Oceano’s unapproved water sale pursuit

February 11, 2013
Julie Tacker

Julie Tacker

OPINION By JULIE TACKER

We are all aware of the decade’s long water shortage in Nipomo. For years the community has struggled with basin management, litigation and rising costs, a plight that will continue into the future.

In November the community went a different political direction than it has in the past, installing repeat director Bob Blair, a retired pharmacist, onto the Nipomo Community Services District Board. Many Nipomo residents are aware of the longtime father-son-like relationship between “Dr. Bob” Blair and Oceano Community Services District (OCSD) General Manager, Thomas Geaslen. It is also well known, that Geaslen and Blair have close ties to Supervisor Paul Teixeira; Geaslen’s wife is the supervisor’s legislative aide.

These close knit Three Musketeers have concocted a “magic pill” to solve the water problems for Nipomo. In a reverse Robin Hood move, they have sent henchman, Geaslen, to steal from the poor in Oceano ($40,000 MHI) and give to the rich in Nipomo ($65,000 MHI).

On January 25, Geaslen approached the Nipomo Community Services District’s Water Alternative Evaluation Committee, offering a “temporary” sale of Oceano water. He is quoted in the press saying the idea is “us trying to be good neighbors.” Geaslen, a Nipomo resident and ratepayer of NCSD, has a dog in the fight — albeit a Chi Wawa, admits his “agenda” is to increase revenue at the OCSD, where his healthy paycheck is derived.

What Geaslen seems to be overlooking is 84 percent of Oceano voters sent a clear message to the OCSD that “an election shall be held prior to any permanent sale of water to an entity outside the Oceano Community Services District.” Geaslen explained to the NCSD committee that the people’s initiative was, “rather weak and very, very ambiguous.” Insinuating that it can be overcome, he said, “So even though it says it must need a vote of the people, it doesn’t say who has to vote, what the vote is and all that, so if it came to it, there would be some technical and legal challenges to it.”

Approved ballot measure or not, in 2011 when previous OCSD management tried to sell the community’s water, Oceano citizens made a difficult choice. To either tax themselves, via a 218 protest process for a water rate increase or let the district sell its largest asset, its water — its future.

A series of water/sewer rate increases began in April of that year and have been incrementally increasing each year ever since. The “either/or” choice did not authorize “both.”

Geaslen tells his Board at every meeting that he has “turned it around” and the district has regained its financial health, leaving one to wonder why the push to sell any water, even temporarily.

Asserting he had permission from his Board and the Northern Cities Management Area (NCMA) group, Geaslen gave a 35-minute presentation to the NCSD committee wherein he proposed a 500 acre-foot per year allocation of blended waters from Oceano’s three sources (Lopez, State and groundwater), for 10-years, with multiple 5-year extensions. Geaslen also suggested he could broker the transfer of recycled water from the South County Sanitation District or perhaps the water companies should consider consolidation, he said, “As is being done on the east coast.” The water districts could combine, “Nipoceano” has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?

Geaslen told the committee that he is in current negotiations with the city of Pismo Beach for water sales, follow up communications with the city engineer prove no such negotiations are underway. If they were, it too would be without his board’s approval. Pismo’s engineer said any sale of any groundwater would be heavily scrutinized by the NCMA group.

The OCSD Board has yet to have any water sale discussion, if Mr. Geaslen indeed had direction, as he claims he did; he received it without the benefit of the public, violating the Ralph M. Brown Act.

Geaslen was quick to answer the question if Supervisor’s Teixeira and Hill new about the proposal, saying, “yes” and boasted that Oceano was a “disadvantaged community” and is eligible for grants, but failed to mention that he is still delinquent on two audits and without a clean credit rating, Oceano will not be receiving any grants for a while.

Geaslen’s presentation went on and on suggesting that delivery costs would be minimal because they could intertie with Rural Water, a private water company in Arroyo Grande and that OCSD was “looking at transferring water through oil pipelines.” He thinks his alternative “would score a 10 and would not have “significant hurdles.”

Geaslen not only hasn’t discussed this proposal with his Board, he didn’t consult engineering experts who agree that Rural Water’s system is too small and would be too costly to upgrade to carry the volumes needed. Nor did he consult scientists and engineers who caution that oil pipelines are a toxic mess fraught with liability.

A week after the committee meeting, February 1, Geaslen met with Nipomo CSD General Manager, Michael LeBrun, together they walked the OCSD water facilities. LeBrun asked for a “term sheet” to take back to his committee and Board. Ill prepared to make any water sale offer to NCSD, Geaslen sent an email asking SLO County Public Works staff to provide details related to increasing the OCSD’s State Water allocation by 500 acre feet a year, what it would cost — including capital charges per acre foot and if there is capacity to deliver to Oceano. Geaslen is asking another agency to compile the details for his term sheet, all without his Board’s formal direction or any input from the community.

At the next NCSD committee meeting, February 4, one committee member, an engineer representing the Woodlands, did a cursory financial analysis for delivery of blended water from Oceano to Nipomo and found the cost to be on the order of that from Santa Maria. Another committee member suggested that permitting and environmental approvals for such a proposal would take five years to bring to fruition and Nipomo residents would need to vote to approve the purchase. Geaslen’s offer is too little too late and falls far short of the 2,500 acre feet a year that Nipomo is looking for.

When confronted at the February SLO County Water Advisory Council meeting about Geaslen’s “loose cannon” behavior, OCSD Vice President, Mary Lucey, said, “He’s MY loose cannon.”

The “magic pill” fails on its face and puts egg on the face of the OCSD Board. The next OCSD meeting is Wednesday, February 13, at 6:30pm at the district office. The agenda posted makes no mention of potential water sales.

Julie Tacker is a local activist who lives in Los Osos. Minutes documenting Geaslen’s presentation to the NCSD Water Committee meeting are available on the NCSD website and an audio recording is available upon request.

 


Loading...
41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

“In November the community went a different political direction than it has in the past, installing repeat director Bob Blair…”

Seriously?

How can the community simultaneously “go a different direction” AND install a REPEAT director?!?


Just thought that was funny…


FYI, Mary Lucey is channeling LBJ with her remark. At a presidential briefing someone giving an assessment of a foreign leader made the remark that “this guy is a real son of a bitch”, to which Johnson replied “he may be a son of a bitch, but he’s OUR son of a bitch”.. The comparison to water and development politics in SLO County could not be more apt.


The future doesn’t matter after you’ve cashed in on the “final harvest” of development. Nipomo needs to issue will-serve letters to facilitate this. The short term is all that matters. Tex, Debbie, Tony, John, we pay big money to get these people into power so we can cash in. Sustainability is for losers.


“Chi Wawa?” How about “Chihuahua.”


Is that all you’ve got? American spelling verses South American?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8sZ1DWsAHE


This is very troubling information. There are many problems associated with the “public comment” presentation by OCSD general manager, Tom Geaslen, to NCSD’s Supplemental Water Alternatives Committee, the least of which is the way that OCSD and NCSD went about it.


(Reference is made to NCSD’s 2/4/2013 Supplemental Water Alternatives Committee Meeting committee packet. In this packet are the “Draft Minutes” for a prior SWAC meeting on 1/14/2013.

http://tinyurl.com/a5h7ko8). Geaslen’s “public comment” is takes up the last 5 pages of the “Draft Minutes.”


1. OCSD’s GM, Tom Geaslen, by claiming the sale of water would be “temporary,” Geaslen and the OCSD Board of Directors do not have to submit the sale of OCSD’s water to the customers for a vote. Geaslen does, however, have to get the okay of the OCSD BOD, and this cannot be a closed-session item. This clearly appears to be a slick move, concocted in advance of the meeting by NCSD and Geaslen, to keep the customers/voters of OCSD and NCSD from having meaningful input into their financial interests in their respective districts’ financial matters.


This is NOT serving the best interests of the customers of OCSD and NCSD. No customers are well-served when government agencies conspire to keep their customers in the dark.


2. Geaslen’s long presentation to NCSD was hidden in the “Public Comments” section of the NCSD Supplemental Water Alternatives Committee’s (SWAC) meeting’s minutes for 1/25/2013, included in the 2/4/2013 SWAC special meeting agenda and committee-meeting packet. Such important, and new, information should have been a separate Item in the committee-meeting agenda.


Committee Meeting agendas require publishing and notification of the public prior to the meeting. The reason for this requirement is so members of the public can plan to attend the meeting, do research ahead of time, etc., and participate in meaningful discussion of the issue.


On the other hand, “public comments” (which are usually limited to 3 minutes) are not meant to be used for important, lengthy discussions about a new issue, in which there can be public commentary after the board item has been presented. Public comments (which occur at the end of the the meeting), are not part of the public notification of the meeting. Therefore, the public is not notified ahead of the meeting, as is required by law for agenda items.


3. In Geaslen’s “public comment” presentation to NCSD, he indicated that he believed the cost of OCSD’s water would be less than the water NCSD has already agreed to purchase from the City of Santa Maria. California’s water situation is very shaky, water is becoming more scarce, and our water-delivery infrastructure is in peril.


The price for water will continue to rise in the future, and if there is a Sacramento Delta levee break, and there is saltwater intrusion into the Delta, water deliveries from the State Water Project will come to a complete hault within 6 months, and water will be more precious than gold.


It would be better financially for OCSD customers to “sit” on the unused State Water (and other sources) allotment than to commit to NCSD for a low price for years.


Geaslen is–for some unknown reason–not representing the best interests of the OCSD customers it is his job to serve by making a deal which profits NCSD far more than it does the OCSD customers.


4. By sticking this long Geaslen presentation as a “public comment,” at the end of the meeting, is clearly an “end run” around the public, constructed to keep members of the public (such as OCSD customers, who have not been consulted regarding this water-sale agreement) from knowing about Geaslen’s presentation ahead of time. The public had no notice from NCSD of this important issue being discussed publicly for the first time.


I believe many NCSD and OCSD customers would have been interested in attending the meeting and voicing their opinion.


By this sly scam of making what should have been a formal committee agenda item into a “public comment,” NCSD and OCSD have robbed their customers of the opportunity to have meaningful participation in matters in which the customers have a financial interest.


5. In addition, “public comments” are usually restricted to 3 minutes. Clearly, Geaslen’s comments took far longer than 3 minutes.


And these issues are just the tip of the iceberg…


The level in which the “good old boy” network exists in all of our local communities is truly astonishing. Doesn’t anyone EVER really and earnestly just represent the best interest of the PEOPLE of their respective communities and not themselves? Must it be “back-scratching” and “a$$-kissing”, not to mention the ever present “greasing of palms”???


Its a very complicated issue and it will take me some time to explain and answer your question, but the short version is.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!.


Ms. Tacker –

While the arguments you continually make against Mr. Geaslen and in “support” of the huddled masses of Oceano MAY have some truth to them (or not…to be determined), your repeated failure to disclose certain pertinent conflicts of your own do not help your situation. Specifically, you have had an axe to grind against Mr. Geaslen since he was hired, yet no mention of your own or your partner’s (Mr. Edwards) coveting of the very same job. Secondly, Mr. Edwards has repeatedly advocated for the development of the Oceano Airport property (by him, of course) which would require a good chunk of Oceano’s water, yet not a single mention by you. In short, Ms. Tacker: You have several dogs in this fight, whether you disclose it or not, and they are very LARGE dogs.


Your post is nothing but one big ad hominem attack. Whether someone has a “dog in the fight” is not relevant to the truth of that person’s claims.


The issue is whether the statements are true or not. If you have evidence to support a claim that Tacker’s findings are not true, then please post them.


Whether or not there is a conflict of interest is a separate issue. It has no bearing on whether or not the claims themselves are true.


Ad hominem is an attack on a person (instead of their argument) which is IRRELEVANT to the discussion. The points I brought up are not only relevant, they have never (to my knowledge) been addressed by Ms. Tacker or the editors of CalCoast News. The term for this would be “disclosure”, which apparently falls under the “do as I say, not as I do” category for Ms. Tacker and the editors. I challenge Ms. Tacker and/or the editors to address this once and for all. For folks who preach the gospel of disclosure at every turn, the omission of even a mention of this is laughable.


An ad hominem attack is an attempt to win an argument by attacking the person making the argument. Look up “logical fallacy” and “critical thinking” for more background.


If I say “The sky is blue,” it does not matter if blue is my favorite color, or that I detest sunsets, or that my father supported our family by painting landscapes that featured gorgeous blue skies. The sky is either blue, or it is not.


So if you attempt to derail the discussion into an ad hominem attack on me by saying “You’re just saying the sky is blue because of an emotional attachment to your deceased father who painted landscapes that featured blue skies” does not, in one bit, impact on the truth of my statement: “The sky is blue.”


I’ll play along, Mary…I submit that relevance DOES matter in determining if an argument is Ad Hominem. To use your example of “the sky is blue”, if I were unable to see outside (due to blindness, agoraphobia, vampiracy,what have you) had no clock (to know if it were day or night) and no access to a weather report, I’d have to take your word for it regarding the color of the sky. Now, if I were informed that you had ulterior motives to convince me that the sky was blue (to win a bet, show dominance, be the smartest person in the room, sell me sunglasses, merely to rabble rouse) I’d question the “facts” as you present them. If I were to point out your ulterior motives in that case, relevance WOULD play a part. In this case, the “facts” that Ms. Tacker presents are open to interpretation, bias, prejudice, exaggeration, etc. and full disclosure assists the reader in assessing the overall situation.


I disagree with your assessment.


Seeing whether the sky is blue is something that is available to most people. If a person is unable to access a view outdoors, then they can simply decline to agree or disagree with the statement “the sky is blue.”


The information in Tacker’s op-ed came from NCSD’s board and committee meeting packets. That information is open to all…including you.


Yet, instead of investigating your doubts, you sling the unethical arrow of the ad-hominem attack and let it fly at Tacker.


“veritas” You are more than welcome to submit a opposing viewpoint, emails on the right sidebar.


We see a certain irony in a anonymous commenter going on about “axe’s to grind” yet hiding themselves.

You can stop now.


I have neither a dog in the fight, nor an axe to grind…therefore my identity is irrelevant. My anonymity does not change the veracity or relevance of my claims. I just think that the public should know the whole story. If a publication is going to print an op-ed piece, journalistic ethics dictate that the editors either require full disclosure by the author OR provide it themselves.


QUOTING VERITAS: “I have neither a dog in the fight, nor an axe to grind…”


So you say.


Yeah, I heard about Tacker/Edwards offering their firm’s services to OCSD in 2011. My recollection is their offer was half the price of Geaslen and they would leave after the Nov. election.


It’s public record somewhere.


As for Edwards, I went to his presentations, he specifically explained that the County could lease the property to any developer, his interest was to change its use.


Geaslen is still here; doing damage every day he’s there.


Judy, Judy, Judy! Do I have to put the pieces together for you? Go back and read your August piece on the deadline missed on the water ballot initiative.


http://calcoastnews.com/2012/08/ocsd-misses-election-deadline/


It’s all by design my dear — all by design.

Geaslen wanted to draw as little attention to the vote as possible. The less the community talks about it, the farther it fades into the collective memory. The easier it is to sell the water.


Clearly, Geaslen’s loyalties are to Nipomo.


Geaslen’s loyalties are to himself.


The question is what is NCSD and its general manager, Michael LeBrun, doing to benefit Geaslen to such an extent that Geaslen would go to such an extraordinary length to sell short the OCSD customers, whom Geaslen has been contracted to serve.


To sell water on the cheap NOW, when water prices are only going to rise in the future?


Who knows what bizarre reasoning is crossing the mind of the OCSD self made King. My guess, Mary, is that it really has very little to do with LeBrun except that perhaps the King may want LeBrun’s job and he may think that presenting such a worthy “gift” as water to the NCSD Board might help him take over a new realm for even higher pay. After all, he has managed to get his old “Daddy” back on the NCSD Board to perhaps help sway the rest of the voting members. The King and his three political sidekicks, after all, are quite the bunch of schemers.


I think we will have to wait for the SWAC’s report to find out if the allegedly unauthorized gift of water from the King of the OCSD will actually indeed be a gift or an offer that shows the King really has no clothes…or water to offer.


The “King” wants Wallace’s job at SSLOCSD. What better job is there?

Two hours on Tuesday’s at the plant, two 45 minute monthly meetings = $8K a month. And you can hire yourself/your firm (Titan Financial is back!) to do whatever else you want. And go golfing at Trilogy as much as you want.

Sweet!


The King may want the job, but his “Daddy” and the other two certainly have no pull to help him get it and he obviously has no skills to warrant anyone taking him seriously.


I do suspect he wants out of the OCSD mess before he has to come clean and admit that he has done nothing to resolve their problems and audit issues. It will be interesting to watch the next OCSD meeting and see if anyone on the Board has the spine to tell the KIng he has no clothes and confront him about going around them about selling water…or maybe they’ll just give him a pass as usual.


I can see why most CSD GMs would like to have Lebrun’s position.


Since Tammy Ruddock (ex CCSD GM) was drop-kicked out of her position, Lebrun is the CSD general manager who makes the most money in SLOCo.


Whiskey’s for drinking, water’s for fighting over.