Comments on: Sewer Costs Will Be Unbearable

By: Julie

Julie — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:44:29 +0000

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.

By: Julie

Julie — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 21:44:00 +0000

By: sewertoons

sewertoons — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:50:36 +0000

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.

By: sewertoons

sewertoons — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 07:50:00 +0000

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.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:39:39 +0000

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.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 03:39:00 +0000

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.

By: sewertoons

sewertoons — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:29:20 +0000

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.

By: sewertoons

sewertoons — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 01:29:00 +0000

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

BMP Components

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.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:06:49 +0000

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.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 22:06:00 +0000

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.