I attended Bruce Gibson’s office hours over at Sea Pines in Los Osos. Right away, one thing that got my attention was how attentive the County was when listening to people. Paavo Ogren also attended and I noticed how skilled he is when it comes to speaking extemporaneously regarding the Los Osos wastewater project, however he doesn’t seem to get to the point and answer people’s questions directly most of the time.
We met in the banquet room and the tables were formed in a U-shape with four seats per table and two tables per side. There were more old faces than new ones. A resident from Vista Del Oro came to the office hours and inquired about some of the history behind the LOWWP. Paavo Ogren did most of the talking while Gibson sat, relieved that he didn’t have to recall any specifics. He found it easier to talk about vacation ordinances and his trip to Davis, Sacramento and D.C. with our taxpayer money than the sewer situation itself.
Al Barrow attended the meeting and provided an engineer’s report summarizing the benefits of Orenco STEP/STEG, which consisted of information already known and repeated ad nauseum. His statements would later be cancelled out by Don Bearden who brought up the problems with STEP/STEG — information that was also presented ad nauseum. I honestly did not see the benefit of both of them being there if they cancel each other out.
After waiting for about an hour, I finally had a chance to speak. I asked Bruce and Paavo, “When did you know that gravity collection was the only appropriate solution for Los Osos?” and to paraphrase Paavo’s response, gravity was pre-determined from the beginning of the process. I said that the process seemed to be a bit disingenous given that they’re already made up their mind on what kind of project they want. Paavo was saying that STEP/STEG is a good system but not applicable to Los Osos. However, the whole screening/vetting process has unveiled new twists and turns such as the Tonini site so anything is possible — just don’t expect Paavo to “bet on” STEP/STEG as it being the project they decide to build.
When Gibson talked about the community survey showing preference to gravity, that sort of “Gotcha!” attitude prompted me to follow up on a question on the survey that was a bit biased in my opinion. Question #21 reads, “How much savings over a Gravity System would a STEP/STEG system have to provide to make it worthwhile?” and Bob Semonsen, who served as a member of TAC, boldly (and rudely) interjected in disagreement, saying that the question I cited was actually biased toward STEP/STEG.
The problem is that the question treats STEP/STEG like a burden and the questions attempt to remedy that burden so you have options that mention savings, but what good is that when you have one of the options that says, “Prefer Gravity, not interested in STEP/STEG at any cost.” The question starts with, “How much savings…?” so it doesn’t exactly set the foundation so that the answer to that question would be a preference of collection treatment. When you have the County leaning heavily toward gravity, those who pay attention to what the County is doing will choose the option that appears to be the only viable option to the County to begin with.
Kim Jong-Ill was the only candidate running for leader of North Korea so it’s no surprise that he wins the election unanimously by 100% with 100% approval following a 100% turnout. Sure, the results of the community survey wasn’t unanimous, but the the momentum behind gravity collection is undeniable.
I think that Paavo assumed that I’m a STEP/STEG proponent. To be completely honest, I’m a proponent of a system that works, a system that is affordable, a system that is not built on hype and unrealistic expectations. It’s so easy to say, “Look, gravity has been tried and true all across the United States especially California and it’s the easiest to start and get going,” but when that system doesn’t have sealed pipes (that could cause exfiltration, leakage and pollution of the groundwater) and requires constant maintenance (which will further add to the costs), that makes me wonder if this is a worthy investment for Los Osos. When the sewer is built, I don’t want the community to face the scenario that there is more pollution of the groundwater due to these problems and then we have to pick up the tab. I don’t think that’s fair.
I’m critical of the process because I want it to be done right. The answers provided today by Paavo were comprehensive and it gave me perspective, but at the same time, those answers fell short of providing any substantive reassurance to me.
There needs to be a greater push for lowering the cost and I’m grateful that the County is aggressively seeking funding for Los Osos. We do need a sewer but we also need a sewer that doesn’t force those — who would actually benefit from it and should benefit from it — out of town.
