"Quietly" Part II: 12-Years-and-Counting of SLO County and State Government F-Ups in Los Osos, with Zero Accountability. . . Of Course

"It is not necessary to bury the truth. It is sufficient merely to delay it until nobody cares."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte

So, waaay back in 2005, I'm researching a story, and I'm on the phone with someone named, Steve Monowitz. Steve is a former California Coastal Commission staffer, who handled the disastrous, "bait and switchy," now-failed-after-millions-of-wasted-public-dollars-and-ten-wasted-years, Tri-W sewer disaster in Los Osos.

And, after learning from me, and my reporting, that he was lied to by the Los Osos Community Services District (LOCSD) from 2000 - 2004 about the disastrous, now-failed Tri-W non-project, and how that environmental and financial disaster should have never even come close to California Coastal Commission (CCC) approval in 2004, Steve, on the phone that day in 2005 (more than a year after the CCC approved the disastrous Tri-W permit), says (out of the blue), "You know, I really like how you use the word 'quietly' to describe the way the Los Osos CSD went from their ("better, cheaper, faster") ponding project (from 1998 - 2000), to their second project (the Tri-W disaster)."

What Steve was referring to, is my July 2005 post, here:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/07/mangling-of-sewer-project.html

... where I write (in 2005!):

- - -

Quietly, in late 2000, the CSD Board finally turned (from their DOA, failed "better, cheaper, faster" ponding project) to a viable, yet more costly, sewage treatment technology, similar to what the County had proposed four years earlier.

However, when deciding where to build the dramatically redesigned treatment facility, the CSD Board, in yet another display of head-shakingly bad decision making, seemingly inexplicably identified a "strongly held community value" that the site of the sewer plant also double as a centrally located "recreational asset."

According to the LOCSD, “The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The (other potential sewer plant) sites on the outskirts of town, could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents."

All other potential sites on the outskirts of town were "rejected" by the District on the basis that they did not accomplish the "project objective" of "centrally located community amenities."

The park element of the plan locked in the centrally located Tri-W location, and, due to its central location, multi-millions of dollars have to be added to the project for extra environmental, odor, and visual mitigation, on top of the cost of the multi-million dollar park amenities and their operation and maintenance.

- - -

First... damn, I'm good.

That was in 2005, and, nearly seven years later, I'm shown to be 100-percent, nails-tight right, of course, as recent county analysis also shows that the downtown location for the now-failed Tri-W sewer plant/park was adding nearly $35 million to the project, which means, that, because the park was, solely, dictating the downtown location, and therefore solely responsible for the additional costs of siting a sewer plant in the middle of a community -- directly across the street from residential neighborhoods, and the civic center, where there's already a public park -- that was a $35 million park... in an industrial sewer plant.

Second, the reason Steve locked onto that "quietly" word, is because he was responsible for processing BOTH of those disasters -- the failed "better, cheaper, faster" ponding disaster from 1998 - 2000, AND the failed Tri-W disaster, from 2000 - 2005.

Which meant that he, like me (a former newspaper reporter/editor in Los Osos throughout the 1990s) was well aware that the ONLY reason the Los Osos CSD was formed by the town's voters in the first place, in November 1998, was so the newly formed CSD, with Pandora Nash-Karner as their leader, could chase her known-to-her-be DOA "better, cheaper, faster" ponding project, which is exactly what happened.

Then, the newly formed CSD, led by Nash-Karner, immediately "abandoned" the County's "ready to go" project, at a cost of some $5 million to SLO COUNTY taxpayers.

But, as predicted, two futile years later, "better, cheaper, faster" didn't even come close to working, and so LOCSD director, and founder of "better, cheaper, faster," Nash-Karner "quietly" (without ever going back to the community and saying "What should we do now?" [Of course, HAD she done that, the obvious answer would have been, "Just go back to the County's 'ready-to-go' project," which, in turn, would have meant that the previous three years of chasing Nash-Karner's heavily-marketed-and-hyped disastrous "better, cheaper, faster" project, AND the formation of the Los Osos CSD itself, was for absolutely nothing, so Nash-Karner couldn't let that happen, obviously, so, and instead, she "quietly," and unbelievably disastrously, turned to her second disaster -- the Tri-W disaster... disaster.

I first exposed how Nash-Karner's "better, cheaper, faster" disaster was going down the toilet [pun intended, blame Alex Zuniga] in a 2000 New Times cover story, archived at this link:

http://archive.newtimesslo.com/archive/2003-09-11/archives/cov_stories_2000/cov_07062000.html

Less than one month after that story, Nash-Karner's "better, cheaper, faster" disaster -- the "project" that was solely responsible for killing the County's "ready to go" project in 1999, AND the ONLY reason the LOCSD was formed in the first place -- was officially in the dumpster.]

Here's my point... well, POINT#1:

Nothing ever happened to the elected officials, LOCSD staff members, OR consultants that were responsible for that disaster. Nothing.

And look at this... just LOOK at what happened to Los Osos, AND to SLO County, AND to the People of California, because of that disaster, with absolutely ZERO accountability:

Document after official document, throughout 1998, told the Karner's that their "better, cheaper, faster" disaster wasn't going to work (Heck, I even show how they ADMIT knowing, in January of 1998, that it wasn't going to work) yet Nash-Karner continues, throughout 1998, to heavy-duty market her known-to-her-to-be DOA "better, cheaper, faster" disaster to Los Osos voters as a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75."

Voters bite, and in November 1998, the CSD is formed for the sole reason of ripping control of the project away from SLO County (and their "ready to go" project), and handing it to the new Los Osos CSD.

In early 1999, Nash-Karner, as the #1 vote-getter in the initial CSD Board election, instantly kills the the County's "ready to go" project (at a cost of some $5 million to COUNTY residents) and begins pursuit of her known-to-her-to-be DOA "better, cheaper, faster" disaster.

Then... THEN... as I also (of course) first exposed, official LOCSD documents associated with Nash-Karner's known-to-her-to-be DOA "better, cheaper, faster" disaster begin to contain the words: "SWA Group," the landscaping firm that her husband works for, of course.

Two disastrous years later, "better, cheaper, faster," as predicted, and just like I exposed it was about to, fails.

... AND NOTHING EVER HAPPENED.

No investigations. No audits. No official inquires. No Grand Jury reports. No reporting (other than mine)... NOTHING. Simply, "Oh well, let's just keep moving forward."

I can't get over it -- my New Times cover story was the ONLY media coverage... ever... anywhere... on that intensely newsworthy story. (The local media's coverage on the Los Osos sewer story over the past ten years-plus, has been, and continues to be, horrible. Grade F-.)

And THAT's why both Steve and I were stunned in 2005, that something SOOOOO important, and SOOOOO disastrous, could crash-and-burn so "quietly."

But it did, and to this day, there has been ZERO, absolutely zero accountability for the over-the-top-destructive, known-in-advance-to-be DOA, Nash-Karner/her husband's SWA Group, "better, cheaper, faster" disaster.

Zero accountability.

Well folks, fast-forward 11 years since the "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, and I can now, sadly, bring you, "Quietly" Part II.

As I show above, since there was NO WAY Nash-Karner could go back to the community after the failure of her "better, cheaper, faster" disaster in 2000, and say, "What should we do now?," she, as an elected LOCSD director, instead, decided to start lying to Monowitz, and the entire California Coastal Commission, about why the sewer plant for her second disaster -- her now-also-failed Tri-W disaster -- ALSO had to go in the exact same location as her "better, cheaper, faster" disaster... you know, just so it would at least LOOK like there was actually a reason to form the CSD in the first place, because, if she had simply turned back to the county's "ready to go" project, the sewer plant would have been built outside of town, and that would have clearly shown there wasn't a single reason to form the CSD, and, to this day, that's the case: There is absolutely ZERO foundation on why the Los Osos CSD was formed in the first place, which turned out to be a total disaster. Amazing. [See my post: "The 'Morph' Lie"]

Nash-Karner, post-District Director, and acting as some shady, behind-the-scenes, private PR/marketing-type consultant for her CSD, would continue to lie to the Coastal Commission (and her own community) for four years, until, in my 2004 New Times cover story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, and in subsequent reports here in SewerWatch, I first exposed (of course) how Nash-Karner's CSD lied to the Coastal Commission about the ONLY reason why she selected the exact same sewer plant location for her second disaster, as for her first disaster, and how, in reality, there was no documentable reason whatsoever why her industrial sewer plant in her Tri-W disaster had to be built in the middle of Los Osos.

One year after Three Blocks, in September 2005, Los Osos voters, understandably, finally put the Tri-W disaster "on blocks."

That fateful election eventually led to State legislation that handed control of developing a reality-based sewer project for Los Osos, BACK to SLO County officials -- just like it was BEFORE Nash-Karner formed the Los Osos CSD in 1998 for what turned out to be no reason whatsoever.

Four years (2006 - 2010) and some $8 million of county analysis now shows the Tri-W disaster to be the exact disaster I first exposed it to be in 2004, in Three Blocks, and on June 11, 2010, the California Coastal Commission, this time around, when the LOCSD wasn't lying to them, doesn't even come close to approving the Tri-W disaster, of course.

But, stunningly, AGAIN, absolutely nothing happens to anyone associated with the now-miserably failed Tri-W disaster.

No investigations. No audits. No official inquires. No Grand Jury reports. No reporting (other than mine)... NOTHING. Simply, "Oh well, let's just keep moving forward."

And look at this... just LOOK at what happened to Los Osos, AND to SLO County, AND to the People of California, because of that disaster, with absolutely ZERO accountability:

- $25 million of Los Osos taxpayer money completely wasted.

- A gazillion dollars, give or take a bazillion dollars, of CALIFORNIA's money goes straight down the Tri-W-disaster rabbit hole, as a result of wasting all of that time dealing with that fake project for some seven years.

- The futile, seven year chase of that disaster leads to an additional seven years of pollution to the State's water.

- The delays in implementing a reality-based sewer project in Los Osos, leads to the State of California hard-core prosecuting a bunch of completely innocent senior citizens in Los Osos -- prosecution that threatens those completely innocent senior citizens with losing their homes (imagine living with that threat) -- for a gigantic mistake that the STATE made, by getting lazy, and not verifying Nash-Karner's lies involving her Tri-W disaster. (HAD State officials, starting as early as 2001, simply attempted to verify Nash-Karner's lies, like I did in Three Blocks in 2004, the Tri-W disaster would have been "put on blocks" in 2001, and the County's "ready to go" project would have, almost certainly, been constructed beginning in 2001, at a fraction of the cost of the County's currently proposed project.)

To reemphasize, because it's so mind-blowing: Had former Los Osos CSD Director/Official LOCSD PR Hack, Nash-Karner, simply NOT started lying to the Coastal Commission's, Steve Monowitz, beginning in 2001, about why her second disaster had to go in the exact same downtown location as her first disaster, without question, what would have happened is the entire mess would have simply reverted back to the County's "ready to go" project from just two years earlier. It would have been the ONLY logical thing to do. (Of course, Nash-Karner couldn't do that, for the reasons I've outlined above.

To save her "#1 vote getter" position in her community, she HAD to lie to Monowitz. If she DIDN't do that, the community would have instantly realized that she had lied to THEM for the past two years, and tricked the community into forming the LOCSD, just so she and her husband could make money... which is exactly what it turned out to be, as I exposed in my original reporting, with, to date, zero accountability.)

A gazillion wasted public dollars, a decade-and-counting of extra water pollution, hard-core prosecution on a bunch of completely innocent senior citizens, ALL due solely to the now-miserably-failed Tri-W disaster, and NOTHING...absolutely nothing ever happened to the elected officials and their staffs and consultants, and the state agencies that allowed that seven-year/gazillion-dollar disaster to fester for seven years. Zero accountability, exactly like the fallout from Nash-Karner's 1998 - 2000 failed "better, cheaper, faster" disaster.

So, for dramatic effect:

The fallout of Nash-Karner's 1998 - 2000 "better, cheaper, faster" disaster:

-- Killed the county's "ready to go" project in 1999, at a cost of some $5 million to SLO County taxpayers in sunk design costs.

-- Solely responsible for forming the Los Osos CSD in the first place, a fundamental shift in the way the town is governed. (Two previous attempts in the 1990s to form a CSD in Los Osos -- sans "maximum monthly payment of $38.75"/"better, cheaper, faster" -- failed. I covered both of them as a reporter, and an editor. And today, if there's one thing that almost ALL Los Ososans agree with, it's that voting to create the CSD in 1998, on the back of Nash-Karner's "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, was hands-down, a complete, total, unmitigated, colossal disaster.)

-- Completely wasted two critical years (1998 - 2000) in the pursuit to stop the alleged water pollution in the area (and State officials, like the Karners, ALSO knew that "better, cheaper, faster" was DOA those entire, two disastrous years, yet, did absolutely nothing to prevent the LOCSD from wasting those two disastrous years.)

-- Wasted untold millions of dollars of the People of California's money, as we paid for the Los Osos CSD to futz around with their DOA disaster, just so Gary Karner's SWA Group, as well as the Karners' other consultant friends, could get paid.

And NOTHING ever happened. Absolutely zero accountability. "Let's just move forward."

The fallout of Nash-Karner's 2001 - 2010 "bait and switchy," now-miserably-failed Tri-W disaster:

-- $25 million of Los Osos taxpayer money completely wasted.

-- A gazillion dollars, give or take a bazillion dollars, of the People of California's completely wasted.

-- An additional, completely unnecessary seven years of pollution to the State's water.

-- Hard-core prosecuting a bunch of completely innocent senior citizens in Los Osos by the State of California, for a gigantic mistake that the STATE made.

-- An estimated price tag of over $200/month for the county's currently proposed project, as opposed to the estimated $80/month for the county's "ready to go" project from the 1990s, that then-LOCSD director, Nash-Karner, "abandoned."

-- A recall election.

-- State legislation.

-- A ripped up piece of once-"environmentally sensitive" land, smack-dab in the middle of Los Osos.

And NOTHING ever happened. Absolutely zero accountability. "Let's just move forward."

De-spic-a-ble.

So, in 2005, I'm on the phone with someone named, Darrin Polhemus.

Darrin is with the office of the State Water Resources Control Board, and the reason I was on the phone with him that day, was because I was researching a story, and I wasn't clear on how the multi-million dollars worth of park amenities, like a "picnic area," in the Tri-W sewer plant -- that I first exposed in Three Blocks, AND that were dictating the downtown location to begin with -- were being funded.

Who was paying for those millions of dollars of park amenities that Nash-Karner's 2000 LOCSD designed into their Tri-W disaster -- amenities that were all over the cover of that disaster's official report, published in early 2001?

"Please tell me it's not the People of California," I thought to myself.

What a great question, and that's why I ended up on the phone that day, with Darrin.

He told me, "The State is funding 100-percent of the Tri-W sewer project."

I said, "Huh? You mean even those millions of dollars worth of park amenities?"

He said, "100-percent of the project."

I said, "Oh, Darrin, you've gotta be kidding me? Are you familiar with 'bait and switchy,' and how that was the ONLY reason those amenities ended up as a 'condition of approval' in the Coastal Commission's permit, to begin with?"

He said, "I'm aware of the twisted way the park ended up in the project."

I said, "Darrin, I don't think you are."

He said, "I'm not going to argue about it."

Knowing that the policy that governs the State's funding for wastewater projects stated that "decorative items," like "amphitheaters" and "dog parks" are, wisely, ineligible for State funding, I said, "Darrin, you should really argue about this. You're about to make a huge mistake."

He said, "We're going to fund the park, Ron. That's final."

I said, "Darrin, you're making a huge mistake."

And that was the end of that awkward, yet spectacularly interesting conversation.

Very unfortunately for everyone, Polhemus didn't listen to me on the phone that day, and the exact "bait and switchy," Nash-Karner lies to Monowitz that led to the Coastal Commission's disastrous approval of the Tri-W disaster in 2004, ALSO led directly to the SWRCB illegally funding that disaster.

And, due to my reporting, I knew that... in 2005, when I was on the phone with Polhemus.

So, almost immediately after hanging up the phone with him, I filed an official, time-stamped complaint, as per State policy, with the SWRCB showing how they were illegally funding a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant for Los Osos, because I knew I was right, and that the State was wrong, and I wanted to get that intensely important fact time-stamped, which is exactly what I did.

Again, in absolutely mind-blowing fashion, less than one month after that phone call, where I begged Polhemus to hold on to the first check to the LOCSD, until that "Why are the People of California funding a multi-million dollar park in a sewer plant for Los Osos?" thing gets figured out (and HAD they taken that short amount of time to figure that out, it would have stopped the Tri-W disaster in its tracks... in 2005) the State cut a $6 million check to the LOCSD that would go on to be completely wasted on the disastrously premature start of construction of the Tri-W disaster, and paid for the destruction of the ESHA at the Tri-W site, that's still ripped apart to this day, solely due to that money, that I begged Polhemus to withhold. And just a few weeks after that $6 million paid for all of that needless destruction, a successful LOCSD recall election would halt that disaster forever, and that $6 million, that I begged Polhemus to hold on to, paid to destroy Los Osos, for no reason whatsoever. Worse than a complete waste, it actually paid to destroy the town.

(Wow. Darrin REEEELLY should have listened to me on the phone that day, in 2005. Wow.)

And, right now, today, my little, one-page, official, time-stamped complaint is stuffed in some dusty filing cabinet in Sacramento, in the offices of the State Water Resources Control Board -- a document that is over-the-top relevant, and important to this day.

So, two months ago, I hatched a plan (because there's NO WAY I'm going to let the ending of my book be: "15 years of utter disaster. Zero accountability. The end." I am committed to making sure THAT is not the ending of my book).

My plan, hilariously, involves actually forcing some accountability, you know, for the sake of my book's ending. That's right -- I'm actually creating my desired ending for my book. Funny.

And here's where this already-amazing story goes flying-off-the-rails excellent.

The first part of my plan was to request an official State audit on why the People of California were funding a multi-million park in a sewer plant for Los Osos, in the now-miserably-failed Tri-W disaster.

Because, I know, that if that was ever independently examined, the results of that one-simple audit would be stunning:

It will show that numerous State agencies simply got lazy, and confused, and failed to verify Nash-Karner's lies about her Tri-W disaster, and had those numerous State agencies simply NOT got lazy, and confused, and actually attempted to verify Nash-Karner's lies about her Tri-W disaster, like I did in 2004's Three Blocks, it will not only show that that disaster should have never even come close to approval, but, astonishingly, it will ALSO show that the State is (present tense) hard-core prosecuting a bunch of completely innocent senior citizens in Los Osos, for a gigantic mistake that State officials made: trusting Nash-Karner. BIG mistake. (I already know that's what my audit request will show. THAT. I already know that.)

So, after bouncing around the State Auditor's web site, I discovered that for a State audit to take place, it needs to be brought by "a member of the legislature" to something called JLAC -- the Joint Legislative Audit Commission.

Let the fun begin.

Sent to Craig Swaim, Chief of Staff for local Assemblyman "Katcho" Achadjian, 7/29/11:

Hello Mr. Swaim,

I was instructed by the State Auditor's office to contact Assemblyman Achadjian's office to request a formal audit that I'm interested in for a specific portion of the now-failed "Tri-W" sewer project that was proposed by the Los Osos CSD from 2000 - 2005.

This e-mail is a formal request for an audit on the "$2.3 million" worth of park amenities that was included in the project by the Los Osos CSD, and were being funded by the State SRF Loan program, when the policy governing that program reads:

"Ineligible (for SRF funding): f. Decorative items (art work, sculptures, reflective ponds, fountains, etc.);"

So, why was the SRF program funding $2.3 million worth of decorative items, like an "amphitheater," and "tot lot," in the Los Osos CSD's Tri-W project, when, according to that program's own policy, "decorative items" are ineligible for SRF funding?

That's what I would like to see a formal audit on.

I've never requested a formal audit before, so, I'm not sure on the process.

If you could help me along, I would greatly appreciate it.

If you need anything more from me -- like primary source documents on this issue (which I have) -- please just let me know.

Thank you in advance for your prompt response,
Ron

P.S. I've attached to this e-mail a screenshot of a 2005 LOCSD document that shows the $2.3 million worth of decorative items (i.e. $3,000/piece "Eucalyptus Benches").

8/2/11, Swaim responds:

Mr. Crawford --

This is to confirm that I have received your emails outlining your request for an audit of the "Tri-W Sewer Project." I am awaiting a response from a few people regarding the logistics of getting an audit approved this late in the legislative process. While you are correct that an audit requires a letter from a legislator requesting the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to approve an audit, that is merely one step in a process that usually spans several months.

I will be back in contact with you shortly with additional details.

Craig

On 8/3/11, I write:

Hello Craig,

You're awesome! Thank you.

And just to be clear (and to save everyone a lot of time), you write:

"an audit of the 'Tri-W Sewer Project'"

I'm actually not asking for an audit of the entire project, just, very specifically, the $2.3 million in decorative park amenities that the Los Osos CSD included in the project, and that was being funded by the SRF loan, when, according to SRF policy "decorative items" are "ineligible" for SRF funding, and, since I already know where this is going, had those amenities NOT been funded by the SRF loan, the Tri-W sewer disaster would have never happened, and a sewer system with an out-of-town sewer plant (just like what was recently approved) would have happened nearly a decade ago.

You also write:

"... one step in a process that usually spans several months."

That's fine with me. I'll be sure to report on every step.

Thanks again,
Ron

P.S. Please call me 'Ron'

Also on 8/3, I send this:

Hello Craig,

Just a quick note to let you know that I put together a handy-dandy, 1-page pdf file that quickly outlines my audit request. Thought it might save your office some time on preparing Assemblyman Achadjian's letter to JLAC.

I've attached it to this e-mail.

Thanks again,
Ron

On 8/8/11, I also send this:

Hello Craig,

If it's not too late, I'd like to add one more quick question to my audit request.

On JLAC's web site, at this link:

http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=208

... it reads:

"How to formulate and submit an Audit request

... In writing the letter, attention should be paid to detailing the subject matter of the audit and the questions that the requestor wants answered by the audit: 'To get the right answer, you must ask the right questions.'"

Here's the second "right question" I would like addressed in my audit request:

According to a 9/10/2004 letter from then LOCSD GM, Bruce Buel, the LOCSD "received a $1,000,000 grant from SWRCB for (Tri-W) project design..."

However, in a 2009 SLO County document, at this link:

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/document+library/Final+PC+Hearing+Memo+6-29-09.pdf

... it reads, "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 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;

- "(The Tri-W site is) 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, including that "$1,000,000" grant, pursuing that disaster.

So, here's my second "right question" that I would like to add to my audit request:

Why did the State of California give the LOCSD "$1,000,000" to develop 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, for the now-failed Tri-W "project," 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?

Why didn't State officials see that the Tri-W "project" was an "infeasible" disaster, and that there were FAR better (on many levels) alternatives available, BEFORE they gave LOCSD officials "$1,000,000" for Tri-W "project design," that would go on to be completely wasted by the 1999 - 2005 LOCSD on an "infeasible" non-project?

Thanks again,
Ron

That same day, Swaim responds:

Thanks Ron.

I am forwarding all of you [sic] emails to Ross Buckley in our office who will be handling this issue for the Assemblyman.

Just so you are clear on the timeline that we will be working on. The legislative calendar runs from the beginning of January through mid-September (August 31st on even years). This year’s session is in its final stage and the JLAC Committee which considers audit request will only meet one more time (August 24th).  The requests that they will consider at that hearing have already been in the works for quite a while; therefore, given the timing of your request, we will not be asking the Committee to consider you request at that hearing. Instead, if the Assemblyman choses [sic] to move forward with you audit request, we will ask the committee to consider it during its first hearing of 2012.

Between now and then, Ross will research the issue and based on his findings, the Assemblyman will decide whether or not to move forward. During his research Ross will look into the feasibility of having an audit conducted, whether or not there is an internal mechanism within the state agency or department that approved the grant that is already in place and responsible for auditing how the money was spent, and any other issues that may be relevant.

It is important to note that audits cost money, and that the State Auditor can only conduct a limited number of audits per year. Therefore, we do everything we can to get the answers we need without requesting a formal audit. In cases where we are unsuccessful, or a state/local  agency is not cooperative, then a formal audit may be required. However, that should be the last resort, not the first step.

I hope that gives you a better understanding of the process.

One final note: As we approach out last few weeks of this year’s legislative session we are busy trying to get the Assemblyman’s final bills through the Senate and signed by the Governor. Additionally, the Assemblyman will be asked to cast final votes on hundreds of pieces of legislation which will require a significant amount of staff time. Given the small size of our staff, we will not have time to focus on this request until after session adjourns on September 15th.  In the meantime feel free to forward us any additional information that you have regarding you request.

Craig

That same day, 8/8/11, I reply:

Hello Craig,

Thank you SO much for your interesting reply.

Couple of quick thoughts:

You write:

"... we do everything we can to get the answers we need without requesting a formal audit. In cases where we are unsuccessful, or a state/local agency is not cooperative, then a formal audit may be required."

Trust me, it's required in this case.

I recently brought my questions to the Public Information Officer for the SWRCB, and he told me, "after looking at your blog posts we don't see how it would be beneficial to... the Water Boards to respond beyond the public documents available."

So, in this case, the "state/local agency is not cooperative," which means, "a formal audit" is "required." (I guess we can go ahead and blame the SWRCB for the cost of the audit. Maybe we can add THAT cost to the audit as well... considering that the only reason there needs to be an audit in the first place is because the SWRCB "is not cooperative.")

You also write:

"JLAC Committee which considers audit request will only meet one more time (August 24th)."

and;

"Instead, if the Assemblyman chooses to move forward with you audit request, we will ask the committee to consider it during its first hearing of 2012."

That is VERY unfortunate.

How about we do this?: I'LL write the letter to JLAC, and include all of my primary source documentation in it, and I can have it ready by this week, WELL in time for the August 24th meeting of JLAC. There's plenty of time to make that date.

My audit is only TWO "right questions," and I already have every shred of evidence needed to conduct the audit, ready to go.

Finally, you write:

"Ross will research the issue and based on his findings, the Assemblyman will decide whether or not to move forward."

A 1/2 hour (at the most) phone call with me, is all the "research" that Ross will have to do. I can save him SO much time.

Let's make that August 24th date. It'll be GREAT!

I'll try calling Ross either later today, or tomorrow (Tuesday).

Thanks again,
Ron

Swaim didn't reply to that e-mail, and I never got around to calling Buckley, but, on 8/11/11, I did send this:

Hello Craig (and Ross),

Great news!

On JLAC's web site, at this link:

... http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/committee/c208/rules.html

it reads:

"AUDITS REQUESTS RECEIVED DURING INTERIM OR RECESS

17: Notwithstanding Rule 15, an audit request of an urgent nature received during interim or recess may be approved with the concurrence of the Chair and Vice Chair, provided that the audit's cost shall not exceed $75,000 and that the audit shall not commence until five working days after the Committee members have been notified in writing of the audit's approval."

So, considering the intense "urgency" of my audit, and the fact that there's no way it'll even come close to costing $75,000 (at least, I HOPE not. The whole thing should take about 1/2 hour), it looks like we can go ahead and file my audit request even during the "interim or recess."

In fact, now I'm wondering if it would be even better to do it then, when things have calmed down a bit?

If that -- filing my audit request during the "interim or recess" -- is not o.k. with your office, AND you're also not going to make that August 24th JLAC date for my audit request, I really need to know ASAP (like, today), because, that means I'm going to have to contact another California legislator that I have in mind to submit my request, and she'll be highly motivated to do it by that 24th date. (Her constituents got burned badly by what happened in Los Osos... with that $2.3 million of SRF money being wasted on things like an "amphitheater, and "picnic area", and "tot lot," in the Los Osos CSD's now-failed Tri-W sewer plant, when her [low-income] constituents couldn't get a dime of SRF funding for their badly needed, $2.1 million, amphitheater-less, wastewater plant upgrade, as I can document.).

That's why I need to know, today, if Assemblyman Achadjian is even interested in filing my request.

If not, I'll just take it to another district that will... and, of course, also report that I brought this matter to Assemblyman Achadjian's attention first.

Thanks again,
Ron

Swaim responded that day:

Ron –

Per my previous email, given the timing of your request, the Assemblyman will not be moving forward with your audit request this year (August 24th hearing). The deadline for submitting requests for that hearing was the August 8th, and therefore, neither Assemblyman Achadjian or any other Assemblymember can request to have a new audit considered at this point.

However, like I mentioned in my previous email, we are willing to look into the matter and see if we can get you an answer to your questions. In all likelihood we can get an answer without resorting to an audit. However, if we are not successful, the Assemblyman will consider your request for either a regular audit next year, or to have an audit approved over interim. Either way, he will not make that determination until after we have done our due diligence and made an attempt to get you the information you have requested on our own.  If this is truly something that can be determined in “about 1/2 hour” then it likely doesn’t rise to the level of requiring an audit in the first place.

Lastly, you are free to take your concerns to another Assemblymember and report that you first asked Assemblyman Achadjian for assistance. The bottom line is that we have been responsive to your request – but have not been able to meet the immediate timeline that you have demanded. I have already assigned this to a staff member to research and given him directions on how to proceed. While our efforts to date may not be satisfactory to you, it is important to note that the Assemblyman represents roughly 450,000 constituents many of whom contact us for assistance with various matters.  While we strive to respond to all constituent requests in a timely manner, we operate under a legislative calendar which has deadlines and procedures that we must follow. As a result, we are not always able to accommodate everyone on their own timelines.

All that said, we are currently working on finding the answers you requested. Please let me know if you would like us to continue or if you will be asking another office to assist you.

Craig

A few days later, I respond:

Hello Craig,

Thank you for your informative response.

You write:

"The deadline for submitting requests for that hearing was the August 8th"

That's the first time I've heard that, and thanks for it.

You write:

"Please let me know if you would like us to continue"

The answer to that question, depends on the answer to this question:

You write:

"we are currently working on finding the answers you requested."

When do you think that will be? (Ballpark is fine.)

If I have to wait until 2012, then (and no offense) I'm going to take it (to an) out-of-District legislator, but I VERY much appreciate your efforts, and I'm not "demanding" an "immediate timeline," I only wanted to get this going to meet that August 24th JLAC meeting.

But now that I know that Aug. 8th deadline, I guess that's off the table anyway.

So, if you have a ballpark guesstimate on when your office will have my questions answered, that'd be great.

Here's an excellent start:

Simply copy-and-paste the following, and e-mail it to the SWRCB's Division of Financial Assistance.

Why didn't State officials see that the Tri-W "project" was an "infeasible" disaster, and that there were FAR better (on many levels) alternatives available, BEFORE they granted LOCSD officials "$1,000,000" for Tri-W "project design," that would go on to be completely wasted by the 1999 - 2005 LOCSD on an "infeasible" now-failed (of course) non-project?

and;

Why was the SRF program funding $2.3 million worth of public decorative items in the Los Osos CSD’s Tri-W sewer plant, when the policy that governs the SRF program reads: “Ineligible... Decorative items,” at the same time when many other (low-income) California communities couldn't get a dime of SRF funding for their badly needed, amphitheater-less wastewater projects?

[Note: The SWRCB's Division of Financial Assistance is going to tell you that the Coastal Commission included the park as "environmental mitigation," and THAT's why the SRF was funding $2.3 million in park amenities for Los Osos. That is not accurate, and if they tell YOU that same thing, well, that is exactly why we need the audit.)

They wouldn't answer those questions for me, which led to this time-consuming, massive exchange with your office. So, I guess you can blame them for all the time you, Ross, and I now have to put into this.

So, if you were to just copy-and-paste those two question into an e-mail to the the SWRCB's Division of Financial Assistance, I should be able to get answers to my questions... what? Sometime next week?

Thank you VERY much. I really do appreciate the help.

Ron

On 8/22/11, Swaim responds:

We will do our best to get answers to your questions. I cannot estimate how long it will take, but we have already begun the process.

We will keep you posted.

On 8/23, I respond:

You're awesome!

Thank you SO much, and, I have a hunch that both you and Katcho are going to find this process extremely interesting.

What (I already know) it's going to show, is that, all the time, and the millions and millions of public dollars spent on Los Osos over the past decade-plus, was a complete waste... solely due to the things like the "picnic area" and "amphitheater" in the Tri-W sewer plant, as I first exposed in my 2004 New Times cover story at this link:

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

In the world of local government -- super interesting stuff.

Thanks again!
Ron

A week goes by, then I send this:

Hello Craig,

Sorry to bug, but I just wanted to quickly check to see if the SWRCB's Division of Financial Assistance has answered your/my questions yet?

Thanks again,
Ron

8/31, Swaim writes:

No.

They are working on it, and are also scrambling to handle their normal end of session workload.

Like I mentioned before, this is a very busy time of year in Sacramento.

I will let you know when I have an answer.

Two weeks pass, and I write, on 9/15:

Hello Craig,

Howya been?

I noticed that the legislative session ended, and I was just wondering, now that things have calmed down a little bit in Sac-town, if you ever heard back from the SWRCB's Division of Financial assistance regarding my two questions:

Why didn't State officials see that the Tri-W "project" was an "infeasible" disaster, and that there were FAR better (on many levels) alternatives available, BEFORE they granted LOCSD officials "$1,000,000" for Tri-W "project design," that would go on to be completely wasted by the 1999 - 2005 LOCSD on an "infeasible" now-failed (of course) non-project?

and;

Why was the SRF program funding $2.3 million worth of public decorative items in the Los Osos CSD's Tri-W sewer plant, when the policy that governs the SRF program reads: "Ineligible... Decorative items," at the same time when many other (low-income) California communities couldn't get a dime of SRF funding for their badly needed, amphitheater-less water quality improvement projects?

I'm not sure of the process, so I don't know how long we wait before the determination is made that they are not going to answer those questions, and, therefore, and official audit is required?

Remember: "... an audit request... during interim or recess may be approved... provided that the audit's cost shall not exceed $75,000."

And there's no way this'll cost $75k.

So, we can do the audit during the recess. Perfect.

But, I'm not sure how much time we give the SWRCB to finally make the determination that they are not going to answer those two quick questions, and an audit is the only recourse.

It's already been months since I first contacted you (with many, time consuming back-and-forth e-mails [including this one] in between).

So, how long do we wait before we make the determination that they simply are not going to respond to those very important questions? Months? Years?

Thanks again!

A month passes, and I write, on 10/16:

Hello Craig,

Long time, no talk. ; -)

How's that answer to my one question coming along? Any word from our friends at the SWRCB? It's been months. (And I thought this was the slow season up there. Guess not.)

Hey, real quick: Something very interesting happened with my audit request.

This:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/10/gov-jerry-brown-expands-auditor-powers-bell-scandal.html

... where it reads:

"Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday gave the state auditor broad new powers to investigate the misuse of taxpayer funds by cities and counties, signing legislation in response to the city of Bell financial scandal.

The measure by Assemblyman Ricardo Lara (D-Bell Gardens) allows the auditor to independently launch an examination of local government agencies... [bolding mine]"

and;

"AB 187 takes effect Jan. 1."

So, that's great news, It looks like I won't have to keep bugging your office with my audit request. I'll just go ahead and ask directly to the auditor, after Jan. 1.

But, here's where this gets a little awkward for Assemblyman Achadjian.

Right now, as my story stands, and what'll go in my book (after it goes on my blog), of course, is that I showed all of this information to Assemblyman Achadjian (at least to his office) many months before Jan. 1 2012, and he did absolutely nothing, when he could have simply requested this "under $70,000" audit during the off-season, which is the perfect time for a quick audit anyway, when Sac-town's relatively quiet, and, instead, forced me to wait until January 1, 2012 -- until AB 187 kicks in -- where I could finally just make the complaint directly to the auditor myself, without Assemblyman Achadjian's assistance.

Also, if I'm not mistaken, I believe Assemblyman Achadjian was a SLO County Supervisor in 2003, when he voted to approve the now-failed, "infeasible," "bait and switchy," Tri-W sewer disaster, that I outline in my audit request.

So, you know, it just seems like it might get a little weird for Assemblyman Achadjian, if I was forced to wait until Jan 1, 2012, just because my local assemblyman didn't want to request a quick, slow-season audit for a clear case of a massive waste of public funds.

I'm also a little curious... Have you briefed Assemblyman Achadjian on my audit request? Does he know about it at all, and AB 187, and, what it's going to look like if he doesn't request an off-season audit on this? And how I was forced, by my local assemblyman, to wait for a new state law to kick in, just so I could bypass him in order to expose a massive case of fraud... that has cost the People of California untold millions over the past 10 years, and led directly to a decade's worth of extra water pollution to the state's water?

As it stands, I'll be reporting this: After months and months of doing nothing on this intensely important subject, my local assemblyman could have requested that audit, but didn't, and therefore I was forced to wait until a new state law went into effect, just so I could bypass him, and file it myself.

So, does Assemblyman Achadjian have any plans on requesting, to JLAC, my audit during this 2011 off season, as allowed by their own bylaws?

And, as you can imagine, the sooner the better on that answer.

As always, much thanks,
Ron

P.S. Again, to quickly summarize, the question in my audit request is this: Why did the SWRCB "grant" the 2002 - 2004 LOCSD "$1,000,000" for the "design" of an "infeasible (county's word), "bait and switchy (Coastal Commission's words), now-miserably-failed (my words) sewer disaster, that never even came close to working, after millions and millions of public funds was wasted on it?

Why didn't the SWRCB know that they were wasting "$1,000,000" of the People of California's money for the "design" of a disastrous, "infeasible," public works non-project?

What a waste.

So, what happened there?

That's what I'll be sending to the state auditor, along with all of my primary-source evidence, of course, on Jan. 2, 2012... unless Assemblyman Achadjian wants to do it first.

His call.

Thanks.

On 10/17, Swaim responds:

Mr. Crawford –

You will be pleased to know that I have heard back from staff at SWRCB regarding the two questions that you asked the Assemblyman to look into. To paraphrase, you were interested in knowing whether the Los Osos Community Services District misused state funds by planning for the use of “decorative” items and whether the SWRCB should have known that the project was infeasible, and therefore should not have approved state money to fund the project (just so we are clear, I cut and pasted your exact questions into my request – so they will be responding to those questions and not to the above summary).

The response that I received, approximately two weeks ago, was informal and in email form. I made the decision to request that staff put together a formal response in writing so that it would be clear that the answers provided reflect the opinion of the Board, and not just those of Board staff. Given your interest in the matter, I am sure you can appreciate why I would prefer a formal response.

To be perfectly honest, since I made that request I have been working on other projects for the Assemblyman and did not notice that I had not received the formal response that I requested. Your email yesterday served as a reminder for me to follow up with the Board. I placed a call to my contact there this morning, and will be happy to let you know when I receive an update.

In response to the rest of your email – as I have mentioned before, you are free to write whatever you wish in your blog and book. While, I understand that you are not satisfied with the process that we have chosen to follow, the fact remains that we have been responsive to your request.  Again, like I mentioned in a previous email, the Assemblyman believes that an audit should be a last resort and not the starting point, which is why we chose to begin with the State Board. Should the Assemblyman decide in the future that an audit is necessary, our efforts to work with Board staff prior to requesting an audit could help make the case for the audit. Having worked for a previous member of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee I know that when weighing the necessity of an audit, members of the Committee often consider whether the member requesting the audit has done his or her due diligence before making the audit request.

As for your suggestion that the Assemblyman make the  request during interim. That is a decision that will be made after receiving the formal response from the SWRCB. However, as outlined in the Committee Rules, interim audit requests must be of an “urgent nature”. While I understand, this issue is of considerable concern to you, it will be necessary to explain to the Committee why the request is so urgent that it cannot wait until the Legislature reconvenes in January.   Given that the project was halted several years ago, it will be difficult to make the case that this is an urgent matter that cannot be put off until it can be considered by the full Committee.

Lastly, you can be assured that the Assemblyman is aware of your audit request and has approved the course of action that we have followed.

Craig

On 10/18, I reply:

Craig, you are awesome.

Great response, and thank you.

You write:

"I placed a call to my contact there this morning, and will be happy to let you know when I receive an update."

Hopefully by this week. Can't wait to read it!

And, I get the feeling that you, as someone that is obviously interested in how government functions, will find that "formal" report over-the-top interesting (I know I, and Ann Calhoun, will... as well as the 45 completely innocent property owners in Los Osos that are dealing with (present tense, and for the past five years) hard-core state enforcement for an environmental disaster that they had absolutely nothing to do with. In fact, interestingly, that "$1,000,000" state, "grant," actually funded that disaster, and allowed it to happen in the first place, and when it inevitably went kerflooey, then the state went and punished 45 completely innocent property owners in Los Osos for a huge mistake that the state made... by blindly handing the LOCSD a million bucks to "design" a disaster. [Boy, is my book gonna rock, or what?])

Finally, you write:

"... members of the Committee often consider whether the member requesting the audit has done his or her due diligence before making the audit request."

You know what seems cool with this AB 187-thingy? Is that it looks like, come 1/2/12, I'll be able to simply bypass the "member," and the "Committee," altogether, and take my nails-tight "due diligence" straight to the state auditor myself, so she can launch her own "independent" investigation, which really sounds like is in the perfect spirit of AB 187, 'cause, that way, a California citizen won't have to rely on a local elected official to request an audit in an effort to expose a massive waste of public funds (especially when said local elected official had a gigantic hand in wasting all of that public money), and, instead, a California citizen, thanks to the beautiful AB 187, can simply request an "independent" audit directly to the auditor... on 1/2/12, accompanied, of course, with a detailed explanation on exactly why I had to bypass the "member," and the "Committee."

I truly appreciate all your help on this, and, I'm looking forward to that "formal" report. Thank you for doing that, by the way -- insisting on a formal report. EXCELLENT job.

Ron

P.S. Now that I think about it, if you're looking for a good argument for this:

"... it will be necessary to explain to the Committee why the request is so urgent that it cannot wait until the Legislature reconvenes in January."

It would be this:

Because 45 completely innocent property owners in Los Osos are currently being hard-core punished by the state, for a huge mistake that the state made.

That sounds "urgent" to me.

P.P.S. Please call me 'Ron' : -)

On 10/19, Swaim writes:

Mr. Crawford –

Staff from SWRCB informed me that the letter completed and going through the final approval process.

They hope to have it to me late this week or early next week.

Craig

On 10/20, I write:

Hello Craig,

Thank you for the update.

And I wanted to give you a quick heads-up on something that I forgot to mention in my previous e-mail.

You write:

" ... going through the final approval process."

Yeah, I bet it is.

The reason that's going through an "approval process," is because there is NO WAY they can tell the truth in that letter. If they do, they will be met with an avalanche of litigation... into the foreseeable future.

The truth from them, is this:

"Whoa, did we screw up! What were we thinking? We approved and funded a downtown "sewer-park" with an amphitheater and picnic area, that had to rely on a completely "overridden" environmental review process, to even be considered for approval, and the ONLY reason that mess had to go downtown was so the people of Los Osos could more easily get to the "picnic area" in their sewer plant, when there isn't one shred of documentable evidence that the people of Los Osos even wanted to picnic in their industrial sewer plant to begin with, obviously, and the fact that it was being constructed in the middle of town was adding tens of millions of dollars to the already expensive project -- an "infeasible" "bait and switchy" disaster, that caused a decades worth of extra pollution, and wasted untold millions of dollars of the People of California's money over the past decade, and we did it even though some smart-ass reporter (me) showed us, time-stamped and documented, BEFORE we cut that first disastrous $6 million check in 2005, that led to all of that ESHA in Los Osos being needlessly ripped up in the first place, that we were illegally funding a multi-million dollar park for Los Osos, at the same time that other low-income California communities couldn't get a dime of funding for their badly needed, amphitheater-less water quality projects, and then, when that disaster inevitably failed, we turned right around and launched into hard-core enforcement on a bunch of senior citizens just because they voted to NOT build that disaster, that we nonsensically approved, and then illegally funded, and ALL of that happened for ten-years-and-counting just because we simply got lazy (read: negligent), and didn't do our jobs?

What were we thinking?"

That's the truth.

And if the SWRCB even comes close to saying anything like that, in that letter, the State will be sued, and sued, and sued by every single one of the 5,000 property owners in Los Osos, especially the CDOers, for the next decade, at least.

So, yeah, I can really imagine how that letter is going to have to go through a VERY careful "approval process." And, if those same state officials had taken the same care in the "approval process" of the disastrous Tri-W permit, as they are with that letter, I wouldn't be typing this right now.

So, that's the "heads-up" I wanted to give you -- that that letter can't contain the truth. If it does, the State of California is going to be sued... for all kinds of nasty things... forever.

Finally, in a previous e-mail, you write:

"The response that I received, approximately two weeks ago, was informal and in email form."

Please forward me that e-mail, and thank you, again, for your excellent work on this matter.

Ron

Well, Swaim never did forward me that e-mail, but on 10/27. he writes:

Mr. Crawford –

Attached is the letter from the State Water Board in response to Assemblyman Achadjian’s request that they answer the two questions that you submitted to us.

Sorry the scan is not the best. I can mail you a hard copy if you would like.

Craig

And [drum roll, please: pttttttttttt....] for the first time anywhere, ladies and gentleman, I now present a great, official SWRCB document, that I -- little ol' me -- was, solely, responsible for generating:

Click here.

[cymbal crash!]

The hilarity continues.

I respond on 10/27:

Uh, Craig?

I thought you said that you "copied and pasted" my questions to them? 'Cause THEY certainly didn't copy-and-paste my questions, of course.

That's not even "world class weasel words" in that "letter." That's... well, I don't even know what that is. They didn't even come close to answering my questions -- questions that were backed up with a mound of excellent primary source evidence that I supplied, that directly refutes one claim after another in that... whatever it is.

It's like they never even saw that primary source evidence.

Are we going to have to do all of this again, and respond, and clarify, and then wait for another non-answer, and then clarify that, and then wait for another non-answer... OR can we now just take that ridiculous non-answer and NOW go straight to the auditor's office -- because, clearly, the SWRCB isn't going to answer to my questions, just like I showed you, months ago -- and claim that it's "urgent" that my audit take place ASAP, in order to as quickly as possible show that those 45 property owners in Los Osos are completely innocent, because the SWRCB, or their attorney, Kamala Harris, obviously aren't going to do it.

"These have not been easy months for those of us who have received Proposed CDOs. We are exhausted beyond your understanding."
-- Los Osos CDO recipient, 2006

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/contrast.html

So, it looks like the question from my last e-mail remains:

I guess it's now all up to Assemblyman Achadjian -- is he going to accept that easily-shredable non-answer, and continue to let those completely innocent, "exhausted," senior citizens twist in the wind, or is he going to take the terrible letter straight to JLAC, today, and demand an "urgent" audit?

Thanks in advance for your prompt reply,
Ron

Before Swaim responds, I write an e-mail, on 10/27, (that I 'cc' Swaim on) to the author of that "formal" letter, Tom Howard, the executive director for the SWRCB:

Dear Mr. Howard,

I'm researching a story involving Los Osos, and I was just reading a 10/25/11 letter from you, to Assembly Member Achadjian, involving the now-failed Tri-W sewer plant in Los Osos, where you write:

"(The SWRCB) does not become involved in the siting of a (sewer plant) facility unless... a project is egregiously flawed from the start."

and;

"... (the Tri-W) site was not known at the time to be egregiously flawed."

What appears to be interesting here, is that there's a mountain of official evidence that shows it was "egregiously flawed from the start."

Of course, the best evidence of that "egregious-ness" is that it's simply not there right now. It failed... because it was "egregiously flawed" from the start. That's WHY it didn't even come close to making even the short-list of viable projects... this time around.

I mean, what (are you saying) changed from when that disaster was first proposed in 2001, and when the County of SLO called it technically and socially "infeasible" in 2009, and then proceeded to not even consider that disaster at all in the end -- because it was "egregiously flawed from the start?"

What are you saying changed?

Are you saying that the now-failed Tri-W disaster was once "not unreasonable," as you write in your letter," and then later it became "egregiously flawed?"

Well, considering that the Tri-W disaster was the exact same "infeasible," egregiously flawed mess in 2001 (at the start), that it was in 2009(10), when the Coastal Commission didn't even come close to selecting it (this time around), your takes in that letter don't seem to make any sense.

In fact, by telling Assemblyman Achadjian that the Tri-W disaster was "not unreasonable," at first, when the SWRCB could have gotten "involved in the siting," according to you, and then became "egregiously flawed" later, when there was zero difference in that disaster from 2001 to 2009, aren't you ly... errrr... being less-than-truthful to Assemblyman Achadjian in that letter, with that nonsensical take?

Please be specific: What are you saying was the difference between the Tri-W disaster "at the start," and the one that didn't even come close to making the County's short-list of viable projects, where they called the now-egregiously-failed Tri-W non-project "infeasible?"

I don't understand.

What you call "not unreasonable," SLO County officials call "infeasible"... and you are both talking about the exact same "project."

Someone's wrong there, and a mountain of primary source evidence says that it's you.

Response?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response,
Ron

On 10/27, Howard responds:

Mr. Crawford,

I believe my letter is clear.

And that was it from him.

And on 10/28, Swaim responds:

Mr. Crawford –

Assemblyman Achadjian and I have reviewed the response from the SWRCB and feel that it adequately addresses the two questions that you submitted. I am sorry that you are not satisfied with the response.

The Assemblyman does not believe that this issue merits an audit; therefore, he will not be asking the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to approve an audit.

Our office has a great deal of respect for the work of State Auditor Elaine Howle and her team. Should she approve an audit request submitted pursuant to the provisions of AB 187, Assemblyman Achadjian will gladly cooperate and offer her any assistance that she might request.

Best of luck with your efforts.

Craig

And that was it from him.

So, on 10/28, I send him one last e-mail:

Hello Craig,

Thank you for all your work on this. That document is great!

So, just to be very, very clear here... here's where my story stands:

Assemblyman Achadjian, after being shown primary source evidence that definitively shows otherwise, actually believes Tom Howard's take that the Tri-W disaster was "not unreasonable" at first, when, according to Howard, the SWRCB could have stepped in and stopped that disaster in 2001, but, instead, got confused, failed to do their job, and therefore didn't stop that disaster a decade ago, and then it wasn't until later, after the SWRCB had already erroneously signed-off on the Tri-W disaster, and after then-Supervisor Achadjian also approved the Tri-W disaster in 2003 -- it wasn't until then -- after then-Supervisor Achadjian and the SWRCB signed off on it -- that the Tri-W disaster became "egregiously flawed," and "infeasible." Yet, document after official document shows that the Tri-W disaster was the exact same disaster in 2001, as it was when it finally officially failed in 2010.

Every single document shows that absolutely nothing changed in that disaster from 2001 to 2010. It was "egregiously flawed" in 2010, just like it was in 2001, the only difference was that then-Supervisor Achadjian and the SWRCB, for some strange reason (and I actually know what that reason is, and that reason is absolutely fascinating), didn't see that it was "egregiously flawed" from the start... like I did in my 2004 New Times cover story. (It took me -- little ol' me -- less than a month of research on that story to figure out the Tri-W disaster was "egregiously flawed" from the start, and then write a front page report on it.)

However, because that disastrous non-project was lazily, and erroneously approved by county and state officials, it led to a massive delay -- because it was "socially infeasible" and "egregiously flawed" from "the start," because it was "bait and switchy" -- and when Los Osos voters were finally forced to do the State's job (that the State failed to do from 2001 - 2005) in 2005, by voting to finally stop that disaster, the State turned right around and went hard-core enforcement on a bunch of completely innocent senior citizens due to the delays in building a sewer system -- delays that would have never happened, had officials like Katcho Achadjian just done their jobs in the first place.

So, now, when Assemblyman Achadjian is presented with a mountain of primary source evidence that documents all of that, and now has the option of saying something like:

"I'd like to make a quick statement.

I made a huge mistake, as we all did, in approving the Tri-W disaster, and for that I apologize. However, to make up for that terrible mistake, I am now going to request an audit of that disaster, because I know the results of that audit will show that a bunch of senior citizens in Los Osos, that are being hard-core prosecuted by the State, are completely innocent, as the results of that audit will show.

I'm truly, truly, sorry."

... but, instead of saying something like that, Assemblyman Achadjian -- the same person that voted to approve the Tri-W disaster (as a SLO County Supervisor in 2003) -- is saying:

"Assemblyman Achadjian and I have reviewed the response from the SWRCB and feel that it adequately addresses the two questions that you submitted. I am sorry that you are not satisfied with the response.

The Assemblyman does not believe that this issue merits an audit; therefore, he will not be asking the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to approve an audit.

Best of luck with your efforts."

... and just leave those completely innocent senior citizens twisting in the wind, because to show their innocence, would also show that Assemblyman Achadjian, and the SWRCB all got lazy, and made disastrous decisions involving the disastrous Tri-W sewer plant.

So, instead of coming clean, both Achadjian and Howard now just make up stuff, totally unsourced (in fact, even worse -- the opposite of primary sourced), and say, "Best of luck with your efforts," and leave those completely innocent senior citizens twisting in the wind, and stick every single Californian with all of those wasted millions that we spent dealing with the now-miserably-failed Tri-W disaster... just so they can save face.

And that's that.

Wow. What an amazing story!

Thank you!

I'll send you the link when its published, hopefully by next week. Should turn out great. I'll be sure to link up to a lot of that primary source evidence, that directly contradicts Mr. Howard's "letter"... or whatever that was.

Thanks again for all your help. Great job,

Ron

O.K... now, a glimpse, SewerWatch-style, into how government REALLY functions -- like watching sausage being made:

Remember, waaay back in my e-mail from 8/20, where I quote Swaim:

"The response that I received, approximately two weeks ago, was informal and in email form."

and then ask him:

"Please forward me that e-mail, and thank you, again, for your excellent work on this matter."

Well, as I mentioned above, Swaim never did forward me that e-mail. Thank god for the California Public Records Act.

So, on 11/1/11, I send the office of the SWRCB this e-mail:

Hello (SWRCB) folks,

Please consider this e-mail an official Public Records Request.

In a 10/17/11 e-mail to me, Craig Swaim, Chief of Staff for Assemblyman Achadjian, writes:

"... I have heard back from staff at SWRCB regarding the two questions that you asked the Assemblyman to look into."

and;

"The response that I received, approximately two weeks ago, was informal and in email form."

Please forward me that email.

And, as long as we're at it, please also include all of the correspondence between your office and the questions that I "asked the Assemblyman to look into."

If you have to compile the correspondence into a pdf file, and then attach that file to an e-mail, that's fine too, but please leave it so I can copy-and-paste from it. (No scans please : -)

Questions? Please just ask.

Thank you!

Ron

Of course, eight days pass, and the folks at the SWRCB never respond, but since I'm kind of an expert on the wonderful CPRA, I know that they have to at least acknowledge my request "within 10 days," or they are breaking the law.

So, on 11/9/11, I send them this:

Hello (SWRCB),

Just a quick reminder that, in two days, you will be in violation of State law if I don't hear back from you regarding my official Public Records Request (below) that I sent on 11/1/11.

Thank you,
Ron

Apparently, that go their attention, because I few days later, they send me that Swaim e-mail (that Swaim failed to send me), because, like, by law, they have to, and just as suspected, which is why I asked for it to begin with, the content of that e-mail is absolutely disgusting.

What it shows, is that Achadjian and Swaim NEVER intended to ask for the audit, from the beginning, and ALL of that back-and-forth -- ALL of that time, ALL of those keystrokes -- was a complete waste of time (most importantly, mine).

Here's the e-mail that I was able to pry out of the SWRCB. It's addressed to someone named Gil Martinez, whose title is, "Assistant Legislative Director, Office of Legislative Affairs, State Water Resources Control Board."

On 8/22/2011, "Swaim, Craig" wrote:

Gil –

Thanks for the quick response to my call. Below is the second of two long email chains between Mr. Crawford an myself regarding his request for an audit of the Tri-W Sewer project – actually I am not sure who we would ask to auditor the audit: the community services district, the county, or the SWRCB?

Either way, I advised the Assemblyman that I do not believe this is something that rises to the level of an audit and instead I would prefer that we just work with the SWRCB to see if you guys believe that the $2.3 million that was provided by the Board was used in compliance with the grant guidelines. The Assemblyman is on board with that approach and has no desire to ask JLAC to approve an audit.

If the SWRCB does not believe that any violations occurred, then I do not see any need to pursue an audit. On the other hand, if you guys find that funds were spent improperly, I still don’t see the need for an audit  (there is no need to ask to State Auditor to check for violations if we already know that they occurred).  Basically we just need something from you guys that addresses the items that he believes violated the terms the grant. With that in hand, we will feel comfortable telling Mr. Crawford that there is nothing else for us to do.

Towards the bottom of the email chain is his second “question” (I highlighted it in red, so that it is easy to find). I do not know if you guys are even is a position to answer something so subjective. If that is the case, just let us know.

I will forward you a second set of emails that contain his specific request regarding how the $2.3 million was spent. That is the more important part.

Ross in our office will be the lead on this, but feel free to contact either of us.

Craig

Craig M. Swaim

Chief of Staff

Assemblyman Katcho Achadjian

Disgusting, yet, strangely, hilarious.

Where to start?

First, keep in mind, that Achadjian, like I show, as a SLO County Supervisor, ALSO got lazy in 2003, and voted to approve the Tri-W disaster, a horrible mistake, with devastating consequences. So, in other words, I'm actually asking Achadjian to audit his own fuck up.

Second, as I write at this link:

http://www.sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2011/08/warren-jensen-please-investigate-your.html

... apparently, State government does the same hilarious thing that SLO County government does: Ask the people, and agencies, that fucked up, whether they think they fucked up.

Swaim writes.

"I would prefer that we just work with the SWRCB to see if you guys believe that the $2.3 million that was provided by the Board was used in compliance with the grant guidelines."

and;

"If the SWRCB does not believe that any violations occurred, then I do not see any need to pursue an audit."

Trust me, that's funny.

But, not as funny as this:

"If the SWRCB does not believe that any violations occurred, then I do not see any need to pursue an audit. On the other hand, if you guys find that funds were spent improperly, I still don’t see the need for an audit."

Like watching sausage being made.

Third, also keep in mind the date of that e-mail 8/22, and that Swaim writes, "I advised the Assemblyman that I do not believe this is something that rises to the level of an audit... The Assemblyman is on board with that approach and has no desire to ask JLAC to approve an audit."

The reason that's important, is because months AFTER that behind-the-scenes e-mail, that I was able to pry out of them, Swaim repeatedly told me things like:

"... the Assemblyman will consider your request for either a regular audit next year, or to have an audit approved over interim. Either way, he will not make that determination until after we have done our due diligence... "

and;

"As for your suggestion that the Assemblyman make the request during interim. That is a decision that will be made after receiving the formal response from the SWRCB."

and;

"... like I mentioned in a previous email, the Assemblyman believes that an audit should be a last resort and not the starting point, which is why we chose to begin with the State Board. Should the Assemblyman decide in the future that an audit is necessary, our efforts to work with Board staff prior to requesting an audit could help make the case for the audit."

Complete lies.

Behind-the-scenes, to the staff of the SWRCB, Swaim writes, "Assemblyman... has no desire to ask JLAC to approve an audit," yet, to my face, Swaim writes, "As for your suggestion that the Assemblyman make the request during interim. That is a decision that will be made after receiving the formal response from the SWRCB," and, "... the Assemblyman believes that an audit should be a last resort..."

Had, on 8/22, Swaim also told ME, like Martinez, "Assemblyman (Achadjian)... has no desire to ask JLAC to approve an audit (that will show that he made a gigantic mistake in 2003, when he got lazy, and voted to approve the now-miserably failed Tri-W disaster)," the next two months of lengthy, time-consuming, back-and-forth e-mails between me and Swaim, would have never happened. (Thanks for that, Katcho.)

Then, there's this:

"Basically we just need something from you guys that addresses the items that he believes violated the terms the grant. With that in hand, we will feel comfortable telling Mr. Crawford that there is nothing else for us to do."

That was on 8/22.

Again, like watching sausage being made.

The SWRCB could have sent Swaim the lyrics to Mary Had a Little Lamb, as a response, and, 100-percent guaranteed, based on, "Assemblyman (Achadjian)... has no desire to ask JLAC to approve an audit," Swaim's and Achadjian's response STILL would have been, "Assemblyman Achadjian and I have reviewed (the lyrics to Mary Had a Little Lamb) from the SWRCB and feel that it adequately addresses the two questions that you submitted... Best of luck with your efforts."

Absolutely disgusting, yet, strangely, highly entertaining. I LOVE it!

My personal favorite part of that entire, months-long exchange? When I tell Swaim, the day before the SWRCB "letter" is released, that the SWRCB simply can't tell the truth in that letter. And then the letter is released, and I show, through primary source evidence, both Swaim and Achadjian how it contains the exact, gigantic lies I accurately predicted it would contain, directly to Assemblyman Achadjian's face, and both Swaim and Achadjian go to the, "it adequately addresses the two questions that you submitted" card, and, "Best of luck," and that was that.

And, to quickly clarify, Swaim writes:

"I am sorry that you are not satisfied with the response."

To be very clear here: Only on a human decency level do I find their response disgusting... and understandably so. (I mean, c'mon.)

However, on a journalism level? I couldn't be happier with Howard's and Assemblyman Achadjian's (and Swaim's, for that matter) disgusting responses. They make for such an excellent story.

"Not satisfied?" Dude, couldn't be MORE satisfied. Awesome, awesome material.

[By the way... MEMO to All Government Officials: If you don't want a reporter to see a behind-the-scenes e-mail, then never tell a reporter -- especially some smart-ass reporter -- "The response that I received, approximately two weeks ago, was informal and in email form."

Ya see, there's this little, beautiful law called the California Public Records Act, and, uhhh... nevermind.]

So, here's your California government in action:

Before I even contact Swaim, at all, I FIRST contact the SWRCB office and ask why they illegally funded a disaster.

They respond, "after looking at your blog posts we don't see how it would be beneficial to... the Water Boards to respond beyond the public documents available." (Uh, yeah. I can pretty much imagine how responding to me wouldn't "be beneficial to... the Water Boards.")

That forces me to go the audit route, through Swaim, and, Achadjian.

Swaim tells me that they first have to contact the SWRCB -- the exact same agency that just told me, "we don't see how it would be beneficial to... the Water Boards to respond..." -- with my questions before they request an audit.

Behind the scenes, Swaim tells SWRCB staffers that he and Achadjian "do not see any need to pursue an audit" -- an audit that will show that then-Supervisor, Achadjian made a unbelievably disastrous mistake when he voted to approve the Tri-W disaster in 2003 -- yet, to my face, he strings me along for months by leading me to believe that Assemblyman Achadjian might request an audit, depending on "the formal response" from the SWRCB.

After much time, and many what-turned-out-to-be-futile back-and-forths, I tell Swaim that the SWRCB is going to lie to him and his boss.

As I predicted, the SWRCB lies to both of them, of course. (Because, if they didn't lie to Achadjian, then, like I show, they would instantly be met with an avalanche of litigation... like, right now, from A LOT of REEEEELY angry Los Osos property owners.)

Achadjian, in the face of a mountain of primary source that shows the complete opposite to be true, "accepts" the obvious lies in that "formal" letter, and leaves a bunch a completely innocent senior citizens in Los Osos twisting in the wind of hard-core enforcement from the State -- for the State's, AND Supervisor Achadjian's own gigantic mistakes, from when they all got lazy, and never bothered to verify Nash-Karner's ridiculous lies, and so they all just rubber-stamped the approval of the now-miserably-failed (after millions and millions of completely wasted public funds, and a decade's-worth-and-counting of extra, completely unnecessary water pollution) Tri-W disaster.

Nice. (They should teach THAT lesson in civics class.)

And then, understandably, the gloves come off.

Sent to, SWRCB, executive director, Tom Howard, 11/4/11:

Hello Mr. Howard,

Since receiving your response to my questions involving Los Osos last week, I went back into my archived source material, and pulled out a couple of things that shows you are wrong in your response -- like, 180-degrees wrong.

In your response, you write:

"It is possible that the LOCSD could have included some planning and design of park facilities associated with the wastewater treatment facility, as part of their overall planning and design activities for the wastewater treatment facility. If this was the case, it would have been a minor part of the much larger planning and design of the facility."

"It is possible?"

"IF this was the case?"

"Minor part?"

Huh?

[Apparently, at this point in the research for my story, I must apologize to everyone involved here. I was under the impression that the SWRCB was actually aware of the official, primary-source documents associated with the Tri-W disaster. Obviously, that's not the case.

So, I'm happy to do my civic duty here, and finally provide those documents to them.]

First, it's WAY more than "possible that the LOCSD could have included some planning and design of park facilities associated with the wastewater treatment facility."

Document, after document, after document shows that, including the cover of the LOCSD's "November 2000" Facilities Report, that I've attached to this e-mail. It shows an "amphitheater," "picnic area," "tot lot," etc. right on the cover... in 2000!



Didn't the SWRCB ever read that document, like I did?

Oh! You didn't, did you? That explains a lot.

It explains why you would say, "IF this was the case (that the LOCSD included a multi-million dollar park in their sewer plant)," when clearly, right smack-dab on the cover of the 2000 Tri-W report, is a drawing of a sewer plant with a multi-million dollar public park in it.

It would also explain why you would say something like, "(The park) would have been a minor part of the much larger planning and design of the facility," when, as I first exposed in 2004, in one of New Times cover stories (in 2004!, when I, unlike the SWRCB, actually picked up and read the Tri-W facility report), the 2001 LOCSD writes:

"The size and location of the other (out of town) sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The sites on the outskirts of town could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents in the manner that a central location such (Tri-W) could."

... and, then, of course, as I also first exposed, in the CCC's own Tri-W permit, it reads:

"... other alternatives (to the Tri-W site) were rejected (by the Los Osos CSD) on the basis that they did not accomplish project objectives for centrally located community amenities."

And you call the park a "minor" part of the "planning and design?" Again, obviously, you are wrong. It was the ONLY reason that disaster was being built downtown, to begin with. It was a major part of the "planning and design." It dictated the entire "planning and design"... and you didn't even know that.

So, what that tells me is that you, and your agency, never even read the Tri-W facility report, and because you guys got lazy, and didn't even bother to read that document, you got confused, and illegally funded a nonsensical, multi-million dollar park-in-a-sewer-plant for Los Osos, and that led directly to a decade-long-and-counting delay in cleaning up the water in Los Osos.

I mean, why else would you call the park a "minor" part of the "planning and design of the facility," when the park was, solely, dictating the entire downtown location? (Simply take the park out of the equation, and the whole thing can move out of town, at an immense savings... just ask SLO County officials, because, that's exactly what they just did.)

So, that's two HUGE things you didn't even know when you wrote that letter to Assemblyman Achadjian:

1) It wasn't an "if," or a "possible" that the 2000 LOCSD designed a multi-million dollar public park into their sewer plant. They did, and you weren't even close to being clear on that intensely important point.

and;

2) The nonsensical, multi-million dollar park in the sewer-plant was actually dictating the downtown location, and that was the only reason the disastrous Tri-W site was selected in the first place.

Hardly a "minor" part of the "planning and design."

And you, the executive director of the SWRCB, didn't know any of that, and those two critical, critical points are, like, everything.

Which really means, that what I'm about to show you now, shows, frankly, that what you are doing these days, is just covering up what happened with the Tri-W disaster... at the expense of 45 completely innocent property owners in Los Osos.

In a 2001 LOCSD document -- the LOCSD called it a "survey," but, as I also first exposed, since it included phoning hundreds of property owners just before a crucial assessment election, and then lying to them, it was actually publicly funded campaign material (read: illegal) -- the LOCSD writes (on page 16 of the pdf file):

"This (upcoming assessment) measure (to pay for the design of the Tri-W disaster) includes funds to build a large park for the citizens of Los Osos. The park would include ballfields, a picnic area, gardens, walking paths, and amphitheater, and even constructed wetlands." [bolding mine]

So, if that 2001 measure included "funds to build a large park for the citizens of Los Osos" (according to the 2000/20001 LOCSD), why did the SWRCB agree to pay for those millions of dollars of park amenities, again, in 2004?

If that 2001 assessment ballot included "funds to build a large park for the citizens of Los Osos," why did the CCC have to "mandate" the "park" as mitigation, and then have it paid for AGAIN by the People of California, in 2004?

Why were California taxpayers paying for a multi-million dollar park-in-a-sewer-plant... TWICE?

Clearly, the CCC and the SWRCB made a HUGE mistake in 2004, by "mandating," and then funding a multi-million dollar park-in-a-sewer-plant for Los Osos, when a 2001 assessment ballot was already passed by Los Osos property owners that "include(d) funds to build a large park for the citizens of Los Osos."

You funded a park (in a sewer plant) that was already funded (according to the 2000/2001 LOCSD), solely because you got lazy, and confused.

That's where my story stands. Clearly, judging by your 180-degrees wrong answers in your response to Assemblyman Achadjian, you were oblivious to the official documentation regarding the Tri-W disaster, and because you got lazy and didn't examine the documents, you approved, and then illegally funded an environmental disaster, and then, to deflect the blame of approving and then funding an environmental disaster, the State hard-core prosecuted a bunch of completely innocent senior citizens in Los Osos, and when I made my local Assemblyman aware of all of that, he wrote, "good luck," and that was that.

And the cost to the People of California for that decade-long disaster, caused solely because the CCC and the SWRCB got lazy?

A gazillion dollars, roughly, and my local Assemblyman isn't going to lift a finger to help me out, and make things right.

What an amazing story! (Thank you!)

Final comments? Last chance.

Thanks again,
Ron

Howard didn't respond, of course.

But, remarkably, before I wrap up this epic tale, I need to add one more character to the mix, and this is great.

Charles Lester is the current executive director at the California Coastal Commission, which means he's chief-staff-guy. He was promoted to that position just recently --within the past year -- following the retirement of long-time director, Peter Douglas.

So, in other words (and get ready for some alphabet soup, here), Lester's position at the CCC is the same as Howard's position at the SWRCB, and Briggs's position at the local RWQCB -- they are all executive directors at State agencies -- but before he was the executive director at the Coastal Commission, Lester had a different job at the agency: "Acting Deputy Director."

And the words, "FROM: Charles Lester, Acting Deputy Director" -- and verrrry unfortunately for Lester -- show up on what has to be one of the most important, yet most "quiet," of course, official documents associated with the entire 12-years-and-counting of Los Osos sewer disaster, the document linked here:

http://www.coastal.ca.gov/sc/slo-lcpa-3-01.pdf

The subject matter of that "July 24, 2002" document, and as I first exposed years ago, was the beginning of Nash-Karner's disastrous lies to the Coastal Commission.

But before I get into the subject matter of that great document, I want to set the great scene a little bit.

As I've outline above, in 2001, after the predicted failure of the disastrous "better, cheaper, faster," known-to-the Karners-to-be-DOA non-project, there was NO WAY then-LOCSD Director, and "better, cheaper, faster" founder, Pandora Nash-Karner, could go back to her community, and say, "What should we do now? Just go back to the county's 'ready-to-go' project?" She simply could not do that. (I mean, think about it... put yourself in her shoes in 2001. Would YOU do that?)

So, it was imperative to her scam that her second, completely redesigned, sewer plant ALSO be at the exact same location as her first proposed sewer plant.

To be very, very clear here: If her second sewer plant location wasn't at the exact same site as her failed "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, it would have instantly shown the world, including every Los Osos resident that voted for Nash-Karner and her CSD in 1998, that the ONLY reason that she killed the County's "ready-to-go" project in 1999, AND tricked Los Osos voters into forming the CSD in the first place -- three years earlier -- HAD FAILED... and she just couldn't let that happen... just, no way.

Obviously, she needed to hatch a scam to keep her second so-called "project" at the same as her first non-project, and, as I've been exposing for years through my original reporting, the complexity of that scam, and the scope of the resulting 12-year-and-counting disaster, simply blows the mind, and the ONLY place it's ever been exposed, is right here, in SewerWatch.

Follow this amazing timeline:

July 2000: My New Times cover story, Problems with the Solution, exposes that, after nearly two years, "better, cheaper, faster" is on the verge of failing.

August 2000: Less than one month after Problems with the Solution, "better, cheaper, faster" is officially in the dumpster, as predicted from the outset, and as the Karners were also aware.

March 2001: Just seven months following the "quiet" (other than my cover story) and devastating failure of "better, cheaper, faster," the Los Osos CSD, without EVER going back to the community and saying, "What we should we do now? (of course, as I've outlined numerous times now, Nash-Karner simply couldn't do that) pops out a Facilities Report for a completely redesigned sewer project -- a completely different collection system than "better, cheaper, faster," a completely different treatment facility than "better, cheaper, faster," AND a completely different, MUCH-higher-than-"38.75/month" price tag than "better, cheaper, faster."

To put that seven months (July 2000 - March 2001) in perspective -- to design, from scratch, an entirely new sewer project for Los Osos -- since the also-"quiet" failure of the Tri-W disaster, the County's recently completed analysis took some four years (2006 - 2010), and cost over $8 million, to complete.

The ONLY thing that spanned "better, cheaper, faster," to that 2001 Facilities Report project -- the Tri-W disaster -- was ONE thing: Nash-Karner's coveted, MUST-have Tri-W sewer plant location.

And here's where that great document, with Charles Lester's name attached, comes into play.

You see, from the disastrous "better, cheaper, faster" outset, starting in 1998, it was actually, and officially, forbidden to even build a sewer plant at the downtown Tri-W location, to begin with. The property, at the time, simply wasn't zoned for "public facilities." (By the way, that's even MORE evidence on her "better, cheaper, faster" scam. That DOA non-project was, of course, a non-starter, for many reasons, a tiny one of them being that it was actually illegal to even build THAT plant at the Tri-W location to begin with, due to local zoning laws, a critical point that Nash-Karner, of course, failed to tell her community in the piles and piles of rosy marketing material that she was saturating them with, throughout 1998.)

Yet, in the 2001 Facilities Report -- a report for a project that was completely different than "better, cheaper, faster" -- there it is: The Tri-W location as the final site for the sewer plant.

Huh?

And if there's ever a slam dunk piece of evidence that Nash-Karner hatched another massive, disastrous, scam to keep her second disaster in the exact same first as her second disaster, it's that -- that the Tri-W site HAD to be the location for BOTH of her now-miserably-failed disasters, when, at the time of both of those proposals, it was illegal to even build a sewer plant at that location to begin with.

But, in 2001 - 2002, Nash-Karner had a plan to overcome that tiny obstacle, namely, that it was illegal to build a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos, on the Tri-W site, to begin with.

She set out to officially change the zoning at the Tri-W site, solely in an effort to keep her second disaster at the exact same location as her first disaster -- a mind-blowingly HUGE process.

In her role as District Director, and, then, later, as Shady, Behind-the-Scenes, Quasi-Official Marketing/Lead Scam Person at her LOCSD, began lying to the Coastal Commission, solely in an effort to get the zoning of the "environmentally sensitive" Tri-W site changed to allow "public facilities."

And, to do that -- get something called the "Local Coastal Plan" (LCP) "amended" -- is a BIG deal, AND, very, very importantly for this story, apparently, it requires California Coastal Commission approval.

O.K... HERE'S where that great 2002 document, with Charles Lester's name attached, comes into play.

That's what that "quiet," yet over-the-top disastrous document is -- the Coastal Commission's nonsensical decision to approve "amending" the friggin' LCP in SLO County to allow a sewer plant -- with an elaborate, multi-million dollar park in it -- to be built in the middle of Los Osos... directly across the street from residential neighborhoods, the civic center, and three blocks upwind of downtown.

Unbelievable. What were they thinking?

"LCP MAJOR Amendment No. 3-01" as that excellent, amazing document is "quietly" known, is 24 pages, but there are only about three lines that matter. The big one is this:

"The LOCSD has evaluated numerous project alternatives and determined that a construction of a treatment facility and public park on the Tri-W site would best meet the project's and community's needs."

What you are seeing there -- clear as day -- is the Los Osos CSD lying to the California Coastal Commission, in 2002, about something very important.

Remember this quote, that I first dug out of the 2001 Tri-W Facilities Report, in my 2004 New Times cover story?:

"The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity. The (other potential sewer plant) sites on the outskirts of town, could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents."

See what happened there?

Lester got lazy, and, unlike me, never read that report, obviously, or else why would he write, "The LOCSD has evaluated numerous project alternatives," when that "evaluation" was nothing more than, "The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity." And that was the entire extent of that "numerous project alternatives" evaluation.

That "numerous project alternatives" evaluation by the LOCSD took about five seconds: "The (other potential sewer plant) sites on the outskirts of town, could not deliver a community use area that was readily accessible to the majority of residents."

That ONLY leaves Tri-W as an option. Done. A 5-second "evaluation."

So, I was researching a story, and I was on the phone with someone named, Steve Monowitz (remember him? The Coastal Commission staffer?) in 2005, and after I showed him, through my original reporting, how the LOCSD lied to him in 2001/2 in that crazy-important, super-disastrous, extremely "quiet," "MAJOR" LCP amendment, by showing him that the ONLY reason the 2000 - 2001 LOCSD selected the Tri-W site for their second sewer disaster, was because of some fake, fabricated, "strongly held community value" that the CSD, out of nowhere, identified in Los Osos that ANY sewer plant for the town's proposed sewer system MUST include an elaborate public park, and that "sewer-park" MUST also be in the middle of town so it will be easy for the town's residents to access the park... in an industrial sewer plant... and, of course, the ONLY site that fits that criteria, is the EXACT same site as Nash-Karner's failed "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, the Tri-W site, when there isn't a shred of documentable, "substantial evidence" anywhere, that shows that's the case (obviously), so after I showed Monowitz all of that, he told me:

"It was inappropriate of me to rely on Solution Group members to determine 'community values' for Los Osos."

Allow me to translate.

Considering both Monowitz and I know that the founder of the Solution Group is Pandora Nash-Karner, what Steve is telling me there, in 2005, is:

"Pandora lied to me during that entire, over-the-top disastrous LCP 3-01 process, when she told me that the location for her Tri-W disaster HAD to be the exact same location as her 'better, cheaper, faster' disaster, because, according to HER -- you know, the #1 vote-getter in her sham election, so who would know better? -- there was some sort of 'strongly held community value' in Los Osos, that ANY sewer plant MUST also include an elaborate public park, and that "sewer-park" MUST also be in the middle of town so it will be easy for the town-folk to access the park.

Obviously that was just a lie in order to make it look like her 'better, cheaper, faster' disaster never failed, and, instead, had simply 'morphed' into her second project, which would have made it at least appear that there actually WAS a reason to form the disastrous LOCSD in the first place, AND to stop the County's 1998 "ready to go" project, when, as we all know now, thanks to your research and original reporting, Ron, that's not the case at all.

I hear San Mateo is nice... and looking for a planner."

THAT's what Monowitz was telling me, in 2005, when he said, "It was inappropriate of me to rely on Solution Group members to determine 'community values' for Los Osos."

So, look at this timeline. In the context of 2011, It's "dazzling:"

Starting in late 2000, then-LOCSD Director/SLO County Parks Commissioner (as she currently still is), Nash-Karner, CAN'T go back to her community, after the dramatic, yet very "quiet" failure of her "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, so, instead, she hatches a scam to keep her second sewer plant location at the exact same downtown location as her first sewer plant disaster, by getting together with her friends in SLO County government, and lying to the California Coastal Commission about some absurd, completely unsubstantiated "strongly held community value" that ANY sewer plant in Los Osos, at ANY cost, must also double as a "centrally located recreational asset," and that lie leads directly -- after a bazillion hours of SLO County and CCC staff time -- to "MAJOR" LCP 3-01, and that one lie officially, and heavy-duty-impactfully officially "amends" the local land use law to allow a massive, completely nonsensical "sewer-park" to legally be constructed in the middle of Los Osos... on normally highly protected, "environmentally sensitive" land.

HAD the 2001/02 California Coastal Commission simply did what I did in my 2004 New Times cover story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, and actually tried to verify that non-existent (obviously) "strongly held community value," the intensely important/little-known "MAJOR" LCP 3-01 would have never been approved (because there would have been zero rationale to approve it), and, again, almost certainly, even at that relatively late date of July 2002, the project would have just reverted back to the County's "ready to go" project from the 1998.

Astounding.

So, with that amazing foundation in mind, on 10/27/11, following the release of the SWRCB's "formal" (non)response to my questions, I send the following e-mail to Charles Lester:

Dear Mr. Lester,

I'm researching a story involving Los Osos, and I was just reading a 10/25/11 letter from Thomas Howard, executive director at the SWRCB, to Assemblymember Katcho Achadjian, involving the now-failed Tri-W sewer plant in Los Osos, and Mr. Howard writes:

"(The LOCSD development permit for the Tri-W sewer plant) was adopted by the CCC ... (and) requires the LOCSD to include park like features as mandated mitigation efforts..."

Here's my question: Is that true?

Did the Coastal Commission really "mandate" as some sort of "mitigation" that $2.3 million worth of decorative "park amenities" found in the Tri-W development permit -- things like a "picnic area," "amphitheater," "tot lot" -- with a 20-year O&M cost at over $3 million?

If so, I think I might have found a conflict.

Because, I have an official, 2004 LOCSD document -- pre-development permit -- that shows that the LOCSD Board voted to "reincorporate" the amenities back into the project.

So, how could the CCC have "mandated" the nearly $6 million worth of park amenities in the now-failed Tri-W sewer plant, if the LOCSD voted to "reincorporate" the millions of dollars worth of park amenities... before the finalization of the now-failed Tri-W development permit?

Mr. Howard's take there (to an Assemblymember) doesn't seem to fit the timelime of events.

So, DID the CCC "mandate" that the LOCSD include a nearly $6 million park in their industrial sewer plant as some sort of mitigation?

That doesn't seem to make a lick of sense, but, according to Mr. Howard, that's exactly what happened.

So why did the CCC do that? What the heck happened there?

I mean, that disaster never even came close to working, and the SWRCB is blaming that on the CCC.

Who's right?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response,
Ron

Lester's response?

"Without additional research I am not able to answer your question definitively."

So, that's where we stand: I'm forced to wait for a state law to go into effect at the turn of the year, just so I can bypass a heavily-conflicted Achadjian, and simply take my nails-tight "due diligence" straight to the State Auditor, myself, just so I can get a better ending to my book. (Hey, CDOers, you can't say that I didn't at least TRY to give you a sweet Christmas gift, eh, with that off-season audit request? You can blame Katcho for your continued suffering, and expenses. Me? I guess I'm gonna have to wait until January 2012, so I can bypass him, and help you out. After all, what's good for you, is good for my ending.)

And, where are the people responsible for the "better, cheaper, faster," and the Tri-W disasters, today?

Pandora Nash-Karner is a long-time, and CURRENT 2nd District SLO County Parks Commissioner, appointed by Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, granting her access to influential officials, like Katcho Achadjian, that none of us regular folk get. She's also currently running the exact same SWA Group scam at the SLO Botanical Garden, where she currently sits on the Board of Directors (of course), as she ran in Los Osos in 1999 - 2000, as I expose at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/01/great-san-los-osobispo-botanical-sewer.html

Paavo Ogren, the interim General Manager at the LOCSD in 1999, when he was hired by Nash-Karner to shepherd her disastrous "better, cheaper, faster" disaster, and then "quietly" switch to the Tri-W disaster, that wasted all of that time and money, is now the CURRENT Public Works Director for the County of SLO, in charge of their second Los Osos sewer development (their 'ready to go" project from the 1990s was their first. That's right, as interim LOCSD GM in 1999, Ogren helped kill that "ready to go" project -- a decision that eventually made him SLO County Public Works Director, in charge of (with a fat pay raise) the current project... that wouldn't even exist today, had he not help kill the county's "ready to go" project in 1999. Crazy stuff.)

Nash-Karner's and Ogren's consultant friends -- like the Wallace Group, and Crawford, Multari and Clark -- that were partly responsible for BOTH of those previous disasters, are now CURRENTLY pulling fat checks again, from Ogren's department to clean up the disasters that they were paid to create, as I exposed at this link:

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

Darrin Polhemus, after NOT listening to me tell him that he was about to make a gigantic mistake by illegally funding the destruction of ESHA in Los Osos, for no reason whatsoever, was promoted within the SWRCB office.

Roger Briggs, after allowing the 1999 - 2001 LOCSD to waste two full years futilely chasing a DOA disaster, that HE also knew was never going to work, is STILL the executive director at the local Water Board.

(Unbelievable. I mean, what's someone have to do to get fired at the State level? Is there any blunder big enough? Apparently not.)

Steve Monowitz quietly left the Coastal Commission shortly after I exposed how he (and Lester, and, thus, the Coastal Commission itself) was duped, solely by Nash-Karner lies, into approving the disastrous Tri-W permit, and is now with the San Mateo County Planning Department. (Hey, maybe that's what it takes to get fired at the State level. If so, Howard and Briggs should also be gone.)

And a small group of "randomly selected" (by the State), and completely innocent senior citizens in Los Osos are STILL facing hard-core enforcement by the State's Attorney General's office -- enforcement that could potentially render their homes "condemned" (again, imagine living with that) -- for gigantic mistakes made by the AG's own clients.

And, to finish this astonishing tale off perfectly: The Attorney General in 2006, that originally launched hard-core, "you could lose your home"-style enforcement against a bunch of completely innocent senior citizens in Los Osos, for gigantic mistakes that STATE officials, themselves, made?

None other than our current Governor, Jerry Brown. I wonder what ol' Jer now thinks of the miserably-failed Tri-W disaster? After all, he was the one that threatened a bunch of completely innocent senior citizens in Los Osos to either cough up a bunch of cash (which they were forced to do), or get kicked out of their homes, for HUGE mistakes that his team made.

Oh-hell-yeah... a "dazzling" story. Better than Bell.

And, before I go: Tribune, Cal Coast News, KSBY, KVEC, The Dave Congalton Show, The Bay News, and New Times (save my two cover stories)?

Y'all suck. Grade: F-.

XOXO,

SewerWatch

###