SewerWatch

Los Osos, You're Welcome! SewerWatch Lifts the Town's 25 Year Building Moratorium. . . Right, Dr. Borenstein? Rrriiight, Dr. Borenstein?

2012-01-26T14:18:00.000-08:00

"There is no 'better, faster, cheaper' solution that will meet the approval of the permitting agencies. Let's face it! It is NOT going to happen."
-- Gary Karner, February 25, 2005

Wanna see a great example of the petty, little games SLO County government officials play when a reporter is ready to expose an important story that involves their screw-ups?

This GREAT tale starts a couple of weeks back, when I stumbled onto a seven-year-old email from someone named, Matt Thompson, a former staffer at the local Water Quality Control Board, and, as soon as I read that one-paragraph email, I instantly recognized it as a bombshell in the entire Los Osos sewer saga, because it goes straight to my January 1 2007, prediction (with numerous follow-ups here in SewerWatch), that, based solely on official, primary source documents, the only thing preventing Los Osos from becoming a community of composting toilets and greywater systems, is a tiny, brittle thread of completely unsubstantiated, bureaucratic sleight-of-hand, BS.

Well, two weeks ago, I was able to cut that thread, and the resulting thud is a bombshell.

Thompson's email is in response to a Los Osos property owner that was "very interested in installing a composting toilet as an alternative (to illegally discharging out of her septic tank)," AND that was/is being prosecuted by the local Water Quality Control Board for continuing to discharge wastewater out of her home septic tank, after the local Water Quality Control Board made septic tank "discharge in the Los Osos "Prohibition Zone" illegal starting in 1983, and then, shortly thereafter, it became illegal to build (or even add on to) more homes in Los Osos until that "discharge" thing was figured out.

That "building moratorium" not only prohibits homeowners from adding on to their exisitng homes, but more importantly, it also prohibits about 600 vacant lot owners in Los Osos from building on their property at all.

Think about that, it's very interesting: Imagine owning (and paying property taxes) on a residential lot in Los Osos for some 20 years, and not being able to build a home on it, simply because it's illegal in Los Osos to discharge from a septic tank, and there's no sewer system in place. THAT's what the vacant lot owners in Los Osos have been dealing with for the past two decades.

Well, Los Osos vacant lot owners? Dust off your blueprints.

In the years following my 1/1/07 prediction, where local government officials have thrown millions of dollars at all of their consultant friends to design a ginormous, industrial, $200 million sewer system for the town, I have gone 'round and 'round with nearly every government agency involved with that massive project, asking them:

"What's stopping a property owner in the Los Osos 'Prohibition Zone' from filling their septic tank with sand (which would instantly bring that property owner in compliance with the 'no discharge out of the septic tank' law), and then, in a weekend, installing a composting toilet system -- a system the local Water Board, that drew up that 'no discharge' law in the first place, practically raves about, as I first exposed in my 5-year-old prediction -- and an 'appropriate greywater system,' and then, because that property owner would no longer be in violation of the 'discharge' law, they would have no need to hook up to, and, intensely importantly, help pay for that $200 million community-wide, industrial sewer system?"

That question... THAT question they absolutely refuse to answer, as I have nicely time-stamped, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/06/countys-worst-case-scenario-in-los-osos.html

... where I write to Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, asking him that exact question, and showing him the County's "worst case scenario," and he did absolutely nothing. Nothing.

Same with Public Works Director, Paavo Ogren. In 2008, I was in Ogren's office, with one of my blog posts on composting toilets pulled up on his computer, he told me he would read it later, and, when I turned to say, "Goodbye," to Ogren, over his shoulder, I could see this story:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/01/is-there-rosa-parks-in-los-osos.html

... where I first outlined ALL of this, on his desktop computer.

In the ensuing years, Ogren would pay millions to his consultant friends for the design of the massive sewer project, and completely ignore ALL of the tight, primary-source evidence I was showing him (and the entire Board of Supervisors, for that matter) that REEELLY pointed to Los Osos going composting toilets/greywater systems.

And now? Oh, have I got some bad news for them. I now have an official answer to my question, and that answer is a bombshell.

In his email, Thompson writes, "The Uniform Plumbing Code does not allow composting toilets unless approved by the local health officer."

After five years of "no reply" from SLO County government officials, I now know two VERY important things:

1) It's something called the "Uniform Plumbing Code" that governs the use of composting toilets in the county (who knew?).

and;

2) ... and this is GREAT: I now know whose call it is to "allow" composting toilets in the county, and that call boils down to one person, "the local health officer," and in SLO County, in 2012, the "local health officer" is one, Dr. Penny Borenstein.

Let the petty games begin... again.

Two weeks ago, I actually phoned Dr. Borenstein's office, to ask her if she would "allow" a composting toilet system in Los Osos -- a system that the State Water Board practically raves about, saying composting toilets are "one of the few alternatives available" in Los Osos, that "will improve water quality," and "doesn't require Coastal Commission approval" -- and left a message with Dr. Borenstein's secretary.

No reply.

In the ensuing week, two more emails and another phone call to Dr. Borenstein's office went completely ignored.

In the meantime, I also contacted, Harvey Packard, at the local Water Quality Control Board -- the agency responsible for the "no septic tank discharge" law in Los Osos -- and asked him a version of my long-time-unanswered, excellent question: "If a property owner in the Los Osos Prohibition Zone filled their septic tank with sand, and then installed a "local health officer" approved composting toilet system, and an "appropriate greywater system," and then, because that property owner would no longer have a drop of "discharge" coming out of their septic tank, would that property owner still be in violation of the "discharge" law, "Resolution 83-13?"

His bombshell of a response?:

"Our current practice throughout the region is to not directly regulate graywater systems that are in compliance with the state plumbing code (recently amended to make it easier for homeowners to install graywater systems). Some may argue that even code-complying systems discharge waste that could affect the quality of waters of the state, but we do not regulate them.

If a prohibition zone resident installed a graywater system and a composting toilet as you describe, that resident would not be in violation of Resolution No. 83-13."

Bomb-friggin'-shell!

1) His office doesn't even "regulate" greywater systems. Apparently, it would be like asking them if they would allow a wood burning fireplace. According to Packard, greywater system regulation isn't even in their jurisdiction.

and;

2) "If a prohibition zone resident installed a graywater system and a composting toilet as you describe (with a "decommissioned" septic tank), that resident would not be in violation of Resolution No. 83-13."

KA-BOOM!

More shelling:

I then asked Packard, if a vacant lot owner in Los Osos were to submit plans to the County for a home that included a "local health officer"-approved composting toilet system, and a UPC greywater system, would the local Water Board object?

He wrote, "In principle, we would not object to the lot owner's building a house in such a situation."

Building moratorium lifted. Vacant lot owners? You're welcome!

But, there's just one thing... one tiny, brittle thread that's preventing a vacant lot owner from finally building their dream home: The hard-to-pin-down, Dr. Borenstein.

So, last week, I tried a different tact to get through to Dr. Borenstein.

I contacted Supervisor Gibson, (remember him? The guy that completely ignored this super-important subject over the past five years), and sent him this email:

- - -

Hello Supervisor Gibson,

I have GREAT news concerning Los Osos.

Harvey Packard at the local Water Quality Control Board recently told me that his office, "in principle," "would not object" to a vacant lot owner in the Prohibition Zone building a home on their property, IF that home included an "advanced" composting toilet system, and a UPC approved greywater system, and NO septic tank.

But, here's the hold-up: According to Mr. Packard's office, "The Uniform Plumbing Code does not allow composting toilets unless approved by the local health officer."

Now, over the past week, I've phoned and emailed (twice) SLO County's "local health officer," Dr. Borenstein, asking her if she would "allow" composting toilets in SLO County, but she's yet to answer my question.

In other words, it's really starting to look like the ONLY thing keeping a vacant lot owner in Los Osos from FINALLY being able to build on their property, is a simple, "Yes," from Dr. Borenstein, on composting toilets, that the staff of the RWQCB says "will" "improve water quality," in Los Osos, and is "one of the few alternatives available," and "does not require Coastal Commission approval."

So, that's what this email is: Me asking you to ask Dr. Borenstein if she will "allow" a composting toilet system in SLO County. I admit, it's kind of a strange question, considering it's asking the director of environmental health in the county, whether she will "allow" a system that "will" "improve" the environmental health of the county.

I mean, is there a "no" to that question?

I figure that you might have better luck at getting a response from her. And, as you can imagine, the sooner the better on this one. The vacant lot owners have waited long enough, don't you think?

Thank you in advance for your prompt response,
Ron

P.S. Mr. Packard also asked, "could the county satisfactorily assure us that the lot owner would not surreptitiously add plumbing fixtures after construction?"

That sounds like an easy enough fix, right? Through some sort of simple inspection, like every year or two, or something like that? I'm sure your talented staff won't have a problem clearing that tiny hurdle.

- - -

Zero response.

So I sent a version of that email to my District's Supervisor, Jim Patterson, who has also completely ignored this primary-sourced, super-important subject, for the past five years.

Zero response.

And, now, here I am, nearly three weeks after I first contacted Dr. Borenstein's office, practically begging for an answer to this amazing question, and zero response.

So now, it all boils down to that: The ONLY thing preventing a vacant lot owner in Los Osos from building on their property (for the first time in some 25 years), is one, simple, quick, "Yes," from Dr. Borenstein. [Just a sec... gotta fire-up the ol' SewerWatch intercom system: Ahem... Paging Dr. Borenstein. Dr. Penny Borenstein, please report to SewerWatch. Dr. Borenstein to SewerWatch, please.]

And, just like I wrote to Gibson, considering it's asking the "local health officer" in the county whether she will "allow" a system that "will" "improve" the environmental health of the county... I mean, is there a "no" to that question?

THAT's how close the 25-year-old Los Osos "building moratorium" is to being lifted.

One, "yes," from one person.

THAT... close.

Silly, petty games, from seemingly respectable adults.

More Petty Games, Bombshells, and The Bell Curve

Then there's the role of the Bell Curve in all of this. In fact, it was the Bell Curve that led, in part, to my original 1/1/07 prediction, and the Bell Curve in this story is VERY interesting.

My not-so-scientific, yet likely, guess on how the Bell Curve for the acceptance of composting toilets among property owners in Los Osos shapes up, is like this:

On the far left side, you have the small group of property owners, that are, "No f-ing way will I EVER use a composting toilet, and if it gets to the point where that ends up being the ONLY cost effective solution in Los Osos, then I'm going to move!"

Then, there's the middle of the Bell Curve, with the bulk of the population, that are, "Ewww, composting toilets? Well, I dunno... I mean, they are truly better, cheaper, faster, so, maybe? I mean... I dunno."

Then, and in this Bell Curve, here's the extremely important part, on the far right of the graph, there's this tiny group: "I demand to use a composting toilet. I don't even care if it IS waaaay cheaper, OR what it'll do to my property value, because it's absolutely the right thing to do for the environment."

Now, keep in mind, there are about 5,000 properties in Los Osos, and if just ONE of those property owners is this, "I demand to use a composting toilet," and, according to the Bell Curve, there almost certainly is, several of them, in fact, then something very dramatic will happen.

But, before I get there, I need to set up another very interesting twist in this story, that ALSO involves petty games by local government officials.

About four years ago, the County conducted a required Prop. 218 election, that asked PZ property owners in Los Osos if they were willing to tax themselves some $25,000 to pay for the proposed sewer system.

That election passed with more than 80-percent of the vote.

But here's the HUGE catch: By all indications, SLO County government types never did what I did: Simply email the staff at the CCWQCB, and ask them if a property owner would still be in violation of the "no discharge from a septic tank" law, if that individual property owner were to install a composting toilet/greywater system.

The answer is, "no."

Which poses two VERY interesting, and seemingly highly actionable, questions:

1) Would the PZ property owners STILL have passed that Prop. 218 vote, had they been informed that there was a sewer "alternative" (CCWRQCB's word), that could be installed in a weekend, at a fraction of the cost of the sewer assessment, and is waaay "environmentally superior" to a gigantic, industrial, "energy hog" sewer system.

[How would THAT play out in court? Pissed off PZ property owners showing up in court, and arguing that they were lied to about ALL of the "alternatives" in that Prop. 218 vote, and that the vote should be redone, with the composting toilet/greywater system in the mix?

What a GREAT argument.]

2) Will County officials STILL assess a PZ property owner to pay for the sewer, if that property owner were to, today, fill their septic tank with sand, and install a composting toilet/greywater system, and therefore have no need whatsoever to hook up to the sewer... or pay for it, OR, would the County voluntarily exempt that property owner from the already-passed sewer assessment, which would be the right thing to do.

Let the petty games continue.

I recently sent that amazing question to SLO County Public Works Director, Paavo Ogren.

Zero response.

I then sent that excellent question to Supervisor Gibson.

Zero response.

I then sent that excellent question to Supervisor Patterson.

Zero response.

So, not so surprisingly, still no official answer to this... to THIS: Would the County STILL assess a PZ property owner -- that took the highly prudent step of installing a composting toilet/greywater system -- for the cost of the sewer, even though they wouldn't need to hook up to it, and, thereby forcing that highly prudent, environmentally friendly property owner to go to court and argue "no benefit/no assessment," OR, would the County voluntarily exempt that property owner from the already-passed sewer assessment?

If that happens, where a composting toilet/greywater system PZ property owner gets out of paying the sewer assessment?

Watch this bombshell: Back to that Bell Curve.

Let's just say only FIVE, out 5,000 properties, initially go the CT/GW route.

If that happens, then that "worst case scenario" that I showed Gibson years ago -- a scenario where there's a $200 million sewer system in Los Osos that no one needs to hook up to, or pay for -- WILL happen, unless these petty officals become BIG fans of SewerWatch in a hurry.

If just FIVE PZ property owners go the CT/GW route, AND are exempt from paying the $25,000 sewer assessment, here's what the Bell Curve shows WILL happen:

MORE property owners on the far right side of that curve, are going to see that the CT/GW route is NO BIG DEAL at all -- in fact, likely, MUCH better, on many levels -- AND it will be waaaay cheaper, and they will do the exact same thing.

And, if that number gets up to just, say, 5-percent of PZ property owners, then more of the property owners on the right side of that Bell Curve will also do the exact same thing, and, because now none of those properties are paying the assessment, that means the amount will increase for everyone else, until every property owner will either be economically forced to go the exact same route (unless they want to pay a bazillion dollars a month just to flush with water), or, likely, redo the entire Prop. 218 election, because a bazillion dollars a month was never part of the 218 deal.

And then, EVERYTHING -- five years and some $10 million worth of design and planning -- will have to be redone, including the entire sewer design (minus the CT/GWers), AND whether it's even needed now at all, with composting toilets/UPC greywater systems in the mix... all because SLO County government officials completely ignored the primary source evidence that I showed them... years ago... that pointed to all of this happening.

Of course, HAD Ogren and Gibson included composting toilets/greywater systems in their analysis, they wouldn't have been able to continue pay all of their longtime consultant friends millions of public dollars to design an industrial sewer system, like they did, and continue to do.

Uh, Dr. Borenstein? Do you want to "improve water quality" in Los Osos, with the most "environmentally preferable" method (by far), and, of course, more importantly, make my January 1, 2007 prediction come true, or what?

"Yes," or "No?"

Please answer. The vacant lot owners have waited long enough, doncha think?

###

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

2011-11-21T10:24:00.001-08:00

"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

###

Ian Parkinson? Meet, Warren Jensen. Warren Jensen? Meet, Kamala Harris. Kamala Harris? Meet, Ian Parkinson. Ian Parkinson? Meet. . .

2011-09-19T12:51:00.000-07:00

As if this will make a bit of difference in anything, but, last April, I sent an e-mail to the SLO County Sheriff's Department (with Ian Parkinson as the SLO County Sheriff), asking them to investigate an apparent air-tight case of massive fraud in Los Osos.

Five months passed, and I never received a reply. So, earlier this month (September), I sent the Sheriff's office another e-mail asking for the case number that they assigned to my case.

Not surprisingly, it turns out that the Sheriff's office completely ignored my original complaint, and all of the primary-source evidence I included in it.

What follows in this blog post is flat-out extraordinary in the history of San Luis Obispo County. What it shows, is that the people behind the massive fraud in Los Osos have figured out the perfect crime -- a multi-million dollar fraud against the People of California, that is illegal to prosecute.

An amazing story. Yes, an extremely complex story, but once you wrap your mind around it, probably the most important story in the history of SLO County, and the only place you'll see it, is here, in SewerWatch.

Here's my original e-mail to SLO County Sheriff public information officer, Rob Bryn, sent 4/25/11:

- - -
Hello Mr. Bryn,

I would like to file a criminal complaint with the SLO Sheriff's office, but, my complaint (below) is very unusual, I'm sure, and so I'm not sure how to go about filing it, and, considering that you have been of great help in the past, I was hoping you could help point me in the right direction.

I found a definition of the crime I am alleging, at this link:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/fraudulent-concealment.html

And it's:

- - -
fraudulent concealment
Definition
Deliberate hiding, non-disclosure, or suppression of a material fact or circumstance (which one is legally or morally bound to reveal) with intent to deceive or defraud in a contractual arrangement.
- - -

And, before I get into the details of my complaint, it's important to point out, that, according to my research (and I'm certainly no lawyer), "fraudulent concealment" does something called "tolls" the Statute of Limitations, which, as I understand it, due to the "concealment"-ness of the crime, the Statute of Limitations clock doesn't even start ticking until the alleged crime is reported, which is what this e-mail is.

And that -- the "tolling" of the SOL -- is very important in this case, because the "fraudulent concealment" I am alleging happened in 2004, in Los Osos, and resulted in unbelievably disastrous, and very expensive damages to the People of California.

I'm alleging "fraudulent concealment" against the 2004 Los Osos Community Services District, and their contracted (at the time) engineering firm, Montgomery Watson Harza.

I first reported the details for my case of alleged "fraudulent concealment," at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/10/fraudulent-concealment.html

... and, for the most part, all of the evidence your department needs to see my case for "fraudulent concealment" can be found at that link.

As you'll see in the primary evidence that I first exposed in that piece, the 2004 LOCSD, and MWH lied to the Coastal Commission in a critical document, titled, Exhibit 3-C: MWH Memo comparing costs of TriW with Andre, and "deliberately hid... material fact(s)" by grossly low-balling their cost estimates in that report, and then concluded in Exhibit 3-C that there was no "economic incentive" in 2004 to do what SLO County officials just spent the past four years and over $8 million worth of analysis discovering: That there was a LOT of "economic incentive" in 2004 to build the sewer plant for the Los Osos sewer project out of town.

As you'll read in my above-linked piece, MWH and 2004 LOCSD officials did what I call a "double lie," or "double fraudulent concealment," in Exhibit 3-C:

1) They "non-disclosed" (clearly) millions of dollars worth of park amenities, and their O&M costs (which, interestingly, turned out to be more than the cost of the amenities themselves) in Exhibit 3-C, when Exhibit 3-C was part of the EXACT overall document -- "June 28, 2004 LOCSD Response to the California Coastal Commission" -- that reads:

"... the (LOCSD) Board on June 17, 2004 agreed to add the picnic area, tot lot, amphitheater, and community garden (to the Tri-W sewer plant)," yet they failed to include the cost of those amenities in their Exhibit 3-C study, which, as I also first exposed at my above-mentioned story, would be estimated by MWH, just a few months later, at over $2.3 million.

2) Lie #2 in Exhibit 3-C, is, as I first exposed in my above-linked story, how the 2004 LOCSD and MWH laughably low-balled the cost of the one park amenity they DID account for in Exhibit 3-C -- the "Off-leash dog park."

In Exhibit 3-C, where low-balled figures favored the disastrous Tri-W project, the dog park is estimated by MWH at "$60,000," yet, just a few months later, the same engineering firm, MWH, in the same document where they (finally... post-Exhibit 3-C) account for the $2.3 million in park amenities cost, estimates that exact same dog park at "$690,000."

To put that number in dramatic perspective, Exhibit 3-C details such things as a "creek easement" at "$30,000," yet, MWH, in that document, "deliberately" (apparently) "suppressed" $630,000 of the REAL cost of just the dog park, alone.

So, look what happened with Exhibit 3-C. It's striking.

In the EXACT same overall document where the LOCSD Board "agreed to add" $2.3 million (plus O&M) of park amenities -- "June 28, 2004 LOCSD Response to the California Coastal Commission" -- District officials, and MWH, "deliberately," and obviously, "hid" that cost in Exhibit 3-C, and then concluded in that document, in 2004, that there was no "economic incentive" to do what County officials just showed actually saves tens of millions of dollars: build the sewer plant out of town.

And here's how the People of California are victims of this alleged crime:

HAD the 2004 LOCSD and MWH not lied to the Coastal Commission in Exhibit 3-C by "deliberately" (and laughably extremely) low-balling their cost estimates in that critical document, it would have changed the entire conclusion of that study, to where there was A LOT of "economic incentive" to relocate the sewer plant out of town, in 2004, which is the exact project that SLO County officials are developing in 2011-and-counting.

HAD the 2004 LOCSD and MWH not lied to the Coastal Commission in Exhibit 3-C, there would have been absolutely no reason whatsoever to retain the ultimately disastrous mid-town "Tri-W" sewer plant in 2004, because Exhibit 3-C (utilizing REAL, non-fraudulently concealed numbers) would have decisively concluded that there was massive "economic incentive" to relocate the sewer plant, in 2004, PLUS, the project's EIR concluded that sites "adjacent" to the Andre site (i.e. the "Giacomazzi site") are "environmentally superior" to the mid-town site.

Turns out, using real, non-"hidden," non-"fraudulent concealment" cost estimates, relocating the sewer plant to the site "adjacent" to the Andre site in 2004 was MUCH cheaper, AND environmentally superior, so, it's a no-brainer: The Los Osos sewer plant would have "relocated" out of town starting in 2004 (instead of 2010-and-counting), HAD the 2004 LOCSD and MWH not lied to the Coastal Commission in Exhibit 3-C.

As you'll read in my link above, the "hypothetical Andre" site MWH mentions in Exhibit 3-C, that is located "adjacent to the Andre site," turned out to be the "Giacomazzi site" that County officials spent the past four years-and-counting, and over $8 million showing is the way to go for Los Osos.

And, all of that means, that HAD the 2004 LOCSD and MWH not lied to the Coastal Commission in Exhibit 3-C, every penny that has been spent by the State of California and the County of San Luis Obispo dealing with the Los Osos sewer project since June 28, 2004, would have never been spent.

And, perhaps even more importantly, the State's water, that is allegedly being polluted by the septic tanks in Los Osos, would have started to be cleaned up in 2004, instead of 2011-and-counting... HAD the 2004 LOCSD and MWH not lied to the Coastal Commission in Exhibit 3-C.

So that's the horrendous crime against the People of California that I want to officially report to the SLO County Sheriff's Department: Fraudulent Concealment (which "tolls" the Statute of Limitations), by the 2004 LOCSD and Montgomery Watson Harza, when, in their document titled, "June 28, 2004 Response to CCC," where the 2004 LOCSD Board "agreed to add" over $2.3 million (plus O&M) of park amenities, they also deliberately hid over $5 million (at least) in those amenity and O&M costs in their cost estimates in that document's "Exhibit 3-C," and deliberately (and grossly) low-balled their cost estimates for the few amenities they did account for -- cost estimates which they were "legally and morally bound to reveal" -- "with the intent to deceive" the California Coastal Commission into approving the disastrous Tri-W project, and it worked.

According to the documents found in "June 28, 2004 LOCSD Response to the California Coastal Commission," the Los Osos CSD officials at the time were District Directors, Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley, Richard LeGros, Frank Freiler, and Rose Bowker (now deceased).

The District's General Manager was Bruce Buel (now deceased).

Its utilities manager was George Milanes.

And the "District Engineer" for the LOCSD in 2004 was/is Rob Miller, of the Wallace Group.

The evidence that (clearly) shows the (alleged) fraudulent concealment is:

"June 28, 2004 LOCSD Response to the California Coastal Commission," where both Exhibit 3-C AND how the District "agreed to add" the $2.3 million (plus O&M) in park amenities to their Tri-W sewer plant, is found

and;

- The District's 2005 Value Engineering report, where MWH finally accounts for the $2.3 million in park amenities, including the dog park at "$690,000," after first estimating it at "$60,000" in Exhibit 3-C.

If you could just forward this email to the proper authorities within your department that handle these types of crimes, I would very much appreciate it.

And, if you, or someone else at your office, have any questions, or if you need anything else from me to officially process my complaint, please just ask.

Thanks,
Ron
- - -

Five months passed, and Bryn never replied. So, earlier this month, I sent this e-mail:

- - -
Hello Mr. Bryn,

I just wanted to quickly follow-up on my e-mail to you, originally sent on 4/25/11, and check in to see how the investigation is coming along.

Also, please e-mail me the case number that was assigned to my complaint. It'll make it easier for me to reference for future follow-ups.

Thank you,
Ron
- - -

Bryn finally replied:

"The Sheriff is aware of your allegations and does not agree with your opinion that this should be investigated by the Sheriff's Office. He recommends that you contact County Council [sic] or the Attorney General's Office to provide you further direction or legal advice."

Which prompted this response from me:

- - -

Hello Mr. Bryn,

Thank you VERY much for your informative response.

In it, you write:

"... your opinion that this should be investigated by the Sheriff's Office."

Here's where this gets even more interesting.

It's actually not my "opinion" that the SLO County Sheriff's should investigate my complaint. It's more of just a simple process of elimination.

For example, you write:

"(Sheriff Parkinson) recommends that you contact County Council or the Attorney General's Office to provide you further direction or legal advice."

Here's the huge problem with that:

Many of the people involved with my complaint are County Counsel's current clients.

Which means, interestingly, he is duty-bound to NOT investigate my complaint.

Similarly, due to the deliberate (and gross) low-balling of the numbers that I allege in my complaint (that directly led to years and years of continued pollution in the county, and wasted millions upon millions of public dollars... due solely to the deliberate low-balling), numerous State agencies, like the California Coastal Commission, mistakenly approved a disastrous, now-failed, public works non-"project," which means those State agencies are on the hook for approving that now-failed disaster, because they got hoodwinked (for lack of a better word) by those deliberately (and grossly) low-balled numbers, which directly led to all of that added pollution and wasted millions of public dollars, and on the Attorney General's web site, at this link:

http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/government.php

... it reads:

"The Attorney General's Office is frequently unable to represent or assist individuals regarding non-criminal complaints against state agencies because this office is required by law to represent those agencies in disputes arising out of their actions."

... which means that, when it comes to my complaint, the Attorney General's office is in the exact same situation as the SLO County Counsel's office -- the AG is also duty-bound to NOT investigate my complaint. (In fact, now that I think about it, it's actually illegal for the AG's office to investigate my complaint, because they are "required by law to represent those agencies in disputes arising out of their actions."

So, they can't investigate my complaint. It would be illegal for them to do so.

Which leaves the SLO County Sheriff's office.

So, to be clear, it's not my "opinion" that my complaint "should be investigated by the Sheriff's Office," it's that there's nowhere else to go with it.

County Counsel is duty-bound to NOT investigate my complaint (because it involves several of his own clients), and it's actually illegal for the AG's office to investigate it.

Plus, I will point out, that at the AG's web site, at this link:

http://oag.ca.gov/report-crime

... it reads:

"To report a crime that has or may have occurred in California, dial 9-1-1 or contact your local law enforcement agency... List of Local Sheriff's Offices in California"

and then on that list, at this link:

http://www.usacops.com/ca/s93401/index.html

... it reads:

San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Office

Sheriff
Patrick Hedges

1585 Kansas Ave
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
(805)781-4550

(Sounds like usacops.com needs to update its listing ; -)

So, I'm not too sure what to do here. Who do I report this seemingly clear-cut crime to?

Let me ask you this: Would it help if I also requested that the investigation be "walled off" from Undersheriff, Martin Basti?

According to my research, Mr. Basti (lived) in Los Osos, and like, County Counsel, Warren Jensen, is also on a long-time, first-name basis with many of the people involved in my complaint.

So, maybe if we could remove that obvious conflict -- the "Undersheriff being friends with the people in my complaint" conflict -- then maybe the Sheriff's Office could then investigate my complaint.

Would that help? "Walling off" Undersheriff Basti from my complaint?

Thank you again for your time on this important matter,
Ron
- - -

Of course, Bryn never replied to that e-mail, so, about a week ago, I sent this follow-up e-mail:

- - -
Hello Mr. Bryn,

Sorry to bother you again with this, but I'm getting ready to write a blog post about how the SLO County Sheriff's office refuses to investigate how a local government agency (in an unincorporated part of SLO County [read: Sheriff jurisdiction]) along with a multi-national engineering firm, lied to the California Coastal Commission in 2004, by deliberately low-balling and hiding the actual cost of a $150 million public works project, and then telling the CCC, in an official document, that the only reason they couldn't move that public works project to the "environmentally preferable" location in 2004, was because there was no "economic incentive" to do so.

And how, if that government agency had NOT lied to the CCC in 2004, by lying to the CCC, in an official document, about the REAL cost of their project, nearly the exact same public works project that the County concluded, in 2010, after five years and some $8 million worth of analysis, is the way to go, would have been built starting in 2004.

In other words, had that government agency NOT lied to the CCC in 2004, nearly the exact same public works project that was recently approved in 2010, would have been approved in 2004, and the past six-years-and-counting of pollution that that public works project is supposed to fix, would have never happened, in addition to the multi-millions of public dollars that have also been spent on that project since 2004.

So, in my blog post, I'm going to report how I showed your office this evidence -- primary source evidence, I want to emphasize -- and that the SLO County Sheriff told me, "The Sheriff is aware of your allegations and does not agree with your opinion that this should be investigated by the Sheriff's Office. He recommends that you contact County Council or the Attorney General's Office to provide you further direction or legal advice."

And that was that.

However, before I report that, I wanted to make doubly-sure that your office still believes this case should not "be investigated by the Sheriff's Office," even after I showed your office (in my e-mail [above]) how County Counsel can't investigate my case (due to conflicts), and how it's actually illegal for the Attorney General's office to investigate my case.

Maybe, your office wasn't aware of that, and now that you are, you might have a change of direction.

I mean, this investigation is literally this simple: Just start with that $60,000 dog park, and go from there. Everything unravels from that one thing: A $60,000 dog park... that, just a few months later, when low-balled numbers didn't benefit their project, was estimated by the same engineering firm at $690,000 -- a factor of 11.5 (factor, not percentage)... a 1,150-percent difference.

And that doesn't even include the other $2 million in park amenities that were just completely left out of the cost estimates altogether, which, amazingly, is even worse than that 1,150-percent difference.

Frankly, the deliberate low-balling in that document is so extreme, that I actually find it funny. It makes me laugh... out loud. That's how much they deliberately low-balled those numbers -- comically huge.

The only thing funnier, is that the Coastal Commission never once said something like, "Really? $60,000 for an entire, public dog park, that you're going to have to build from scratch? And what about that other $2 million worth of park amenities? Where's that in these 'no economic incentive to relocate' figures?"

As a construction friend of mine instantly said, when I recently told him about the $60,000 dog park, "You can't even build a public restroom for under $200,000 these days."

Which is also exactly why it is actually illegal for the AG's office to investigate this case. "By law" they have to "represent" the CCC, and this investigation will show that the AG's client -- the CCC -- didn't do their homework in 2004 (because they were lied to, egregiously, by a local government agency), and, because the CCC got lazy and trusted those lies, that led directly to a gigantic, and very expensive, environmental disaster in SLO County... that also ripped the community fabric of that town to tiny shreds, I will add to my report.

So, you know, I kinda need to know: Is the SLO County Sheriff's department, using the "fraudulent concealment" argument that "tolls" the statute of limitations (and that I've outlined in my e-mail [above]), going to investigate that "$60,000/$690,000 dog park/missing $2 million, and how that lie eventually led to a very expensive, 6-year-and-counting, environmental disaster in SLO County, that also ripped the community fabric of a town to tiny shreds" thing, or not?

That's my question.

Thanks again,
Ron

P.S. If I'm not mistaken, Warren Jensen is also the Sheriff's Office Counsel, as well. Is that correct? Thanks again!
- - -

No response whatsoever.

So, yeah... The perfect crime: A multi-million dollar fraud against the People of California, that's illegal to prosecute.

And now, I have an excellent philosophical question here: If it's illegal for California's "chief law enforcement officer" to "assist (the citizens of California) regarding complaints against state agencies," because she is "required by law to represent those agencies," how is that not, like, you know, tyranny?

I mean, really? When it comes to the priority list for the "chief law enforcement officer for the state" on who she "represents," "by law" it's the Government of the State of California, first, and THEN the People of the State of California, second?

Really? "By law," the People are #2 on that list?

Again, how is that not tyranny?

By the way, Warren Jensen IS the Sheriff Department's counsel, as well as chief counsel for the SLO County Grand Jury... of course.

###

Warren Jensen, please "investigate" your own clients, and lemme know if you find any wrongdoing

2011-08-28T12:49:00.000-07:00

I love SLO County government. It's funny. One of the funnier things they do is "investigate" alleged wrong-doings against their own employees and clients.

It's hilarious.

Take chief County Counsel, Warren Jensen, for example.

A few years back, former Los Osos CSD Director, Lisa Schicker, asked for a SLO County government investigation into a possible conflict of interest between the County's Public Works Director, Paavo Ogren, and an internationally known construction company, MWH, that Ogren worked closely with when he was interim General Manager of the Los Osos CSD in 1999, as well as other professional arenas.

So, Warren Jensen, Ogren's own attorney, takes Schicker's complaint, and thumbs through it for a few weeks, and then pops out a report that says that Ogren -- Jensen's own client -- surprise, sur-friggin'-prise, did absolutely nothing wrong, and then Jensen uses the report to publicly bash Schicker for even bringing her complaint in the first place.

Hi.. lar... i... ous!

Well, thanks for that "investigation," Warren, and good to hear you were able to clear all of that up... by telling us that you didn't find any wrong-doing with your own client.

Which gets me to today's hilarity.

Apparently, according to SLO County Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, county government is, again, conducting some sort of "investigation," involving Paavo Ogren, and whether a personal relationship that he is allegedly having with recently-resigned, Los Osos CSD Director, Maria Kelly, involves any conflict of interests.

Dear reader? Whadaya think the results of that "investigation" will be... an "investigation" that is being handled by Chief County Administrator, Jim Grant, and, yep, you guessed it!: Warren Jensen's client.

Welp, being the smart-ass reproter that I am, I thought I'd pile on the hilarity, by asking Jim Grant (Jensen's client) to conduct one more conflict of interest case involving Paavo Ogren (Jensen's client), only, this complaint is mine, so unlike the two previous complaints, this one kicks some serious ass!

My complaint shows -- shows, using nothing but primary source documents -- that there was a scam in the works even BEFORE Bruce Gibson was elected Supervisor in late 2006, involving former Los Osos CSD Director, and current SLO County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, MWH, Ogren, and Gibson, to manipulate the Los Osos sewer project to whatever creepy agenda they have (and that agenda really looks like it's, surprise, money).

My kick-ass complaint shows that Nash-Karner, beginning in 2006, laundered money from MWH into the "Supervisor for Gibson" campaign, then used that money to get him elected, where he turned right around and (re)appointed Nash-Karner to the SLO County Parks Commission -- ALSO making her a client of Warren Jensen's, of course -- and then voted to promote Ogren to Public Works Director, where Ogren immediately turned around and short-listed MWH to build the $150 million-plus Los Osos sewer project.

Additionally, considering that Nash-Karner is highly-documentably connected to recalled (in 2005) Los Osos CSD Director, Gordon Hensley, and Hensley was heavily involved in insuring the passage of AB 2701 -- the State law that handed control of the Los Osos sewer project over to SLO County officials in 2007 -- by using BOTH of his one-man organizations to "support" AB 2701, as I show at this hilarious link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/09/i-want-to-be-like-gordon-hensley-in.html

... it REEEELY begins to look like AB 2701 was just another part of Nash-Karner's/MWH's scam, because the ONLY motivation for their launder-money-to-Supervisor Gibson scam woud be if the County had control over the project... because there was NO WAY the 2006 Los Osos CSD Board, the agency that WAS controlling the project before AB 2701 -- was going to ever hire MWH for anything.

Which means, it's REEEEELY beginning to look like the foundation of the county's entire past-five-years/$8 million-and-counting Los Osos sewer development process, itself -- AB 2701 -- was nothing more than a scam to get the project back into the hands of the same people that were cashing in on it when the PRE-RECALL Los Osos CSD had control of the project: MWH, Ogren's numerous consultant friends, and, of course, Nash-Karner.

Now THAT's a complaint, folks.

But, here's where it gets funny again.

I've already taken this complaint, in one form or another, to the California Fair Political Practices Commission, the SLO County Grand Jury, the SLO County Sheriff's Department, then-Assemblyman Blakelee's office (who authored AB 2701), and the California State Attorney General's office, and NOT ONE of them will investigate it, and the reasons they give for not investigating, they just make up. (And, it's important to point out here, that all of those angencies are NOT saying that my complaint isn't valid, they all just make up reasons not to investigate. BIG difference.)

So, here we go... again. It's funny. My final hope for an "investigation," goes something like this:

Yep, last week, I filed my complaint with the County Administrator's office. I figure, hey, as long they are "investigating" the Ogren/Kelly "relationship," might as well toss in my tiny, quick, hugely-explosive "investigation" in there, as well.

I'm confident my complaint will get the robust, unbiased "investigation" it deserves... NOT!

Here's the e-mail I sent to County Administrator (and Jensen's client), Jim Grant:
- - -
Hello Mr. Grant,

I'll try to make this as quick as possible.

Apparently, according to Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, your office is currently conducting an "investigation" into whether there's some sort of conflict-of-interest in the Paavo Ogren/Maria Kelly alleged relationship, and I just wanted to quickly request that, while your office is conducting that "investigation," if you wouldn't mind adding one more Paavo Ogren-related "relationship" to that "investigation," where it looks like there's another, very important, conflict-of-interest involving the County's Los Osos Wastewater Project development process:

It's this relationship:

When Paavo Ogren was interim GM for the Los Osos CSD in 1999, and when "Montgomery Watson Harza (MWH) was retained by the district for wastewater project management in early September 1999," current SLO County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, was an elected member of the initial Los Osos CSD Board of Directors.

Here's the link:

http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/slo/race/109/

... where she, as an elected official, originally hired Ogren and MWH to manage her two, now-failed sewer "projects" -- her "better, cheaper, faster," "drop dead gorgeous," ponding project, that failed sometime in 1999/2000, and her middle-of-town, sewer plant/"picnic area" Tri-W project, that officially failed on June 11, 2010, after it was appealed all the way to the Coastal Commission, where the Commission, on June 11, 2010, did not select it... of course.

Then, immediately following the successful 2005 recall election -- an election that "stopped" Nash-Karner's and MWH's middle-of-town, sewer plant/"picnic area" Tri-W "project" -- Commissioner Nash-Karner formed, and "Chaired" a Political Action Committee called "Save the Dream."

And, according to a 2006, "Save the Dream" campaign statement, that I've made available for public download, at this link:

http://www.slocreek.com/std_contributions.pdf

.... Tri-W "project" contractor MWH, along with another Tri-W "project" contractor, Barnard Construction, donated $10,000 a piece to Commissioner Nash-Karner's "Save the Dream" PAC... after the Sept. 27 2005 recall election.

Then, shortly after receiving those two $10,000 donations (after the recall election) to her "Save the Dream" PAC, SLO County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, then (on at least one occasion) used her own PAC to hire and pay her own marketing business, "Pandora & Co." "3869.04," according to that Save the Dream campaign statement.

Then, shortly after receiving a $10,000 donation from MWH (after the election) to her PAC, and then using her own PAC to hire and pay her own business (on at least one occasion), SLO County Parks Commissioner, Nash-Karner, then shortly began donating to the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign in "$99" increments, when on the "Gibson for Supervisor" site, it reads:

"For donations of $100 or more, providing your occupation and employer is required by law."

and;

"Sorry, we can not accept cash for contributions of $100 or more."

[First exposed by SewerWatch at this link.]

Then, after receiving a $10,000 donation from MWH (after the election) to her PAC, and then using her own PAC to hire and pay her own business, and then, shortly after paying her own business, using funds from a $10,000 MWH donation to her PAC to donate untraceable amounts of "$99" donations to the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign -- that went to help Supervisor Gibson get elected in the first place -- Supervisor Gibson, not only (re)appointed Pandora Nash-Karner to the SLO County Parks Commission, but also voted to promote Paavo Ogren -- former LOCSD GM, hired by former LOCSD Director, Nash-Karner -- to SLO County Public Works Director, where his office would go on to short-list MWH to design/build the County's Los Osos wastewater project, even though MWH was directly responsible for Nash-Karner's two previous sewer project failures in Los Osos -- her failed "better, cheaper, faster" ponding system, and her failed Tri-W sewer plant/"picnic area."

So, why is MWH even close to getting a third chance to miserably fail in Los Osos?

That doesn't make any sense whatsoever, unless there's some sort of conflict-of-interest in this relationship:

How, in 1999, then-LOCSD Director, Pandora Nash-Karner, hired Paavo Ogren as interim GM for the Los Osos CSD, and how the two went on to also hire MWH in 1999, to develop the now-failed ponding "project" AND the now-failed Tri-W "project," and, how SLO County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, started a PAC in 2004(3?), "Save the Dream," to "defeat the recall," and how MWH donated "$10,000" to Nash-Karner's PAC after the successful recall election, in 2005 -- an election that "stopped" Nash-Karner's and MWH's project -- and then how she used her own PAC to pay her own business, and then, shortly after using her own PAC (with that $10,000 MWH donation) to pay her own business, then-and-current-SLO County Parks Commissioner, Nash-Karner, began donating to the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign in "$99" increments, when the "Gibson for Supervisor" web site reads:

"Sorry, we can not accept cash for contributions of $100 or more."

... and then how Supervisor Gibson was eventually elected, in part, by Nash-Karner's financial contributions, where he then (re)appointed Nash-Karner to the SLO County Parks Commission, and, later, voted to promote Paavo Ogren to the SLO County Public Works Director, where Ogren went on to "short-list" MWH to design/build the SLO County's Los Osos Wastewater Project, even though MWH was directly responsible for developing the two previous, disastrous, miserable, sewer project failures in Los Osos, starting in 1999 (when Ogren was managing the Los Osos CSD)?

So, that's why I'd like to see a quick "investigation" into this allegation of conflict of interest. I figured that, as long as your office is "investigating" the Ogren/Kelly "relationship," that I might as well toss this Ogren-related-relationship in there as well, considering that there'a a lot of overlap in the subject matter between the two "investigations."

And, the reason I say "quick" "investigation," is because this "investigation," unlike the Ogren/Kelly "investigation" -- should go (relatively) quickly, because I already have all of the primary source documents you'll need, ready to go.

For example, as I show above, the main document that you'll need for this investigation, I've already made available for public download years ago, at this link:

http://www.slocreek.com/std_contributions.pdf

That's the Save the Dream campaign statement that shows the two $10,000 contributions from MWH and Barnard to Save the Dream (Page 6), that came in after the election, and page 12 shows how SLO County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner used her own PAC to pay her own business, "3,869.04"

For the document that you'll need to show how -- after receiving a $10,000 donation (after the election) to her PAC, and then using her own PAC to hire and pay her own business -- SLO County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, then shortly began donating to the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign in "$99" increments, when the "Gibson for Supervisor" web site reads:

"Sorry, we can not accept cash for contributions of $100 or more."

... you might to have to do what I did: Physically go into the Clerk-Recorder's office, and look at the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign statements, where you'll find (at least) one listing for Nash-Karner's "$100" contribution, and then in the corner of that listing, it reads, "Total contributions this quarter: $199," which means that, not only did SLO County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, after using her own PAC (with a $10,000 MWH donation) to pay her own business, begin donating to the "Gibson for Supervisor" campaign in "$99" increments, but that she was ALSO keenly aware of this:

"Sorry, we can not accept cash for contributions of $100 or more."

(AND, "For donations of $100 or more, providing your occupation and employer is required by law.")

... while she was doing it.

So, please add the above-outlined allegation of conflict of interest to your Ogren/Kelly "investigation."

If you have any questions, please just ask.

Thank you,
Ron

- - -

And, yes, I'll take mad props for first exposing how Nash-Karner donated to Gibson's campaign in those sneaky, untraceable "$99" increments.

I'm tellin' ya, EVERY time the Karners fuck-up, I'm right there to pounce, like the time I showed how they actually, and unwittingly, confessed to starting the entire Los Osos sewer disaster in 1998, just so they could make money.

And just look at how beautiful of a fuck-up that I, alone (as usual), caught Pandora on: She initially donated her $100 bucks (which is fine, by the way... hey, just supporting her team), but what she failed to realize is that in a tiny corner of the campaign statements, it reads, "Total contributions this quarter," where it reads: "$199"... and that some smart-ass reporter was going to one-day spot.

Ooooooops!!!!

What that HUGE fuck-up shows, undeniably, is that Pandora worked the "Sorry, we can not accept cash for contributions of $100 or more" scam... hard, shortly after using her own PAC to pay her own business, using MWH money.

She knew about the untraceable $99 scam, and worked it, hard.

Awesome!

And, I'm sure Warren Jensen will find it equally as awesome... NOT!

###

Shirley Bianchi's Been Demoted

2011-08-01T10:45:00.000-07:00

"I'm just a soul whose intentions are good
Oh Lord, please don't let me be misunderstood"
-- The Animals

Boy, if you ever want to get on the bad side of a former elected official, just ask them about some later-proven-to-be-horrible decisions they made while they were in office.

One more episode of the wacky sitcom, Me and Shirley, and this'll be the series finale.

When we left our story last episode, I was discussing how former SLO County Supervisor, Shirley Bianchi, started a blog, and then how I went onto her blog and posted some interesting, polite questions, asking her how she feels, these days, about a disastrous vote she made back in 2003, when she, as a SLO County Supervisor, voted to approve the now-failed Tri-W sewer disaster in Los Osos, and how she feels today, now that the SLO County Public Works department just spent the past five years and some $8 million showing the Tri-W disaster to be the exact "infeasible" disaster that I first exposed it to be in my 2004 New Times cover story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown.

Then, also in our previous episode, I show how Shirley, for no apparent reason, went on to delete my three super-polite comments on her blog, and how that act earned her immediate induction into the SewerWatch List of Shame Hall of Fame.

Well, turns out there WAS a reason why she deleted all of my super-nice, and polite comments.

She got confused... again.

In a recent blog post, Shirley writes, "Ron (me) does not bother me at all, but thank you for your thoughtfulness. His last post said something like, 'Now we are going to play hardball,' and my thought was, that is OK, but not in my court. So I deleted all of his comments."

Let the hilarity begin... again.

I didn't write that "hardball" crack, that she mentions there.

So, understanding how she thought that a nasty comment from another blog commenter could be mistaken as a comment from me (because, up until that point, I was pretty much the only person leaving comments on her blog), I logged back onto her blog and left this super-polite (as usual) comment:

- - -

Curb your Enthusiasm

"So I deleted all of his comments, and if he continues, I'll simply put him in SPAM.

Well, guess what?

THAT nice, polite comment was also deleted by Shirl, even AFTER I responded how it wasn't me that left that nasty "hardball" comment, that got all of my original comments deleted to begin with.

So, look what happened there. It's hilarious.

Not only did Shirley delete my excellent (and polite) questions to her on why she approved a colossal disaster in Los Osos, but she deleted them because she, apparently, simply got confused on who was leaving the comment, and when I politely corrected her, she went on to also delete the nice comment I posted that showed it wasn't me that left that "hardball" comment... that, according to Shirley, was the only reason why she deleted my comments to begin with.

But, it actually gets worse for Shirley in this episode of Shirley and Me.

Again, not only did she delete my comment from her blog, where I said it wasn't me that left the nasty "hardball" comment, but she actually kept the original post where she got confused, and said it was me that left the comment on her blog.

Here's the link:

http://rockybutte.blogspot.com/2011/07/response-to-anonymous.html

... it's still there.

So damn weird.

She deletes my comments that say, "Uh, Shirl? It wasn't me," yet, she keeps her post where she falsely accuses me of being nasty.

Weird.

And THAT's coming from a former SLO County Supervisor...that was, you know, elected, and then went on to approve a colossal public works disaster that led to years and years of added pollution to SLO County, and wasted millions upon millions of taxpayer dollars.

And for that reason -- that Shirley said the reason she deleted all of my super-polite comments that showed how she approved a disaster in Los Osos, and then just making up a reason to delete my excellent comments for apparently no other reason than that they were highly embarrassing to her (because those comments discussed her disastrous Tri-W vote), WHILE retaining her post where she still (knowingly) falsely says that she deleted my comments because I left a nasty comment on her blog (that I didn't write) -- Shirley's not only earned a special place in the SewerWatch List of Shame Hall of Fame, but she's also been demoted in the SewerWatch "SLO County Links" list, permanently posted on the right side of this blog.

I did have her blog, Shirley, You Jest, in the sweet second slot, just below Ann Calhoun's excellent blog (at #1, of course), but now, since Shirley's decided to just make up reasons to delete my super-polite comments from her blog just because they call her out on a disastrous decision she made in 2003, Shirley, You Jest has now been demoted in SewerWatch, to below CalCoastNews.com... and that's really sayin' something.

###

Awww, Shirley, We Were Just Getting to Know Each Other

2011-07-15T10:42:00.000-07:00

So, this is kind of a funny, weird, little, kick-ass, SLO County story.

I'm in the process of developing my "SewerWatch List of Shame" -- that's a list I'm compiling that includes all of the officials and agencies (including media) that supported the now-failed Tri-W disaster from 2000 - 2005, yet, nowadays, when I present those same people and agencies with my huge-list-o'-official-SLO-County-evidence that I've also compiled over the past four years, that shows the Tri-W disaster to be the exact disaster I first exposed it to be in my 2004 New Times cover story, ALL of those people and agencies now just turn away.

Every... single... one... of... them.

Pathetic, yet, strangely, kinda funny.

Sara Wan?

Current Coastal Commissioner, Sara Wan, was also on the Commission in 2004, when she voted to approve the Tri-W disaster.

A few months back, I sent her a few e-mails involving my huge-list-o'-official-County-evidence that now shows the Tri-W disaster to be the exact disaster I first exposed it to be in 2004, and asked her how she responds to that evidence, today, considering her disastrous vote in 2004.

No response whatsoever.

Local Water Board Chair, Jeff Young?

As I first exposed, back in January, 2006, Young told a bunch of Los Osos senior citizens -- that he was about to fine "out of existence" -- that the reason they were being punished was because the community simply voted to stop the Tri-W disaster... because the community didn't want a sewer plant/disaster in the middle of their beautiful coastal town.

"I can tell you one thing, that had the community not put the blocks on the current project (the Tri-W "project") that we would not be here with an ACL (enforcement) hearing."
-- Jeff Young, RWQCB Chair, 1/5/06

These days? Young? When presented with my huge-list-o'-official-County-evidence that now shows the failed Tri-W disaster to be the exact disaster I first exposed it to be in 2004, and putting that disaster on "blocks" was, like, the best thing that EVER happened to this county, and that the ONLY reason his "Water Board" decided to fine a bunch of elderly citizens in Los Osos "out of existence," was because HIS agency got horribly confused on the viability of the Tri-W disaster, and that confusion led to years and years of delay -- delay MUCH more attributable to Young's agency, than a bunch of elderly citizens in Los Osos?

These days? Young? Not a friggin' word.

And that's just TWO examples in my "List of Shame." The list is stunning, and it just goes on and on and on. (Although, to be clear, Wan and Young are already major-league, Hall-of-Famers in the "SewerWatch List of Shame." I mean, look at what they did in 2004 and early 2006. And now? Nothing?! It makes the stomach turn. Spectacular, Hall of Fame-worthy performances.)

Well, it looks like I might have another excellent, Hall of Fame contender for the "List of Shame."

In my previous post, I show how former County Supervisor, Shirley Bianchi, recently started a blog.

As County Supervisor from 1999 - 2006, Bianchi's district included Los Osos, where she was in office during the disastrous Tri-W "project" run through the SLO County government process, including in 2003, when Bianchi voted, along with the other four Supervisors, to approve the Tri-W disaster.

[Thaaaat's right. Had Bianchi simply done her homework in 2003 (like SewerWatch did in 2004), the Tri-W disaster would have been shot down right then and there, on October 21, 2003, instead of June 11, 2010, but it was Bianchi that actually listened to the LOCSD's "behavior based marketing" scam, which, of course, confused her -- just like Young and his RWQCB, and Wan and her Coastal Commission -- into giving the Tri-W disaster official County approval in 2003. And, as we all know now, that allowed that disaster to barrel-on-down the tracks for another seven, unbelievably disastrous years, before finally chugging over the cliff, and crashing in 2010, for the exact reasons that existed in 2003... sans the LOCSD's "behavior based marketing." Absolutely fascinating.]

So, after stopping by her blog, I thought to myself, "Well, this is perfect. I can post in Shirley's comment section my huge-list-o'-official-County-evidence that now shows the Tri-W disaster to be the exact disaster I first exposed it to be in 2004, and then see if, these days, she has any second thoughts about her decisions back in 2003."

So, I do. I log onto her blog a couple weeks back, and post the following.

[Let the hilarity ensue. (This... is... great!)]

- - -

Hello Shirley,

Howya been? Great blog!

Real quick, and sorry to go off-topic on your post here, but, this is an excellent opportunity to publicly correspond with you, and you're just the person I'm looking for -- a (former) official that supported the Tri-W project in Los Osos -- to help fill-in some holes for my story over at ol' SewerWatch, and I was hoping you would offer a few comments on that now-failed project, today.

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

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

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

Here's where this gets interesting(er) ; -)

In the years since you sent that letter (and since your "Yes" vote on the TRi-W "project" in 2003), here's just a sample of what $8 million worth of county analysis now says about the former Tri-W project:

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

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

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

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

... it reads:

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

and;

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

and;

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

and;

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

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

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

and;

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

and;

- "ESHA - sensitive dune habitat"

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

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

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

That doesn't seem to make any sense.

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

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

Thanks in advance for your answer in this comments section, and then we'll discuss it here. It'll be great!

I'm very much looking forward to reading those comments. I have a feeling that the discussion that will emerge is going to be fascinating.

In your main post here, you write:

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

I agree.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to post this.

- - -

Hilarious.

So, after posting that comment, I check back at her blog every couple of days to see if there's a response, and I wait... and wait.

Nothing.

So, I pop back in, and post one more quick comment on how I'm just going to assume that she's not going to respond, and that I'll just "toss her in" with the others, like Wan and Young.

Apparently, that post got her attention.

Because, a few days later, she pops out this blog post:

- - -

Ron and Los Osos

Ron – Being somewhat a computer illiterate, I haven’t as yet figured out how to reply to comments, so am using this method of reply. What seemingly I could never get through to some people in Los Osos was that the District was a separate governmental entity from the county, and I had absolutely no authority in their actions whatsoever. I could rant and rave in private with them, and often did, but that was the extent of my involvement. Just prior to my leaving office Sam Blakeslee and I worked together to take authority for the sewer away from the District, which as you know required a State action, which was, by the way unanimous in the State Assembly, Senate, and the Governor. This should tell you something about the idiocy that was going on in Los Osos. Congress had no authority either, so don’t blame Lois Capps for what the people of Los Osos did to themselves. I have now been out of office and away from anything to do with Los Osos for over 4 years. My perception of what occurred there and yours are obviously quite different, and frankly, never the twain shall meet. Sincerely, Shirley
- - -

Fair enough. After all, even I found her comments settings clumsy.

So, I respond to that post, with this smart-ass, yet, polite, comment:

- - -
Shirley, you're awesome!

Thank you SO much for writing that post. (Isn't blog technology great?)

Shirley writes:

"My perception of what occurred there (in Los Osos) and yours are obviously quite different, and frankly, never the twain shall meet."

Well, O.K., but "my perception" is based on the past four years, and $8 million worth of official County analysis that shows the Tri-W disaster to be the exact same disaster I first exposed it to be in my 2004 New Times cover story (when you were still in office), at this link:

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

And I have numerous official documents, including letters on County letterhead to powerful State officials, that show that you supported that disaster for years -- even AFTER my highly accurate, and primary-sourced, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown was published -- when you were the District's Supervisor. (You DID read that story when it was published in 2004, right?)

So, when you now write, "My perception of what occurred there (in Los Osos) and yours are obviously quite different, and frankly, never the twain shall meet," are you saying that you STILL support the Tri-W disaster today, even after the County's analysis showed it to be the exact disaster I first exposed it to be in 2004?

Keep in mind, as I pointed out in my original comments here, you write, "If and when we are in a position to mention that we have noticed a new rash of lies, we should mention them."

Well, that four years, and $8 million worth of County analysis exposed a "new rash of lies" concerning the Tri-W disaster, but you're not "mentioning them."

Which makes takes like this:

"This should tell you something about the idiocy that was going on in Los Osos."

... confusing.

Surely ; -), you mean wasting six years and some $25 million on the Tri-W disaster, and then starting construction (on ESHA) on that disaster just days away from the recall election (that finally put an end to that disaster), was "the idiocy," right?

That's the "idiocy" you're referring to there, right? Please clarify.

Shirley writes:

"Congress had no authority either, so don't blame Lois Capps for what the people of Los Osos did to themselves."

I don't blame Lois for "what the people of Los Osos did to themselves" (and by "people of Los Osos," I'm assuming that you mean the three recalled LOCSD Directors), but I DO blame her for getting confused on the viability of the Tri-W disaster, and then securing $200,000 of U.S. taxpayer's money that would go on to be completely wasted on the Tri-W disaster, as her press release, linked here:

http://www.house.gov/list/press/ca23_capps/pr030725lososos.html

... clearly shows.

And, THAT intensely interesting point, is the exact subject of an upcoming post that I'm working on over at SewerWatch: Whatever happened to that $200,000, Lois?

Look how interesting that is: Yes, Lois didn't develop the Tri-W disaster, but she did get confused on that disaster's viability, and that confusion led to $200,000 of U.S. taxpayer's money going straight down the Tri-W rabbit hole... completely wasted.

So, Shirley, do you think there should be some kind of investigation, these days, into why the 1999 - 2005 LOCSD wasted six years and some $25 million on the Tri--W disaster, when that disaster didn't even come close to making the short-list of viable projects in the County's analysis... where they called the Tri-W disaster "infeasible," OR, are you now part of the contingent (not surprisingly, comprised solely of all the people and agencies that were responsible for the Tri-W disaster) that now just goes to the, "Let's forget about the past, and move forward," card?

Thanks again, for the opportunity to comment (toldja it'd be VERY interesting ; -).
- - -

And here's where this entire chapter goes off-the-rails-hilarious.

That was that!

Not only did ol' Shirl not say another word on that whole "she approved a disaster" thing, but she went on to immediately delete ALL of my super-polite comments from her blog.

Awesome! What a performance. I'm so impressed.

For voting, as a SLO County Supervisor, to approve the Tri-W disaster in 2003, and then writing in 2011, "If and when we are in a position to mention that we have noticed a new rash of lies, we should mention them", and then refusing to "mention" a "new rash of (Tri-W) lies," after she was "in a position" to "notice" them, and then deleting all of my comments that primary-source-exposed her to that "new rash of lies," Shirley Bianchi gets instant acceptance into the "SewerWatch List of Shame" Hall of Fame.

Congratulations, Shirl.

###

[Note: Since first posting that $200,000/Capps comment, I've been informed by former LOCSD Board Director, Julie Tacker, that the $200,000 might not have been completely wasted, after all. Apparently it went to an environmental document that the Coastal Commission was requiring for any sewer project in Los Osos, including the county's current project.

But that $35 million that Capps tried to get for the Tri-W disaster, and that I write about (in 2005!), at this link?

Oh, yeah. She still needs to answer to that. If not, we just might have another member of the, List of Shame Hall of Fame, on our hands.]

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

2011-06-28T10:52:00.000-07:00

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

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

Hello Shirley,

Howya been? Great blog!

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

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

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

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

Here's where this gets interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

... it reads:

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

and;

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

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

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

and;

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

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

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

and;

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

and;

- "ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

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

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

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

That doesn't seem to make any sense.

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

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

Thanks in advance for your answer in this comments section.

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

In your main post here, you write:

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

I agree.

###

I'm a Ron Castle Fan!

2011-06-14T13:50:00.000-07:00

[NOTE: Ron Castle is the CEO of Community Health Centers (CHC) -- a company that's contracted to provide health care services to low-income residents in SLO County -- services that the County is legally mandated, by the State, to provide. However, SLO County Supervisors keep hacking away at his budget, and it's threatening health care services for low-income patients in the county, like the elderly, and kids. And now Castle's pissed. His exchange today with 2nd District Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, is some of the best official government-types exchange I've ever seen... period. So good, it motivated me to pop out the following e-mail.

When the video link to the meeting is available, I'll hook it up.

This... is... GREAT!]

- - -

Hello Mr. Castle,

I'm researching a story, and I happened to catch your brilliant presentation at today's Supervisors' meeting, and I wanted to quickly send you this e-mail, that I think you are going to find VERY interesting.

I know where to find the CHC funding.

It's in the women's jail project.

Here's how:

If you watch this item:

"A-4 Update and status report for the new women’s jail and jail medical facility project." Board of Supervisors, February 22, 2011

... at this link:

http://slocounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1040&meta_id=205447

... what you'll see (or, more accurately, WON'T see) is the Board NOT discuss a smart piece of State legislation called SB 959. It allows California counties to enact a MANDATORY home detention program for "low-risk" county inmates. The 2007 law (signed by a Republican Governor, and supported by our Republican representative [Blakeslee]), is designed to help with jail overcrowding. The rationale goes like this: Instead of just turning inmates loose due to overcrowding, counties with SB 959 programs can now slap a bracelet on them, and force them to do home detention.

The vast majority of CA counties have enacted SB 959, and rave about its success, however SLO County is NOT one of them, even though the women's jail is overcrowded. In fact, that's WHY the Supes unanimously voted, last February, to spend some $10 million on a new women's jail... to alleviate the overcrowding.

But here's the catch. At that Feb. 22 meeting, as you'll see if you watch that link above, they NEVER discuss SB 959 once!

And, to make things worse, before that meeting, the entire County law enforcement brass, according to the staff report, met several times to discuss the women's jail project, in order to advise the Supes at that meeting, and THEY also NEVER discussed SB 959 once!

And, to make things worse(er) ; - )... I actually submitted public comment to the Board, at this link:

http://slocounty.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1040&meta_id=205449

... before that meeting, outlining the massive benefits to the County of SB 959, and they totally ignored it.

In other words, HAD the Supes discussed SB 959 at that meeting, and implemented a mandatory home detention program, they could IMMEDIATELY fix the ripe-for-litigation overcrowding that currently exists at the women's jail, by slapping bracelets on the over-the-limit "low risk" offenders, and putting them on home detention, and then that would have ALSO changed the entire complexion of the "We MUST have a new jail" discussion.

For example, from all reports, the current women's jail facility is an unacceptable mess, however, with a SB 959 style program, the current facility MAY just need a, oh, let's just say, $5 million (if that) remodel, however, we'll never know, because they NEVER discussed SB 959.

Another interesting twist in this story, is that most of the cost of the new women's jail project is coming from a $25 million State grant, but here's the twist: The County would actually end up saving tens of millions of dollars, by simply NOT accepting that grant, and, instead, just adopt an SB 959 style program, and then "remodel" the currently illegal (almost exactly "Dan De Vaul-illegal," by the way) facility.

Interestingly, just today (Tuesday), I watched a local report on how the Santa Barbara County Sheriff, in an effort to keep their north county jail open, is proposing just that -- a "remodel" (his word) of the facility.

HAD SLO County Supervisors discussed SB 959 last February, that above-mentioned arrangement -- a simple remodel, instead of a new jail -- would immediately save some $5 million dollars, and, almost certainly, much more! And THERE's your CHC funding.

Additionally -- and this is REALLY important for the CHC funding subject -- the estimates, according to the staff report, to staff and operate "the new women’s jail and jail medical facility project," hover around $2 million a year.

Some simple number crunching shows that it would take just a fraction of that YEARLY amount to, instead, staff an effective SB 959 style program, and that would leave about $1.5 million/YEAR remaining from the estimated yearly new jail costs.

All CHC is requesting from the County is, what? Half that?

Well, there it is.

Which is great, because that will ALSO leave more-than-enough yearly funding for my personal, pet SLO County project: A women's only drug and alcohol rehab program, which will help reduce the number of female inmates to begin with.

So look what's happening here, during this 2011 FY budget process... it's great:

This so-called "liberal" Board of Supervisors is spending $10 million of COUNTY funds on a new "women's jail and jail medical facility project" -- that may not even be needed (and, almost certainly isn't, when SB 959 is in the discussion) -- while at the same time cutting medical care for poor children, and the elderly.

And if this jails-over-poor-sick-kids, so-called "liberal" SLO County Board of Supervisors wants to go to the, "Well, Governor Brown is proposing to send us 100s of inmates, so we still need the new facility," card, then, we (good SLO County residents like me and you, Mr. Castle), and with a SB 959 program in place, can now tell the Governor, "Well, he better send A LOT of electronic monitoring bracelets with them."

So, I just wanted to show you this, in hopes that it will help with your negotiations with the County.

One more thing: SB 959 was also supported by the California State Sheriff's Association.

If you have any questions on this VERY interesting subject, please just ask. I've researched it, and written on it, extensively.

And, if you have any comments that you'd like to add to this story, I'm interested in hearing them.

Thanks,
Ron

P.S. Oh, one more thing: If you ask me, after your brilliant presentation at today's meeting, you're underpaid! That was some of the best CEO-ing I've ever seen.

I mean, immediately responding to Supervisor Gibson's whining on how he's cut his pay by "5-percent," and therefore CHC management should do the same (while apparently forgetting that he's an elected official, and your organization is staffed with, you know, highly trained medical professionals) with, "Well, that's wonderful."?

Absolutely brilliant!

You're a bargain at twice the price.

Ever think of running for public office? You've got my vote!

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

###

Exposed: The Karner Confession

2011-05-23T13:09:00.000-07:00

[Note: I've been meaning to wrap up this loose end -- what I call, "The Karner Confession" -- for awhile, now. It's great, but I just never got around to publishing it. That's about to change.]

One of the (many) things I love about the Los Osos couple of Gary Karner and Pandora Nash-Karner, the two people most responsible for the past 13-years-and-counting of the Los Osos sewer disaster, as I have repeatedly shown in my 13-years-and-counting reporting on this story, including in one of my New Times cover stories in July of 2000, is that the story the Karners have concocted over the years, to deflect the fact that they are the two people most responsible for the past 13-years-and-counting of the Los Osos sewer disaster, is so convoluted, so tangled, and spans so much time, that they can't keep their story straight year-over-year, and every time they make a mistake (and they make a lot of them), I'm there to pounce on it.

Well... POUNCE!

To put this particular set of fascinating dots together, I want to start with some of my past reporting on this subject -- on how the Karners, beginning in late 1997, hatched a plan to trick Los Osos voters into forming a Los Osos Community Services District, using a fake, made-up sewer "project" that the Karners seemingly just threw together in their living room, solely so they could use their fake, made-up, "better, cheaper faster," project as nothing more than a tool to form a "Community Services District" in Los Osos, and then immediately begin to make money off of their CSD, via their fake project, by hiring Gary Karner's firm, the SWA Group.

Which is exactly what happened, as I've exposed numerous times on my blog, including at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html

And, if you're new to SewerWatch, here's the GIGANTIC twist in all of this:

In 1998, the County of SLO had a sewer project "ready to go" in Los Osos, estimated at about $70/month. I remember that project clearly, because in 1998, I was the editor of The Bay Breeze (now The Bay News) in Los Osos, where I first created my regular feature, SewerWatch. So, I had a front row seat to the absolutely fascinating set of circumstances that led to the formation of the Los Osos CSD, in 1998.

In fact, I point to that front row seat from 1998, as the reason why I scoop ALL other media, on nearly every excellent Los Osos sewer story (too many to mention) over the past decade-plus, because of my deep, 1998 roots with this amazing story.

And, now, due to those roots, and my continuous reporting on this story, this "Karner Confession" that I'm about to put together here, will blow your back, and the ONLY place you'll see this, is here, in SewerWatch... and I've never published this sequence of dots before... and it's great.

So, again, I want to set the stage in Los Osos, in 1998. (It doesn't matter where you live. If you have the slightest interest in government, or just a great story, for that matter, this is flat-out excellent):

In 1998:

The County of SLO has a sewer project "ready to go" for Los Osos, at about $70/month.

The governing body in Los Osos is a "Community Services Advisory" board, meaning it has no legal teeth whatsoever, and can only advise the County Board of Supervisors regarding the sewer project.

The Karners, throughout 1998, are fully aware that if they could just convince (read: trick) the town's voters to create a Community Services District in that year's November election, the newly formed CSD would have legal teeth, including official power over the town's "wastewater," and the Karners would then have the power to dump the County's "ready to go" project, and officially pursue their "better, cheaper, faster" project, that they -- a marketing specialist, and a landscaper -- tossed together in their living room.

I'm the editor of the local paper (I was also a reporter in the town in the early 1990s), and I'm closely following how the County of SLO has a sewer project that's "ready to go" for Los Osos, after millions of dollars, and years spent on design, but I'm also closely following how the Karners are heavily marketing their "alternative" sewer project throughout Los Osos as "better, cheaper, faster" than the County's "ready to go" project.

(In her marketing material aimed at Los Osos voters throughout 1998, Nash-Karner said that her and her husband's project would have a "maximum monthly payment of $38.75/month," and she called the County's project "ruinously expensive.")

So, in that setting, I watch, and report, on how, at every opportunity throughout 1998, the Karners fight the County's project, through a massive PR campaign, developed by Nash-Karner, a marketing professional, that saturates Los Osos, and that over-the-top promotes their "project," and over-the-top slams the County's "ready to go" project.

Her PR campaign works, and Los Osos voters bite hard at the "better, cheaper, faster" bait, and elect to form the Los Osos CSD in November 1998, and elect Pandora Nash-Karner as the #1 vote-getter as a director on the initial LOCSD Board, in that same election.

Here's the link:

http://www.smartvoter.org/1998nov/ca/slo/race/109/

Almost immediately, in March of 1999, the new CSD Board, led by Pandora Nash-Karner, dumps the County's "ready to go" project, and begins pursuit of her and her husband's "better, cheaper, faster" project.

And, as I first exposed in New Times, waaaay back in the summer of 2000, after a nearly two-year futile pursuit, the Karners' "better, cheaper, faster" "project," that they heavily sold to Los Osos voters, and was solely responsible for forming the LOCSD in the first place (a gigantic mistake, as almost all of those 1998 voters will tell you today), AND was also solely responsible for torpedoing the County's "ready to go" project, failed.

So, dear reader, at this point in my story, you need to do no more than to just put yourself in the shoes of Pandora Nash-Karner and Gary Karner in the summer of 2000 to understand the scope of the story that they had to concoct -- and, to this day, still need to concoct -- to deflect away the fact that they are the two people most responsible -- directly responsible -- for creating the colossal Los Osos sewer disaster.

To put their story in perspective in 2011, had the Karners simply NOT heavily marketed their ill-fated "better, cheaper, faster" project in Los Osos, throughout 1998, the County's "ready to go" project, almost certainly, would have been built starting in 19-freaking-97!, at about $70/month.

Almost unimaginably, this story gets better... a lot better.

While at The Bay Breeze in the summer of 1998, several months before the November election, I scooped (of course) the rest of the local media on the results of a county funded study -- the Questa Study -- that showed across the board, that the County's project was far superior than the Karners' plan... not surprisingly, considering, like I wrote above, she's a marketing specialist and he's a landscaper. (The County's project from the 1990s was developed by, you know, engineers.)

Nash-Karner, as part of her marketing campaign, instantly, and widely (of course), bashed, discredited, and scorched-earthed anything and everything that had to do with the Questa Study -- the author, the author's company, SLO County government... anything. (And, also of course, two years later, the Questa Study would prove to be 100-percent accurate.)

However, what I didn't know at the time, was that there was A LOT more evidence in 1998 that showed that the Karners' project simply wasn't going to work in Los Osos.

I am not a wastewater engineer. So when, as a newspaper editor, I get saturated with technical information on a "better, cheaper, faster" sewer "alternative," as Nash-Karner did to me throughout 1998, all I can do is try to present it in an objective fashion.

Oh, if I had only known then, what I know now.

After a decade of unraveling the Karners' tangled, convoluted, manufactured story, I can now show how the Karners KNEW -- long BEFORE the November 1998 election -- that their "project" simply wasn't going to work in Los Osos.

For example, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/11/best-if-only-ever-all-karners-had-to-do.html

... I show how the local Water Quality Control Board, sent a letter, addressed directly to the Karners, with specific details showing them, clearly, that their so-called "project" simply wasn't going to work in Los Osos.

That letter was sent in January of 1998. The Karners first rolled out their "better, cheaper, faster" project in November of 1997.

To be clear, that letter showed up in the Karners' mail box less than two months after they first rolled out their (ultimately disastrous) "project."

And, now, I can show, using my usual spectacular SewerWatch journalism gymnastics, that the Karners, themselves, ADMIT to knowing that their project wasn't going to work, and they knew it nearly a full year before that November 1998 election, yet continued to heavily market their dead-on-arrival project as "better, cheaper, faster," all the way up to the November election, and it was ALL lies, and they knew it.

Ladies and gents, SewerWatch proudly presents, for the first time anywhere: The Karner Confession

In a bizzare 2005 document authored by the Karners, that I've hilariously titled, Karner's Rambling Manifesto, they attempt to defend their (indefensible) actions in 1998, but, just like I wrote above, their story is so tangled, and so convoluted, and spans so many years, that they can't keep it straight, and every time they attempt to recount it, they make HUGE mistakes, like they do in Karner's Rambling Manifesto.

In that document, the Karners write:

"Mr. Paul Jagger acting for Roger Briggs of the RWQCB in a letter dated January 23, 1998 [Note: that's the letter I refer to above] inferred that 100% of the septic tanks in Los Osos would have to be replaced..."

and;

"When the RWQCB demanded that the entire Prohibition Zone be collected and treated, the AIWPS pond capacity to treat the collected area grew to a point where it required far more land capacity than was reasonably available at the Tri-W/Morro Shores site. The cost for land and construction became prohibitive."

and;

"The cumulative system expansion and costs blew the ("better, cheaper, faster" sewer) proposal out of the water..." [bolding mine]

Then write, "THIS PROPOSED ("better, cheaper, faster" sewer project) FAILED ! ! !"

Wow. A better example of how sloppy the Karners get with their incredibly convoluted and tangled story, I can not think of.

Look what they did there, in that 2005 document. It's great!:

They actually confess, in their own widely circulated document, to knowing that their "better, cheaper, faster" project was already blown "out of the water" in January of 1998 -- they ADMIT it -- yet, throughout 1998, they still over-the-top hyped their known-to-be-dead-on-arrival project as "better, cheaper, faster" than the County's "ready to go" project, and ALL of it -- the "better, cheaper, faster," the "maximum monthly payment of $38.75/month" -- all of it, a complete pack of lies, and they knew it, as they now inadvertently admit. (Ooooooooops!)

And now, the spectacular finish to my journalism gymnastics routine:

[Run, spring (mad air, of course), double twist]

As I first exposed at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html

... in the 1997 document where the Karners outline their known-to-be-dead-on-arrival project, they write:

"(We are) deeply indebted to the following firms and individuals who have contributed their services in developing this ("better, cheaper, faster") Plan at pro-bono or reduced rates... We recommend (these) firms be retained for professional design services when this Plan is accepted." [Note the use of the word "when," in, "when this Plan is accepted." That was in 1997.]

And, one of those firms "recommended" by the Karners to be "retained for professional design services" "when" their project was "accepted:" "SWA Group, of Sausal¡to, California."

And, of course, as I also first exposed, nowhere in that document does it disclose that Gary Karner is, "in private practice with The SWA Group, Planners and Landscape Architects, with an international practice and eight offices nationally, as a Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager of the firm. He specialized in project management and risk management with SWA for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA to consult on risk management."

... according to his own bio.

[double somersault, leap (more mad air), double back-flip]

And, of course, shortly after the Karners tricked Los Osos into establishing the LOCSD (and therefore killing the County's "ready to go" project) just so they could pursue their known-to-be-dead-on-arrival project, official LOCSD documents associated with the sewer project, and with Pandora Nash-Karner as District "vice-president," begin to contain the words "SWA Group"... of course.

[tuck, land, cartwheel, cartwheel, back handspring (crazy air), triple twist back-flip]

And, right now, in 2011, if you go to this link:

http://slocounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=25&clip_id=1023&meta_id=203010

... you can watch, on the County's own web site, from just last January, SLO County Supervisors, Bruce Gibson and Jim Patterson praising Nash-Karner for her 20 years (20 years!) as an official appointment to the SLO County Parks Commission, a position that not only grants her access to influential County officials (that none of us regular folk get), and where she has ALL of their ears, but also affords her the protection of chief County Counsel, Warren Jensen, because, as a SLO County Parks Commissioner, she's Warren Jensen's client, which means that if something is good for Los Osos, but bad for his client, as is often the case (as you can imagine, considering what she did to Los Osos), Jensen is duty-bound to protect his client, over the good of Los Osos.

[Nails the landing... of course.]

###

Hey, Pre-Paid Los Osos Sewer Assessment Folks? How's THIS taste?

2011-04-27T13:32:00.000-07:00

So, picture this: You're a responsible Los Osos property owner, and you've been squirreling away a little money here and there, month after month, over the past several years, in anticipation of a whopping sewer assessment comin' down the pipe, just so you could pay the entire tax at once, and save a bundle by not having to pay interest rates over the ensuing years.

Then, after years of diligent, financial squirreling-ness, where you now have, sitting in your bank account, the $25,000 that the County of SLO will be collecting, eventually, from ALL property owners in Los Osos (well, most of them), to pay for their Los Osos sewer project, and the County finally comes a-callin', and says something like, "Hey, if there's anyone in Los Osos that wants to pay their entire sewer assessment up front, now's the time," you get to say, "I'd be happy to. After all, I think my town badly needs a sewer system, and I'm glad I can immediately help clean our water, plus, I'll be saving a good chunk of money by paying up front, so, it's all good," and then you, proudly, hand the County a $25,000 check.

This blog post is specifically for the first six property owners to go that responsible, reasonable route... and, oh, is this great!

I'm going to track what happened with the very first six pre-paid sewer assessments that were collected by the County.

In case you missed it, SLO County Supervisors, yesterday, at their weekly Tuesday meeting, approved, among other things, two payments to local consultants, as part of their update on their Los Osos wastewater project.

The first payment was for $86,000 to "Rick Engineering," for "design of the mid-town site restoration" [note: that's just for the "design"... not the "restoration" itself.]

The second payment was another $60,000 for the Wallace Group, for "engineering consulting services."

According to the staff report for that item, to pay for those consultants, County officials, for the first time in their four years-and-counting sewer project development process, are using funds that were collected from the pre-paid sewer assessments, that I just detailed above, that totaled just over $2 million, or, a tiny fraction of the property owners in Los Osos.

Prior to collecting those assessments, the County's entire development process -- some $8 million worth -- was paid for using County coffers from places like "the roads fund."

For the purpose of this piece, I'm going to take that $86,000 payment, and that $60,000 payment, and just round it off at $150,000, or, six pre-paid, $25,000 sewer assessments... the FIRST SIX, right out of the gate, poof! Gone... just like that [snap!].

And, at yesterday's meeting, here's where County Supervisors unanimously voted to spend that years and years worth of diligent financial squirreling:

$86,000 to "design the mid-town site restoration" -- a "site restoration" to a site that, all things being equal, WOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN TOUCHED in the first place, had:

1) The 2005 Los Osos CSD Board majority NOT deliberately set their own recall election date at one of the latest possible dates, when they had the opportunity to set that election date BEFORE they began ripping up the "mid-town site" in September of 2005, as I first exposed at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/09/californias-recall-elections-code.html

... and this amazing link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/los-osos-whos-your-quarter-million.html

AND;

2) Had former State Division of Financial Assistance official, Darrin Polhemus simply listened to me on the phone that day in August of 2005, when I originally called him just to get some question answered for a story, yet ended up explaining to him how he was about to make a gigantic mistake by releasing an illegal loan (according to his office's own policy) to the LOCSD, and then that illegal loan was going to be used to rip up the "mid-town" "Tri-W" site, as I first exposed at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/08/sewerwatch-challenges-funding-for-los.html

HAD either of those tiny, easily accomplished, SIMPLE little things happened, the "mid-town site" wouldn't even need $86,000 worth of pre-paid sewer assessments to "restore," today.

Almost unimaginably, this story gets worse.

That second payment that Supervisors approved yesterday -- another $60,000 to the Wallace Group?

The Wallace Group... wait for it... was the Los Osos CSD's "District Engineer" in 2005, when they ripped up the Tri-W site for no reason whatsoever, to begin with!

In other words, the main reason the County has to spend that $86,000 to "design restoration" of the mid-town Tri-W site today, is because of the Wallace Group's disaster in 2005.

You can't make this stuff up: In the EXACT same meeting where County Supervisors coughed up $86,000 worth of pre-paid assessments to "design the mid-town site restoration" (which they are actually forced to do by the California Coastal Commission, as part of the development permit) -- a "restoration" that should have NEVER been needed in the first place -- they also cough up another $60,000 to the exact same engineers that were, in HUGE part, responsible for the site being ripped up, for no reason whatsoever, in 2005! -- the Wallace Group.

And, again, as with a lot of posts here at SewerWatch, here's where this entire mess goes flying off the rails, and into over-the-top-excellent-story-land, two things:

1) Right now, today, the County has sitting on its desks, a 2005 insurance policy, that was arranged by the 2005 (pre-recall) Los Osos CSD officials, specifically FOR the "mid-town site restoration," that would pay for nearly $250,000 (or TEN pre-paid assessments) of the overall cost to "restore the mid-town site," but for reasons that are not clear, they are NOT going to use it, as I first exposed at this excellent link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/los-osos-whos-your-quarter-million.html

And, of course, to top it all off...

2) In the 2001 report that launched the Tri-W sewer project disaster in the first place, it reads:

"We (the Los Osos CSD, and the engineering firm, Montgomery Watson Harza) thank Paavo Ogren and Rob Miller of John L. Wallace (Group)..."

And, also of course, Paavo Ogren is now the Director of Public Works for SLO County, who keeps hiring his old friends at the Wallace Group, to clean up the mess they ALL got paid to make in Los Osos... years ago.

Poof! Six pre-paid assessments. Gone, for that.

Ann Calhoun calls the place, "Chinatown." I call it "Chinatown on Steroids."

###

Chris Clark, Owner of Crawford Multari & Clark, Has A LOT of 'splainin' to Do

2011-04-16T22:38:00.000-07:00

"I don't make deals, I don't party and drink with sources, and I don't play a game of leaks. I read, I listen, I squirrel information. It's fun."
- Seymour Hersh, Investigative journalist

"The first rule of government spending: Why build one, when you can have two at twice the price?"
- S.R. Hadden, from the movie, "Contact"

[Note: Good god, just how stupid are these people? Chris Clark writes, in an official document, "(I) was responsible for and successful at acquiring all environmental permits and clearances for the LOCSD (Tri-W) project," like that's a good thing. Hence, my e-mail.]

TO: Chris Clark, "Owner", Crawford Multari & Clark Associates
DATE: 4/17/11

Hello Mr. Clark,

I'm researching a story on the Los Osos wastewater project, and I was recently reviewing your contract with the County of San Luis Obispo, that I acquired through an official public records request.

The contract, dated 12/12/2006, calls for you "to assist the County in the development... of a wastewater project for Los Osos," for $150,000, and I just have a few quick questions that I'm hoping you can answer, please.

In that document, it reads, "(Chris Clark) was responsible for and successful at acquiring all environmental permits and clearances for the LOCSD (Tri-W) project."

That means that you are just the person I've been looking for, for the past five years -- since I first exposed, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/08/loopiest-of-loopholes-recently.html

... how a simple, 4-page, 2001 LOCSD document, that you, apparently, created, called a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" (SOC), was the SOLE document that locked in the over-the-top disastrous, now failed (of course) "mid-town" (on ESHA) Tri-W sewer plant/"picnic area" site, for the above-mentioned "LOCSD project."

As I'm sure you know, that SOC "overrode" the entire environmental review process for the wastewater project in Los Osos, in 2001 - a process that showed that treatment facility sites (plural) east of town (out of town, and downwind) are "environmentally superior" -- just as the County's four-year/$8 million worth of analysis (more on that later) just showed is the way to go for Los Osos.

I've also been reporting, since I first exposed that great story, how the logic in the LOCSD's/your 2001 SOC doesn't seem to hold a drop of water.

For example, in your over-the-top disastrous SOC, it reads:

"An in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations because:

- It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served: and

- It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos;"

And that's it... the reasons stop there. Just those two are listed for why "an in-town (sewer plant) site (Tri-W) was chosen over other (out of town) locations."

However, here's the HUGE problem that I run into with your SOC.

As I also first exposed, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2007/11/what-ought-to-be-law-part-ii-oh-wait.html

.... and that I'm also sure you're aware, CEQA law states, "... a statement of overriding considerations must be supported by substantial evidence contained in 'the final EIR and/or other information in the record." [bolding mine]

Here's the question that I've tried (unsuccessfully) to get answered time and time again over the past five years, ever since I first exposed all of this way back in 2006, and now, I think I've finally found the one person that can answer it, you:

Please point me to the "substantial evidence in the record" that you used in your 2001 SOC, when you were "responsible for and successful at acquiring all environmental permits and clearances for the LOCSD project," that "supports" this:

"An in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations because:

- It results in the lowest cost for the collection system by centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served: and

- It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos;"

What substantial evidence do you point to that supports those two claims?

Because, to be frank, the way I see it, and I'm certainly not a wastewater engineer, but centrally locating a sewer plant in the middle of town to save money on the cost of the collection system seems kind of dumb on the face of it, considering that technically accommodating a downtown sewer plant adds tens of millions of dollars to the project, as the County's recently completed analysis (that you worked on) clearly shows.

That's WHY Tri-W had "higher costs overall" in their analysis, despite any savings that may exist by minimally shortening the collection system with a downtown sewer plant (turns out, all you had to do was add about a mile's worth of sewer pipe to the out of town, "environmentally superior," much cheaper, and MUCH less controversial sewer plant location -- the Giacomazzi site, directly "adjacent to the Andre site."

So, I'm confused? How can there be "substantial evidence in the record" that shows that "centrally locating the treatment facility within the area served" "results in the lowest cost for the collection system," when doing that -- building a sewer plant in the middle of town -- sticks the project with "higher costs overall"... by far?

Also, that second (and final) reason you give on why "an in-town site (Tri-W) was chosen over other locations" -- "It enables the treatment plant site to provide open space centrally located and accessible to the citizens of Los Osos" -- well, that's just plain weird.

Are you saying there, that you overrode the entire environmental review process for the Los Osos wastewater project, in 2001, just so the town's residents could easily get to the "picnic area" that the LOCSD designed into their downtown sewer plant?

Huh?!

Wow. You're really going to have to point to some SERIOUS "substantial evidence in the record" to support that crazy claim -- that Los Ososans demand that they not only be able to "picnic" in their sewer plant, but to also have that sewer plant located downtown so they can easily get to their sewer plant/"picnic area," even though accommodating a downtown sewer plant needlessly adds tens of millions of dollars to the project, as the county's four years of analysis clearly shows.

So... please, point.

Where's the "substantial evidence" that supports that bizarre take in your SOC?

Frankly, I don't see how EITHER of those two reasons hold a drop of water. Both of those reasons seem to make absolutely no sense whatsoever, on the face of it... clearly. Yet, your disastrous 2001 SOC appears to be the ONLY reason why the County's 2011-and-counting project wasn't built starting in 2001.... a decade ago.

Ouch!

Which brings me directly to my second question:

How did you not get paid twice -- once from the LOCSD for "acquiring all environmental permits and clearances" for the Tri-W disaster, and again from the County -- to develop the exact same project that would have resulted from your 2001 "LOCSD project," had you not overrode, with your seemingly baseless SOC, the entire environmental process for that project, for no apparent documentable reason whatsoever?

For example, in your cover letter to Paavo Ogren, in your 2006 contract, you write, "Our firm will utilize our prior experience with this project both to help with guidance for project development, and to reduce overall costs."

O.K., great. So, with that quote in mind, why didn't you just say to Ogren, the moment you signed that $150,000 contract, something like, "You know, had I not overrode the entire environmental review process for the Los Osos wastewater project in 2001, for no documentable reason whatsoever, with a completely baseless SOC, then the correct, "environmentally superior" project that I was paid to develop at the LOCSD, is the exact same project you should use, only with a sewer plant site east of town, just like the next four years, and $8 million worth of your analysis (of which, I am going to get another fat chunk) will show"?

Why didn't you say something similar to that in December, 2006, like, you know, the moment your contract was finalized? That sure would have "reduced overall costs," yes?

Because, I have to admit, it really looks like, not only did you get paid twice to do the exact same work, but that you also deliberately created the wildly unpopular Tri-W disaster, by popping out a fake, completely unsubstantiated (and therefore illegal, according to CEQA law) SOC ("[Chris Clark] was responsible for and successful at acquiring all environmental permits..."), in a deliberate effort to create a wildly unpopular, downtown sewer plant/"picnic area" disaster, just so it'd prolong the development of a technically sound, and socially feasible, Los Osos wastewater project for Los Osos, just so you could make more money... and you did.

How is that not the case?

How did you NOT deliberately create a disaster just so you, and your firm, could make more money on the Los Osos wastewater project... which you did, on both counts: You deliberately created a disaster (the Tri-W disaster, through an invalid SOC), and then got paid again by the County to develop the same project, except with the sewer plant out of town, which would have happened in 2001, had you not popped out that fake SOC.

Thank you very much for your time,
Ron

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

I'll be happy to publish your response to this e-mail on my blog, as well, when you reply.

Thanks again

###

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

2011-03-31T12:28:00.000-07:00

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

Dear Commissioner Wan,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and;

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

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

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

and;

- "higher costs overall"

- - -

And all of that brings me to my question:

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

Thank you very much for your time,
Ron

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

Thanks again

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

2011-03-24T12:30:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

Perfect. (Gotta love blog technology.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lemme know if this sounds familiar:

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

[Cymbal crash!]

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

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

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

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

[Insert buzzer sound here]

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

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

- - -

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

and;

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

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

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

and;

- "higher costs overall"

- - -

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

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

"Hello Rob...

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

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

Then, I asked:

- - -
Hello Rob,

Thank you VERY much for your reply.

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

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

Two more quick follow-up questions please:

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

and;

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again,
Ron

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

Thanks!
- - -

And, then, of course, he replied:

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

And, then, I replied:

- - -
Hello Rob,

Here's the HUGE problem with that...

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

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

I'll call you this afternoon : -)

Thanks for understanding.

Ron
- - -

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

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

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

Rob"

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

- - -
Hello Rob,

Wanna hear something funny?

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

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

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

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

Bruce laughed, and then said, "Yes."

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

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

Weird.

Thanks,
Ron
- - -

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

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

Ogren never replied, of course.

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

- - -
Hello John...

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

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

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

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

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

Waddell never replied, of course.

###

Journalism Bookends: September 23, 2004 - June 11, 2010 -- The Amazing 6-year Timeline of Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown

2010-12-31T20:09:00.000-08:00

by Ron Crawford

DATELINE: SANTA MARGARITA OUTBACK, SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DECEMBER 31, 2010

Absolutely beautiful.

Journalistically speaking, it doesn't get any better than this: My "journalism bookends." September 23, 2004 and June 11, 2010.

The left bookend is my 2004 New Times cover story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown.

The right bookend -- June 11, 2010 -- the date when the California Coastal Commission proved my six year-old story 100-percent right... six years after it was published.

Here's the amazing, epic story.

In Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, I was the first (and, remarkably, and sadly, still ONLY) reporter to show that the only reason the Los Osos Community Services District was about to build an industrial sewer plant smack-dab in the middle of town, on "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat," three blocks upwind of downtown, was so the town-folk could more easily access an elaborate, multi-million dollar public park that the LOCSD had included in their project -- for no documentable reason whatsoever -- and that building the sewer plant in the middle of town, due solely to the elaborate, nonsensical park, was actually adding multi-millions of dollars to the already-very-expensive project, AND that there was no documentable reason whatsoever why the LOCSD decided to include a park in their sewer plant to begin with -- a park that was locking in the location of a wildly unpopular, downtown sewer plant.

In other words, what I originally showed in Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown was a bombshell: If the multi-million dollar, nonsensical public park, that the Los Osos public never even wanted in its sewer plant to begin with (of course), had simply never been included in the sewer plant plans by the 2000 - 2005 LOCSD in the first place, then the entire downtown sewer plant project could easily be moved out of town, downwind, where land is MUCH less expensive, and "environmentally preferable," and where the vast majority of the community "prefers" it anyway, of course, and, where the County of SLO just spent some four years and $7 million showing that an out of town sewer plant location is much cheaper, more "environmentally preferable," and overwhelmingly more socially acceptable, of course.

In more other words, the County of SLO just spent the past four years and $7 million dollars proving Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown to be 100-percent accurate. Yep, journalistically speaking, it doesn't get much better than that.

Of all the great quotes that I include in Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, many, like the one below, I pulled straight out of the LOCSD's 2001 "Facilities Report" while researching that story -- the first and still only reporter to pull these amazing quotes -- this one's the knock-out blow:

"The size and location of the other 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 as Resource Park (Tri-W site) could."

As I originally wrote in Three Blocks:

"The size and location of the other sites did not provide an opportunity to create a community amenity? Are you kidding me? With that logic, why even consider other potential sites at all?"

I am, remarkably, still, to this day, the only person, let alone, reporter, that has ever asked that unbelievably excellent question.... to this today, I'm the only one.

Amazing. With that one quote -- that I exclusively pulled out of the 2001 Facilities Report -- the Los Osos CSD was able to eliminate every other potential, out of town site for their sewer plant, and lock in the exact same location as their failed "better, cheaper, faster" project that they chased from 1999 - 2000 -- its failure was the subject of my June 2000, New Times cover story, Problems With the Solution... with that one quote!

And then I would go on to show, both in Three Blocks and extended in SewerWatch, how the exact opposite is true in Los Osos: That the town's property owners 1) do NOT want to start shelling out taxes for expensive park amenities in Los Osos, at the same time they are staring down a gigantic sewer assessment, and 2) they overwhelmingly never wanted to lock in an unneccassarily expensive, wildly unpopular, downtown sewer plant location, just so they could easily "picnic" with the kids at the sewer plant's "tot lot."

That's exactly what I first showed in Three Blocks, and that's exactly what four years and $7 million worth of SLO County government analysis shows:

"Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location" as their preferred location for a sewer plant for Los Osos
-- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

I wonder how many of that 9-percent would still prefer the downtown site if they knew that it meant they'd also be paying for multi-millions of dollars worth of nonsensical park amenities (I mean, a "picnic area" in a sewer plant? Huh?), that, according to the project's development permit, had to be professionally maintained by the LOCSD "in perpituity?"

I'm going to guess .00002 percent.

So, with all of that in mind...

Dear readers, SewerWatch presents, "The Amazing 6-year Timeline of Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown"

The beginning of the timeline actually starts just before my left bookend date of Sept. 23, 2004, and is very, very interesting.

Friday, August 13, 2004: That is the date when the California Coastal Commission denied Concerned Citizens of Los Osos, and Citizens for Affordable & Safe Environment -- the main opposition to the Tri-W project in 2004 -- appeal to have the entire development permit for the Tri-W project "revoked."

That meant that the LOCSD was now free and clear to pursue their project.

However, and here's where this little chapter gets very interesting on a journalism level, I, because of my previous (and extensive) reporting experience on the Los Osos sewer story, as both a newspaper reporter and editor, had kept following the story from afar, and I knew -- based on my previous reporting -- that Concerned Citizens of Los Osos, and Citizens for Affordable & Safe Environment, in their appeal, had taken a HUGE swing-and-a-miss on the "nonsensical park is dictating the nonsensical location" angle -- the ONE point that would have stopped the Tri-W project in its tracks.

(It's at this point in my story where I always say that the lawyers that handled that appeal should give Concerned Citizens of Los Osos, and Citizens for Affordable & Safe Environment their money back. How those attorneys missed that whole "nonsensical park is dictating the nonsensical location" angle, when it was sitting right in front of them? Inexcusable.)

So, look at my situation right there, in the late summer of 2004. There I was, "retired" from freelance journalism (because, I like to, you know, eat), however I also knew, due to the recent failure of the CCLO appeal, and my vast professional experience with the story, that I was the ONLY person not associated with the 2004 LOCSD that was aware that a nonsensical park was dictating the nonsensical, highly controversial, downtown, Tri-W sewer plant location.

And, right then -- right after the CCLO appeal failed -- I also knew that if I didn't at least try to get my story published, and if the disastrous Tri-W "project" went on to be built in the middle of Los Osos -- a community that I had grown to love due to my years of reporting there -- I would regret that decision for the rest of my life.

So I committed.

Four years after my previous New Times cover story on Los Osos, I dove in head first, and spent the next three weeks researching and writing my story -- a story that showed, for the first time anywhere, that there was absolutely no documentable rationale whatsoever on why the 2004 LOCSD was building a wildly unpopular sewer plant smack-dab in the middle of their beautiful California coastal town.

So that's the extremely important journalism point here -- the action that spurred me into writing Three Blocks, was the failure of the CCLO revocation request in August of 2004, because I knew, right at that moment, that I was a bit like Obi-Wan Kenobi: I was Los Osos' only hope, and no one in the community knew it.

September 23, 2004: The publication date of Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown

I have a personal saying I use to describe that story: "I wrote that story so it reads casually, but I didn't write that story casually."

I knew I had one shot on that story -- one cover story -- and so I made the decision to pack my story with everything that had gone a-missin' in the Los Osos sewer debate over the previous three years.

In Three Blocks, not only was I the first (and still only) reporter to show that a nonsensical park was dictating a nonsensical downtown sewer plant location, but also how the decision by the LOCSD to lock in the downtown location with their nonsensical park, just happened to lock in the same location as their failed "better, cheaper, faster" ponding project, that was the "basis" for forming the LOCSD in 1998, to begin with.

I show how then-LOCSD general manager, Bruce Buel, was highly confused over the entire "amenities" issue, as I stood shoulder to shoulder with him at the LOCSD office, hovering over the "cost estimates" in the facilities report, that failed to account for the millions of dollars in park stuff that was scattered all over the report's front cover.

I show, through a phone interview with engineer, Steve Hyland, of Montgomery Watson (at the time) -- the firm contracted to develop the Tri-W project -- how he, too, was totally confused when it came to the only reason for the downtown location -- the nonsensical "picnic area"/"tot lot" sewer plant, that the town never even wanted to begin with, of course.

And, it's also in that story, where I, for the first time, began to look in the direction of former LOCSD vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, on why there was an over-the-top expensive, public works disaster in Los Osos, when I write:

One has to ask here, where does this drive for a "drop-dead gorgeous" (sewer) park come from? What's the source of these "strongly held community values"? Who came up with these horrible euphemisms (I'm looking in your direction Pandora Nash-Karner. After all, you were a member of the "Vision Team"; a member, if not leader, of the "Solution Group"; the No. 1 vote-getter in the inaugural CSD Board; a longtime and current member of the County Park Commission; and someone who throws highly documentable phrases like these around liberally)?

And my personal little favorite part of Three Blocks? How I tie it in to my 2000 New Times cover story, where I write:

three blocks upwind of downtown

That was published in 2000, and then I used that exact phrase as the headline for my second cover story, four years later.

Beautiful.

November 5, 2002 Election: To move my timeline forward here, I first need to jump back a few years, because this... is... great!

November 5, 2002 was the date of the election for three Los Osos CSD Board seats.

According to smartvoter.org, the results of that race were:

Stan Gustafson 3509 votes 20.3%
Gordon Hensley 3340 votes 19.3%
Richard LeGros 3178 votes 18.4%
Julie Tacker 2035 votes 11.8% [bolding mine]

My very important point here is that Julie Tacker was soundly defeated in that election, only garnering "2035 votes."

That was in 2002.

Tacker, who was part of CCLO and heavily involved in the terribly thought-out, and failed attempt to revoke the Tri-W permit in August of 2004, would run for the LOCSD Board again, in November of 2004... about a month after the publication of Three Blocks.

How'd Tacker fare this time around, with a widely circulated newspaper article stuffed in voters' pockets, that showed that the only reason a sewer plant was being built in the middle of their town was due to a nonsensical public park?

November 2, 2004 Election:

"Julie Tacker: 4014 votes, 33.2%"

Vote count nearly doubled... in just two years, and she was elected to the Los Osos CSD Board of Directors.

So what happened? Why such a dramatic change, in such a short time? It certainly wasn't due to the local media's non-existent coverage of the "nonsensical park is dictating the nonsensical sewer plant location" story.

Nope.

That was exclusively me, and, so far as I can tell, the ONLY thing that happened between Tacker's "2035" performance in 2002, and her "4014" performance in 2004 well, other than her failed revocation attempt -- was Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown. That was the only difference.

Incidentally, Lisa Schicker, who, like Tacker, also ran on a platform of "Working for a more affordable, environmentally superior sewer project - out of town, away from our library, church, community center and the Bay," received "5123 votes" in that 2004 election... just six weeks after Three Blocks was published.

To put that "5123" number in perspective, the #1 vote-getter in the 2002 LOCSD election was pro-Tri-W project incumbent, Stan Gustafson, "3509."

The 2004 election marked the first time that non-pro-Tri-W project candidates were elected to the Los Osos CSD Board of Directors.

June 15, 2005: The date I launched this blog, SewerWatch.

The significance of that date can not be overestimated in this story.

After my first New Times cover story, Problems With the Solution, in 2000, where I was the first to show that the "better, cheaper, faster" project that was solely responsible for forming the Los Osos CSD in the first place, AND killing the County's 1998 "ready to go" sewer project, was on the verge of failing, and less than a month after my story was published, "better, cheaper, faster" was officially in the dumpster, something weird happened.

The Los Osos sewer disaster should have ended the moment my freelance piece, Problems With the Solution, hit the streets, and the entire project should have simply reverted back to the County's 1998 "ready to go" project?

But it didn't!

Why?

For whatever reason (probably because I scooped all of them), there was absolutely zero follow-up by the local media to my over-the-top newsworthy, 2000 New Times cover story, and with zero follow-up, my over-the-top newsworthy, 2000 New Times cover story just faded away, and the LOCSD was never forced to do the obvious thing at that point; turn back to county's "ready to go" project.

Of course, doing that would have showed that there was no reason to form the LOCSD in the first place, and that the previous two years of futilely chasing "better, cheaper, faster" was a complete, and colossal, waste of time and money.

So, as you can imagine, I wasn't about to let the same thing happen to my second New Times cover story, that happened to my first.

Thank god for blog technology!

SewerWatch, over the past five years, has allowed me to follow-up every detail I first exposed in Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, all the way up to 2010, when my 2004 story was officially shown to be 100-percent accurate.

I'm convinced, that had blog technology existed in 2000, like it did/does from 2005-present, the LOCSD would have been forced to turn back to the county's 1998 project in 2000, because I would have been able to follow-up Problems With the Solution just like I followed-up Three Blocks, and, right now, today, there would be an operating sewer system in Los Osos, with a treatment facility on the outskirts of town, and with a monthly payment of about $70.00.

After the past four years-and-counting, and nearly $8 million of analysis, estimates for the county's current proposed project hover around $200/month.

[Note: Problems With the Solution will be big part of the "supplemental material" in my Pulitzer application, of course.]

September 27, 2005: The date of the Los Osos CSD recall election -- almost one year to the day after Three Blocks was published.

Following the election of Tacker in Schicker, and despite the huge number of votes involved in their victories, there was still a board majority that favored the Tri-W project: Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley, and Richard LeGros.

All three were recalled on September 27, 2005... one year after Three Blocks.

Measure C-2005. Recall -- Los Osos Community Services District
3,391 / 51.2% Yes votes ...... 3231 / 48.8% No votes
Shall STAN GUSTAFSON be recalled (removed) from the office of Director of the Los Osos Community Services District?

Measure D-2005. Recall -- Los Osos Community Services District
3,358 / 50.7% Yes votes ...... 3264 / 49.3% No votes
Shall GORDON HENSLEY be recalled (removed) from the office of Director of the Los Osos Community Services District?

Measure E-2005. Recall -- Los Osos Community Services District
3,412 / 51.5% Yes votes ...... 3215 / 48.5% No votes
Shall RICHARD LEGROS be recalled (removed) from the office of Director of the Los Osos Community Services District?

The new, "post-recall" board consisted entirely of directors committed to moving the sewer plant "out of town," and, almost immediately after the election, the new LOCSD Board of Directors voted 5-0 to stop work on the Tri-W project.

The Tri-W project should have died for good, right there, but the small handful of people responsible for spending (read: wasting) six years and some $25 million on its development weren't about to go away quietly. They had too much to lose. Think about it.

September 20, 2006: The date AB 2701 was signed into law by Governor Schwarzenegger.

AB 2701, through much lobbying by the people responsible for the Tri-W disaster, removed control of the project from the post-recall LOCSD Board, and handed it to the County of San Luis Obispo.

Despite the clear unwillingness of the community to build a sewer plant in the middle of town just so residents could easily get to the nonsensical "picnic area" that was built into the nonsensical Tri-W project, the people responsible for the Tri-W "project" were able to successfully lobby SLO County officials into including it in the county's analysis of the various waste water system alternatives for Los Osos.

And that meant that the Tri-W project didn't die after the recall election, like it should have, and it gained new life due solely to AB 2701.

In a May 31, 2007 memo to SLO County Supervisors, Paavo Ogren, then-Deputy Director of Public Works for SLO County, writes, "The original location for the CSD project (the Tri-W site) remains an alternative, certainly to the chagrin of its many opponents."

And, that meant that, in 2007, my 2004 Three Blocks was still completely unresolved.

Incidentally, in that same memo, Ogren writes, "However, the objectives that tilted the scale in favor of this site may no longer have the weight they were given when the site was originally selected. In other words, 'amenities', like community parks, will not obscure the goals of providing the most efficient and cost effective solution to wastewater and groundwater problems."

In Three Blocks, I write:

From the passage of AB 2701 in September 2006 (two years after Three Blocks), until June 2010, four years and $8 million worth of SLO County government analysis would prove to be brutal on the Tri-W project.

As I first reported on SewerWatch, here's what the County's Technical Advisory Committee's 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

... says about the LOCSD's former Tri-W "project":

- "(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;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

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

and;

- "higher costs overall"

and;

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

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

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

and;

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

and;

- "ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

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

I also recently asked SLO County environmental specialist, and Los Osos wastewater project planner, Mark Hutchinson, to, today, put himself in the shoes of the people that were responsible for spending (read: wasting) $25 million and six years on the "infeasible" Tri-W disaster. He just laughed... out loud.

Finally, out of all the documents the county produced on the Los Osos wastewater project, not one of them -- not one -- is favorable to the Tri-W "project," and, in the end, which was on June 11, 2010, when the Coastal Commission gave final approval for the County's proposed project (that includes an out-of-town sewer plant), the Tri-W "project" didn't even come close to working.

June 11, 2010: The date the California Coastal Commission gave final approval for the County of SLO's latest proposed project, that includes a sewer plant east of town, downwind.

And because the Tri-W project was appealed by its supporters all the way up until that meeting, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown wasn't resolved until June 11, 2010, nearly six years after it was first published.

In that time, the person responsible for publishing my story, New Times founder, Steve Moss, died in 2005, and would never know that Three Blocks would prove to be 100-percent accurate, involving one of the most -- if not THE most -- important story in the history of San Luis Obispo County.

I get the feeling that Steve would love June 11, 2010, as much as I do.

And, those are my journalism bookends:

September 23, 2004: The date Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown was published.

and;

June 11, 2010: The date that Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown was finally shown to be 100-percent right, and Los Osos will, now, never have nonsensical sewer plant in the middle of their beautiful, coastal California town.

As evident by this timeline, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, it appears, changed Los Osos forever.

###

"Item A-5" or "The Sequence," Part II

2010-12-30T11:15:00.000-08:00

It's official.

From the January 4, 2011 SLO County Board of Supervisors agenda: Item A-5:

"Request by Supervisor Gibson to appoint Pandora Nash-Karner as District Two representative to the Parks and Recreation Commission. (RECOMMEND APPROVAL.)"

Notice that her application in 2011 is the exact same application she used in January 2007.

I guess she didn't get anything accomplished over the past four years.

So, ladies and gents, with all of that in mind, I (re)present:

"The Sequence."

Interestingly, "The Sequence, Part II" is much, much worse.

###

[52 weeks down... DONE! I am now eligible to apply for Pulitzer Prizes (plural) for 2010... toooooo cooooool.]

Gibson to Re-Appoint Nash-Karner to Parks Commission, January 4, 2011

2010-12-22T09:58:00.000-08:00

2nd District Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, will re-appoint long-time commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, to the SLO County Parks Commission this January.

"She (Nash-Karner) will be re-appointed to the Parks Commission at the Board's January 4th meeting," a spokesperson for Supervisor Gibson told SewerWatch, during a recent phone interview.

Nash-Karner was first appointed to the Parks Commission in 1991 by former Supervisor, Bud Laurent, after working as Laurent's "campaign materials manager" throughout his 1990 campaign.

According to county documents, Nash-Karner's current term "expires on January 1, 2011."

More on this developing story to come in future posts on SewerWatch.

###

[51 weeks down... 1 to go.]

"Celebrate Pandora!" Part II

2010-12-15T09:15:00.000-08:00

["Celebrate Pandora!" Part I, is at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/09/end-celebrate-pandora-nash-karner.html]

TO: Bruce Gibson, SLO County Supervisor, District 2
DATE: 12/15/10

Dear Supervisor Gibson,

Good news!

I found an example of what I was looking for on how to recognize your appointment to the SLO County Parks Commission, Pandora Nash-Karner, for her 20 years (this January) on the Commission.

It's at this link:

http://slocounty.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=993&meta_id=197014

It's an official Resolution from the Supervisors' 11/23/10 meeting, "Recognizing Eugene Mehlschau for nine years of service on the San Luis Obispo County Planning Commission. "

That's EXACTLY what I am asking you to do with your Parks Commissioner, at a public meeting in January.

A simple, 2-page Resolution "Recognizing Pandora Nash-Karner for 20 years of service on the San Luis Obispo County Parks Commission."

If you could do that this January for your Parks Commissioner, I would very, VERY much appreciate it. (I mean, c'mon... 20 years! What? Are you NOT going to recognize that? If so, why not? Seems worthy of recognition to me.)

As always, thank you for your time,
Ron

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[50 weeks down... 2 to go.]

The Bay Foundation's Web Site is Down

2010-12-11T09:12:00.000-08:00

So, here's an interesting sequence of events.

Last year, I exposed how Los Osos resident, Gary Karner, has a longtime professional relationship with the landscaping architecture firm, the SWA Group, and then, with his wife, Pandora Nash-Karner, as the vice-president of the Los Osos CSD in 1999, official CSD documents associated with their failed "better, cheaper, faster" sewer project (that the husband and wife couple developed -- I'm not making that up... a husband and wife couple tossed together a sewer system for their town, and then tricked voters into allowing them to pursue the disaster) began containing the words "SWA Group."

In his document that detailed their dead-on-arrival "project," Karner writes, "(We are) deeply indebted to the following firms and individuals who have contributed their services in developing this Plan at pro-bono or reduced rates... We recommend (these) firms be retained for professional design services when this Plan is accepted."

[Note the use of the word "when," in, "... when this Plan Is accepted." That was in November 1997, a full year before they were able to trick voters into approving their "Plan."]

And, one of those firms "recommended" by Karner to be "retained for professional design services" "when" his (and his wife's) project was "accepted?"

You guessed it: SWA Group, of Sausal¡to, California -- the same SWA Group where Karner was a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager" "for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA," according to his bio on the Bay Foundation web site. And, of course, never in his document does he reveal his longtime working relationship with the SWA Group.

So, when I was researching my story, viewable at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/07/exclusive-sewerwatch-investigation-how.html

... I stumbled onto something called The Bay Foundation, where Karner sits on the Board of Directors, and its web site read:

"(Karner) was in private practice with The SWA Group, Planners and Landscape Architects, with an international practice and eight offices nationally, as a Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager of the firm. He specialized in project management and risk management with SWA for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA to consult on risk management."

Finally! The perfect connection that tied Karner to the SWA Group, and the ONLY place I can make that connection, is (was) his bio on the The Bay Foundation's web site.

But something funny happened shortly after I published my piece.

The entire Bay Foundation's web site -- including Karner's bio -- disappeared.

That was about a year ago, and now, when you click on:

http://www.thebayfoundation.org

You get:

"This site has not been uploaded yet."

And when I say that was the only primary source that showed Karner's SWA Group ties -- a critical piece of my entire story -- I mean it was the ONLY source that showed Karner's SWA Group ties.

Here, give it a try:

Google: "Gary Karner" "SWA Group"

... and these days, the only thing that turns up are my stories where I published Karner's bio, that I originally copied-and-pasted from the Bay Foundation web site. (Good thing I copied that info when I did, huh?)

A spokesperson for the Foundation recently told me, "it was a board decision," to remove the web site, and that they are "re-doing it."

Hmmm... I wonder if the new site will include Karner's bio that shows his longtime relationship with the SWA Group?

Just sayin'.

###

[49 weeks down... 3 to go. Saturdays count, people!]

If Supervisor Gibson REALLY Wants to Help "The Los Osos 45," He Should Recuse Himself on All Things CDO-ish

2010-12-02T10:37:00.000-08:00

TO: Bruce Gibson, SLO County Supervisor, District II
DATE: 12/2/10

Dear Supervisor Gibson,

Thank you for this opportunity to address a very important issue that currently exists in San Luis Obispo County.

On her great blog, Ann Calhoun recently reported on the November 29th workshop in Los Osos, that you attended.

In her report, Ann writes, "Supervisor Gibson said he intended to ask the (Regional Water Quality Control Board) to remove the CDOs (Cease and Desist Orders) from The Los Osos 45."

Earlier this year, I sent an e-mail to Jeff Young, the Chair of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

That letter is viewable at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-water-quality-control-board.html

In that letter, I show Mr. Young how, according to official transcripts available for download at this link:

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/board_info/minutes/2006/01_06_los_osos_hearing_transcript.pdf

... he said at a public meeting, "I can tell you one thing, that had the community not put the blocks on the current project (the Tri-W project) that we would not be here with an (enforcement action) hearing."

So, to be clear, according to Mr. Young's own words, had the community not voted to stop the Tri-W project in 2005, by recalling the three remaining Los Osos CSD Board Directors that were responsible for that "project," his Board -- the RWQCB -- would not have issued the CDOs to begin with.

But, something extraordinary happened since Mr. Young uttered those words in January of 2006: The County's Los Osos sewer development process.

As (I hope) you know, your public works department has just spent the past four years, and some $8 million, showing that the former Tri-W project was a complete, "infeasible," disaster, and stopping that disaster was the best thing that, not only happened to Los Osos, but SLO County... ever.

For example, the County's Pro/Con Analysis, regarding the various sewer alternatives for Los Osos, available at this link:

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

... says the following about the LOCSD's former Tri-W project:

- "(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;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

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

and;

- "higher costs overall"

and;

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

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

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

and;

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

and;

- "ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

Furthermore, 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)."

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

I also asked SLO County environmental specialist, and Los Osos wastewater project planner, Mark Hutchinson, to, today, put himself in the shoes of the people that were responsible for wasting $25 million and six years on the "infeasible" Tri-W disaster. He just laughed... out loud. That was his answer to that great question; laughing.

Finally, out of all the documents the county produced on the Los Osos wastewater project, not one of them -- not one -- is favorable to the Tri-W "project," and, in the end, which was on June 11, 2010, when the Coastal Commission gave final approval for the County's proposed project (that includes an out-of-town sewer plant), the Tri-W "project" didn't even come close to working... not even close.

So, look at this situation, in 2010, it's very, very interesting:

In January 2006, the Chair of the RWQCB said that the sole reason why they issued enforcement actions against the community of Los Osos, is because the community voted to "put the blocks" on the Tri-W disaster.

However, as almost four years and $8 million worth of County analysis now clearly shows us, "putting the blocks" on the Tri-W disaster was the exact right thing to do.

To make things worse for the RWQCB, it appears that they failed to do their homework when it came to the Tri-W disaster, and therefore they were badly confused on the viability of that disaster.

For example, according to a June 24, 2004, document, Roger Briggs, executive officer of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, writes, "The (Tri-W) wastewater project is truly a community-based project."

Clearly, it wasn't... obviously. He couldn't have been more wrong there.

Even the executive officer of the RWQCB was/is wildly inaccurate regarding the Tri-W disaster.

He called it "truly community based," and then, five years later, an official County survey showed that over 90-percent of the Prohibition Zone residents did not want an industrial sewer plant in the middle of their beautiful coastal town, after all... of course.

So, add all of this up, and it's an extraordinary, extraordinary situation involving the CDO recipients in Los Osos today:

The RWQCB, solely because they were badly (and I mean terribly) confused about the Tri-W disaster, punished 45 completely innocent property owners in Los Osos, and the understandable stress associated with the threat (over the past four years) of having their homes condemned by the State of California, has sent many completely innocent senior citizens in Los Osos to the hospital, and worse.

In fact, if we take this to the logical conclusion, the voters of Los Osos are actually heroes for seeing what the (badly confused) RWQCB failed to see -- that the LOCSD was about to build a $150 - $200 million "infeasible" sewer disaster, smack-dab in the middle of a beautiful coastal town, in San Luis Obispo County.

Which means that, YES, the CDOs should just go away, obviously. (I mean, c'mon... the only reason they exist in the first place, is because the RWQCB was badly confused on the viability of the Tri-W disaster.)

But there's a big hazard in play here.

The HUGE problem I see with this quote:

"Supervisor Gibson said he intended to ask the RWQCB to remove the CDOs from The Los Osos 45."

... is that you, Supervisor Gibson, are massively conflicted on this subject.

As I've shown you numerous times, your own appointment to the SLO County Parks Commission, Pandora Nash-Karner, beginning immediately after the 2005 recall election, successfully lobbied Roger Briggs to issue the RWQCB enforcement actions, to begin with.

As I first exposed at this link:

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

... Nash-Karner, the mother of the Tri-W disaster, actually developed a "strategy" (her word) to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence" (also her words), simply because the town didn't vote to build her disaster.

If you read those e-mails, that I first exposed, and made available for public download at this link:

http://www.slocreek.com/fine_lobby_letters.doc

... you'll see that your Parks Commissioner actually phoned Briggs in the days immediately following the recall election, and discussed her "strategy" with him -- her "strategy" to lobby Briggs to fine Los Osos "out of existence."

Shortly after that phone call, Briggs began work on fining Los Osos "out of existence."

So, look how weird all of this gets:

Like Nash-Karner, Roger Briggs, and Jeff Young, I just assumed that you, too, supported fining the property owners of Los Osos "out of existence," simply because voters didn't want to build Nash-Karner's mid-town, Tri-W sewer disaster.

I mean, after all, you appointed Nash-Karner to the Parks Commission after I exposed that she implemented her "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence" -- a startling sequence of events, that I outline at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/sequence-pandora-nash-karner-is-bruce.html

So, it just seemed to flow, that you also supported her "strategy."

That makes perfect sense.

But, now, I'm a little confused.

With this quote:

"Supervisor Gibson said he intended to ask the RWQCB to remove the CDOs from The Los Osos 45."

... it now sounds like you may have had a change of heart.

So, I guess I DO have a question in all of this:

What's the deal there?

Do you now NOT agree with your Parks Commissioner, and you, unlike your Parks Commissioner, now feel that the property owners of Los Osos should NOT be "fined out of existence" simply because they voted to not build the Tri-W disaster?

That seems like it really demands some sort of clarification, because, if you are still conflicted -- where you say in public that you want the CDOs removed, yet, secretly, you still support your Parks Commissioner's "strategy" (a "strategy" that appears to be working [present tense], by the way) -- then the same thing is going to happen, that happened at the January 8, 2008 Board meeting, where you (and county staff) drafted an official Resolution that was supposed to help the CDO recipients, but, ended up being used -- used -- for nothing more than to play the sewer-train-wreck blame game.

As I'm sure you remember... if not, I first reported on it at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/quick-look-at-bruce-gibsons-job.html

... the wording in that Resolution actually called the post-recall LOCSD Board "failures" for NOT building the Tri-W disaster... which is, literally, laughable... literally. It's funny.

The wording in that Resolution was so bad, that, as the minutes show, one CDO recipient after another pleaded with your Board at that meeting to NOT adopt the very Resolution that was supposed to help them.

Yet, when the Item came back to your Board at that meeting, you immediately motioned to pass that horribly worded Resolution.

Fortunately, the other Supervisors were actually listening to the citizens of Los Osos, and you didn't get the votes needed to pass your Resolution, and the entire mess collapsed on the spot, and turned into a colossal embarrassment for you.

Supervisor Achadjian was so appalled at the wording in that Resolution that he told county staff to bring it back "without all of the blame language."

So, look how awkward all of this gets today:

What assurances do we have that you, Supervisor Gibson, will not do the exact same, massive-time-wasting, hidden-blame-game thing this time around, that you did three years ago?

Due to your relationship with the person that actually lobbied FOR the enforcement actions, you seem awfully conflicted on this very, very important subject.

If I may be so bold, I have a MUCH better idea on how to proceed this time around.

At last month's Los Osos sewer update, I heard Supervisor Patterson say, that he, too, would like to see the CDOs just go away altogether... which they should, for the obvious reasons I outline above.

Here's what I think should happen this time around: Due to your obvious conflict on this extremely important issue (and the disastrous consequences that result from that obvious conflict), it would be better if Supervisor Patterson were to take the lead this time, and, moreover, it would also be better if you were to just recuse yourself of this entire subject -- no behind-the-scenes input, no voting on the Resolution... nothing.

That would probably be best for all involved -- for you, for your Parks Commissioner, and, especially, for the totally innocent CDO recipients.

As always, thank you very much for your time.

Ron

P.S. If you want to clarify your position on whether or not you support your Parks Commissioner's "strategy," you have my e-mail address.

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[48 weeks down... 4 to go.]

Problems With the Solution Resurfaces

2010-11-26T18:32:00.000-08:00

I’m SO stoked.

I finally found a link to my 2000 New Times cover story, Problems With the Solution.

It’s here:

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

That story, because it's over a decade old, had fallen off the archives section of the New Times web site, but, just today, I stumbled on the link.

And I am very, very proud of that ten-year-old story, which, oddly, is STILL 100-percent relevant today (in fact, I’ll be including it in my Pulitzer application early next year as “supplemental material,” along with some of my other published stories on Los Osos.)

Problems With the Solution is the story where I first exposed how the “better, cheaper, faster” scam that the husband and wife team of Pandora Nash-Karner and Gary Karner used to plunge Los Osos into a 12-year-and-counting disaster just so they could make money, was on the verge of failing.

And here’s the best part: Less than one month after Problems With the Solution was published, “better, cheaper, faster” failed, following a nearly two year, futile pursuit by the Los Osos CSD – absolutely awesome journalism... if I do say so myself... and I do.

One quick highlight (of the many) from
Problems With the Solution: In the 1998 letter that I recently exposed from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, addressed directly to the Karners that clearly showed them, nearly a full year BEFORE they were able to trick the town’s voters into signing off on their fake, made-up project (just so they could make money), that their fake project was a complete disaster, it says that the Karners were using “unrealistically low” numbers in connection with their scam.

Now, take that “unrealistically low” quote from January 1998, and plug it into the part in Problems With the Solution, where I write about how “Costs Escalate.”

Unbelievably excellent.

###

[47 weeks down... 5 to go.]

"Entirely Visible Floatables," "Unrealistically Low" Numbers, and Withheld "Fatal Flaws" -- How the Karners Deliberately Created a Sewer Disaster

2010-11-19T12:20:00.001-08:00

For this "At Least Weekly," I want to re-publish a story (below) that I originally published on 11/7/2005.

The reason I want to republish that particular story at this time, is because 1) it's great -- I mean, just look at all the names that come up in that piece: Neil Farrell, Steve Monowitz, Norm Hantzsche, Ann Calhoun, Stan Gustafson, Gordon Hensley, ME! -- 2) it's entirely relevant today (in fact, it's even better today than when I first published it), and 3) it's where I (again) expose that Los Osos residents, Gary Karner and Pandora Nash-Karner were directly responsible for deliberately creating the Los Osos sewer disaster.

As you read through the (2005!) story below, it's important to keep in mind, that throughout the first half of 1998, the Karners literally, and repeatedly, begged SLO County Supervisors to fund the "Questa Study," which the Board ultimately, and reluctantly, did in a non-unanimous vote.

Now, also keep in mind the letter I recently exposed from the Regional Water Quality Control Board that shows that the Karners' fake "better, cheaper, faster" project was a complete disaster, and it showed that to them in January of 1998!

In that great letter, the RWQCB couldn't have spelled it out any clearer for the Karners (a husband and wife couple that, starting in 1997, threw together a sewer "project" for their town [I'm not making that up]): Their "plan" was a right-out-of-the-gate DOA disaster, and the RWQCB showed that to the Karners less than two months after the Karners first rolled out their fake project, in November 1997.

According to that letter (addressed directly to the Karners), their dead-on-arrival, fake "plan" included treating straight septic tank crap in the middle of town, in a series of sewage ponds, that, according to the letter, would have included "entirely visible" "floatables," "50 feet from residences," and relied on "unrealistically low numbers," a theme that would become common with all Karner/Nash-Karner-influenced scams.

(I DO wonder: Would the Karners STILL have been able to trick the town's voters into approving their fake project in 1998, had Nash-Karner's slogan been:

"Entirely visible floatables, 50 feet from residences"

... instead of the oft-repeated:

"Better, Cheaper, Faster"?

I say, "Uh... no.")

So, look what happened there, it's great: Not only were the Karners, throughout the first half of 1998, demanding that county taxpayers fund a side-by-side comparison (the Questa Study) between the county's then-"ready to go" sewer project and the Karners' DOA disaster, the Karners were demanding that comparison -- and telling their community "better, cheaper, faster" -- at the exact same time they ALREADY had a letter in their back pockets from the RWQCB telling them, "entirely visible floatables, 50 feet from residences," and "unrealistically low numbers."

(Oh, the size of her stones! I'm so impressed. None larger in the history of anything.)

Wait... as hard as it is to imagine, this story actually gets better... MUCH better!

Remarkably, as you'll see in my piece, the very next thing the Karners did after they tricked SLO County Supervisors into throwing money -- and MUCH more importantly, time -- at their disaster, was lie to the person that was selected to conduct the comparison, Norm Hantzche, when they immediately, of course, withheld the information that would have allowed him to instantly kill the "better, cheaper, faster" project in its tracks, in mid-1998, where the county's "ready-to-go" project would have instantly moved forward, right then, in the summer of 1998 -- HAD the Karners not lied to Hantzche, all the while the Karners had "entirely visible floatables, 50 feet from residences," and "unrealistically low numbers" stuffed deep in their back pockets.

As you read through the story below, be sure to pay close attention to the part where I talk about what happened with the "fatal flaw." Intensely fascinating. Los Osos was that close -- THAT CLOSE -- to averting this disaster altogether. Awesome stuff.

Oh, and then, of course, the Karners (and their consultant friends) went on to immediately cash in on their self-created disaster, as I show here, and here.

And today? Right now? Nash-Karner is a SLO County Parks Commissioner, "appointed by Supervisor, Bruce Gibson."

And when she was begging Supervisors for the Questa Study in 1998? Yep, you guessed it! SLO County Parks Commissioner, appointed by then-Supervisor, Bud Laurent.

The story is absolutely amazing, and the ONLY place it's ever been covered like this, is here, in the good ol' U.S. of SewerWatch (well, here and in my two New Times cover stories on this subject, of course).

Enjoy!:

Originally published: Monday, November 07, 2005

Solution Group Accountability Would Heal Los Osos

The Solution Group needs to apologize to Los Osos.

Nothing heals past failings in this country faster than accountability, and if someone from the Solution Group were to step up and simply say, "We're sorry," the healing process in Los Osos would begin immediately.

The Solution Group has already publicly admitted their failure, they just haven't publicly apologized for it. That's a big difference, and a difference that needs to be resolved.

The apology could take many forms, but it should go along these lines:

"Los Osos, we are very sorry for our actions back in 1997-98. We now realize (thanks to SewerWatch) that our futile, two-year pursuit of the Community Plan is the reason the town is so torn apart today. We screwed up, and for that we deeply and sincerely apologize, but now, you can either continue to hate us, or allow us to work this out with you."

If a former Solution Group member like Stan Gustafson, or Gordon Hensley, or Pandora Nash-Karner, or Gary Karner were to come forward and offer that apology, the brilliant town of Los Osos would come together and solve their wastewater problem, fast.

In the course of my extensive research on this story, I have come across only one person that has shown even the slightest bit of accountability for the situation in Los Osos.

That person -- of all people -- is Neil Farrell. Many in Los Osos and Morro Bay know Farrell as a long-time newspaper reporter in the area. He was working for the Sun Bulletin back in 1997 when that newspaper published a favorable series of reports on the Solution Group's Community Plan. The series lent the unviable, and ultimately disastrous, Community Plan much needed publicity and credibility. The editor of the Sun Bulletin at the time, Richard Palmer, lived in the prohibition zone in Los Osos. Also on staff, was current Tribune Opinion Page editor, and Los Osos resident, Bill Morem. The Sun Bulletin series would eventually play a significant role in the 1998 election that formed the Los Osos Community Services District and launched the ill-fated Community Plan.

Farrell recently told me that he now regrets working on that series of reports. I applaud him for that.

In 1997, I was the editor of the small Los Osos newspaper, The Bay Breeze (now The Bay News). I received the exact same press packet outlining the Community Plan from the marketing director of the Solution Group, Pandora Nash-Karner, as the Sun Bulletin, except I made the editorial decision to hold off publishing anything from that press packet until I could get the information confirmed by an outside source. Good thing. Almost everything in that packet would prove to be false, as the Questa Study exposed in the summer of 1998.

The Questa Study is a great part of this entire controversy. As readers of this site are aware, the Questa Study was a side-by-side comparison of the County's proposed project at the time and the awful Community Plan. It was ordered by the California Coastal Commission in 1998.

Aware that the Questa Study was forthcoming, I held off publishing much of the Solution Group's information on the Community Plan until I saw the study's conclusions. It was a blowout. The Questa Study showed that the County's plan was superior on every point in the study, and that the Solution Group was grossly fudging their figures -- on both cost and technical aspects.

Through the duration of the 1998 Questa Study, I contacted the president of Questa Engineering, Norm Hantzsche, several times for updates. I was the only member of the media to contact him personally. When the study was completed, due to my extensive contact with Hantzsche, I was able to scoop every media outlet on the Questa Study's findings -- a scoop that I am still very proud of today.

Unfortunately, the Karners, after spending thousands of dollars out of their own pocket and hundreds of hours on their deeply flawed Community Plan, did not share my enthusiasm for my scoop. They freaked out, and launched into full-on damage control mode. Spin cycle on high. They bashed me, The Bay Breeze, Norm Hantzsche, the Questa Study, Questa Engineering and anything else that went against them in the run-up to the November, 1998 election. Two years later, the Questa Study would prove to be highly accurate. Norm and I are still waiting for our apologies.

On the topic of the Questa Study, the following chronology has never been reported anywhere, and it will blow you away, as it does me. The snippet is from a story I sent to New Times just before the California Coastal Commission meeting last April. (New Times did not publish the story.) At that meeting, the Commission had the opportunity to revoke the CSD's Development Permit. I was arguing in the story that the Commission needed to do just that, and fix what they broke in 1998. What happened throughout 1998 in Los Osos is amazing, and applies directly to the mess today.

Before I get to my chronology, I want to start with a recent post from Los Osos writer, Ann Calhoun. It's from the comments section of her great blog.

Ann writes:

I liken the mess we're in to the Tar Baby: Lie one begets Lie Two, which begets Lie Three, until Br'er Rabbit is stuck tight.I would put Lie One back to the Solutions Group that campaigned for a CSD on the promise of a $35 million ponding system when they had in hand the Coastal Commission Staff Report stating that best estimates put the sytem under review at $78 million, and the Solutions Group said nary a peep about that number or that report, which, was Dated October 1998 (The election was Nov. 1998) From THAT lie, everything is linked.

That is dead-on-accurate. "From THAT lie, everything is linked." That is why the history of this story, specifically from 1998 on, is SO important.

From my unpublished story, Fix What's Broke, sent to New Times, March, 2005:

had

AGAIN

that close

I told him

their

failure

from me

a document

if supplied

Relative to the "fatal flaw" step in our review, we had to initially accept much of the information in the two plans at face value until the completion of more detailed review; this was due to the shear volume of background material that had to be reviewed. Specifically, in regard to compliance with the Regional Board policies we proceeded under two assumptions that we later found to be unsupportable (SewerWatch Note: bolding is mine because that is an extremely important point). The two assumptions that we ultimately brought into question were: (a) the nitrogen removal performance data for AIWPS facilities; and (b) reduction of nitrogen content in wastewater from septic systems to 12.0 mg/L, based on percolation through 30 feet of sandy soils.

The supporting data for the (Community Plan's) facility was not found in any of the literature provided by the Solution Group or through any other sources that we researched independently. Had the Solution Group indicated that there were no supporting data at the outset, we would have immediately identified this as a possible "fatal flaw" (again: bolding mine).

allowed me to spot it

after a futile two-year pursuit

every point

right out of the gate

As we all know now, the Coastal Commission did not pull the permit last April, and the previous CSD Board majority proceeded to needlessly pound multi-millions of dollars into the ground and shred the community to pieces before they were finally recalled six months later.

If Gustafson, Hensley, the Karners, and/or any former Solution Group member were to show the same accountability as former Sun Bulletin reporter, Neil Farrell (however, to a much, much greater degree), the healing process in Los Osos would begin immediately. I guarantee it.

###

(By the way, according to Farrell, the Sun Bulletin won awards from California Newspaper Publishers Association for their 1997 coverage of the Community Plan. Those awards should be revoked by the CNPA. You can contact the CNPA here.)

[46 weeks down... 6 to go.]

Plugged Holes Lead to Closed Loops:"$3,869.04?" Oh, the Girl is SO Sneaky!

2010-11-12T10:55:00.000-08:00

Now that I've exposed (just last week) a January, 1998, letter from the local Water Board addressed directly to Los Osos residents, Gary Karner, and Pandora Nash-Karner, that, when combined with other official documents, shows that, beginning in 1997, the husband and wife couple deliberately created the Los Osos sewer disaster solely so they could make money, it's now fun to mix and match that letter with other documents that I've exposed over the years, to REALLY hammer home the fact that the Karners deliberately created the Los Osos sewer disaster, solely to make money.

For example, I've already shown how "the professional services" of Karner's SWA Group were immediately "retained" by the 1999 LOCSD (with Nash-Karner as vice-president), shortly after Karner and his wife, tricked Los Osos voters into forming the CSD in the first place.

Turns out, their scam ALSO created work for Nash-Karner's business, as well.

According to a 2005 elections document, that I've made available for public download at this link:

http://www.slocreek.com/std_contributions.pdf

... Nash-Karner paid herself "3,869.04."

To me, the REAL significance in that figure, isn't that it's $3,869.04 that she never would have made had she not deliberately created the Los Osos sewer disaster in the first place (although that is a KEY point).

Nope.

To me, the REAL significance of that figure is it shows the incredible level of sneakiness she employs.

This is great.

What that 2005 document is, is an official list of campaign contributions and expenditures for a Political Action Committee (PAC) that Nash-Karner formed in 2004, called the "Save the Dream Coalition."

The only reason she was able to form that coalition in the first place, is because, by 2004, the CSD that she and her husband were solely responsible for creating, was under massive public pressure -- BECAUSE of the sewer disaster that she and her husband deliberately created in order to maker money -- and her friends/apparent co-conspirators on the Los Osos CSD Board of Directors were on the verge of being recalled, which would mean that, if the recall election was successful, the cash-machine that she and her husband relied on for the past six years, would dry up, and she just couldn't let that happen (although, the recall ultimately was successful.)

So, she formed the "Save the Dream Coalition" to fight the recall effort, and, immediately, of course, began collecting contributions.

In a series of 2005 e-mails, that I originally made available for public download at this link:

http://www.slocreek.com/fine_lobby_letters.doc

... Nash-Karner actually creates a "strategy" to have her entire town "fined out of existence," simply because the town didn't vote her way in the recall election, and, in those e-mails, Nash-Karner writes, "SAVE THE DREAM COALITION, Pandora Nash-Karner, Chair."

Now, here's the fun part.

Go to page 12 of that above-linked "Save the Dream Coalition" campaign statement.

There, on page 12, it reads:

"Payments Made"

Then, under "Name and Address of Payee," it reads:

"Pandora & Company
350 Mitchell dr
Los Osos, CA 93402"

and:

"Amount: $3869.04" for developing "campaign literature and mailings."

Now, click on this link:

http://pandoraandcompany.com/about.html

... and what you'll discover is that Pandora & Company is Nash-Karner's own marketing business.

So, look what she did there, it's GREAT!

Not only did she deliberately create the Los Sewer disaster in 1998 so her husband's firm could get paid, but, eventually she was able to skim off cash as well for HER business, and in the sneakiest of ways.

You'll notice that nowhere in her "Save the Dream Coalition" official election statement does it read, "SAVE THE DREAM COALITION, Pandora Nash-Karner, Chair."

So, no one reading that statement would know that Pandora & Company is actually owned by the "Save the Dream Coalition" "Chair."

Without those two critical bits of information -- that Nash-Karner is the "Chair" of the "Save the Dream Coalition," AND that Pandora & Co. is her own marketing business, a person would have no way of knowing, just by looking at her official campaign statement, that her own PAC, hired her own business.

And, what that shows, is the over-the-top sneaky lengths she is willing to go through to cover her money-making tracks. (Good thing SewerWatch is around, eh?)

And, the kicker? Nash-Karner's PAC would have never existed -- and therefore, that "$3,869.04" would have also never existed -- had she and her husband not deliberately created the Los Osos sewer disaster to begin with.

And that's just ONE example (albeit, a great, highly specific example) on how the Karners cashed in on their own self-made disaster, yet, that excellent example is all I need to close my loop -- my great and tight, "The Karners deliberately created the Los Osos sewer disaster solely to make money," loop.

With that level of sneakiness at work here, I can only imagine the other great examples that would surface, with a little subpoena power sprinkled in.

I've said it before, I'll say it again:

Nice work, if you can manufacture it... by deliberately creating a sewer disaster, just ask Nash-Karner's consulting friends.

###

[NOTE: It also needs to be noted, that the STD campaign statement mentioned above also includes two contributions of "$10,000" each. The contributions came from two of the contractors from the Tri-W disaster (including MWH), and both contributions came immediately AFTER the recall election. Shortly after those donations came into her PAC, Nash-Karner began to financially donate to the "Bruce Gibson for Supervisor," campaign, as I first exposed at this excellent link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/08/sewerwatch-conflict-of-interest-tool.html]

[45 weeks down... 7 to go.]

The Best "If Only. . ." Ever!All the Karners Had to Do, Was Heed One Letter,12 Years Ago

2010-11-05T11:41:00.000-07:00

[LEFT: Current SLO County Parks Commissioner (appointed by Supervisor, Bruce Gibson), and former Los Osos CSD vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, addresses the crowd at a recent SLO County government event. (Photo courtesy: slocountyparks.com)]

As I begin to wrap up my story, there are still a few holes that I need to plug. One of them, I was able to plug this week.

This is great.

Of the many spectacularly interesting sequence of events associated with My Story, this just might be my favorite.

The hole I was able to plug this week, through an official Public Records Request, is in the form of a January 1998, letter from Roger Briggs, chief staff guy at the Regional Water Quality Control Board, addressed to Los Osos residents, Pandora Nash-Karner, and Gary Karner.

For the first time, I have made that letter available for public download, at this link:

http://www.slocreek.com/RWQCB_to_Karners_98.pdf

As readers of this blog know, the Karners -- and I'm not making this up, although it sounds like I am -- developed a sewer project in late 1997 (Seriously! A husband and wife couple threw together a sewer project for their hometown... craziest thing I've ever seen.).

Readers of this blog also know how EVERY official agency associated with the development of a sewer system for Los Osos, told the Karners, repeatedly, and throughout 1998, that their made-up project simply wasn't going to work in Los Osos; not surprising, considering that their proposed "project" was created by a marketing professional (Nash-Karner) and a landscaper (Gary Karner).

What I've also shown, repeatedly, over the past six years, is that, throughout 1998, the Karners completely ignored, dismissed or publicly discredited every single one of those official agencies, and, instead, Nash-Karner proceeded to aggressively market her and her husband's "concept," as "better, cheaper, faster" than the "ready to go" sewer project that SLO County officials had spent the better part of the 1990s, and millions of dollars of SLO County taxpayers' money, developing.

Nash-Karner's "behavior based marketing" scam worked, and, in November 1998, she was able to trick over 80-percent of the town's voters into establishing a "Community Services District" in Los Osos, solely so she and her husband could pursue their dead-on-arrival "better, cheaper, faster" "concept."

To be clear, the ONLY reason the Los Osos CSD was formed in 1998, was so the Karners could pursue their "better, cheaper, faster" project. (As editor of The Bay Breeze at the time, I had a front row seat to that entire, extraordinary process. Two previous attempts in the 1990s to create a CSD in Los Osos, failed. Those attempts were sans "better, cheaper, faster." I covered them both.)

Nash-Karner was also the top vote-getter in that election for a spot on the initial LOCSD Board of Directors.

Almost immediately after taking office in early 1999, LOCSD vice-president, Nash-Karner, killed the County's "ready to go" project, and began pursuit of her, and her husband's, DOA "project."

That pursuit lasted nearly two years, before their "better, cheaper, faster" scam failed, just as predicted by every official agency, BEFORE the election that formed the LOCSD solely on the back of "better, cheaper, faster." (That was the subject of my first New Times cover story. In that July, 2000 story, I show how "better, cheaper, faster" was on the verge of failing. Less than a month after my story was published, "better, cheaper, faster" was in the dumpster.)

And, as I first exposed here on SewerWatch, almost immediately after she killed the county's "ready to go" project, and began pursuit of her and her husband's project, official LOCSD documents associated with their "project" began reading, "SWA Group," and, according to Gary Karner's bio, he's "a Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager of the firm. He specialized in project management and risk management with SWA for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA to consult on risk management."

Yep... as first exposed at SewerWatch, in late 1997, the Karners fabricated a dead-on-arrival sewer "project," and then used that DOA project, throughout 1998 (all the while, they KNEW it was DOA) to create the LOCSD in the first place, where they immediately began cashing in on their scam.

In his 2005 rambling manifesto, Gary Karner writes, "This ('better, cheaper, faster') was the basis for the platform that created the formation of the LOCSD and upon which the original five members of the LOCSD Board of Directors ran."

Of course, he fails to mention that one of those "original five members of the LOCSD Board of Directors" was his wife... of course.

Had the Karners NOT done all of that -- you know, create a fake project and then trick voters into approving it, solely so they could make money -- the county's "ready to go" sewer project would have been built in Los Osos over a decade ago, at a fraction of the cost of today's proposed project.

So, again, to be clear, beginning in late 1997, the Karners created the Los Osos sewer disaster, solely to cash in on it... and it worked!

Which gets me back to my plugged hole, and a mind-blowing sequence of events.

The Karners first rolled out their fake project on November, 24, 1997.

Almost immediately, by January 23, 1998, less than two months later, the RWQCB had a letter to them -- sent directly to the Karners -- showing them how their "concept" was a complete disaster (for god's sake... as the letter shows, their "plan" included treating straight septic tank crap, smack-dab in the middle of town. The only thing more crazy than that, is that Nash-Karner was able to trick 83-percent of the town's voters into thinking that was a good idea. Absolutely amazing (man, that "behavior based marketing" is powerful stuff, obviously.)

All the Karners had to do on January 23, 1998, was read that letter, and say to themselves, "Yeah... maybe they're right. Treating straight septic tank crap in the middle of town probably isn't such a great idea after all," and the past 12-years-and-counting of Los Osos sewer disaster/train wreck would have never happened.

Of course, HAD the Karners said that to themselves on January 23, 1998, after they had already given a "presentation to the Board of Supervisors," according to the letter, their scam would have failed before it even had a chance to take flight, and they wouldn't have been able to cash all of those checks for years to come. So, it's understandable why they ignored/discredited ALL of those oh-so-accurate official agencies throughout 1998.

Finally, my overall favorite part of all of this? Right now (right now!... 12 years after "better, cheaper, faster"), Pandora Nash-Karner is a member of the San Luis Obispo County Parks Commission, appointed by Supervisor, Bruce Gibson.

###

[44 weeks down... 8 to go.]

Congratulations, Los Osos! You are Now Internationally Famous for Something OTHER than a Sewer

2010-10-28T09:30:00.000-07:00

Of all the "dive bars" in the world, only one deserves the spotlight in Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dive_bar

###

[43 weeks down... 9 to go.]

SewerWatch Files Complaint with County Grand Jury Alleging SLO County Parks Commission Violated Open Meeting Laws

2010-10-20T15:01:00.000-07:00

"The people do not yield their sovereignty to the bodies that serve them. The people insist on remaining informed to retain control over the legislative bodies they have created."
-- The Ralph M. Brown Act

TO: San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
DATE: 10/20/10

Dear SLO County Grand Jury,

Thank you for the opportunity to file this complaint.

Earlier this year, I believe that I was the victim of at least two apparent, and egregious, violations of the Brown Act by the San Luis Obispo County Parks Commission.

Here's the setup, including specific details, timeline, and primary evidence:

Current San Luis Obispo County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, also currently sits on the Board of Directors for a local non-profit agency -- the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden.

That facility -- on county-owned land -- is planning a "$20 million" expansion, according to their documents, and, as I first exposed in a 1/20/10 investigative piece, at this link:

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

... according to their executive director, Liz-Scott Graham (who told me over the phone), the one proposal the SLO Botanical Garden received to design the expansion was from the SWA Group, where Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, is a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA," according to his bio.

Shortly after I published my above-mentioned investigative piece, I noticed on the Parks Commission meeting agenda for January 28, this item:

8. Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

Here's where it gets (even more) interesting.

I first spotted that posted agenda item about five days before the meeting.

However, I'm also aware that the Brown Act requires that a "posted" item's agenda packet be available for public inspection "72 hours" before the meeting (code cited below).

So, I deliberately -- I want to repeat that, because it is a very important point -- I deliberately waited until the 72 hour requirement kicked-in before I requested, from Parks Commission staff, a copy of the staff report for Item #8.

[Note: All e-mails cited below are easily available as evidence for this case on the SLO County government e-mail servers.]

On the morning of 1/26/10, well within the "72 hour" Brown Act requirement for the January 28 meeting, I sent SLO County Parks Planner, Jan Di Leo, this e-mail:

- - -
On the agenda for this Thursday's Parks Commission meeting, it reads:

"Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

Please e-mail me the staff report for that item, and the proposal.

Thanks again,
Ron
- - -

After not receiving a reply for 24 hours (even though I had received prompt e-mail replies from her previously) I sent Ms. Di Leo another e-mail on the morning of 1/27/10:

- - -
Hello Jan,

Yesterday morning I sent you an e-mail requesting the staff report for the following item on this Thursday's Parks Commission meeting agenda:

"Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

That was 24 hours ago, and I've yet to receive a response, although you were kind enough to promptly respond to my other e-mails... and thank you for that.

That meeting is tomorrow, so PLEASE, is there any way I can get that report today? (And, frankly, I'm a little disappointed that the report isn't linked on the Parks Commission web site, like they are with other SLO County government agencies, like the Planning Commission, and the Supes.)

So, again, please e-mail me the staff report for that item, and the proposal (if available) as soon as possible. And, please don't force me to do a public records request to get that staff report, as those take up to 10 days to fulfill, and the meeting is tomorrow.

Thanks again,
Ron
- - -

The next morning, on 1/28/10 -- the day of the meeting -- Ms. Di Leo finally replied:

- - -
Ron,
That item was continued until February 25, 2010. At this point there is no report. I believe Dave Porter was simply coming to give a report. Our web site has the Parks Commission agenda and staff reports. So, prior to the February meeting (around Feb. 19th) you should be able to down load the agenda and the report (if there is one).

Jan Di Leo
Parks Planner
SLO County Parks
- - -

Please note, Ms. Di Leo writes, "I believe Dave Porter was simply coming to give a report," when Item 8 clearly says, "proposal."

Then, Ms. Di Leo writes, "Our web site has the Parks Commission... staff reports," when it does not.

That's egregious Brown Act violation #1: I deliberately waited until within 72 hours of the meeting, then requested the staff report for the posted item, and then, on the day of the meeting, that single staff report -- the only document I was interested in -- simply vanished.

According to the Brown Act:

"54954.2. (a) At least 72 hours before a regular meeting, the legislative body of the local agency, or its designee, shall post an agenda containing a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting, including items to be discussed in closed session."

and;

"54954.1. Any person may request that a copy of the agenda, or a copy of all the documents constituting the agenda packet [bolding mine], of any meeting of a legislative body be mailed to that person."

Egregious Brown Act violation #2, in this case, is extraordinary.

Shortly after that January 28 meeting, I sent a public records request to Parks' staff for an audio recording of that meeting. (Again, the audio recording of the 1/28/10 meeting is also amazing evidence in this case, that is easily acquired through SLO County staff.)

What I discovered on that recording left me shaking my head.

Here, according to the official recording, is what transpired at the 1/28/10 SLO County Parks Commission meeting:

First, the agenda order on the recording is different than that of both the posted agenda, and even the agenda order listed in the minutes, at this link:

http://www.slocountyparks.com/information/pcommprevmeetmins.htm

For example, on the posted agenda, Item #2 was supposed to involve, "Nominations and Election of Commission Chair and Vice-Chair."

Even in the official minutes for that meeting, Item #2 reads:

- - -
2. Nominations and Election of Commission Chair and Vice-Chair. Commissioner (and current Chair) Nash-Karner nominated Commissioner Hilton for Chairman, seconded by Commissioner Mathews. Motion passed 4-0.
- - -

However, on the recording, that agenda item is NOT #2. It's Item #7 (for reasons I'm not clear on), and here's why that appears to be a HUGE problem.

Immediately after that motion passes, I can hear the sound of applause from the people in attendance -- which, apparently, consisted of the Commissioners, Parks' staff, and one member of the public -- congratulating Hilton on his election to the Chair.

I can also hear Hilton say, "I'll take the gavel."

Then -- and here's where it gets very fishy -- immediately after the gavel is passed to Hilton -- after he has become the Chair, and, therefore responsible for how the meeting is conducted -- Commissioner Nash-Karner, all of a sudden, out of the blue, says:

"Um, I forgot to mention earlier, that Item #8 has been deferred until February."

Then, Hilton pauses, and says, "O.K."

Then, Nash-Karner immediately says, "So, Item #9 is all yours."

Then, Hilton says, "So with that, we have Item #9..."

After listening to the recording, I e-mailed Commissioner Hilton this question:

- - -
"Considering that (previous Chair) Nash-Karner 'forgot to mention' that Item #8 had been 'deferred,' shouldn't Item #8 have been your first official item to discuss, and not Item #9?

With this quote:

'Um, I forgot to mention earlier, that Item #8 has been deferred until February.'

... it seems like she acted as the Chair, AFTER you were elected Chair."
- - -

He never replied to my question. (Perhaps he will respond to the SLO County Grand Jury, if you were to ask him that question.)

And to top all of this off, Item #8 was NOT "deferred until February," of course, nor was it on the March Parks Commission meeting agenda, as you will easily discover if you look into the evidence of this amazing case.

As of, March 30, 2010, Item #8 simply disappeared the moment after I started inquiring about it, and not only will I now never know the contents of that "proposal," but neither will the public, or the members of the SLO County Grand Jury, unless you investigate this very important case.

So, to summarize, here is the timeline that clearly shows that I was the victim (there's no other way to put it) of egregious violations of the Brown Act by the SLO County Parks Commission:

I published an investigative piece on 1/20/10, where I show that San Luis Obispo County Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, also sits on the Board of Directors of a local non-profit agency, the San Luis Obispo Botanical Garden -- a facility that leases county-owned land, and is planning a "$20 million" expansion, and the one proposal they've received to design the expansion, according to their executive director, was from the SWA Group, where Nash-Karner's husband, Gary Karner, is a "Managing Principal and Senior Project Manager for 27 years and is currently retained by SWA," according to his bio.

Then, just a few days after I published that piece, I noticed on the Parks Commission meeting agenda for January 28, this item: "8. Proposal from San Luis Obispo Botanical Gardens – Dave Porter (7:00)"

Then, I deliberately waited until within the 72 hour Brown Act posting requirement before twice-asking (1/26/10 and 1/27/10) Parks' staff for a copy of the staff report for Item #8.

Then, on the day of the meeting, 1/28/10 -- two days after my initial inquiry, and with Item #8 STILL posted on the agenda -- a SLO County Parks staff member writes me, "That item was continued until February 25, 2010. At this point there is no report."

Then, at the meeting that night, as former Chair of the Parks Commission, and current 2nd District Parks Commissioner, as well as current Director for the SLO Botanical Garden, Pandora Nash-Karner, says, "Um, I forgot to mention earlier, that Item #8 has been deferred until February."

Then, of course, Item #8 did NOT appear on the February meeting agenda, or the March meeting agenda.

And, now, because of all of those apparently egregious Brown Act violations, the public will never know the contents of the "proposal" from Item #8. Never.

The foremost expert on the Brown Act, Terry Francke, at this web site:

http://altadenans.com/current-issues/terry-francke-foremost-authority-on-the-brown-act-speaks-on-atcs-actions/

... writes:

"As for criminal prosecution, there have been about five or six initiated in the Brown Act’s (57) year history. Only one went to trial, and it resulted in a hung jury. A conviction imposes on the prosecution a proof burden nearly unique in the law: that the member attended a meeting at which a violation occurred, and did so knowing that the violation was occurring, and intending that the public be deprived of information it is entitled to by law."

That's exactly what happened with my case, and therefore I also ask that the SLO County Grand Jury "forward" these "allegations of criminal wrongdoing" to the "County District Attorney's Office for possible investigation and prosecution," as your documents read.

Thank you very much for your time,
Ron

P.S. According to my research, alleged Brown Act violations fall under the jurisdiction of a County Grand Jury.

###

[42 weeks down... 10 to go.]

The SewerWatch "Rally to Erode Public Trust"Part I: Supervisor Gibson's "Mistake"

2010-10-11T12:33:00.000-07:00

[Hey, if Stewart can have his "Rally to Restore Sanity," and Colbert can have his "Rally to Keep Fear Alive," I can have my "Rally to Erode Public Trust."]

TO: Bruce Gibson, SLO County Supervisor, District 2
DATE: 10/11/10

Dear Supervisor Gibson,

I'm researching a story, and I just have a couple of quick questions involving one of your comments at the 10/5/10 Supervisors' meeting.

At that meeting, you said that you find it "offensive" when Los Osos residents, during the public comment portion of the meeting, talk about untrustworthy County officials, and then you asked, "Where's the evidence?"

Considering that I've reported on the Los Osos sewer story since 1990, with various newspapers as a reporter and editor, and now on my blog for the past 5-plus years, I actually CAN provide you with evidence -- very specific evidence -- that shows that, indeed, weird, behind-the-scenes, public-trust-eroding things DO happen when it comes to SLO County officials, and the Los Osos wastewater project.

I have several very, very specific pieces of evidence that shows that, and I'll be getting to the rest of that evidence in future posts, however, for my current story, I'd like to focus on just one piece of evidence: You.

One of my favorite pieces of evidence that shows, clearly, that weird, behind-the-scenes, public-trust-eroding things happens when it comes to SLO County officials, and the Los Osos wastewater project, comes from you.

It's something you did at the August 7, 2007 Supervisors meeting, and that I first reported on at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2008/03/quick-look-at-bruce-gibsons-job.html

You probably remember that 2007 meeting. That was the meeting when the development permit for the Los Osos CSD's former sewer "project" -- the "Tri-W" project, that the LOCSD spent some $25 million and six years (1999 - 2005) developing, yet didn't even come close to making it to the short-list of county-preferred projects -- was set to expire.

The County had the option of requesting an extension for that permit (by simply filling out a little bit of paperwork), or just letting it expire.

Every official associated with that permit was saying, "Just let it expire."

And when I say, every official was saying that, I mean EVERY official: The California Coastal Commission, the Commission's staff, your own public works staff (including Paavo Ogren), AND every other member of the SLO County Board of Supervisors were all one massive chorus, on August 7, 2007, "Just let the Tri-W development permit expire."

However, at that meeting, you were not in that chorus.

Nope.

You free-styled a solo at that meeting. And, thanks to an official Public Records Act request that I did with the County about a year ago, I now have a copy of that solo.

And that free-styled solo is the specific evidence I mention above, that shows that, when it comes to SLO County officials and the Los Osos wastewater project, weird, behind-the-scenes, public-trust-eroding things clearly happen.

That "solo" is in the form of an unsent letter, drafted by you, and that I've recently, and for the first time, made available for public download at this link:

http://www.slocreek.com/CDP_extension_gibson.pdf

Do you remember that letter?

That's the letter, addressed to California Coastal Commission staff, that you drafted at the 11th hour for the August 7, 2007 meeting, and attempted to get your fellow Supervisors to approve.

That letter countered everything that every official everywhere was saying about the Tri-W permit, and in the strangest way.

In that letter, you write, "... we (the SLO County Board of Supervisors) suggest, however, that the Coastal Commission, of its own accord, defer the (Tri-W) permit's expiration until a final project determination is made..."

So, look at what you're asking there, it's so bizarre:

As I've reported, nearly $8 million and four years worth of careful SLO County analysis has now shown the Tri-W project to be the exact embarrassing disaster that I first reported it to be (six years ago, and something, apparently, that every other official already knew at that August 7 meeting. That's WHY they were all one big chorus).

But with your letter, you were asking your fellow Supervisors to support extending that disaster's permit by, of all things, throwing the entire matter back in the laps of the Coastal Commission -- a Commission (and staff) that, obviously, no longer wanted anything to do with that disastrous permit.

So, I have to ask:

Huh?

That letter makes no sense whatsoever. It's completely inexplicable. And it goes right to the heart of the entire Los Osos sewer controversy.

As I'm sure you remember, not ONE of your fellow Supervisors supported you on that letter (nor even your own public works staff, who was, frankly, blind-sided at that meeting with that letter, like everyone else), and, after much embarrassment for you, you publicly withdrew the letter on the spot, and called the entire incident a "mistake" (that's your own word, Supervisor Gibson, to describe what you did at that meeting), and, in the end, your Board voted 5-0 to let the permit for the Tri-W disaster simply, and wisely, die on the vine -- a permit that the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD spent (read: wasted) six years and $25 million acquiring.

So, if you want to see "evidence" that shows that weird, behind-the-scenes, public-trust-eroding things happen when it comes to SLO County officials and the Los Osos wastewater project, grab a mirror.

The evidence is you. You and that inexplicable letter.

Here's my question (that I already know you will not answer, because I've asked it in the past, and you've never answered it, further eroding public trust, but, if you were to answer it now, I'd really appreciate it):

What inspired you to draft that nonsensical, 11th hour letter? What prompted it?

I mean, are we to believe that you just woke up in the wee hours of the morning on August 7, 2007, and said to yourself, "Hey, I have a great idea! I'm going to pop out, all by myself, without any input from anyone else, a letter for today's meeting, that counters everything every official is saying about the Tri-W permit?"

Yeah... see how that doesn't make sense?

I want to show you a scenario where that letter actually does make sense, and this scenario further erodes public trust -- erosion that you find "offensive."

This scenario involves your current appointment to the SLO County Parks Commission, Pandora Nash-Karner.

As I hope you know, Nash-Karner is also the mother of the Tri-W project, when she launched that disaster as vice-president of the LOCSD, beginning in 1999.

Throughout the next six years Nash-Karner, after her days as LOCSD vice-president, actually went on to form official Political Action Committees dedicated to getting her Tri-W project built.

Immediately following the 2005 LOCSD recall election, that finally put a stop to Nash-Karner's Tri-W disaster, Nash-Karner writes in correspondence with officials associated with her project, "Please... is there any way to salvage the (Tri-W) project??????????????????," and, "We MUST save this (Tri-W) project!"

Your current Parks Commissioner also went so far as to actually develop and implement a "strategy" (her word) to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence" (also her words), solely, and in a desperate effort, to save her Tri-W project.

I first reported on your Parks Commissioner's "strategy" at this link:

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

I first published that story on May 13, 2006.

So, to be clear, and further erode public trust, you appointed Nash-Karner to the Parks Commission AFTER I reported that she develop and then implemented a "strategy" (her word) to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence."

I focused on that extremely interesting "sequence" of events at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/sequence-pandora-nash-karner-is-bruce.html

As I've also reported many times, Nash-Karner public endorsed, and financially supported your campaigns in both the 2006 and 2010 elections.

So, Bruce, let me ask you: If you lived in Los Osos, which scenario would seem more probable to you?:

You, Supervisor Gibson, woke up in the wee hours of the morning on August 7, 2007, and, out of the blue, said to yourself, "Hey, I have a great idea! I'm going to pop out, all by myself, without any input from anyone else, a letter for today's meeting, that counters everything every official is saying about the Tri-W permit, and then try to get my fellow Supervisors to approve it."

OR;

That letter was a result of some weird, behind-the-scenes, public-trust-eroding collusion between you and your Parks Commissioner, in a desperate (and, ultimately, highly embarrassing for you) effort to save your Parks Commissioner's Tri-W project -- a Parks Commissioner that publicly and financially supported your campaigns, and was desperate (for highly suspicious reasons) to save her Tri-W project.

Unlike scenario #1, scenario #2 makes perfect sense.

By the way, "Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location (as their preferred location for the sewer plant)," according to the County's Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009.

Finally, you know what else further erodes public trust, Bruce? When you say that you're "offended" by allegations that County officials are untrustworthy, when you do things like your bizarre, nonsensical, embarrassing, public-trust-eroding "mistake" of August 7, 2007.

Now, that's offensive.

Sincerely,
Ron

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

To read an excellent report on the above-mentioned 10/5/10 Supervisors' meeting, check out Ann Calhoun's great blog, Calhoun's Can(n)ons, at this link:

http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/2010/10/move-along.html

[41 weeks down... 11 to go.]

Sheriff's Candidate, Parkinson, and Endorser, Supervisor Hill, Appear to be on Opposite Pages

2010-10-07T09:53:00.000-07:00

TO: Ian Parkinson, Candidate for SLO County Sheriff
DATE: 10/7/10

Dear Mr. Parkinson,

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

Please allow me to set it up:

On your web site parkinson4sheriff.com, one of your key endorsements is from Supervisor Adam Hill.

"'I am pleased to join with my colleague Frank Mecham in endorsing Ian Parkinson to be our next Sheriff," stated Supervisor Adam Hill.'"

Additionally, according to a Tribune article concerning a recent Sheriff's debate between you and Joe Cortez, it reads:

"Their plans for addressing overcrowding in the woman’s jail: Cortez said alternatives, such as work release and home detention programs, need to be studied. He also suggested county officials work with Santa Barbara on helping expand its proposed new jail to house some of San Luis Obispo County’s inmates. Parkinson said plans for the jail can’t be put off, but inmates should also be exposed to more job skills."

Assuming the Trib's report is accurate (and, yes, I realize that's a RISKY assumption), then I'm a little confused here.

The reason is, if you happened to listen to the Board of Supervisors meeting on 9/21/10, when the Board was discussing the proposed $35 million women's jail expansion, Supervisor Hill seemed very critical of that project, and even said that it appeared to add to an "empire of incarceration" (his words).

So, I guess what I'm doing with this e-mail is giving you a chance to clarify your stance on the women's jail expansion.

Because, if you take that quote from the Trib, "Parkinson said plans for the jail can’t be put off," and compare it with Supervisor Hill's quote of "empire of incarceration," it looks like one of your main endorsements, Supervisor Hill, and you are on completely opposite ends on the $35 million women's jail issue.

So, do you really feel that the $35 million women's jail "can’t be put off," or do you agree with Supervisor Hill, that the project needs revision, and that's why he voted to "put it off" until next February?

Finally, I recently published a piece on my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/09/single-handedly-terminating-slo-county.html

... that shows that a new State law (SB 959) allows for counties to enact a mandatory home detention program to ease overcrowding in county jails.

In that piece, I show how SLO County is now in the minority of California counties to NOT enact a SB 959 style program.

I also show in my piece how, according to SLO County Sheriff's department numbers, the current women's facility is overcrowded by 30 inmates, on average.

Then I crunched the numbers:

To professionally monitor a "low risk" woman inmate from home costs the county somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000 per year, according to official figures.

However, the cost to SLO County, if Supervisors were to go ahead with the current women's jail plans, would be over $75,000/year, per over-the-limit inmate.

In other words, if County Supervisors were to simple adopt a SB 959 style program, and place those 30 (on average) "low risk" women inmates on a mandatory home detention program, instead of building a $35 million expansion, with an additional cost to county taxpayers of nearly $2 million a year to staff and operate the facility, the county would end up saving tens of millions of dollars.

Incidentally, SB 959 was supported by the California State Sheriff's Association.

So, here are my questions:

Do you really disagree with one of your main endorsements -- Supervisor Hill -- on the $35 million (plus nearly $2 million/year to operate) women's jail expansion, or did the Trib get that wrong?

and;

What are your thoughts on SB 959?

Do you support SLO County adopting a mandatory home detention program that would instantly save the County tens of millions of dollars, and immediately end the illegal overcrowding at the current facility, or do you favor spending up to $118,000 per year (when County AND State funds are included), to incarcerate 30 extra "low risk" women inmates at the proposed jail expansion?

Thank you for your time,
Ron

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

###

[40 weeks down... 12 to go.]

Mad As Hell, And They're Not Going to Take it Anymore: Los Osos Sewer Protest, Tuesday, October 5, from Noon - 1:00, SLO County Government Center

2010-10-01T11:07:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure if this makes sense, but, I have some bad news for the foxes watching the hen house. I think the chickens are about to come home to roost.

E-mails from Los Osos residents are starting to fly around announcing, "a 25-? person protest in front of the BOS from noon until 1," this Tuesday, October 5.

The protest coincides with a Los Osos Sewer Project Update, scheduled for a Board of Supervisors meeting that morning.

And, I've got a bad (read: good, journalistically speaking) feeling about what might happen at that protest.

Here's why:

The way I see it, all AB 2701 -- the State law that handed control of the Los Osos sewer project to the SLO County Board of Supervisors in 2007 -- did, was give the project back to the exact same people that were responsible for creating the Los Osos sewer disaster to begin with, starting in 1998-99.

I mean, think about it.

As I've been reporting forever, in 1998-99, the people directly responsible for killing the county's 1998 "ready to go" project, and, thus, launching a decade-long (and counting) environmental, social, and economical disaster in Los Osos, were then-Los Osos CSD vice-president, Pandora Nash-Karner, and the person she hired in 1999 to be her LOCSD interim general manager, Paavo Ogren.

When it comes to the list of people who are responsible for the Los Osos disaster, without question, at the very top of that list are Ogren and Nash-Karner, for killing the county's "ready to go" project in 1999, obviously.

Another important similarity I want to point out between 1999, and today is what I term, "Pandora's Puppets." Those are the past three 2nd District Supervisors, that Nash-Karner all helped, both professionally and financially, get elected.

Former Supervisor Bud Laurent, former Supervisor Shirley Bianchi, and current Supervisor, Bruce Gibson: "Pandora's Puppets."

And they ALL do/did whatever she tells them to do, including appointing her to Parks Commissioner, which they all did/do.

She's been on the SLO County Parks Commission since 1991, after working as Laurent's "campaign materials manager" throughout 1990.

Now, with all of that in mind, fast-forward to today, and look at this situation. It's crazy-great:

Ogren is now the Director of the SLO County Public Works Department, and in charge of the county's Los Osos sewer development process, and Nash-Karner is still a SLO County Parks Commissioner, appointed by her Puppet, Supervisor Bruce Gibson.

So, look at what AB 2701 did:

Los Osos voters were FINALLY able to wrestle control of the project away from the Nash-Karners of the town -- who wanted to build a disastrous, wildly unpopular (for obvious reasons), industrial sewer plant smack-dab in the middle of town (and wasted some $25 million and six years trying) -- when they recalled three of Nash-Karner's followers from the LOCSD Board in 2005.

That election killed the mid-town "Tri-W" disaster, and finally, for the first time since Nash-Karner formed the LOCSD in 1998, someone other than Nash-Karner was calling the sewer shots in town.

However, thanks to Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee, and his AB 2701, that arrangement lasted about one year.

In January 2007, AB 2701 -- legislation that was heavily supported by Nash-Karner's followers -- handed control of the project right back into the hands of Ogren, Nash-Karner, and her Puppet.

And, now, after four years and some $8 million of SLO County study later, the situation is almost identical to the way it was in Los Osos from 1999 - 2005, when Nash-Karner and her friends (including Ogren and her Puppets) were calling the shots in Los Osos: An expensive-as-possible sewer system (when there are numerous alternatives that are MUCH more environmentally sensitive), pushed along by taxpayer-funded propaganda disguised as "public surveys," a long list of consultant/friends -- consultant/friends that ALL played a role in creating the Los Osos sewer disaster in 1999 (and then were able to cash fat checks for years to come, because they created the disaster) -- STILL cashing fat checks from their friend, Paavo Ogren, and a governing Board that refuses to listen to public input... because the District's Supervisor is Nash-Karner's Puppet, and her LOCSD Boards did the exact same thing... for six years... until they were all finally either driven from office, or recalled.

The only difference between Nash-Karner's 1999, and 2010, is that her sewer plant won't be built in the middle of town. Other than that? It's the EXACT same thing -- Ogren, Nash-Karner, and their consulting friends cashing checks FAT taxpayer-funded checks... and, oh yeah, her Puppet, of course.

Here's where my "bad feeling" about that protest comes in.

I think it's all about to bubble over. I think that the AB 2701 reality of handing the project back to the exact same people that are responsible for creating the Los Osos disaster in the first place, is about to come home to roost (again, if that makes any sense.).

People are getting pissed, understandably.

In one of those e-mails flying around, it reads, "My e-mail list is bigger... and I think your message (of the Tuesday protest) needs to go out to all of them and then everyone needs to fill their cars w/ friends, neighbors etc. I can fill up my 7 passenger van w/ pissed off neighbor's."

Which means those e-mails, from "pissed off" Los Ososans are going out on more than one e-mail list.

So, with the current Nash-Karner/Ogren/Consultant-friends/Puppet fueled powder-keg environment, it'll be interesting to see what happens this Tuesday, October 5, from Noon - 1:00.

Finally, you know who else should join that protest? ALL SLO County residents.

From the staff report: "Approve a budget adjustment, by 4/5 vote in the amount of $750,000 from the Roads Fund to the Los Osos Sewer Project"

###

SLO County Supervisors, Can You Hear Me Now?

2010-09-27T09:50:00.000-07:00

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

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

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

DATE: 9/27/10

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, here's the current situation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems awfully negligent to me.

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your time,
Ron

###

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

Worser and Worser for SLO County Sheriff's Department

2010-09-22T11:15:00.000-07:00

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

Dear Supervisors Patterson and Gibson,

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

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

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

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

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

So, look what happened here:

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

Here's my one question:

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

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

As always, much thanks,
Ron

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

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