On Monday, I saw former CSD board member Lisa Schicker at the Farmer’s Market in Los Osos. She appeared in good spirits as she shook the hands of her remaining supporters. I have to admit, I was agitated after seeing her. I tried not to scoff or to leave the impression that I was dismayed, but deep down inside, I felt a sense of betrayal. I couldn’t possibly imagine shaking her hand and smile sincerely after what she and the other board members did.
I’ve talked about my disappointment before, but after discovering that the Coastal Commission expressed preference for the Tri-W (mid-town) site, I felt that she and the post-recall board took their base astray by endorsing AB2701 and being a part of the bill’s constructive process without ever taking progressive initiatives to build a wastewater project in their power.
In 2005, I joined them and their supporters in an effort to build a sustainable, affordable wastewater solution out of town instead of the project that sounded environmentally and economically disastrous in theory only to have the same project basically come right back to the same location. Every individual on that board, the post-recall board, thought that they were doing was best in their viewpoint, but that’s a cynical euphemism for running on their own mission, their own agenda.
Because the board did not deliver on their campaign promises, many members of the community gathered to swoon at the County’s feet, looking for answers out of desperation and exasperation, but then the tone gradually became fixated on looking out for the needs of the county more than the community, looking out for number one more than the 5,000 homeowners affected by the design and construction of what many see to be a much-needed wastewater project. It’s the NIMBY principle. While that attitude is something I don’t think is going to make friends and mend fences, it’s understandable.
Some portray the County process as being a critical success and exceedingly fair. The County’s presentation has been the most comprehensive assessment of a Los Osos wastewater treatment facility to date along with a plethora of personalized analysis. But some may portray the process as flawed and biased and that, too, is a reasonable assessment. I’ve found that the County harnessed the power of people’s exasperation by going with the project that is the fastest to get off the ground without working with STEP/STEG manufacturers and proponents to address the flaws in their system.
Unlike most of the sewer-savvy community, the County did not have any conflicting interests. County engineers endorsed gravity collection as the best solution for Los Osos while briefly citing STEP/STEG’s flaws, but it’s been part of the plan since the Board of Supervisors accepted responsibility for the design, construction and temporary operation of the wastewater treatment project, leaving one to wonder whether the alternatives ever had a fighting chance and whether Carollo really vetted the alternatives that could have been viable solutions. We may be left at the wondering stage, but it may be best to leave it at that.
Ideally, we could have our septic tanks tested for confirmation of excessive pollution discharge, we could look at every new technology that’s available, we could sue the water board, but it all costs money… lots of money, time and tears. The window of opportunity to go through all the legal motions and remedies closed after AB2701 was chaptered into law. However, I believe that there are ways of seeking affordability. For instance, if it comes to gravity at mid-town, there are chances that we could get federal stimulus money in order to reduce the monthly costs even more. Personally, I’ve always felt that the County should push to have everyone in the district pay for the sewer and lower the monthly costs that way.
In any event, it appears that the clock is turning back to 2005 and many of those that supported the recall — while some had good intentions — did not unite behind a specific solution for Los Osos and we, the taxpayers, have been paying the price for it. What we’re seeing now is the by-product of inaction and confusion. The process is undoubtedly imperfect and contentious, but this is what happened when our district and the proponents of the post-recall board failed to show results.
The problem with the County opposition is that they do not have a united front. Everyone is going a different direction, trying to find loopholes and insignificant nuances without looking at the bigger picture. I’ve been critical of the opposition’s handling of the LOWWP since the recall. It is my belief that we would definitely have a sustainable, affordable, green project if that was the goal all along. I commend the Los Osos Sustainability Group for trying to fight for that goal, but if they arrived on the scene sooner (and by soon, I mean about a decade earlier), their words, thoughts and ideas would hold more weight.
No matter how popularly accepted the County process is, the County can never heal the wounds that citizens of Los Osos have given to each other for 30 years. It’s easy to say, “Just get over it,” but it’s harder to actually do that yourself.
Because of the process, I have seen the best in people in terms of their pleasantly extensive knowledge of the subject. I have also seen the absolute worst in people as they evoke vast misconceptions, falsehoods, threats of Joey Racano-style civil disobedience (“I’m going to tie myself to the Tri-W fence if the sewer is built here!”), lawsuits etc. After a while, it becomes a giant headache.
And finally, I’m going to lay my cards on the table…
I am not in favor of a gravity system, but I am also concerned about the STEP/STEG system. Conceding to the fact that I am not a wastewater expert, I decided that I will not advocate for any system. I believe the process has been technically sound, but politics has played a part in making the process seem more jaded and biased.
Is it my job to rewrite the process and/or sue the County to adhere to my personal wants and needs? No. Is it important to be critical of the process? Absolutely. We need to be. We can be critical without filibustering a potentially promising process.







