«  
  »

Sewer Costs Will Be Unbearable

By Aaron, on January 23rd, 2010

New article from The ROCK

Los Osos Affordability Report: Sewer Costs to Lower-Income Residents Will Be ‘Unbearable’

There is no escaping it. No topic in the far-flung Los Osos Wastewater Project universe remains on more residents’ minds than affordability. Yet the word and what it stands for – thousands of people forced to leave Los Osos because of the looming $250 a month sewer bills — has all but disappeared from the public dialogue, as if the issue never existed in the first place. To document the ongoing ground-level reality of this overriding issue in Los Osos, Sherry Fuller and Mimi Whitney last year co-authored a “white paper” on the potential sewer project costs to lower income residents of Los Osos. Their “Affordability Report” of January 2009 used census data from the year 2000 that had been projected to the year 2008 by a leading computer modeling firm (ESRI) that is widely used by both government and industry. “With the new Census being prepared now, we should see updated figures next year that will most likely be even worse that what I reported last year,” co-author Mimi Whitney recently told The Rock. “Consider the effects of our current recession on Los Osos residents: unemployment, bankruptcy, the housing market…We will do an updated ‘white paper’ after we have the new census data to work with. Stay tuned for the really bad news.”

» Read Article
http://www.rockofthecoast.com/news/local/860-los-osos-affordability-report-sewer-costs-to-lower-income-residents-will-be-unbearable

Be Sociable, Share!
The ROCK   , , ,  
«  
  »
  • sewertoons

    So since getting a sewer is inevitable, you are in favor of getting the stimulus/cheap money ASAP to make the sewer unaffordable to the LEAST number of people, rather than make it unaffordable for greater numbers of people by dragging this out and missing the deadline?

    • Aaron

      The reality is that we really don’t know for sure what the deadlines are. Most agencies offering loans and grants for public works projects have no specific application deadlines. Many agencies accept applications on a continuous basis (i.e. USDA, Extended SRF). The question is: are there deadlines that are exclusive to Los Osos?

  • sewertoons

    So since getting a sewer is inevitable, you are in favor of getting the stimulus/cheap money ASAP to make the sewer unaffordable to the LEAST number of people, rather than make it unaffordable for greater numbers of people by dragging this out and missing the deadline?

    • Aaron

      The reality is that we really don’t know for sure what the deadlines are. Most agencies offering loans and grants for public works projects have no specific application deadlines. Many agencies accept applications on a continuous basis (i.e. USDA, Extended SRF). The question is: are there deadlines that are exclusive to Los Osos?

  • sewertoons

    We got a waiver for disadvantaged communities.

    Where do you get the idea that we don’t have deadlines?

    Here are a couple of lines off the County’s blog:

    “In a normal year, USDA only funds between $40 and $50 million in projects, in total, throughout California.” We were INVITED to go after $80 million.

    “We are hopeful that the Coastal Commission will consider the appeals in the next couple months, (This was written December 15) and if so, the USDA staff has indicated that our timing is very good. If not, USDA staff is concerned that other Projects will get ahead of Los Osos in line for remaining stimulus funds.”

    I think “REMAINING” is the key word here. Go sooner, perhaps get more; go later, get left out altogether or get less.

    There are years of wait between applying for money (some moneys are only doled out every several years, so if you miss the application deadline, you wait for years just to apply again). There is a wait for being approved and another wait before actually getting the money on the funds you speak about. Think this favorable bidding environment is going to hold?

    Are you afraid to hope for this money? It makes no sense for you to act like you don’t want it. Unless you think delay is an advantage to getting something cheaper – and that ABSOLUTELY makes NO sense. Maybe you are just trying to hold off paying anything yourself for as long as possible, and the rest of us be dam*ed?

    • Aaron

      I was talking about specific deadlines and if we really have them. Or is the County using the month of February as an excuse to push the project through? Where did February come from?

      It’s more complicated than it appears. First, even if everything were to go according to plan, there’s no guarantee that we would get the $80 million. Even Diodati conceded that we’re likely not going to get the full amount. Second, most of that $80 consists of a loan with interest (meaning we’ll be biting the bullet later than sooner) and the $16 mil in grant money will come with stipulations that we have yet to see. Third, because we’re considered a disadvantaged community and funds are appropriated for the project via the 2010 FY Agricultural bill, we have priority and leverage as long as the County is not being negligent with their responsibility.

      In short, we will get that money, but we should not exercise fear as a means of pushing a project through that could be environmentally disastrous if the issues raised are not resolved.

      The consensus is that people want a sewer built as soon as possible and as cheaply as possible. Be that as it may, the consensus does not account for error and lack of foresight by the County that has led us to this point.

  • sewertoons

    We got a waiver for disadvantaged communities.

    Where do you get the idea that we don’t have deadlines?

    Here are a couple of lines off the County’s blog:

    “In a normal year, USDA only funds between $40 and $50 million in projects, in total, throughout California.” We were INVITED to go after $80 million.

    “We are hopeful that the Coastal Commission will consider the appeals in the next couple months, (This was written December 15) and if so, the USDA staff has indicated that our timing is very good. If not, USDA staff is concerned that other Projects will get ahead of Los Osos in line for remaining stimulus funds.”

    I think “REMAINING” is the key word here. Go sooner, perhaps get more; go later, get left out altogether or get less.

    There are years of wait between applying for money (some moneys are only doled out every several years, so if you miss the application deadline, you wait for years just to apply again). There is a wait for being approved and another wait before actually getting the money on the funds you speak about. Think this favorable bidding environment is going to hold?

    Are you afraid to hope for this money? It makes no sense for you to act like you don’t want it. Unless you think delay is an advantage to getting something cheaper – and that ABSOLUTELY makes NO sense. Maybe you are just trying to hold off paying anything yourself for as long as possible, and the rest of us be dam*ed?

    • Aaron

      I was talking about specific deadlines and if we really have them. Or is the County using the month of February as an excuse to push the project through? Where did February come from?

      It’s more complicated than it appears. First, even if everything were to go according to plan, there’s no guarantee that we would get the $80 million. Even Diodati conceded that we’re likely not going to get the full amount. Second, most of that $80 consists of a loan with interest (meaning we’ll be biting the bullet later than sooner) and the $16 mil in grant money will come with stipulations that we have yet to see. Third, because we’re considered a disadvantaged community and funds are appropriated for the project via the 2010 FY Agricultural bill, we have priority and leverage as long as the County is not being negligent with their responsibility.

      In short, we will get that money, but we should not exercise fear as a means of pushing a project through that could be environmentally disastrous if the issues raised are not resolved.

      The consensus is that people want a sewer built as soon as possible and as cheaply as possible. Be that as it may, the consensus does not account for error and lack of foresight by the County that has led us to this point.

  • sewertoons

    Where do you get the information that the hearing is in April – what source?

    Granted, we may not get $80 million. The end of February is the last date to submit an application for the money. In my opinion, the County would be negligent to NOT push for this money. And in my opinion, it was thoughtless of the 7 who voted against us to let relief from such a huge sewer bill be jeopardized, if not outright torpedoed.

    There is no environmental disaster awaiting us, that is a fiction created by those who wanted to get STEP and ponds back onto the table in a De Novo hearing. Now they are stuck with delay as well, while attempting to keep up the fiction that these so-called “disasters” are important AND to save face and to deflect the anger of those of us who want this done – soon, and NOT to PAY MORE than we were already going to. All these so-called “problems” cost TIME and MONEY to “fix.”

    Here are the three points you brought up in an earlier article. I believe lobbying commissioners is what has led us to this point:

    1. “Double dipping.”
    Nothing different with Broderson this time around, except less water is going in. 72 acres mitigate 11 acres at Tri-W. So really, it is just the same as before, 11 acres disturbed, 72 acres mitigate. Nothing was built, true, but the SAME acreage was disturbed AS IF IT HAD BEEN BUILT, no more land was used up to need to mitigate for. Thanks to bringing this up, the problem either rests with the bankrupt and beleaguered CSD to figure out what to do with the rest of it after the County is done building the pump station, you know, PAY to restore the rest of it to ESHA, OR we can PAY more money in the project to find extra land for extra mitigation. Nice shot in the foot. (I think it is hilarious that Julie, who objected to a sewer plant in town, urged the County to put the pump station right next to the library! Nice flip-flop Julie.)

    2. Wetland delineation.
    The County actually used MORE criteria to delineate wetland. Is the CCC biologist the only person capable of checking out a wetland? Is their over-worked biologist the only person they will trust? The coastal areas of California is in deep trouble if that is the case. Or was the commission turned toward supposed “deficiency” in this area by STEP proponents?

    3. No implementation of a specific water plan.
    (I see the deflated ego of KW bringing this one up.) The PROJECT, as is, demands that all houses must be toilet and showerhead retrofitted before they can hook up. A BMP must be done before the project starts up. All homes without meters will have them in order to hook up. Certain people just didn’t like the plan, so thought doubt was the best way to have a SECOND CHANCE at ramming their pet ideas through. Like it or not, some of the LOSG’s ideas just will not fly. Even Sarah Christie was skeptical of water auditors going door to door.

    It really doesn’t matter what plan the County came up with, there will be those attempting to convince others that is isn’t good enough for their own purposes. Too bad those purposes have the potential to COST the MAJORITY of us a bundle.

  • sewertoons

    Where do you get the information that the hearing is in April – what source?

    Granted, we may not get $80 million. The end of February is the last date to submit an application for the money. In my opinion, the County would be negligent to NOT push for this money. And in my opinion, it was thoughtless of the 7 who voted against us to let relief from such a huge sewer bill be jeopardized, if not outright torpedoed.

    There is no environmental disaster awaiting us, that is a fiction created by those who wanted to get STEP and ponds back onto the table in a De Novo hearing. Now they are stuck with delay as well, while attempting to keep up the fiction that these so-called “disasters” are important AND to save face and to deflect the anger of those of us who want this done – soon, and NOT to PAY MORE than we were already going to. All these so-called “problems” cost TIME and MONEY to “fix.”

    Here are the three points you brought up in an earlier article. I believe lobbying commissioners is what has led us to this point:

    1. “Double dipping.”
    Nothing different with Broderson this time around, except less water is going in. 72 acres mitigate 11 acres at Tri-W. So really, it is just the same as before, 11 acres disturbed, 72 acres mitigate. Nothing was built, true, but the SAME acreage was disturbed AS IF IT HAD BEEN BUILT, no more land was used up to need to mitigate for. Thanks to bringing this up, the problem either rests with the bankrupt and beleaguered CSD to figure out what to do with the rest of it after the County is done building the pump station, you know, PAY to restore the rest of it to ESHA, OR we can PAY more money in the project to find extra land for extra mitigation. Nice shot in the foot. (I think it is hilarious that Julie, who objected to a sewer plant in town, urged the County to put the pump station right next to the library! Nice flip-flop Julie.)

    2. Wetland delineation.
    The County actually used MORE criteria to delineate wetland. Is the CCC biologist the only person capable of checking out a wetland? Is their over-worked biologist the only person they will trust? The coastal areas of California is in deep trouble if that is the case. Or was the commission turned toward supposed “deficiency” in this area by STEP proponents?

    3. No implementation of a specific water plan.
    (I see the deflated ego of KW bringing this one up.) The PROJECT, as is, demands that all houses must be toilet and showerhead retrofitted before they can hook up. A BMP must be done before the project starts up. All homes without meters will have them in order to hook up. Certain people just didn’t like the plan, so thought doubt was the best way to have a SECOND CHANCE at ramming their pet ideas through. Like it or not, some of the LOSG’s ideas just will not fly. Even Sarah Christie was skeptical of water auditors going door to door.

    It really doesn’t matter what plan the County came up with, there will be those attempting to convince others that is isn’t good enough for their own purposes. Too bad those purposes have the potential to COST the MAJORITY of us a bundle.

  • Aaron

    I originally heard about April from some chatter I’ve received in e-mails and then spoke to the secretary at the CC headquarters in San Francisco, who said April was “likely” — so again, don’t quote me on that. I don’t know for sure.

    As far as the issue of wetland delineation goes, it’s not an issue of who used more criteria as much as what kind of criteria was used.

    Also, Wimer conceded at earlier BOS meetings that they don’t have to pursue his BMP. In later meetings, he urged the BOS to implement any BMP as soon as possible. Had the County listened to him at that point, there would be no substantial issue on those grounds.

    It doesn’t matter if these words — “environmental disaster” — are uttered by Gibson or by STEP/STEG. There’s no way to say that there won’t be an “environmental disaster” that emerges from the project nor has there ever been a clear indication that Los Osos is in an “environmental disaster” right now.

  • Aaron

    I originally heard about April from some chatter I’ve received in e-mails and then spoke to the secretary at the CC headquarters in San Francisco, who said April was “likely” — so again, don’t quote me on that. I don’t know for sure.

    As far as the issue of wetland delineation goes, it’s not an issue of who used more criteria as much as what kind of criteria was used.

    Also, Wimer conceded at earlier BOS meetings that they don’t have to pursue his BMP. In later meetings, he urged the BOS to implement any BMP as soon as possible. Had the County listened to him at that point, there would be no substantial issue on those grounds.

    It doesn’t matter if these words — “environmental disaster” — are uttered by Gibson or by STEP/STEG. There’s no way to say that there won’t be an “environmental disaster” that emerges from the project nor has there ever been a clear indication that Los Osos is in an “environmental disaster” right now.

  • sewertoons

    The County is only a part of the BMP, so to lay the blame on them for not implementing it doesn’t compute. You can’t really have one without the cooperation of the purveyors, as they are the main players.

    Here is what it entails off of a water purveyor presentation to the RWQCB:

    BMP Components

    Hydrologic assessment of the basin
    Strategy for maximizing reasonable and beneficial use of the basin
    Balancing basin under current development and build-out
    Protect environment influenced by the basin
    Quantification of water rights
    Water conservation goals
    Well abandonment and construction program
    Equitable sharing of costs
    Coordination with LOWWP

    The County is only one player in this and cannot by itself control the outcome. All of these test take time. GS water has started the process for a new well and blending, but to get anything done from a company that is controlled by the PUC, you need a minimum of a year to make any changes. Now that there is an actual working group, and an actual sewer project, it is moving along.

    I thought the LOSG promoted the idea of an “environmental disaster” due to seawater intrusion.

    Also, SPECULATIONS on “environmental disasters” has been the m.o. of the No Sewer crowd forever.

    My speculation is that if we don’t get this money due to the lightweight reasons the project has currently been stalled, we will have an economic and social upheaval encouraged and even staged by the very people who once claimed THAT result would be their bête noire.

  • sewertoons

    The County is only a part of the BMP, so to lay the blame on them for not implementing it doesn’t compute. You can’t really have one without the cooperation of the purveyors, as they are the main players.

    Here is what it entails off of a water purveyor presentation to the RWQCB:

    BMP Components

    Hydrologic assessment of the basin
    Strategy for maximizing reasonable and beneficial use of the basin
    Balancing basin under current development and build-out
    Protect environment influenced by the basin
    Quantification of water rights
    Water conservation goals
    Well abandonment and construction program
    Equitable sharing of costs
    Coordination with LOWWP

    The County is only one player in this and cannot by itself control the outcome. All of these test take time. GS water has started the process for a new well and blending, but to get anything done from a company that is controlled by the PUC, you need a minimum of a year to make any changes. Now that there is an actual working group, and an actual sewer project, it is moving along.

    I thought the LOSG promoted the idea of an “environmental disaster” due to seawater intrusion.

    Also, SPECULATIONS on “environmental disasters” has been the m.o. of the No Sewer crowd forever.

    My speculation is that if we don’t get this money due to the lightweight reasons the project has currently been stalled, we will have an economic and social upheaval encouraged and even staged by the very people who once claimed THAT result would be their bête noire.

  • Aaron

    The CC chastised the County for not implementing a BMP that is within their purview.

    The LOSG talked about an “environmental disaster” coming to fruition if the issue of saltwater intrusion is not addressed, not if the County doesn’t go with STEP/STEG.

  • Aaron

    The CC chastised the County for not implementing a BMP that is within their purview.

    The LOSG talked about an “environmental disaster” coming to fruition if the issue of saltwater intrusion is not addressed, not if the County doesn’t go with STEP/STEG.

  • sewertoons

    Saltwater intrusion or the LOSG’s “environmental disaster” can best be addressed in a BMP, which is the part of the LOWWTF that the purveyors can latch onto. You must have seen the letter the CSD sent to the CC to return all water to the basin.

    I re-read my notes, but couldn’t find what the CC chastised the County for on the BMP. Can you tell me who spoke about it or where on the timeline it occurred?

    The stopping of applying for stimulus money and grants will not change the saltwater intrusion issue, just the residents who pay for water might be different ones.

  • sewertoons

    Saltwater intrusion or the LOSG’s “environmental disaster” can best be addressed in a BMP, which is the part of the LOWWTF that the purveyors can latch onto. You must have seen the letter the CSD sent to the CC to return all water to the basin.

    I re-read my notes, but couldn’t find what the CC chastised the County for on the BMP. Can you tell me who spoke about it or where on the timeline it occurred?

    The stopping of applying for stimulus money and grants will not change the saltwater intrusion issue, just the residents who pay for water might be different ones.

  • Julie

    Just checking in Aaron: And see Ms. Tornatsky suggests I somehow did a “flip flop” in asking that the above ground generator house, not the in ground pump station, go next to the library rather than the viewshed on LOVR. OK, whatever, where’s the “flip flop”? I can’t find it.
    It is Ms. Tornansky that continuously suggests we are getting a gravity sewer, if she is correct, then to refine that gravity system she is so fond of, I suggested the “above ground facilites” be hunkered down next to the library where there is already development. She (and Bruce Gibson as stated at the SI hearing) must not know that the underground facilities will still be at the intersection of Ravena and LOVR.
    HUMMMM, above ground near the library, verses sticking out like a sore thumb where there’s wide open spance of open space that will not likley see compatible develpment for 10 years or more (if ever). No development on the Tri-W parcel and the Morro Shores piece.
    I’ll stick with my suggestion. Thanks for paying attention Lynette, now learn from it.
    BTW, if I were a betting girl I’d bet the de Novo will be in August when the Commission comes to SLO. When you read Dan Carl’s email to Mark Hutchinson, (posted on the Rock) there’s a long list of things to accomplish, with neither staff having funds to do it…it’s going to take a while.

  • http://me Julie

    Just checking in Aaron: And see Ms. Tornatsky suggests I somehow did a “flip flop” in asking that the above ground generator house, not the in ground pump station, go next to the library rather than the viewshed on LOVR. OK, whatever, where’s the “flip flop”? I can’t find it.
    It is Ms. Tornansky that continuously suggests we are getting a gravity sewer, if she is correct, then to refine that gravity system she is so fond of, I suggested the “above ground facilites” be hunkered down next to the library where there is already development. She (and Bruce Gibson as stated at the SI hearing) must not know that the underground facilities will still be at the intersection of Ravena and LOVR.
    HUMMMM, above ground near the library, verses sticking out like a sore thumb where there’s wide open spance of open space that will not likley see compatible develpment for 10 years or more (if ever). No development on the Tri-W parcel and the Morro Shores piece.
    I’ll stick with my suggestion. Thanks for paying attention Lynette, now learn from it.
    BTW, if I were a betting girl I’d bet the de Novo will be in August when the Commission comes to SLO. When you read Dan Carl’s email to Mark Hutchinson, (posted on the Rock) there’s a long list of things to accomplish, with neither staff having funds to do it…it’s going to take a while.

«  
  »