Stickin' It to the PZ

Date: January 14, 2007
To: Lloyd Kahn, President, Shelter Publishing
Fr: Dan Bleskey
Re: Good Old Los Osos

Dear Shelter,

I just recently came upon your website and enjoyed reading your experiences. My name is Dan Bleskey. I was the Interim General Manager of the Los Osos Community Services District after the recall. I was there 10 months and it was an experience like no other. The community activists who booted the old board out and that have stood against the State are some of the bravest human beings I have met. I could go on for volumes. All that you write is spot on but if you would allow me I feel compelled to focus you on some of the issues of the profession that I had chosen many years ago, Civil Engineering. What my experience in Los Osos taught me was that the " profession" that I had so much faith in has a very dark side, one that has shaken me and caused me to refocus my life but on a similar note has allowed me to see that there are scientists and engineers out there who really get what is going on. Not to restate the obvious but it all comes down to money and in order to make money the accompanying political control that allows for the greed to sink it. Once the greed sinks in it corrupts. Don't get me wrong, financial success is good, but not at the cost of the corruption that will likely overwhelm even the most well intentioned.
   
There is a faction of the engineering community that is composed of large corporations. These corporations do not give a rat’s behind about anything but a profit, period. On the other hand there are many engineers and scientists that developed effective technology that can deal with wastewater.  However, and at least in my opinion, the financial power of the large engineering and construction corporations see this as a threat to their ability to generate profits and sooooo, they have been very successful, ESPECIALLY IN CALIFORNIA, in keeping any new and improved and less expensive technology out of this state. The regional and state water quality control boards are in bed with these corporations as well, for a wide number of reasons but the biggest being the shaping of the regulations that are implemented into law. As you know when we consider that with the current law exempting agriculture from the level of scrutiny put onto small communities numerous bodies of water will never see a reduction in the levels of nutrient pollution and nitrogen pollution. I think the key to changing things is to shine a light on these relationships and change the way that the State and Regional Boards are run and to create an environment that allows communities to use new technology instead of the century old large mechanical plants being shoved down their throats in the name of corporate profits.

Date: June 1, 2006
To: Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee
Fr: Gail Wilcox, Deputy County Administrative Officer
Subject: Draft Legislation re: Los Osos

Sam, in anticipation of our conference call this afternoon, I wanted to share our thoughts about the process and issues around a possible legislative solution to the Los Osos Sewer situation. When I say “we,” I’m referring to the working group (myself, Gere Sibbach, Noel King, Paavo Ogren, Warren Jensen and Wyatt Cash) who have been attempting to analyze the impact of a possible dissolution of the Los Osos Community Service District (LOCSD). Our efforts are geared toward preparation of a report to the Board of Supervisors that provides them (the Board) with the information they need to take action as needed on this issue.

Let me begin by expressing our appreciation for your efforts to address the water quality issues in Los Osos. We know that you and your staff have spent long hours researching this issue and meeting with various stakeholders in an effort to develop a solution for the community of Los Osos that does not adversely impact the rest of the county.

County staff appreciates the complicated nature of the legislative process and we understand that you have many, many other issues on your plate. However, as we approach legislative deadlines, we feel compelled to express our growing concern about possible adverse impacts on the County. Paavo and I were given our first opportunity to view Leg Counsel’s draft last Friday (May 26th). Christine then provided us an opportunity to review a revised version this past Tuesday (May 30th). Paavo and I pointed out that many or most of the key elements we shared with you in Sacramento a month ago were not incorporated. We were concerned when Christine told us that she thought you were targeting the latter part of this week to release a legislative framework, following by release of legislation in about a week. We respect and honor your position as author of this legislation and, for that reason, we feel it is critical that we share our concerns so that you have a solid sense of what County staff’s recommendations to the Board may be when they consider this matter.

l) What is “Plan B” if the 218 election fails? If the 218 vote fails, the County would be left with up to $2 million of unreimbursed “up front” costs. Moreover, political momentum will have created a perception or expectation (regardless of what legislation says) that the County “owns” this project.

Staff recommendation: Add language to legislation to indicate that, in the event that the 218 fails, or the Board of Supervisors does not adopt the resolution which triggers County involvement, the state will assume a “conservatorship” role (e.g. the school model) for purposes of addressing the water quality issues in LO.

2) Our discussions about liabilities focused on the LOCSD retaining responsibility for their existing liabilities. The language we saw this week suggests that all of those liabilities are to be included in the charges levied as a result of a successful 218 election. Our County Counsel has advised me that there appears to be a serious conflict between your draft language and Article XIIID of the California Constitution, as interpreted by the California Supreme Court in Ventura Group Ventures, Inc. v. Ventura Port District (2001) 24 Cal. 4th 1089. Counsel advises that, in that 2001 decision, a unanimous California Supreme Court held that a special assessment intended to raise funds to satisfy a judgment would not be valid because there would be no “special benefit” to any of the parcels on which it would be imposed, within the meaning of Article XIIID. The language of your subsection (d) purports to require the county to impose a special assessment in accordance with Article XIIID that would allow payment of “any and all” costs, “including but not limited to fines, settlement of existing claims and liabilities, the cost of litigation, and the repayment of the State Revolving Fund Loan,” all of which are found to be a “special benefit” within the meaning of Article XIIID. These costs are mostly, if not entirely, analagous to the costs that were considered in Ventura Group Ventures. The draft legislative finding that these costs involve a “special benefit” is contrary to the teaching of the Ventura Group Ventures decision, which involved an interpretation of constitutional provisions. The Legislature cannot, by making legislative findings, avoid the constitutional interpretation that these types of costs do not involve a “special benefit.” Therefore, we have serious doubts about the legality of the first three sentences of draft subsection (d).

As an aside, we believe that the outcome of the election could be adversely impacted by including all of these costs (i.e. because some percentage of voters will likely vote no because they feel it’s not “right” or “fair” that only those in the prohibition zone are paying for these costs).

Staff recommendation: Legislation to specify that LOCSD’s liabilities and damages will remain the obligation of the LOCSD.