Front Page  »  

Los Osos Waste

June 7, 2013
Tom Salmon

Tom Salmon

OPINION By TOM SALMON

The Los Osos sewer construction nears 25 percent completion, the only work that has really taken place is in the high and dry areas of the community. As complexities will begin to mount and construction becomes increasingly more difficult, the contractors will encounter areas of high groundwater in pockets throughout the community and along the bay fringe.

The unseen problems can only lead to higher costs, delays and distrust.

Pilot wells have been drilled along the edges of 3rd Street and Doris Avenue where groundwater levels are nearly at the surface. These wells are intended to be pumped 24 hours a day, 7 days a week; in succession dewatering the blocks-long stretches so that pipes can be laid in some cases, up to 18 feet below the surface. With the water of unknown quality and quantity to be pumped to locations yet to be determined — a permit has been issued dump it into Morro Bay. The engineering data from the county estimates millions of gallons each day will be discharged this way.

What is important to remember is to sewer Los Osos is an unfunded “mandate” handed down by the Regional Water Quality Control Board due to rising levels of nitrate in the basin’s upper aquifer. As Los Osos development increased during the 1970’s and early 1980’s over 4,500 septic systems were put into use. The RWQCB concluded, in a less than scientific manner, that the more septic systems in use equated to increased pollution of the groundwater. With no new development over the last 25 years in Los Osos, using that same unscientific formula, why have recent nitrate tests show levels to again be on the rise? They are up slightly over test results done six years ago.

What is in the water? Those dewatering wells will be pumping millions of gallons of what should be polluted with septic returns. Yet, the mystery continues, no information is available to the public. When lab results from ditch water and soil were requested from the County Public Works Dept., their response was, “To date, no discharges to receiving surface waters has occurred and the testing requirements have not been triggered. As a result, no water quality related laboratory test results exist which can be released.”

Yet, in a conversation with RWQCB Board members and staff, by Project Manager, John Waddell, the soil is “inert.”

Additionally, the county has requested a waiver to dump this water on land, as they are hearing from the public and others that dumping to the bay is not an acceptable solution. In their January 2013 waiver request they site that tests have been done saying, “Sampling and analysis of shallow groundwater at representative sites throughout the work area was completed for the county by Fugro Consultants on February 2, 2012. Samples were analyzed for a range of priority pollutants as well as salinity. All compounds tested were found to be below the state drinking water standards found in Title 22 of the CA Code of Regulations and the majority of the compounds were below detection limits.”

These tests were done prior to the “secret groundbreaking” on May 29, 2012, that Supervisor Gibson, his legislative assistant and the public works staff held, so as not to risk protests from the public. Avoiding the scene made at the original groundbreaking with the previous project headed by the recalled LOCSD Board in their highly publicized gold-shovel groundbreaking of the ill-fated Tri-W project, never to be installed.

If the soil and water are indeed “inert,” then one has to wonder how that is possible. This is the soil that is saturated with septic returns, otherwise known as human waste. At least that’s what has been asserted for decades.

I am not suggesting a sewer system is unnecessary in Los Osos, I am suggesting the pretense in which one is being built was flawed from the beginning. Groundwater management has always been at the root for the need of a sewer system. Capturing the wastewater from each home, treating it and reusing it has always made sense. Sadly, the current proposal doesn’t meet that need either. The County has failed to find a farmer who will stop using the potable drinking supply and opt for the unknown quality of the treated wastewater.

Additionally, the county has been notified of “heavy metals” in the water, yet the system that is being installed will not eliminate the pollution. Over $200 million will not accomplish what has been promised.

The county has failed to manage the construction of the project; cost overruns are just coming to light with millions of dollars unfolding only six months into the big dig.

Tom Salmon, is a longtime Los Osos resident with 35 years of expertise in statewide public infrastructure.

 


Loading...
Subjects:             
Related:


41 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Behold the BEHEMOTH is now in existence. It drinketh up a river and can draw up Jordan into its mouth. It eateth dollars like an ox to operate and maintain.


When do we get to see the summary of projected maintenance costs of the collection system & the plant? How do we pay for same? Will that info be released & discussed after the election perhaps?


The following should be of concern to all in the Prison Zone;


Total O&M cost/mile/year


Labor (cost/mile/year)


Fringe Benefits (coct/mile/year)


Chemicals (cost/mile/year)


Hydroflush Cleaning (cost/mile)


Television Inspection (cost/mile)


Preventative Maintenance is estimated to be 63% of Total Maintenance Costs (excluding depreciation) according to table 6 of National Summary Of Maintenance Costs.


According to the Water Environment Research Foundation (Sewer Evaluation Services) 1998 and Arbour, R and Kerri 1997 (Collection Systems: Methods for Evaluating and Improving Performance) these costs vary but are know factors.


The vast numbers of lift stations needed in our hilly terrain and the power consumed to operate them will undoubtably make our overall costs high.


0

Wolfhound,


Are you related to Ted Slanders?


What has the election to do with projected maintenance costs? I am guessing you mean the Supervisor election?


Why would anyone care about O&M cost per mile? Certainly no one who wanted the plant out of town, right?


As of 2012, the O&M estimated costs are $59/mo and the assessment charge is $95/mo.for a total of $154/mo.. Do you think most people care about the details of hydroflush cleaning per mile? …..Seriously?


0

Dear Ms Tornatsky


Yes, I seriously believe that many underwater homeowners in Los Osos do in fact ‘care’ about the final construction bill and how the County arrived at the low-ball figure of $59/mo for O&M.


That number doesn’t jive with the national averages given by the aforementioned experts in the field.


Using the “average” cost per mile times 45 miles, plus 63% for preventative maintenance, divided by 5000 households we are left with approximately $208.16 per month for just the collection system alone!


Please correct me if I am wrong, I promise not to be offended.


0

I think rather than scare tactics based on “national averages” we should go with what Public Works comes up with. The Los Osos sewer issue will be on the June 18 Board of Supes agenda. Why don’t you go to the meeting and ask?


0

Cherie writes:


“Tri-W was never a good idea and when the community finally awoke from their Pandora stooper they ‘moved the sewer.’”


That’s funny, and, uh, PZ? You’re welcome!


Of course, the REALLY funny thing about the Tri-W disaster these days, is that PZ property owners are STILL funding that fraud, and will continue to fund that fraud until the year 2034, as I recently exposed over at ol’ SewerWatch.


How great is that?: Over 4,000 Los Osos property owners are being taxed — twice a year — for a failed public works “project” that will never exist, and they will continue to be taxed for that non-project… for another 20 years! And, the best part?: That disaster — after the 1999 – 2005 LOCSD wasted some $25 million and nearly seven years “developing” it — will never exist BECAUSE it was based on nothing but fraud. Awesome!


Oh, and Bruce Gibson now knows about the fleecing, and refuses to lift a finger to help those “over 4,000” property owners that are being fleeced twice a year… for the next 20 years. Which, strangely, makes perfect sense, considering that Pandora is Bruce’s appointed Parks Commissioner.


Best SLO County story ever.


0

Tri-W is being restored on the back$ of the PZ after the premature construction in 2005. Add another cool Million to that fiasco!


0

Construction was not premature. Actually it was late: had it been earlier we most likely would be flushing and forgetting right now.


0

Any construction prior to the recall elections was premature.


0

In your opinion.


0

And besides, the contracts were signed in 2002 or thereabouts, so we were going to pay whether a grader scraped the ground or not. One of the contractors is STILL mad, the bankruptcy ruling was appealed and we are presently in limbo. That was the price we paid for shovel tossing vs. building the permitted plant.


Despite Ron’s inaccuracies, we got the plans to the collection system and land out of the assessment, but we lost all the permits, and I might add, years of water conservation.


0

Lynette, you are absolutely incorrect on when contracts were signed for the LOCSD project. The contracts were not let until summer of 2005. After the RWQCB told the LOCSD to go back out to bid, because bids came in far too high…LOCSD chose not to, sealing their fate with the voters.


0

I guess it depends on which contractor you are talking about. Montgomery Watson (no Harza yet) signed an engineering contract with the LOCSD in 1999. Barnard, Whitaker and Monterey Mechanical signed in spring 2005.


Here is a quote from a letter from Budd Sanford to the President of Monterey Mechanical:


“To: PRESIDENT, MONTEREY MECHANICAL


April 19, 2005


Dear Sir:

Your company recently bid on an allegedly fraudulent sewer project for the town of Los Osos, California. You and approximately 38 other companies were asked not to participate. All other companies except you, Whitaker and Barnard Construction complied by withdrawing. We thank all of them.


And you wonder why the costs for those bids were so high? Thank Mr. Sanford.


Please point me to documentation where the RWQCB asked the LOCSD to go back out to bid. They were breathing down the necks of the CSD for years to move the project forward.


0

Once again I will say, that this is all being mandated by an appointed board(RWQB). All of the unincorporated areas of all counties in California are going to be demanded to comply with this appointed agency. All unincorporated counties are on the horizon and will be MADE to conform.

One of the smallest communities in the county is Santa Margarita and it is being told that all septic systems are now under the RWQB influence.

They see and have stated that all properties are subject to the newest edicts handed down. One of these is the stream bed set back of up to 600 feet from any blue line stream. If a property owner owns property within this set back, will not be able to build or retro fit a septic system, u8nless it meets SRWQB standards. This would mean any new systems would be required to adhere to this new standard .Most of the properties in SM are in the 75′ x 150″ range fall into this range:”If the soil and water are indeed “inert,” then one has to wonder how that is possible. This is the soil that is saturated with septic returns, otherwise known as human waste. At least that’s what has been asserted for decades. and many are in a flood plan.”

Watch what is coming down the pike as much of the re- wording is to cover for past approval by the county and to enforce a new mandate by an appointed board with no local knowledge. This is nothing but a blanket thrown from afar to cover many government asses…


0

Well at least if the sewer doesn’t fix the problem we all get our money back…..right? hello?


0

Yeah right! *Sarcasm Intended.*


0

So much to address here…….sigh….


“Capturing the wastewater from each home, treating it and reusing it has always made sense.”


How would that be regulated, by whom and how much would that cost? Then you will show us that this makes sense or not. The last cost I saw for a recycling system that did NOT do blackwater was $40,000 just for the equipment.


The sewer cost is $173 million for this iteration of the sewer.


“The County has failed to find a farmer who will stop using the potable drinking supply and opt for the unknown quality of the treated wastewater.”


It took Monterey County farmers 20 years to buy in to their recycled water program. It will take time here to. No more than 10% of recycled water will go to farmers according to the conditions by the Coastal Commission.


The water from dewatering to be going into the bay was discussed at the last LOCAC meeting on May 23, I did not see Mr. Salmon there. Had he been he would have heard how the bay is the last resort for dumping. (According to the Coastal Commission, that any water going into the bay must be monitored for pollutants first and treated if need be and the County is WELL aware of this.) Construction will be managed to have the least amount of water from dewatering on any given day.


(As it is, depending on an average estimate or a very conservative estimate, 1 million to 300,000 gallons of water is leaching into the bay from our high groundwater table DAILY.)


If you want to read the Fugro report, you can find it at this link:


http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/Design+Division/300448.08.04.AD.geo+shallow.pdf


Here is a quote from that report,


“Results of the water quality analyses indicate that no detectable levels of asbestos, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), semi-volatile compounds or dioxin were present in any of the groundwater samples. Several metals were detected at levels above the method detection limit including arsenic (well -13L5), chromium (all wells), copper (wells –13L5 and -7Q1), lead (-18C1), mercury (-7Q1), nickel (-13L5, -18C1 and -7Q1) and chromium III (all wells). Additionally, several organic compounds (purgeables) were detected in several wells as indicated on Table 2. Note that the detections above the method detection limit are not necessarily above the screening level required by the RWQCB, the comparison to which was not performed, but will be required as part of the dewatering program.”


0

So much to address here…….sigh….back at’cha


“Capturing the wastewater from each home, treating it and reusing it has always made sense.”


Salmon is saying we need a sewer. Did you miss that part?


“The County has failed to find a farmer who will stop using the potable drinking supply and opt for the unknown quality of the treated wastewater.”


The farmers in Salinas proposed the use of wastewater; conversely to the farmers in Los Osos. The LOCSD Board hired Ripley who began negotiating with farmers in 2006, the county halted those negotiations in their quest to simply spray the treated wastewater into the air at Tonini. The County hired the RCD to seek out farmers and has failed miserably. BTW, 10% to ag would be about the equivalent of what you say is going into the bay every day. How will the LOWWP stop the leaching of water into the bay? I understood Broderson was designed to mimic the flows. Why wouldn’t farm use be the optimal scenario?


“Results of the water quality analyses indicate that no detectable levels of asbestos, pesticides and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), semi-volatile compounds or dioxin were present in any of the groundwater samples. Several metals were detected at levels above the method detection limit including arsenic (well -13L5), chromium (all wells), copper (wells –13L5 and -7Q1), lead (-18C1), mercury (-7Q1), nickel (-13L5, -18C1 and -7Q1) and chromium III (all wells). Additionally, several organic compounds (purgeables) were detected in several wells as indicated on Table 2. Note that the detections above the method detection limit are not necessarily above the screening level required by the RWQCB, the comparison to which was not performed, but will be required as part of the dewatering program.”


Thanks for reiterating Salmon’s point, the water is clean. Yet, according to the report you cite besides the metals, these items listed below exceed acceptable levels:


Benzidine, the trivial name for 4,4′-diaminobiphenyl, is the solid organic compound with the formula (C6H4NH2)2. This aromatic amine is a component of a test for cyanide and also in the production of dyes. Benzidine has been linked to bladder and pancreatic cancer.[1] Since August 2010 benzidine dyes are included in the EPA’s List of Chemicals of Concern.[2]


Benzidine has been significantly withdrawn from use in most industries because it is so carcinogenic.


Hexachlorocyclopentadiene, also known as C-56, is an organochlorine compound that is a precursor to several pesticides. This colourless liquid is an inexpensive reactive diene. Many of its derivatives proved to be highly controversial, as studies showed them to be persistent organic pollutants. Collectively, the pesticides derived from hexachlorocyclopentadiene are called the cyclodienes. An estimated 270,000 tons were produced until 1976, and some are still manufactured by Velsicol in the US and by Jiangsu Anpon Electrochemicals Co. in China. [1]


Almost all derivatives have been banned or are under consideration for banning.


Tetrachloro-m-xylene (tetrachlorometaxylene, or TCMX) is a chlorinated derivative of m-xylene in which the four aromatic hydrogen atoms are replaced by chlorine. TCMX is used as an internal standard in the analysis of organochlorides, particularly organochloride pesticides.


Dumping water — of any quality into the bay is a waste. Like flushing money down the toilet.


0

Cherie McKee,


No I did not miss what Salmon said, but he has been a wastewater treatment plant opponent for many years, and coupled with the phrase, “I am suggesting the pretense in which one is being built was flawed from the beginning,” you wonder just what he thinks the reason is that we are building a treatment plant and just which system he thinks is better than what we have, because clearly the one we are getting is NOT it.


“The farmers in Salinas proposed the use of wastewater”


Can you please cite a reference for us on that? That is NOT what I heard, there was actually much opposition. If they were so gung ho, why did their buy-in take 20 years?


The sprayfields, as explained to me was necessary, as all possibilities had to to be considered. The County knew that would be shot down. We are not part of the adjudication in the basin either (the ISJ), so who knows, that might have been a factor in suggesting this solution. Clearly the water purveyors (who serve people outside of the PZ) are happy to have the prohibition zone people pay the cost of sending this water back into town and not have to explain why the water rates would have skyrocketed to pay to get the water back if it had gone that way!


Your phrase, The LOCSD Board hired Ripley who began negotiating with farmers in 2006, the county halted those negotiations in their quest to simply spray the treated wastewater into the air at Tonini.” isn’t accurate.


First, Ripley was chased off by some of the farmers. Second, there was a long gap between 2007 when AB2701 took the project from the CSD (and gave the project to the County) and when any sort of project was proposed (remember all those TAC meetings and Town Hall meetings?).


Where do you propose to put the water if indeed, some must go into the bay because the other disposal sites are full?


0

Back at Lynette,

Point by point:


Mr, Salmon’s opposition to the sewer proposed in the past were not, as you say “opposition” in the sense of a sewer, verses no sewer. While I can’t speak for him, I noticed he always included alternatives that were cheaper and better and quicker to implement than what Los Osos is getting now. You may have heard of the “Six Million Dollar Plan” that he supported, it was intended to dewater the high groundwater areas and build a pond that could farm fish for the orient, making the cost of construction back in revenue — selling fish.

I have to say, while far-fetched, it was clever and in hind sight, would have been off and running long ago.


The Monterey Regiona/Salinas farms were suffering from saltwater intrusion, not the homes or urban development; so the farmers were first interested in a reuse plan. Why did it take 20 years? Because bureaucrats take a long time to get in gear. The RWQCB had to sign off on it. Clearly, they move at a snails pace. As does building a facility that can hold millions of gallons of wastewater in the rainy season when the farmer don’t need it.


Lynette. The County knew Tonini would be shot down? Why did they spend millions of dollars and a year-plus on it. I can not believe they would be so egregious in wasting taxpayer monies. You?


Confused: “We are not part of the adjudication in the basin either (the ISJ), so who knows, that might have been a factor in suggesting this solution.” What? All of Los Osos is part of the ISJ, the Does 1-500 are the only water users who haven’t been included in the lawsuit…yet.


Ripley was hired in summer of 2006. AB2701 was implemented in Jan. 2007, so what “long gap” are you talking about? The TAC was formed in March ’07 only 3 months after the project heist from LOCSD. Ripley continues to speak with farmers. The only “farmer’ who “ran” him off also “ran of'”Jeff Edwards when he suggested the use of the equine farm as a treatment plant site. That site was poo-pooed as an “imminent domain’ impossibility, but fast forward to today, look who is imminent domain-ing…the County on Giacomazzi.


Dewatering could have been avoided with the “hybrid’ vacuum system Paavo proposed in 2008-09. Directional boring would have eliminated the need for dewatering trenches to below sea level. No need to dump polluted water/a resource, nonetheless, into the bay. Dewatering could have been minimized if the contractors had started in the high groundwater areas at the same time as the dry areas. Now it appears they will have the easy work done and the hard part (dewatering more at one time) yet to go.


0

CherieMcKee,


“…alternatives that were cheaper and better and quicker to implement than what Los Osos is getting now.”


That old canard. Cheaper for whom? The project? STEP might have been for the project, but then the undisclosed costs fell heavily on the individual homeowners! Don’t you recall how funny it was when Ripley started out with saying that 95% of the tanks needed replacing and then as the STEP costs were shown to be higher and higher he kept dropping the percentage of tanks needing replacing? It even got expensive for the project itself.


And Vacuum? “In densely populated areas, vacuum technology is not an economical substitute for gravity systems due to the high wastewater volumina and thus extended pump run times. Vacuum technology is not suitable where longer transport sessions over 4km become necessary.” (Technical data sheets for ecosan components, a vacuum system.) And then there is the problem of inappropriate items being flushed and shutting down the system. And the issue of little sewer plant buildings scattered all over town. If you don’t want one mid-town, why would you want one next door?


How does the “Six Million Dollar Plan” satisfy the Water Board? “Clever” sounds fun but it is not based in the reality of this planet.


Initially, the majority of farmers were skeptical, so a long term study was done to allay their fears. Source: Water Reuse for Irrigation: Agriculture, Landscapers, and Turf Grass edited by Valentina Lazarova, Akica Bahri, 2005, Page 377.


Have you forgotten the strong protest by the people out in the Clark Valley area to building the plant at Giacomazzi? Of course the County had to look for alternatives, suppose they sued? Only two people lived in the Tonini area versus the fifty plus who lived in the Clark Valley area.


We have no idea what is going on behind the closed doors of the ISJ.


The long gap was after the County took the project in 2007. There was no “project heist” from Ripley! The project was taken away from the bankrupt LOCSD which didn’t have a prayer of doing a project, any project!


The “imminent domain” that you refer to is not what the County is doing. Mark Hutchinson explained how the steps toward getting the property are to be done legally at a Board of Supes meeting a few months back.


It was up to the contractors to use or not use vacuum. It didn’t pencil out cost-wise apparently. No one has dumped anything into the bay yet. As I said, it is a method of LAST resort.


What does “Dewatering could have been minimized if the contractors had started in the high groundwater areas at the same time as the dry areas” mean? How does digging in dry areas have to do with work by the bay?


0

Boy Lynette, you were out late. Just back from the Merrimaker Friday night Karaoke?


Last issue first.

Dewatering: Dewatering should have begun months ago, simultaneous with the dry areas. Leaving it all to the end will result in large volumes of water to be disposed of all at once. Saturation of the land disposal sites is imminent, resulting in the necessity to dump to the bay.

Watch it play out. I hope I’m wrong.


Vacuum: CDM Smith took the easy way, using MWH’s design and failed to incorporate vacuum. Vacuum was a design choice, not a contractor choice. All sewer types run the risk for plugging. Especially the gravity sewer with its bell joints which are susceptible to root invasion. Roto-Rooter is one such company that makes its living off of gravity sewer failures. If people think septic tanks are high maintenance, they haven’t had a root infestation that literally grows into the house. I have witnessed roots growing into the bowl of a toilet.


Imminent Domain: Giacommazzi wants more money than the County was willing to pay. Now the County is taking the property with little compensation. As for its neighbors “fighting” the idea…majority wins. Tri-W was never a good idea and when the community finally awoke from their Pandora stooper they ‘moved the sewer.’ Tonini was an exercise is stupidity…wrong for so many reasons.


ISJ: I don’t know why you mentioned it if you don’t know what its all about.


Farmers: Allayed fears? If so, why aren’t they signing up? To date all we’ve got is dry farmers. Even the sod farmer doesn’t want the wastewater. It’s grass, not an edible crop.


Water Board: The “Six Million Dollar Plan” didn’t satisfy the water board, but as Mr. Salmon points out…the water board is the wrong reason to be building a sewer.


STEP: I didn’t bring up STEP, you did. I endorse vacuum for its ability to directionally bore and alleviate the need to dewater to the extent proposed.


Ripley: My reference to Ripley relates to the farmers, Bahman Sheik was picked up by Wallace to write a recycled water plan for the South County, too. The Ripley Team could not be beat in its expertise in recycled water and negotiations with farmers. Hiring the RCD has turned out to be a real joke.


Have a great day, hope your hangover isn’t too bad.


0

CherieMcKee,


Wrong about the Merrimaker. But I find it odd that this is where you would assume that I would be. I am there maybe once a year. Are you assuming that I behave as you do?


Dewatering will be simultaneous with the dry areas. There are plenty of dry areas left to go. Do you fancy yourself a project manager? If so, what are your degrees/qualifications.


Any collection system runs the risk of failure if not maintained, however, having said that,


“A variety of tasks must be performed on a regular weekly, monthly or semi-annual basis. These tasks include changing oil and oil filters on vacuum pumps; removing and cleaning inlet filters on vacuum pumps; testing all alarm systems; checking/adjusting motor couplings, and; checking operation of vacuum station shut-off and isolation valves. The operator must conduct external leak tests on all vacuum valves and check/adjust valve timing. Preventive maintenance includes annual visual inspections of valve pits and valves, as well as rebuilding controllers every 3 to 6 years and rebuilding valves every 8 to 12 years.”


“As with all mechanical devices, vacuum valves will fail with some frequency. When a valve sticks open the whole system has reduced vacuum. Locating the stuck valve may be time consuming and require two persons. When a valve fails to open, wastewater will backup in the valve pit (and potentially into the source). These failures are easier to locate but can result in an on-lot backup or the discharge of sewage.”


http://www.werf.org/c/DecentralizedCost/C4_Vacuum_Sewers.aspx‎


People didn’t want a bunch of vacuum stations scattered throughout the community. If you didn’t like Tri-W, why would you want to live next door to one of these buildings? Can you imagine living next door to a pump running 3-5 minutes off and on during the day? Want to see your property values plummet? And typically, two houses share a valve pit. Want that thing on your property or on your neighbor’s property?


“I have witnessed roots growing into the bowl of a toilet.” Hmmmm. You must hang out with either forest gnomes or people who do not maintain their property. Euuuuuuuu!


“Giacommazzi wants more money than the County was willing to pay. Now the County is taking the property with little compensation.” You know this because…? Please direct readers to your source.


ISJ: I mentioned it because we do not know what effect that it has had on County planning. It might have had significant impacts.


Fears in Los Osos have not been allayed, just the ones in Monterey and Salinas, you know the places where acceptance took 20 years?


As for the Water Board being the wrong reason, what would the right reason have been and why didn’t Los Osos pursue that 40 years ago?


STEP got a lot more play than vacuum. I remember Lonbardo’s presentation on vacuum in 2006: the cost was $29,000 per house.


BTW, “stooper” is spelled “stupor.”


0

Stooper is spelled “Stoop”-er when ALL of Los Osos bowed to the great and wonderful Pandora. Stooper is spelled “Stoop”-er when Pandora would stoop so low as to rent a dozen port-o-potties for a publicity stunt (that violated the County sign ordinance) that backfired in its effectiveness.


My credentials are that I listen very carefully to Bruce Almighty. I am not suggesting the whole town use vacuum. Only the high groundwater areas, as Paavo proposed in the 2009 PC hearings. Your point about Pio is well taken, funny $29K per house is less than todays gravity.


Merrimaker is not in the cards for me, but hey, you go right ahead and have your fun. It and Sweeties are the only places open until 2:00am…I guess until the 24 hour McDonald’s comes to town.


0

The only waste I see here, has been the inordinate time wasted on delaying this project.


0

Hydrologists agreed a long time ago that improvements related to groundwater contamination, if there are any as a result of the sewer, will not be seen for as many as 60 years. I won’t be here to know if it worked, not many of us will.


The point I see Mr. Salmon making is that there are no contaminants related to justifying the sewer on the basis of pollution. Where did “heavy metals” come from? That’s a new one on me. Kinda scary, but if they are serving Mercury from Nacimiento to people in SLO, than I guess Los Osos can drink heavy metals.


I for one, have always agreed that Los Osos, like so many other communities, was wasting their limited resource by not capturing the water for a second use. So, yes, a sewer is needed, just not for the reasons we all were led to believe.


0

Challenging problems to overcome? Well, let’s just keep doing nothing ,then, and continue the pollution. It will certainly get cheaper to fix in the future.


0

While I do not disagree of the need for the Los Osos Sewer, I do not believe that the forceful approach that was taken to get the project started was appropriate. Unfortunately only time will tell if the data and assumptions, which this project was founded on, was accurate. I do look forward to 5, 10, 15… years from now to see if the groundwater does clean up. If it doesn’t, I look forward to the class action lawsuit that will repay all of my expenses and assessments and pay for my children’s education.


0
1 2