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

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

Hello Paavo,

Howya been?

How 'bout those Lakers!

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

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

A 2008 TAC memo reads:

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

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

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

And that's the end of the discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

- - -
Hello Paavo,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As always, much thanks,
Ron

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

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

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

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

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

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

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

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

Hello Andrew,

Long time, no talk ; -)

Hey, real quick...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

If you have any questions, please just ask.

As always, much thanks,
Ron

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

- - -
- - -

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

###

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

"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?

###

The SewerWatch prediction for Los Osos in 2007: It's going to be a beautiful year

My predictions for 2007:

By year's end, Los Osos will be a model community on how to handle sewage, as the entire community installs hi-tech, modern, composting toilets, a solution that officials with the Regional Water Quality Control Board say will immediately lead to improved water quality in the region.

Micro-loans of about $5,000 will be supplied by the State of California to cover the cost of the system and its installation.

The building prohibition in Los Osos will be lifted.

And cottage industries will sprout up in the area to service the systems and profit from the compost.

It's going to be a beautiful thing.

According to a RWQCB document, composting toilets are not only an alternative to a sewer system, they considered "requiring" them in Los Osos.

The document reads, "Advanced treatment units (for improved effluent quality), portable toilets and/or composting toilets (for reduced discharges, as discussed in previous section regarding prohibiting black water discharges) could be required."

It continues, "For those existing discharges where such alternatives are implemented, water quality improvement will occur."

Which brings up the $150 million question: Will the RWQCB rope Los Osos into building a $150 million sewer system just to handle dishwater, and such, or will they allow property owners in the prohibition zone to install composting toilets, achieve "zero-discharge" black water, and then just use their septic system for grey water? And, according to documents, every property owner that chooses that route will not have to pay for the sewer, and other property owners will have to pick up that portion of the sewer assessment, until the monthly sewer assessment is so great that everyone else will simply install modern composting toilets, arguably a preferred method of... how should I put this?... relieving oneself.

The staff at the RWQCB all but rave about composting toilets. In their document, it reads, "... it remains one of the few alternatives, which can result in water quality improvement and is not subject to Coastal Commission approval."

Not subject to Coastal Commission approval.

In another State document it reads, "Under certain circumstances, grey water systems may be an acceptable method of disposal in conjunction with a composting toilet or holding tank to handle black water. Grey water systems shall be installed in accordance with the California Plumbing Code (24 Cal. Code of Regs., Part 5) and the local administrative authority. If properly constructed and operated, grey water systems are not expected to create a nuisance or pollution."

In another State document it reads: "The use of composting toilets should be encouraged because this will help address nitrate problems."

A brilliant wastewater expert in Canada recently wrote:

"Here is an interesting situation: Los Osos could provide every resident with a composting toilet and greywater processing flower bed for less than the cost of a new sewage treatment plant.

Voila....low cost, environmentally innovative, no nasty effluent into groundwater or the ocean, no significant draw down of potable water supplies.

And no debate about who has the sludge or sewage treatment in their backyard.

Los Osos, like Victoria British Colombia, Halifax Nova Scotia, and King City Ontario could look at composting toilets to meet their community needs. With large scale installations and professional municipal maintenance, the rewards could be immense."

Absolutely brilliant.

A web site dedicated to composting toilets reads:

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

The community would also have greatly reduced water costs.

It could also reduce its rubbish collection charges through recycling most vegetable matter, and would be able to produce valuable compost and worm castings for sale or reuse in community and private gardens."

I recently sent an e-mail to Mark Fong of the State Water Board's Division of Financial Assistance, that read:

"Hello Mr. Fong,

I was wondering if you could tell me if there is a small State loan available for a property owner that wants to install a composting toilet so they can stop using their septic system for black water discharges that are polluting groundwater?"

If he responds, I'll post it.

I'm tellin' ya, it's going to be a beautiful year in Los Osos.

###

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

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

Dear Supervisor Gibson,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additionally, at this link:

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

...it reads:

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

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

The community would also have greatly reduced water costs

What are the advantages to the environment?

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

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

Don't They Smell?

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

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

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

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

Thank you,
Ron

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

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

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

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

Is there a Rosa Parks in Los Osos?

Los Osos, it's time to throw some tea overboard. It's time to not move to the back of the bus. It's time for some serious defiance.

But for any defiance to work in this case, you must work backwards.

If you've received a Cease and Desist order from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the very first thing you need to do to successfully defy the Board is fill your septic tank with sand, or cement, or whatever they use these days to officially decommission them. That's exactly what the Water Board has been demanding since 1988, when they amended Resolution No. 83-13 to prohibit sewage discharges in Los Osos.

To make sense out of what to do next requires some foundation.

According to reports, the RWQCB has told Cease and Desist Order recipients that composting toilets are not an option in the prohibition zone. However, from a 2004 RWQCB document, where staff is explaining the Board's options in Los Osos, it reads:

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

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

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

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

Wow.

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

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

Then they say that composting toilets offer "less effective water quality protection than that offered by the community sewer."

How is that possible? What part of "zero" in "zero discharge" am I not getting? In reality, the use of such a system would dramatically reduce a household's water use, therefore aiding all kinds of water issues in the area, including the saltwater intrusion problem in Los Osos. It appears that hi-tech, environmentally friendly, composting toilets offer much, much more "effective water quality protection than that offered by the community sewer."

That means their only other "con" is "availability," and that's simply a terrible argument. Why don't we leave the availability question up to the composting toilet manufacturers? I'm sure they would relish the opportunity to make them available.

It appears, according to the RWQCB's own documents, there is no downside with composting toilets, and lots of up side, and if you ask me (and I'm sure just about every attorney not associated with the Water Board, as well) that all adds up to tacit approval to install a modern, hi-tech composting toilet system.

An excellent source knowledgeable in these matters recently told me, "They said what they said, [composting toilets are] on the table as a viable option. The decision (the dollar one) is for the discharger. As a discharger, it is my decision how I meet the discharge order (within certain codes and guidelines). Remember, the RWQCB never mandated a sewer, they prohibited a discharge."

Then the source added, "Seems to me it would make a great test case. Take one of those houses with the C&D and show the Board their working composting toilets and they should be off the hook... and that's a hook from them as well as from anything the County is cooking up."

To handle other sewage needs, like shower, dish and laundry water, you'll have to install an appropriate modern, hi-tech greywater recycling system. According to web sites, that system, through a series of filters, reverse osmosis, and other treatment methods, would clean your water, return it for reuse, and some models have the entire system under your house, out of sight. (What sucks about having to purchase a greywater system in this deal, is that if your septic tank is 30 feet or more above the groundwater, as many homes are in the prohibition zone, RWQCB documents state that you could be granted an exemption to Resolution 83-13 that would allow you to continue to use your septic tank just for greywater. But since they are a bunch of incompetent, vindictive, a-holes, they are not going to do that. And so they are going to force you to shell out for the cost of the greywater system, and to decommission your septic tank, just to cover their ass. Jerks.)

Septic tank filled with sand? Check.

"Advanced" composting toilets professionally installed to ensure that your only "black water" discharge is to your unobtrusive composting bin (that's housed in an attractive compartment in your backyard), and that the RWQCB considered requiring? Check.

Greywater recycling system in place? Check.

Generator purchased in the event of a blackout? Check.

Congratulations. Not only are you not discharging a drop of anything, but you now own a model home for handling wastewater in the most environmentally gentle method possible, at about a quarter of the cost of hooking up to a community sewer. And you didn't have to rip up your street to do it. Dare I say... better, cheaper, faster.

Now -- and here's the good, dramatic, tea-overboard, "No, Mr. bus driver, I will not move to the back of the bus," act-of-defiance part -- after your new systems are installed and operating perfectly, show up at your scheduled RWQCB meeting, and when it's your turn to appear in front of that group of... is "sadistic clowns" too harsh?..., bring a paper shredder with you to the podium, and, without saying a word, take your copy of the Cease and Desist order, hold it up high so everyone can clearly see what it is, flip on the shredder, pop that sucker in, and then hold the machine up above your head during the duration of the CDO shredding process, as the Board sits there and watches. They won't know what to say.

Then simply turn, and grin, and walk out of the room with your hand a-waivin'. Buh-bye Water Board, been nice knowin' ya.

And if they still want to come after you for violating Resolution No. 83-13, say, "I'll see you in court, assholes," where you will easily win, because you are not discharging anything but compost, and they are going to have to make the argument that compost is a discharge, and even if they do -- and it would be laughable to watch them try -- the compost can simply be trucked out of the prohibition zone by some enterprising septic business, and sold as fertilizer to the county for its golf courses, thus offsetting the cost of the systems, and it's still zero discharge in the prohibition zone. Oh, and one more thing, IT WAS THEIR IDEA!

Their arguments would be so weak, I can't imagine how they would pursue it.

Plus, as if it couldn't get any more embarrassing for the Regional Water Quality Control Board, they would be going after you because you chose the fast-track route that they said "will" lead to improved Water Quality. Man, that'd be fun to watch, and report on.

Win that, and you will, and everything sewer related in Los Osos will be in your rear-view mirror. Do that once, and there will be no sewer.

Is there a Rosa Parks in Los Osos?

###

The Gord-O-Meter

[Note :: 8/11/07: I had the "Gord-O-Meter" in the template section of my blog for months, but I got sick I seeing it all of the time, so I moved it here... seemed like an appropriate place.

- - -

SewerWatch Presents:



Ahhhh... bummer... it looks like the computer script that makes the Gord-O-Meter funny isn't going to work in the post section of the blog. Damn! Oh well, here's what it was: I found a script that counted up, in days, hours, minutes and seconds, and then I put that count-up in front of the following text, so it read something like this: 180 day, 14 hours, 28 minutes, and 52 seconds has elapsed since SewerWatch exposed that environmental activist, recalled Los Osos CSD Director, former Solution Group member, and self-described “San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper”, Gordon Hensley, can stop polluting the waters of California by installing a composting toilet system -- a system that the Regional Water Quality Control Board said “will” improve the water quality in Los Osos -- but has yet to do so."]

- - -

Is it pronounced Gord-OH-Meet-er or Gord-OM-eter, you know, like odometer? Either way, the circumstances demanded it.

I'm going to leave the Gord-O-Meter at the top of this blog until Gordon Hensley, an environmental analyst and recalled LOCSD Director, either puts in a composting toilet system, stops referring to himself as the "San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper," or I get sick of seeing that graphic (and it's my guess, it'll be the latter).

[Re-Posted here: 11/09/07...]

Gordon Hensley Never Played Little League

[9/17/07] I can tell that recalled Los Osos Community Services District Director, Gordon Hensley, never played organized sports while he was growing up, because one of the many beautiful life-lessons gleaned from participating in team sports as a youth is that you can't win them all, so when you lose, lose with dignity and class, and Hensley, hands down, is the worst loser I've ever seen.



Los Osos, he's about to sue you, again!



Click here to download a pdf file (622k) of his letter describing his intent to sue the Los Osos CSD... again.



When you read that letter, keep in mind that Hensley is THE San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper. It's just him, according to web sites. Then notice how he makes it seem like SLO Coastkeeper is some type of benevolent, concerned environmental organization, when, in reality, it's just a bitter, recalled LOCSD Director. Also notice that he never once refers to the fact that he is a recalled LOCSD Director, that was primarily responsible for unnecessarily ripping up the Tri-W site in the first place.



Finally, also keep in mind that Hensley voted to schedule his own recall election date at one of the latest possible dates, and that afforded him the window of time to begin site work (a.k.a: a bunch of huge earth moving tractors ripping up "environmentally sensitive" stuff) at the Tri-W site... just four weeks before Los Osos voters would throw him out of office. I wrote about that here. (Boy, is that a horrible law in the election code. What were they thinking?)



That's the kind of mind set that Los Osos has dealt with since 1999. Little wonder the town is in such a mess.

###