S.O.S. From Afar: ‘There’s Something Going on in Los Osos—it’s Bad’

ROCK NEWS WIRE

“It’s very bad,” concluded David “The Waterguy” Venhuizen about the Los Osos sewer predicament, in a mid-January email forum on “onsite/decentralized wastewater management issues.” His commentary drew several well-known water and wastewater experts, a few very familiar with Los Osos.
    
Wrote Venhuizen to the far-flung EPA “decentralized list” ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ): “There is something going on in Los Osos, California, that should give great pause to anyone who is concerned about the rationality of how society responds to water resources management challenges, and the impact of that on our field of endeavor. Quick synopsis—it’s BAD!”
    
What makes Venhuizen’s comments stand out from similar comments heard from all sides of the sewer debate is that Venhuizen, an expert in decentralized water and wastewater management, sent out his S.O.S. from his home base in Austin, Texas. He has studied the maps but has never been to Los Osos. Yet his keen observations from afar over the past year often capture the dynamics of the controversy better than most who live in Los Osos, and he has spent considerable time and energy investigating the sewer debate, even jousting with RWQCB’s Sorrel Marks via email in April 2006.
    
After spending “a couple hours reading the pleadings of the ‘randomly selected’ citizens…tagged with ‘orders’ by the RWQCB to cease ‘illegal discharges’ from their ‘septic’ systems,” Venhuizen wrote: “I don’t pretend that there is anything simple or straightforward about the situation in Los Osos or the history of how it got to this point, but there is one thing that seems exceedingly plain. The mainstream will go to ridiculous lengths to impose its view that the ONLY manner in which wastewater should be managed in a place like Los Osos is with a conventional centralized sewer system leading to one treatment center. That is, to once again be redundant, they are hopelessly stuck in the paradigm.”
    
Following is the rest of Venhuizen’s post, and following that, a sampling of exchanges with fellow professionals in the field on Los Osos.

County liability

“Exhibit A in this assessment - All of the people being targeted have ‘septic’ systems that were legally permitted by San Luis Obispo County. The County was even allowed to issue permits for 1,150 more homes AFTER the supposed water quality problems were identified—that was an explicit provision in the ‘Basin Plan’ (the legal vehicle under which the ‘illegal discharges’ were defined and to have been abated) as I understand it. Doesn’t it seem that if the ‘septic’ systems sited in Los Osos were issuing ‘illegal discharges’ this would be exactly because the systems had not been designed, installed and operated to cope with the site constraints, and the very first thing one would see as necessary would be to modify the standards governing those ‘septic’ systems so that they did not issue ‘illegal discharges’? At the very least, you wouldn’t say, yeah, go ahead and install 1,150 more of these ‘illegal discharges,’ would you?
    
“Yet NOWHERE in any of the reams of verbiage about this matter does anyone even mention that those standards are deficient, or hint that the County should modify them in any way. Or that those legal permits have any bearing on the permit holder’s liability. It would appear this is because the RWQCB does not see ‘proper’ governance of those ‘septic’ systems—requiring them to cope with the site constraints in which they are installed so they don’t issue ‘illegal discharges’—as having any bearing whatsoever on the situation. Rather the RWQCB fervently believes that the ONLY means of addressing the matter is totally outside those governance processes--that is, the ONLY solution is to install a ‘sewer system’ instead.

RWQCB’s solution
    
“Confoundingly, the orders issued against the citizens explicitly—and some would say cynically, because they believe the RWQCB has no intention of ever approving them, in fact they appear to believe the methods simply don’t exist—state that the RWQCB would ‘reach around’ the County and directly approve any proposals to put in place an individual on-lot system that does not produce ‘illegal discharges.’ That is, while it appears to explicitly (or cynically) allow that the standards imposed on these systems are the problem and that alternative standards may be a solution, it completely lets SLO County off the hook for its regulation of those systems, or lack of same, and proposes to unilaterally displace the existing permitting process for those systems in Los Osos, and there only. Can’t wait to hear the legal theory on that. In any case, while it whitewashes SLO County’s culpability in the matter, it worked a deal to get the County put in charge of implementing the centralized sewer system. Isn’dt that fresh?
    
“I am told that under the CA Water Code, the RWQCB may not impose specific methods, rather it may only require outcomes. Yet, from all appearances, the RWQCB is asserting that it ‘knows’ that the one and only solution for Los Osos is a conventional centralized sewer system leading to one treatment center for the whole community [actually a portion of the community]. A CONVENTIONAL ‘big pipe’ sewer system, mind you, not any sort of ‘alternative’ sewer system, as other information on this matter makes abundantly clear. Spurring on the installation of that system—under that process to be run by the County—is an explicitly stated aim of its orders.

‘Threat to the field’
    
“This sort of dedication to form, to the complete neglect (and ignorance) of substance, is a major threat to the whole field practiced by subscribers to this list. It seems to be nothing less than a frontal attack on the very idea that ‘decentralized’ has any part to play in the addressing of water resources management challenges. This from a bunch of bureaucrats who, I’d bet the farm, couldn't tell you how, say, a sand filter works if their lives depended on it. Yet they ‘know’ what the only solution is.
    
“The RWQCB will tell you that it did not rule that a conventional big-pipe system is the only, or best, solution, rather that this was put forward ‘by the community’ and they ‘just’ approved it. But that whole evaluation process appeared to be so devoid of any competent consideration of options, thus so ‘rigged’ that I hear some in Los Osos are considering racketeering charges. That seems to be a pretty strong statement about how closed-minded RWQCB is seen as being about this whole thing.
    
“This is a case in point for how intransigent the mainstream is, to how tightly it holds on to the paradigm, based only on its belief system. Is this religion or is this water resources management? And, of course, it also shows how broken the on-lot regulatory system is. Where is EPA’s ‘leadership’ on this? Where is NOWRA? Where is the Consortium? Where is WEF? Where are the professional societies—both engineering and legal? If there is truly any interest or intention on the part of any of our institutions that profess to be concerned about the quality of practice—and the quality of outcomes—to actually act on the report to Congress, to put ‘decentralized’ on an equal footing, why is something like this happening?
    
“It's very bad.”

Following are excerpts of some of the responses to Venhuizen’s commentary:

PIO LOMBARDO, P.E., Lombardo Associates Inc., Newton, Mass.

“As many of you know, Lombardo Associates Inc. invested extensively in reviewing the situation and conceptualizing solutions during the Engineer selection process during spring 2006...  
    
“Compromise-negotiations-good will generation are essential ingredients for any solution - otherwise courts/legal system take over—as has occurred in many municipalities who can’t do it politically on their own. Boston is a poster child on this issue. Los Osos has significant challenges on these needed ingredients...

“Clearly the Los Osos situation is an example of the question of the limits of growth or limits on the density of humans in environmentally sensitive areas. At the end of the day, to live in balance with Los Osos water resources environment realities, water reuse is essential and advanced levels of wastewater treatment are required. In the Los Osos situation, it behooves the public to be proactive and consider how they should position themselves on what needs to be done to address the endocrine disruptors/pharmaceuticals/personal care products chemicals issues…
    
“In my opinion until the Los Osos, or any other, community develops a viable decentralized plan that is accepted by the community in a vote to implement the plan, comments regarding what outside institutions are doing to the community are similar to blaming someone else for one’s own limitations/behavior. As I understand the situation, that plan has not been generated by the community and obviously no vote has occurred. I understand the community was close—I do not understand why it was not actualized. Until that plan is developed and voted upon by the community, one is a victim of what others do. Again in my opinion, rather than paying legal fees, funds would be better spent developing a solution that the community agrees to implement. My experience in many controversial projects has been that when that is accomplished, the institutions have been very responsive and have changed. Perhaps California is different, but I do not think so. Also negative thinking of outcomes can be (is usually) self-fulfilling. This is not meant to be naïve about the political games that occur with wastewater management and engineering…
    
“These are my comments on Los Osos in the interest of assisting your efforts in a positive manner. I do hope that the community, with the County’s help, can create some good out of the situation. I wish the Los Osos community well; it would be good for us all in the industry for Los Osos to succeed. The Los Osos community still needs to vote on any plan.”

DENNIS McQUILLAN, Environmental Health Manager, New Mexico Environment Department, Santa Fe:
 
“Your reference to ‘supposed water quality problems’ gave me the impression that you were skeptical… We still see a fair amount of denial about the water quality impacts of septic systems here. We see it among some members of the onsite industry, developers, and elected officials.
    
“Then, after the water gets polluted, and enough of the community complains and gets organized, we see the requests for public funding of wastewater infrastructure even though some members of the community are still in denial. We think we are making some progress in educating our clients and the political decision makers that these water quality problems are real, and that big pipe is not the only potential solution to these problems.”

BOB RAWSON, President, IWS Corporation, Sebastopol, Calif.
 
“With so many traditional and innovative decentralized options available to solve almost any wastewater problem, this community, should not be forced into accepting an expensive big pipe solution. The big pipe project is most likely being driven by economic development considerations that are conveniently wrapped up in public health or environmental camouflage.
    
“The alleged CWA issues can be confronted within the context of the triennial review of the basin planning process.  Such basin plans can be changed if pressure and funding are made available to study the issues. Regional Boards tend to prioritize the proposed changes, and address the issues that can be funded when they are pressed hard. There is no reason why a community cannot fund its own study of the basin plan components that are at issue.”

TOM MURPHY, CEO, Advanced Environmental Systems Inc., Sparks, NV

“Most ‘alternatives’ AREN’T alternatives in the first place. They don't meet the "qualifying" criteria to be incorporated into an area-wide plan as per the (Clean Water) Act and can NEVER get in the game until it does. Among all criteria, there are only two which your technology must first meet before it will ever be a viable candidate...
    
“If your alternative technology does qualify, it then becomes a threat to ‘their’ agenda. You still won’t have a future unless you can do one of two things, 1) enable them to still meet their agenda is the most mutually beneficial option, or, if this one doesn't work, then you will have no choice but to do 2) (to be continued...) …
     
“One thing must be learned from all of this... ‘any viable alternative technology MUST ‘eliminate the discharge of ALL pollutants.’ There is NO EXCEPTION. Otherwise, you will have no chance to play in the ‘BIG GAME’!
 
BRUCE ANDERSON, DDS  

“I enjoyed David’s well-spoken diatribe regarding Los Osos, CA. He mentions a possible lawsuit. Is it possible that a suit could be brought against the ‘big pipe industry’ that would challenge their ability to conspire to line their pockets at the expense of the Decentralized/Onsite industry, in violation of, I think the Taft-Hartley laws?  
    
“Are they not by various means fixing the price of sanitary treatment at an inflated rate and requiring the public to pay the high price? (If all the orthodontists in my town tried that they’d be in big trouble. Maybe some of you think they are already conspiring in your town.)
    
“I don't expect the typical readers of this listserve to have the expertise to answer that legal question—I certainly can’t as a dentist. Are your readers associated with creative lawyers who could make such a case?”

DAVID VENHUIZEN

“Regarding the process, absolutely the underlying problem is lack of cohesion in the community and consequent lack of ability to rally around even a plan to make a plan much less to arrive at a consensus on a plan.
    
“Very early on in my discussions with folks there I observed that perhaps the root problem is that Los Osos is not a community in any functional sense—that an urban enclave of some 15,000 remains unincorporated perhaps provides an indication of that—and so has been unable to function as a community to address this matter. Still, heart of the CURRENT matter is that the RWQCB is clearly intent on pushing Los Osos into accepting and installing a conventional centralized wastewater system without any meaningful review of the options available to accomplish the purposes which that centralized system is purported to be able to accomplish.
    
“Perhaps you are right that if the community came together in force to demand a "better" solution, the institutions would react in a manner more favorable to ‘non-conventional’ options.  The problem is how do you get that on the table? And that comes down to funding…
    
“Your points are well taken (Pio). Especially that all this needs to be determined by competent expertise in a ‘proper’ analysis of options for THIS community. Unfortunately, that brings us back to the top of the page...
    
“And the band played on while the ship went down.”