Would the Coastal Commission Still Have Approved the Tri-W Disaster in 2004, Had the Los Osos CSD Not Lied to Them?

[Note: Sara Wan is the current "Chair" of the California Coastal Commission. She was also a member of the Commission in 2004, when they approved the development permit for the now-failed Tri-W disaster -- a horrific decision, with horrific consequences -- which makes Wan the perfect recipient for the following email.]

Dear Commissioner Wan,

I think you are going to find this e-mail extremely interesting, and the reason I'm writing it to you is because, as you'll see, you are one of a tiny handful of people that can answer my question.

I recently wrote, and then published, a story on my blog, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2011/03/seven-disastrous-years-later-countys.html

... that shows (with links to primary sources, as usual) that the 2004 Los Osos CSD, and its engineers, had sitting on their desks in 2004, a wastewater project ("Exhibit 3-C") for Los Osos that was/is nearly identical to the project that SLO County officials just spent four years and some $8 million developing, and that you, and your fellow Commissioners, approved back in June of 2010, which includes major components like a sewer plant located east of town (on property directly "adjacent to the Andre site"... the "Giacomazzi" site), a "gravity" collection system, a small "pumping station" at the Tri-W site, and disposes "effluent" at a location called "the Broderson site."

As you probably recall from 2004's 3-C, that's the near-identical description of the 2004 LOCSD's "alternative" (to the Tri-W disaster), that they didn't use.

District engineers developed "Exhibit 3-C" at the request of the Coastal Commission, when the Commission asked the District (in May of 2004) to "evaluate whether parcels adjacent to the Andre site [bolding mine] provide a feasible opportunity to reduce potential project impacts."

As you also know, in 2004, instead of pursuing the (presumably) correct project -- Exhibit 3-C, with an out-of-town (and downwind) sewer plant, at the "environmentally superior alternative," "adjacent to the Andre site," and nearly identical to the county's currently approved (by you) project -- the 2004 LOCSD, and its engineers, opted to pursue their now-failed (after 11-years-and-counting of delay, and some $25 million), "infeasible" (county's word), colossally disastrous, laughably embarrassing, "mid-town," sewer plant/"picnic area" (on ESHA), "bait and switchy" (Coastal Commissioner's words) Tri-W... disaster.

Additionally, I also first exposed on my blog in 2005, at this link, how Los Osos CSD officials and its engineers (The Wallace Group, and Montgomery, Watson, Harza) deliberately (repeat: deliberately) left out millions of dollars worth of project components from the cost estimates for the Tri-W disaster, and then concluded in 3-C, "There does not appear to be any economic incentive to relocate the WWTF from the Tri-W site to (a site adjacent to the) Andre site."

And that was that -- those deliberately low-balled numbers (directly to the California Coastal Commission, I will point out) by the Los Osos CSD and its engineers in 2004, in Exhibit 3-C, appears to be the SOLE reason why the "environmentally superior" sewer plant location "adjacent to the Andre site," wasn't used in 2004 (instead of in 2011-and counting), because had the District and its engineers not fudge their numbers (to you, and your fellow Commissioners) in 3-C, in 2004, there, it certainly appears, would have been a lot of "economic incentive to relocate the WWTF from the Tri-W site to (a site adjacent to the) Andre site," as the county, and you, have now clearly concluded... in 2010... six years after 3-C... is the way to go.

As you probably also know, $8 million and four years of county analysis also reveals the following about the now-failed Tri-W disaster [bolding mine]:

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

and;

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

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

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

and;

- "higher costs overall"

- - -

And all of that brings me to my question:

Had the 2004 Los Osos CSD not lied to you, and your fellow Commissioners, by deliberately low-balling their numbers in Exhibit 3-C, and therefore erroneously (on purpose) concluding that there was no "economic incentive" to pursue the correct, "environmentally superior" project for Los Osos (according to four years and $8 million worth of county analysis) in early 2004, would you still have voted to approve the Tri-W "project" in August of 2004?

Thank you very much for your time,
Ron

P.S. I thought this e-mail would be of interest to my readers, so I published it on my blog:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Thanks again

Seven Disastrous Years Later: The County's Recently "Accepted" Project Looks Awwwwfully Familiar to SewerWatch

Let's see here... been awhile... does this thing still work? Let's give this a shot, and try and fire up ol' SewerWatch, eh?

Please step back, and be sure to wear your eye protection.

O.K., here we go: [clank, clank, clank, clank, clank, sputter, sputter, cough, wheeze, putt, putt, frooooommmmmm!!!... purrrrrrrrrrrrr.]

Perfect. (Gotta love blog technology.)

You know who I feel sorry for? The people that don't read my blog. They're missing out on all of the fun... oh, is this great!

So, waaaaay back in 2005, before the Los Osos CSD recall election, before the Los Osos CSD bankruptcy, before the Water Board enforcement actions on 45 completely innocent property owners in Los Osos, before a lot of things, I published a story on SewerWatch where I was the first (and still only, of course) media-type-ish person to show how, as early as "June 2004," the Los Osos CSD, and its engineers, had plans for a sewer project sitting on their desks, developed by their own engineers, that was an "alternative" to their wildly unpopular, needlessly over-the-top expensive, technically and socially "infeasible," mid-town sewer-plant-"picnic area" (I'm not making that up, people), "Tri-W site" disaster.

The District's "alternative" (to their Tri-W disaster) project in 2004 -- discreetly titled, "Exhibit 3-C" -- included cost estimates down to the $100s of dollars, and components like a sewer plant located east of town (and NOT three blocks upwind of downtown, as was the case with the Tri-W disaster, that the pre-recall LOCSD threw some $25 million at, from 2000 - 2005), and sited on property "adjacent to the Andre site."

The District's "alternative" project in 2004 also incorporated something called a "gravity" collection system (whatever that is), a small "pumping station" at the Tri-W site, and disposed of the "effluent" (whatever that is) at a location called "the Broderson site" (whatever that is).

And here's where this story goes flying-off-the-tracks EXCELLENT.

About a week ago, in March of 20-friggin'-11, the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors -- after four years and $8 million worth of careful, expensive analysis, countless public meetings on the Los Osos sewer subject, and a smidgeon of public input (so I hear) -- officially "accepted" their final project for Los Osos.

Lemme know if this sounds familiar:

After four years and $8 million worth of careful, expensive analysis, the County's 2011 Los Osos sewer project includes [drum roll, please: ptttttttttttt]... a sewer plant located east of town, on property directly "adjacent to the Andre site," a "gravity" collection system (whatever that is), a small "pumping station" at the Tri-W site, and disposes the "effluent" (whatever that is) at a location called "the Broderson site" (whatever that is).

[Cymbal crash!]

In other words, the project that county officials just spent four years and $8 million developing, and finally "accepted," a week ago -- a "significant juncture in the process," according to Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, at that meeting, -- is nearly the EXACT same "juncture" that Los Osos CSD officials, and engineers, had sitting on their desks in 2004, as I first exposed -- before the LOCSD recall election, before the LOCSD bankruptcy, before "fine out of existence," before the silly (yet hilarious) "dissolution" attempt, before the State Water Board enforcement actions on 45 completely innocent property owners in Los Osos, before special legislation AB 2701 (signed by Governor Schwarzenegger, that handed control of the project to San Luis Obispo County in 2007), before the Technical Advisory Committee (and all of its meetings), before the Prop 218 election, before one word of public comment on this topic at a Supervisors' meeting, and before $8 million and four years of expensive county analysis -- $8 million and four years of expensive county analysis which yielded the nearly exact same project the LOCSD had sitting on their desks in 2004, but didn't use.

Instead, LOCSD engineers, and officials, in 2004, when faced with a choice between "Exhibit 3-C" (a.k.a: the correct project for the town, according to $8 million and four years of expensive county analysis), and their "infeasible," ultimately disastrous, laughably embarrassing, wildly unpopular, mid-town "picnic area"/sewer plant, Tri-W disaster, LOCSD engineers, and officials, in 2004, made the choice, seemingly inexplicably, to pursue their disaster... instead of the correct project.



District engineers developed "Exhibit 3-C" at the request of the Coastal Commission, when the Commission asked the District (in May of 2004) to "evaluate whether parcels adjacent to the Andre site [bolding mine] provide a feasible opportunity to reduce potential project impacts."

However, engineers for the LOCSD in 2004 (The Wallace Group, and Montgomery, Watson, Harza) concluded in Exhibit 3-C, "There does not appear to be any economic incentive to relocate the WWTF from the Tri-W site to (a site adjacent to the) Andre site."

[Insert buzzer sound here]

Turns out, there was a lot of "economic incentive to relocate the WWTF from the Tri-W site to (a site adjacent) to the Andre site," in 2004... tens of millions of dollars worth of "economic incentive," as the county's $8 million worth of analysis clearly shows.

For example, the county's 2007 Pro/Con Report, concludes the following about the Tri-W project [all bolding mine]:

- - -

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

and;

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

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

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

and;

- "higher costs overall"

- - -

Rob Miller, current vice-president for the local engineering firm The Wallace Group, worked as the Los Osos CSD's "District Engineer" in 2004.

So, I recently sent Miller an email, that read, in part:

"Hello Rob...

What's the difference between ('Exhibit 3-C' from 2004) and the project that the Supes just gave their "intentions" to accept?"

He replied, "It seems that Coastal Commission Special Condition No. 5 is new, which will result in less flow to Broderson, and then recycled water to the schools, cemetery, and ag areas upon start up."

Then, I asked:

- - -
Hello Rob,

Thank you VERY much for your reply.

So, just to be clear, the one difference between the plan that the 2004/05 LOCSD had sitting in their filing cabinet, and the project that County officials, through special legislation (AB 2701), just spent four years and some $8 million developing, is one condition that deals with water recycling?

Couldn't you guys have accomplished that seemingly reasonable condition in 2004, and then your project back then would have been the EXACT same project the county just accepted?

Two more quick follow-up questions please:

1. In your opinion, was the addition of Condition No. 5 worth the 7-years-and-counting, $8 million of county analysis, the recall election, Measure B, AB 2701, the CDOs, numerous public meetings, and seemingly endless public comment that have occurred since the LOCSD had almost the exact same project sitting in their filing cabinet in 2004/05?

and;

2. Why didn't you, in 2004, as District engineer, just pursue the project the county just accepted? I mean, you DID have it sitting on your desk.

I don't understand: If the project that the county just spent four years and $8 million dollars concluding is the right project for Los Osos, and you had that (nearly) exact same project on your desk in 2004 (and you did), why didn't you just pursue that project then, instead of throwing all of that time and money at the "infeasible" (county's word) Tri-W disaster?

Seems like, had you just done the right thing (according to $8 million and four years worth of county analysis) back in 2004, the recall, Measure B, AB 2701, the CDOs, the county's entire sewer development process, etc., etc., etc. would have never happened.

So, what happened there? Why did you choose to pursue the "infeasible" Tri-W disaster back in 2004, instead of the correct project, that you developed, and had sitting on your desk at the time?

That doesn't seem to make a lick of sense.

Thanks again,
Ron

P.S. One more quick question, please: Was the Wallace Group used as a paid consultant by the county during their sewer development process over the past four years?

Thanks!
- - -

And, then, of course, he replied:

"Ron,
I talked to John Waddell (SLO County sewer planner) on Friday, and he confirmed that the County should be the one to address all sewer related questions from the media. Thanks for understanding."

And, then, I replied:

- - -
Hello Rob,

Here's the HUGE problem with that...

John wasn't the engineer for the LOCSD in 2004, you were.

How in the world is he supposed to answer my questions involving (Exhibit) 3-C? That's a LOCSD document, not a SLO County document.

I'll call you this afternoon : -)

Thanks for understanding.

Ron
- - -

... and so I called Miller that afternoon, and left a message.

He did not return my call, but he did send me another e-mail:

"Ron,
I’m supposed to refer all media calls to John W for current sewer issues, or Dan Gilmore (General Manager with LOCSD) for District issues. If either of those two call me and ask for feedback, I’ll get back to them right away. I have to follow their protocol for any news interviews.

Rob"

And, so, I sent him one last e-mail:

- - -
Hello Rob,

Wanna hear something funny?

When I interviewed Steve Hyland (a friend of yours, yes?) at MWH for my 2004 New Times cover story, at this link:

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

... where I was the first (and still only) reporter to show that the ONLY reason the Tri-W site was chosen was so town residents could more easily get to the picnic area, etc. that you included in the sewer plant (and of course, that decision added tens of millions of dollars to the project, because, as you know, it's very expensive to accommodate a mid-town sewer plant [thanks for that GREAT story, by the way]), he told me that I had to actually get permission from Bruce Buel (then LOCSD General Manager) before I could interview him.

So, I had to call Bruce, and, in one of my most awkward journalism encounters ever, I asked him if it was o.k. if I spoke with Steve.

Bruce laughed, and then said, "Yes."

That was the last time I had to get permission to talk to a source, until now.

I'll call Dan to see if I can get permission to talk to you.

Weird.

Thanks,
Ron
- - -

I never got around to asking Gilmore for permission to speak with Miller, but I did send Paavo Ogren, current Public Works Director for SLO County government, and a former work-mate of Miller when they were both employed by the Wallace Group in the early 2000s ["We thank Paavo Ogren and Rob Miller of John L. Wallace..."], an email, where I ask:

"What's the difference between 'Exhibit 3-C' (from 2004), and the project that the Supes just gave their 'intentions' to 'accept'?" (Whatever that means.)

Ogren never replied, of course.

So, at the recommendation of Miller, I sent John Waddell, a Los Osos sewer project planner for SLO County government, an e-mail that read, in part:

- - -
Hello John...

Did the District's engineers make a mistake in 2004 when they concluded, "There does not appear to be any economic incentive to relocate the WWTF from the Tri-W site to (a site adjacent) to the Andre site"?

Because, according to four years and $8 million worth of your analysis, it REEEEELLY appears that there was a lot of "economic incentive to relocate the WWTF from the Tri-W site to (a site adjacent) to the Andre site," in 2004... tens of millions of dollars worth of "economic incentive."

Additionally, as you'll read in my story, District engineers also deliberately left out millions of dollars of park amenities, and their maintenance "in perpetuity," off of their costs estimates for the Tri-W project in (Exhibit) 3-C.

Here's my second question: Had the 2004 Los Osos CSD, and their engineers, not lied to the California Coastal Commission by deliberately fudging, and low-balling their numbers in (Exhibit) 3-C (in 2004), would, in your experienced opinion, the exact same project that the county just "accepted," been approved by the Coastal Commission in 2004?

I mean, why wouldn't it have been? After all, the Coastal Commission was practically begging the 2004 LOCSD to move the plant to the "environmentally superior alternative," just like you guys did... six years (and $8 million) later... at an immense savings over the Tri-W disaster.
- - -

Waddell never replied, of course.

###