When you are able to understand the merits of the TW case and that it has nothing to with your 4th or 5th paragraph or what Lisa is doing right now, then the case might make sense to you. Do you even ask yourself how many cases CCLO or CASE or CAWS brought about that directly impacted the communities ability to receive Clean Water Act funds or their direct involvement in the increased expenses due to delay?

There are some of us who may not be TW directly but understand that the slash and burn mentality of the post recall boards actions have had an enormously negative impact on the community on many levels. We have violated the bay and this board violated our trust and there will be a monetary price to pay-will it have been worth it?

They release John Seitz as general counsel because he wouldn't have settled the cases with BWS. They had to bring in another attorney to sit across from BWS. Do you know that several of the cases were already lost cases? Do you realize that Measure B was lost a long time ago but was never settled. Do you know why? I believe if the community would look at the actions of the boards without the hate rhetoric, you would be greatly saddened by what happened instead of continuing the "leave town" mentality.

You are just repeating what we have heard and what has never held up under scrutiny. I don't believe that the health hazards of the previous project out weighed the tragedy of what we have done to the estuary.
I don't believe there were health hazards with the previous project in that similar projects with that type of treatment are working out just fine. MBR technology is still the technology of future requirements in that it cleans the waste water above tertiary and many urban areas with water supply issues are looking to MBR as a way to meet demand. We cannot afford to be afraid of the technology that helps us resolve supply issues. The community was lied to when they were told it was a health hazard. They are still being lied to by board members who stand before the BOS and tell them they are being lied to by staff. They protest too much and it creates suspicion.

I don't see the direct correlation between the lawsuits filed by the CCLO, CASE and CAWS impacting the ability to receive Clean Water Act funds. As far as I know, there has been no letters citing their litigation as a reason the community has been unable to collect those funds -- unless you know something that I don't and I know I don't know everything, but I think you're overstepping the logical boundaries if you give those groups that much credit. Right now, it's merely wild speculation on your part. As far as those "delay" expenses go, the delay was legally inevitable. Going through with the previously proposed WWTF would have some serious legal ramifications like, "Why was there no 218 vote?" and "Why is this project staying on course even those the SRF loan is illegal and the CSD has no dedicated source of revenue?" There are so many questions that were asked and many were left unanswered. It was not a clean, thorough process by any stretch of the imagination.

I think that the "slash and burn mentality" of the post-recall board is well-documented and acknowledged, however, I do believe that Taxpayers Watch created conditions that influenced the already-defunct board to incur more debt and scrutiny -- almost like they were engineering the board into a settlement, which is something that closeted Taxpayers Watch member and CSD board member Joe Sparks has encouraged amongst his following. Conflict of interest maybe?

I'll leave it up to the board to shoot themselves in the foot. When I looked at the Measure B petition a long time ago, I saw how poorly written and how poorly conceived it was; putting it into effect would not be a wise idea but the CSD tried and failed to do so. They have a lot of cases that are already lost because they went BWS and their representative who Al Barrow (original author of Measure B) and Gail McPherson brought in. I'll give you that. That was their undoing, but that was not what I was talking about in my original post.

What scrutiny? Where?

The project wasn't built so how would you really know that and how do you really know for sure that we, residents of the Prohibition Zone, are solely to blame for discharging into the estuary? Ever considered other discharging sources? There are several.

MBR technology varies by vendor/manufacturer. The vendor that the old board recruited has had a reputation for creating systems that incubated very toxic pathogens (not work-safe) and their systems had received odor complaints. You know how much the community would be fined every time a bunch of people complain about the odor (especially in the middle of town)? A lot. The only way that MBR technology would be suitable for our community is if it was cost-effective (as in it didn't cost $135 million and up to produce), included ultrafiltration technology and hollow fiber membranes (see ZeeWeed MBR by General Electric Company) and even then, MBR cannot work on land parcels that are on a downward slope. The "mid-town" location has irregular terrain. MBRs are traditionally placed on flat areas.

"I don't see the direct correlation between the lawsuits filed by the CCLO, CASE and CAWS impacting the ability to receive Clean Water Act funds."

The funds were only available for a period of time prior to the implementation of the SRF program. You are correct, CAWS could be considered the main group that caused delay so that those monies weren't available outright anymore. The other groups challenged other issues that increased delay and costs. I wasn't clear.

I would question Joe Sparks' association with TW. It would suprise me if he was involved in any of their decision making. It doesn't fit his character or his rhetoric, they don't really match. You can be concerned about the financial status of the district without being a part of a "group".

We agree on the boards actions but your comment on the MBR isn't clear to me. MBR has progressed in design and lower energy but how do you account for the slope? That is an engineering issue and if you have documentation regarding the "irregular terrain" it would be interesting to read.

Even though there are issues we agree on, it still feels to me as though your actual intent is still "no sewer". Potentially there are other sorts of discharges into the bay but the bulk of it is from Los Osos. I drive my car in Morro Bay and other areas and contribute to their storm water runoff, should I help pay for their infrastructure? Where do you suggest we draw the line? Maybe it doesn't have the appearance of being fair but that doesn't give the community the right to completely destroy a water body. What we are doing right now is destroying an ecosystem that may still recover, maybe not. That I cannot accept.

There are direct cost benefits to the community of Los Osos once this is remedied. There are no benefits to Los Osos if this continues.

Okay, that I understand.

There are a few reasons why I mentioned Joe Sparks as a closeted Taxpayers Watch member. First, he donated money to Michael Drake, the chief financier of Taxpayers Watch back when the group was in its infancy. Second, Sparks had met with Joyce Albright, Maria Kelly and Lynette Tornatsky on several occasions, seeking their endorsement during the 2006 CSD directors campaign. Shortly after he met with them, a mailer was released by Taxpayers Watch members, which publicly endorsed Sparks, Kelly and Tornatsky as their three picks for CSD. Third, Sparks had met with Paavo Ogren several times at the county government building with several members of Taxpayers Watch. All of this can be verified by Maria Kelly.

Have you seen any modern MBR on a downhill slope before? I haven't, but if there are plants that are built on similar land parcels as Tri-W, then I'd love to see those projects. PDFs and links are fine with me.

I will tell you my actual intent and it's plain and simple: STEP/STEG. Ripley Pacific and Orenco's system is where it's at. LOTAC's cost estimates and flaws are merely assumed figures that are NOT based on Ripley's numbers. With that said, I believe I can speak for most of Los Osos when I say that we need a sewer and by not having one, we would be staying in the stone age and we would be hindering much-needed development that would turn Los Osos into a community that doesn't have to think about the sewer every time they flush their toilet. That's something we can all agree on. Now, do I think we need to build a project that isn't sustainable and that is not cost-effective out of desperation? Absolutely not. Even if we were polluting, we cannot rush to judgment and the county should not rush to judgment either.

I do believe that we're coming across a time when the CSD is no longer a valid, operational district and the most logical step would be to dissolve the district once the amount of debt incurred is cut in half. If dissolution is not a favorable option, then the CSD must not undergo a change in leadership, but a change in policies and organization so the community is not scratching their heads when it comes to figuring out where all the money went. At the same time, Taxpayers Watch would be improving their image significantly if they dropped the lawsuits and instead, urged a wide-scale reform that reorganizes the district. If we continue on this current path, there will be no benefits for anyone.

Oh, for Goodness' sake, which Franc4 are you, OsosChange? Back on STEP, back on conspiracy charges against everybody but the current board FecalFour, back on Ripley. Get a life, give it uyp. You currently write better than you did before, but you put out the same drivel. I thought I was verbose but I can hardly hold a candle to you.

Your drivel would be just more to click off, but you are a danger by your very tenaciousness in argument. How many people, Julie er, I mean OsosChange, can you sway with your long and detailed arguments, subtle and not so subtle shading of the truth, etc.?

Give it up. The MBR TriW project, with it's product water being so very ready for RO and eventual complete reuse, was the most sustainable project imaginable. The spray fields would have been gone in a couple of years, but the important full treatment and common safe modern gravity sewer would be in. Yes I could fault the old board for leaving out RO but at least they were building SOMETHING in a common sense location with common sense technology.

Quit braying about how TriW was a bad idea, it would be in now, functioning now, and everything from bay pollution to lower home values to community strife and weariness would long now be over. The disastrous board including Fouche doomed that; it's over and done, the community has been driven into the toilet by their actions. Move forward, let wiser and less scrambled county brains put in a conventional collection and treatment project, and go bedevil some other jurisdiction over some other issue.

The first step, by the way, for you is to admit the disaster of what was done, and the unworkability of the RIpley project. What about the solid waste from the RIpley project? Still think there wasn't going to be any?

Sheeesh.

When I saw my name, coupled with what had been said, I had to set up an account to respond. See me at a CSD meeting or around town, I will verify in person what I say here. There are misstatements here that need correcting.

From OsosChange:

Joe Sparks is NOT, nor has he EVER BEEN, associated in ANY way with Taxpayers' Watch! Who told you that? Did you make this up? Sorry to call you out as wrong, but you are. I was present at a TW meeting where Joe's e-mail back to Joyce was read aloud as to how he felt about joining TW - yes, he was asked - and the response was an emphatic NO, a NO almost to the point of rudeness. In no way did he want to be associated with TW! I can't imagine Joe giving TW so much as a dime - I doubt that - but ask him, don't put out rumors here.

I came into the TW group spring of 2006. I can't verify anything prior to that. Michael Drake and I worked on the TW website - was he their chief financier? I don't know. He did the site, that is what I do know.

I certainly can't imagine why Joe would meet with Joyce, OR a bunch of TW people and Paavo - but he did meet with Maria and I - once maybe? Not often. Hey - WHY would Joe even want my endorsement? I'm TW, remember?

The three of us were called the "sanity ticket" by some, and that might be why TW put out that mailer - which was their choice - they could endorse anyone they liked. There was NO MEETING of the three of us about that mailer!!! Hilarious!! Hey, you don't have to be a member to be endorsed by TW!

Although you don't say Maria is here, let me repeat what I said during one of the forums - (the one where Joe endorsed Maria but not me) - I said neither Maria nor Joe was part of TW, but that I was.

So why are you bringing up these erroneous statements?

And by the way, my last name is spelled Tornatzky - with a Z.

Dear Change,
I followed up on some of your statements of fact and they seem to be skewed. Your sources have not only polluted the water but maybe even your mind.
Good luck on getting more credible sources or better yet. How about talking to the people you are reporting on.
Thanks Lynette for stepping up.

I haven't checked this forum for a few days but it appears I've received some colorful replies.

The first problem here is that people keep putting a name on me and wrapping their arguments around that assumptions. Let's talk about assumptions briefly for a moment. Assumptions are just assertions derived from speculation so anything you could say -- that could have been valid if I was people you're referring to -- is thrown out the window. As far as me giving up on anything, I don't think so. That's wishful thinking.

Either you only know half the truth or you're not telling the truth. Of course, I did not go to any Taxpayers Watch meetings and I don't know, or wouldn't care to know, about what happened in those meetings. Yes, he did say, "No," in that e-mail but I can verify my previous statements. Not only that, I have some e-mails right here that I was forwarded to me BCC by prominent members of Taxpayers Watch. In one e-mail, Joyce referred to Sparks as a "liason" to Taxpayers Watch when she discussed his meetings with Paavo Ogren a few months ago.

I remember back in May 2007 when I bumped into Sparks on the street and I joked with him about Taxpayers Watch. He chuckled and said to me, "I'm not a member, really -- I mean, I gave them money just to help them out." Okay, so you're telling me you're not a member but you gave TW money? Sure, that instance is anecdotal evidence but the principle of the matter is what troubles me. You can sit there on the board, talking about how the CSD is wasting all this money, but you give money to the very same organization that filed legal complaints against the CSD that the CSD has to defend with taxpayer money? That bothers me and I think the truth needs to be exposed.

As far as Maria Kelly goes, I know that Kelly has organized numerous TW meetings at Round Table Pizza and has sat in on those meetings regularly. I also know that she's met with Richard LeGros and Gordon Hensley, two of the most prominent TW members, and had regular "strategy meetings." And there she sits on LOTAC, chewing her gum, laughing rudely at people speaking in public comment, contributing only rehashed Taxpayers Watch talking points (she asks over and over again, "What about the mid-town site?" on and off-camera). She is a player, a very big player who has proven time and time again to have no objectivity.

Now I don't have noterized documentation from Kelly or Sparks that say they're members, but really, everyone else who has a brain can put one and one together and come to the same conclusion.

As far as my statements being "skewed" or wishing me luck on better sources, I wish you luck as well. You need it more than I do. In other words: right back at ya.

Lyn...with a Z,

"So why are you bringing up these erroneous statements?"

Thanks for verifing, by your finding it necessary to enter into discourse with a person Move thinks is me, to make folks believe he/she is wrong.

Alot of what he/she wrote has been said before. Why do you enter now? To me, and I am sure others, now feel what he/she wrote is accurate.

"Thou doest protest too much"

As for REA, "checking resourses"....the only thing he checks is whatever Julie is doing currently....nothing else!

"There was NO MEETING of the three of us about that mailer!!! Hilarious!! "

Really? Then you weren't running together....."The three of us were called the "sanity ticket" by some,"
How could you be called a "ticket" then?

"Joe Sparks is NOT, nor has he EVER BEEN, associated in ANY way with Taxpayers' Watch! "

That so? Then all the info being leaked about CSD business must be coming from some one else, right?

Nice try!!!

Karen Vega is the one who has leaked CSD documents, not Joe Sparks.

I suspect the "majority" was indeed led to believe that the "new board" would solve the sewer issue once and for all...as they claimed they would. the truth is, they didn't...and still haven't, and never will. Instead they, have defied all logic, reason, law, common sense, and decency.
They have bankrupted a community, violated the law, robbed the taxpayers, devaluated property values, polluted waters of the U.S., comitted fraud, violated business ethical standaeds, lied under oath, and embarrassed all they have had contact with from the governor to the janitor.

The Fecal Four are nothing more than political pond scum...whom you obviously support.
You must be very proud of their accomplishments....no one else is.

LoKahuna, I don't support the board. Perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension.

OC,

"LoKahuna, I don't support the board. Perhaps you need to improve your reading comprehension."

.....just to name one of MANY, MANY "improvements" he needs......no mater which names blogs names he uses. I guess he has copy rights on stuff he posts as Wonky.....why I can't see, even.

Perhaps a supporter in drag?