immediately after they were recalled, in 2005, the three recalled directors immediately formed Taxpayers Watch as a front, and then used it to sue, dissolve, bankrupt, and "fine out of existence" the very government agency that they were DEMOCRATICALLY recalled from, and the obvious fact that the Tribune doesn't know ANY of that, is, frankly, appalling.

Can I recommend a "brickbrack," or whatever your paper calls 'em (other than the obvious one for your reporting)?

A brickbrack for Hensley, LeGros and Gustafson for taking over 200 years of the Democracy that we all know and love, and going hard-core scorched earth on it, and the Trib enables it.

Thanks again,
Ron

###

Monday, June 14, 2010

The County's Worst-Case-Scenario in Los Osos, is Also a VERY Real Scenario

TO: Bruce Gibson, District Two Supervisor, SLO County
DATE: 6/14/10

Dear Supervisor Gibson,

Three years ago, I published a story that shows how a 2004 Regional Water Quality Control Board document, "Item 19," that discusses the various "alternatives" available in Los Osos, reads:

- - -
[All bolding mine]
Require Alternative Waste Disposal Units – The Regional Board could (through General Waste Discharge Requirements, Cleanup and Abatement Orders, or Cease and Desist Orders) require use of alternative waste disposal units.

Advanced treatment units (for improved effluent quality), portable toilets and/or composting toilets (for reduced discharges, as discussed in previous section regarding prohibiting black water discharges) could be required. Such units could be required for existing discharges using Cleanup and Abatement or Cease and Desist Orders, or for new discharges using General Waste Discharge Requirements.

Pros: For those existing discharges where such alternatives are implemented, water quality improvement will occur. If General Waste Discharge Requirements are adopted by the Regional Board which authorize development of vacant lots, then this method may also provide benefits similar to those described under the 'Rescinding Resolution No. 83-13' section above.

Cons: Widespread implementation of this alternative would result in more costly waste treatment and less effective water quality protection than that offered by the community sewer. However, it remains one of the few alternatives, which can result in water quality improvement and is not subject to Coastal Commission approval. The previous discussion about the questionable availability of this huge number of outhouses, would also apply to availability of other types of alternative treatment methods.
- - -

Notice how their "cons" have nothing to do with things like feasibility and nuisance, instead it says things like, "Widespread implementation of this alternative would result in more costly waste treatment."

That quote tells me two things: 1) Widespread implementation of this alternative is possible, and 2) "would result in more costly waste treatment," is not even close to being accurate, unless they mean by the reluctant few that hold out for a community sewer system, because that would "result in MUCH more costly waste treatment"... for THOSE people. And, even if composting toilets WERE more costly, which they are not (not even close) the cost of "the few alternatives, which can result in water quality improvement" is entirely up to the property owner.

Considering the RWQCB all but raves about composting toilets, and even considered "requiring" them in Los Osos, it seems like it's just a matter of time before a property owner in the Prohibition Zone installs an "advanced" composting toilet system, and, therefore will not need to hook up to the sewer pipe in front of their property, and then get out of paying the sewer assessment by easily arguing "no benefit, no assessment."

And if just ONE property owner in Los Osos does that, eventually ALL property owners in the Prohibition Zone will be economically forced to do the exact same thing, unless they want to spend something like $5,000/month just to flush with water.

Furthermore, the water savings associated with composting toilets is immense, and, as you know, the overdraft of the groundwater in Los Osos is a HUGE problem.

Additionally, at this link:

http://www.compostingtoilet.org/faq/index.php

...it reads:

- - -
"What are the advantages to the community?

If a community were to embrace the total use of composting toilets and appropriate greywater systems, it would have no sewage charges, sewage pipe installations and maintenance costs.

The community would also have greatly reduced water costs

What are the advantages to the environment?

The widescale use of composting toilets would be very beneficial to the environment. Reduced water use would minimise storage and piping impacts, elimination of sewage would reduce nutrient flows into river and oceans and subsequent rejuvenation of marine systems.

Cities could become fertilizer factories instead of nutrient sinks, reducing environmental problems associated with manufacture of fertilisers.

Don't They Smell?

A correctly installed and operating composting toilet will not smell at all because there is a positive suction of air through the toilet at all times. In fact, there should be less smell than a conventional toilet."
- - -

Here's my question: Why is the county spending so much time and money on a community sewer for Los Osos, when, almost certainly, it's going to be a community of composting toilets, just like the RWQCB considered "requiring" in Los Osos due to all of the excellent benefits associated with the "advanced" units they mention in Item 19?

Interestingly, the last time I was in (SLO County Public Works Director) Paavo Ogren's office, about two years ago, I made all of this information available to him, but he just ignored it entirely... entirely. He never mentioned it again, at the same time spending millions (and years) on the design of a sewer system.

I hope that you don't take the same route on this extremely important subject, as Ogren, or, almost certainly, the County's worst-case-scenario will come true: There will be a $180 million sewer system in Los Osos that no one needs to hook up to.

Thank you,
Ron

P.S. I personally know people in SLO County that use composting toilets, and they went through proper county channels before they installed them, and the county was o.k. with it. And the people that have composting toilets, rave about them, and the units are "very beneficial to the environment."

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[24 weeks down... 28 to go.]

Monday, June 07, 2010

Did Nash-Karner Blackout, or Did Supervisor Gibson Lie to Me? I Never Got an Answer. . . Of Course

So, just to wrap up my "Election Coverage 2010" (And, yes, I'm deeply disappointed that only one person challenged Gibson, which means that my election coverage wraps up now, instead of November)...

I never received an answer from either Supervisor Gibson, OR, his Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, on whether Nash-Karner blacked-out, of if Gibson lied to me... it has to be one of the two:

- - -

[Originally published on 3/15/20]

TO: Pandora Nash-Karner, SLO County Parks Commissioner, 2nd District
DATE: 3/15/10

Dear Commissioner Nash-Karner,

The reason I'm writing you today, is because I was hoping that you could help settle a bet between me, and SLO County Supervisor, Bruce Gibson. (Well, technically, it's not really a "bet," but, I thought "settling a bet" sounded cool, and since I'll be publishing this e-mail on my blog, and because the subject of this e-mail is kinda-sorta "bet-like," we'll just go with that metaphor... for now.)

And to make this story even juicier, ONLY you can settle this bet. Think about that. Out of the 6-7 billion people on this planet, only ONE person can settle this bet. You.

So, here's the deal:

On the recording of the 1/28/10 Parks Commission meeting (that I obtained a copy of through a public records request), I can hear Parks Department staff tell your board that Supervisor Gibson recently requested that Parks staff withdraw an application for some $5 million in Proposition 84 funding for a park project that you are proposing at the Tri-W site, in Los Osos.

Also on the recording, you appear to be very surprised to hear that information. You say things like, "I had no idea," and, "What were the reasons Bruce gave (for withdrawing the application)," and "I didn't realize we had sent this (request)."

Furthermore, judging from your reaction to the news that the Prop 84 funding was being yanked, that project -- the Tri-W park project -- seems EXTREMELY important to you.

Now, I've since contacted Supervisor Gibson, asking him why he didn't notify you -- his own appointment to the Parks Commission -- about his request to withdraw the application for the Prop 84 funding for your Tri-W park project, BEFORE that 1/28/10 meeting.

Here's where it gets weird(er):

He's told me that he actually DID make you aware of his request before that meeting. He, and SLO County Parks Director, Curtis Black (who answered my questions to Supervisor Gibson on Gibson's "behalf"), indicate that, perhaps, due to your workload, you simply don't remember him informing you on the Prop 84/Tri-W subject.

In a recent e-mail to me, Curtis Black writes, "Supervisor Gibson shared the Tri-W and Prop 84 information with Commissioner Nash-Karner prior to the 1/28/2010 PRC meeting," and, "I do not know why she did not recall the information that evening but it is understandable to me considering the demands that are placed on her time."

Here's where you come in, Commissioner Nash-Karner. Here's where you -- and ONLY you -- can settle our little "bet."

Who's right?

Is Supervisor Gibson right, in that he made you aware of that information BEFORE the 1/28/10 meeting, and you then suffered a complete memory blackout at that meeting?

OR...

Am I right, in that, based on the fact that you said things like, "What were the reasons Bruce gave (for withdrawing the application)," and, "I had no idea," at that meeting, that he DIDN'T make you aware of the Tri-W/Prop 84 information before the meeting, and, therefore, he's now lying to me when he says that he did?

So, who's right?

Did you suffer a complete memory blackout on a subject that is very, very important to you, OR, is Supervisor Gibson lying to me?

Which one?

Finally, one more quick question, please...

Los Osos CSD president, Marshall Ochylski, recently made it official that he will be challenging Supervisor Gibson for 2nd District Supervisor this election year. If memory serves, you, as a former LOCSD Director yourself, supported Mr. Ochylski in 2008 as a candidate for the LOCSD Board of Directors. And, as I've shown numerous times on my blog, you also publicly endorsed, and financially supported, Bruce Gibson when he was running for Supervisor in 2006.

Here's my question: Will you also be publicly endorsing, and financially supporting, Supervisor Gibson this election year?

As always, much thanks,
Ron

###

[23 weeks down... 29 to go.]