Could Someone that Knows Shirley Bianchi Please Tell Her to Turn on Her Blog Comments?

[Note: Former 2nd District Supervisor, Shirley Bianchi (left), recently started her own blog, Shirley You Jest (and it's pretty good, too. Turns out, ol' Shirl and I have a lot in common), and, I went to leave the following comment in her comments section, but when you click on the "comments" link on her blog, it doesn't give you an area to leave a comment. So, if someone knows how to get ahold of her, please tell her that her comments settings need to be adjusted so people can leave comments.

For now, I guess, since I've already typed up my comment (and then I discovered I couldn't post it on her blog), I'll just post it here, and, hopefully, it'll get back to her.]

Hello Shirley,

Howya been? Great blog!

Hey, real quick... sorry to go off-topic on your post here, but, you're just the person I'm looking for -- a (former) official that supported the Tri-W project in Los Osos, and I was hoping you would offer a few comments on that now-failed project, today.

For example, I'm looking at a letter, dated 10/20/05, that you wrote when you were 2nd District Supervisor, to Arthur Bagget Jr., then-Chair of the California State Water Resources Control Board.

In that letter (sent less than one month after the Los Osos CSD recall election) you write:

"This is a particularly difficult situation since the current (post-recall LOCSD) Board either will not or can not understand any government process. At one point I was asked if the political will exists here in San Luis Obispo County to assume management of the (Tri-W) project if, for whatever reason, the District were unable to continue with it. Let me assure you, that you have my full support, and I believe that the other Supervisors would give great weight to my position."

Here's where this gets interesting.

In the years since you sent that letter, here's just a sample of what $8 million worth of county analysis now says about the former Tri-W project:

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

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

And, in the County's TAC Pro/Con Analysis, available at this link:

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

... it reads:

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

and;

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

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

- "(Tri-W has) higher costs overall"

and;

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

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

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

and;

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

and;

- "ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

And, in the end of the County's four year/$8 million analysis, the Tri-W project didn't even come close to making the short list of viable projects, of course, and it just quietly died out, after the 1999 - 2005 LOCSD spent (read: wasted) six years and some $25 million pursuing that disaster.

So, here's my question for you, Shirley, in 2011:

Why did you write a letter, on official County letterhead, to the Chair of the California State Water Resources Control Board in October 2005, telling him that you, and your fellow SLO County Supervisors, supported a wildly unpopular, "infeasible," downtown sewer plant on "ESHA," that had the "highest costs overall," and posed the highest "risk" of spills into the Morro Bay National Estuary, when there were several out-of-town, downwind, "environmentally superior," MUCH cheaper, NOT "infeasible," NOT highly controversial, sewer plant sites available, as four years of County analysis clearly shows?

That doesn't seem to make any sense.

Did you get confused on the viability of the Tri-W disaster, or, do you still support that now-failed "project?"

Finally, do you NOW agree with the post-recall LOCSD Board, considering they had the brilliant foresight to stop that disaster?

Thanks in advance for your answer in this comments section.

I'm very much looking forward to reading those comments.

In your main post here, you write:

" If and when we are in a position to mention that we have noticed a new rash of lies, we should mention them."

I agree.

###