Dear Members of the Local Media

To: sduerr@thetribunenews.com, bmorem@thetribunenews.com, dsneed@thetribunenews.com, econnolly@newtimesslo.com, shredder@newtimesslo.com, george@calcoastnews.com, velie@calcoastnews.com, news@ksby.com, news@kcoy.com, davecongalton@edbroadcasters.com, news@tolosapress.com
Subject: Possible Story Idea

Dear members of the local media,

I hope you are all having a nice holiday season.

The reason I'm writing to you, is because, unless I missed it, I haven't seen any media coverage on what happened with the former "Tri-W" sewer project that was proposed by the Los Osos CSD from 2000 - 2005.

In case you don't remember (and, apparently, you don't), the Tri-W sewer project was to include a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos, so it was an extremely unpopular and controversial project. However, despite years and years of community opposition to the mid-town sewer plant, the LOCSD still spent some $25 million and five years on its development.

And, in 2005, just one month before a recall election that would ultimately stop the project, the CSD actually began construction of the project by removing (with heavy equipment) the vegetation (including many trees) at the "Environmentally Sensitive" Tri-W site.

The project was also the subject of numerous State and Federal meetings over those five years, at an unknown, but presumably significant cost to California and U.S. taxpayers.

At the time, it seemed like the proposed $160 million Tri-W sewer project was kind of a big deal (or, at least I thought it was... maybe I'm wrong, although the Los Osos sewer story was selected the #1 story of the year in 2005 by Tribune readers.)

However, now that the County of SLO has control over the project, and after some three years and $7 million worth of analysis by the County, the Tri-W project didn't even come close to making the County's short list of viable project alternatives for Los Osos, and Supervisors recently approved a project (with a sewer plant located out of town, downwind) that is vastly different than the LOCSD's project... that the District spent $25 million and five years developing.

Furthermore, in a June 2009 letter to the California Coastal Commission, County staff writes, "The Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W site) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan (for their Tri-W project), believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."

And, in an official community survey conducted by County officials in 2009, it reads:

"Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location (as their preference for the treatment facility)."

So, when all of that is taken into consideration, it just seems like this story is a little newsworthy, and timely:

Why did the 2000 - 2005 LOCSD spend five years and $25 million designing a wildly unpopular sewer system that included an industrial sewer plant in the middle of town, and then began ripping up "Environmentally Sensitive Habitat" in an effort to build that project, yet when that project came under the scrutiny County officials, it didn't even come close to making the short list of viable projects, and the "Project Team" called it technically and socially "infeasible?"

So, I guess my question for the local media is: What happened?

Why did the LOCSD spend $25 million and five years on a wildly unpopular, "infeasible" project, that didn't even come close to being considered by County staff (and Supervisors) as the preferred project in 2009?

Will you be covering that story?

It seems newsworthy... at least to me.

If you have any questions, please just ask. I'm pretty sure I'd be able to assist in your research.

Thank you for your time,
Ron

###

Why Was the Tri-W Project Permitted?

TO: Charles Lester, Senior Deputy Director, California Coastal Commission Central Coast District Office
DATE: 12/10/09

Dear Mr. Lester,

I'm researching a story that involves the sewer project pursued by the Los Osos CSD from 2001 - 2005 (the "Tri-W" project), and I'm hoping that you might be able to answer a couple of quick questions regarding that project.

As you likely know, the County of SLO is currently developing a wastewater project for Los Osos, and after some three years of analysis, County officials have selected a project that is vastly different than the LOCSD's Tri-W project.

As part of their analysis, County staff writes:

"Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location (as their preference for the treatment facility)."
-- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

and;

"The Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan, believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."
-- SLO County Project team, June 29, 2009

And, in 2004, when the California Coastal Commission was discussing the Development Permit for the Tri-W project, Commissioner, Toni Iseman, according to official transcripts, said:

"I don't remember anything with as many cautions and questions that came up with an approval, than this project."
-- California Coastal Commission member, Toni Iseman, August 11, 2004, discussing the Coastal Development Permit for the Tri-W project

and, Sara Wan said:

"It seems to me that what is driving this here, and what is driving this entire thing, is the timing, and it is not a question of the feasibility of the site, but the need to proceed forward with the timing... this is what the Water Quality Control Board is saying, and that is what is driving the site selection, or feasibility at this time, not (the) environmentally preferable alternative."
-- California Coastal Commission member, Sara Wan, August 11, 2004, discussing the Coastal Development Permit for the Tri-W project

Considering those quotes, here's my question:

If the Tri-W project was socially and technically infeasible, according to SLO County staff, and also very unpopular in the community because it included a sewer plant in the middle of town, and if it was not the "environmentally preferable alternative," and if it was also loaded with "cautions and questions" at the time of its permitting, why was it permitted by the California Coastal Commission in the first place?

That doesn't seem to make sense.

Why was a wildly unpopular, "infeasible" project that was loaded with "cautions and questions," and not the "environmentally preferable alternative" -- a project that the 2001 - 2005 LOCSD spent nearly $25 million and four years developing, yet didn't even come close to making the County's short-list of alternative projects -- permitted by the California Coastal Commission in 2004?

Do you know the answer to that question?

In the context of 2010, it seems like an important question.

Why was an "infeasible" project permitted?

I'm not clear on that.

Thank you for your time,
Ron

Supervisor Gibson? Do We Have a Deal?

[Note: Below's my open e-mail to SLO County Supervisor, Bruce Gibson. About two weeks ago, I sent new County CAO, Jim Grant, an e-mail asking him what's the earliest the public will know when each Supervisor's appointment will be for Parks Commissioner in 2010. Of course, he never replied, resulting in the following e-mail. Incidentally, when David Edge was the County's CAO, he always returned my e-mails promptly, and with excellent responses.]

Hello Bruce,

I hope your holiday season is going well.

I just wanted to quickly contact you because I think I might have found a way to easily save both of us -- me and you -- some time and headaches (me: ones of minutes of time, and you: A LOT of headaches) next year -- and all you have to do is one simple thing: appoint a new 2nd District Parks Commissioner for 2010.

Here's what I'm getting at: I have a text file that I keep on my computer desktop, and it contains nothing but a huge collection of excellent Los Osos sewer related quotes that I've compiled over the years. So, now, when I'm researching a story, and I need to use one of those amazing quotes, I just pop that file open, and almost instantly find the quote I'm looking for through a quick keyword search, and then I just copy and paste the quotes into my stories. Works great! (Awesome journalism tip, too.)

The entire process takes just a few seconds.

Here, I'll show you a couple of examples of what I'm talking about.

The following quotes come from that file... that I just went and quickly copied-and-pasted:

"More delays mean the LOCSD may be fined out of existence. We’d lose local control."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

"I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005

Done.

That took six seconds, 'cause all I had to do was copy-and-paste from my huge file-O-quotes. I didn't have to retype any of that, including the html code for the links.

See how that works?

Here's another example:

"Pandora Nash-Karner - Chair, Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bruce Gibson."
-- SLO County Parks Commission web site, Current

Ouch! [by the way, that took two seconds]

And because I have all of those great quotes (about 10 years worth) all ready to go, what I can now do is go, and in just a few seconds, assemble some amazing takes.

For example, here's a choice sequence:

"(This CDO prosecution) is there when we help our children with their homework and when we play with our pets. It is there when we talk to our grandchildren on the phone. It is there when we spend time with friends, attend church, or work in our gardens."
-- Unnamed recipient of RWQCB enforcement actions

Followed immediately with this...

"I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005

and, this...

- - -
Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005
Subject: Re: Enforcement action on Oct. agenda?
From: "Pandora Nash-Karner"
To: "Roger Briggs"

I'd like to talk to you about potential strategy from the property owners to stop a new board from stopping the project. I'll call you Thursday morning.

-- Pandora
- - -

and, this...

"Gary and I are supporting Bruce Gibson for Supervisor."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, gibsonforsupervisor.org

And, then, all of that, of course, immediately followed-up with this...

"Pandora Nash-Karner - Chair, Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bruce Gibson."
-- SLO County Parks Commission web site, Current

[21 seconds]

See how that works, Bruce?

I can do stuff like that easily, and then post it all on my popular blog, SewerWatch, over, and over, and over again... all the way up to your November 2010, when you're going to need a couple of votes from Los Osos.

But (and here's the point of this e-mail), I won't have to do any of that, if you were to just simply appoint a different Parks Commissioner in 2010, and since I'm kind of lazy, I'm really hoping that you choose the latter... or else I'm going to be forced, out of human decency, to do things like this for a year:

"More delays mean the LOCSD may be fined out of existence. We’d lose local control (of the sewer project)."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005 (six months before the recall election)

"... could the LOCSD transfer the sewer project to the county BEFORE the current CSD-3 leave office?"
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, September 28, 2005 (one day after the recall election)

"I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Sept. 28, 2005 (one day after the recall election)

"To: Roger Briggs

I'd like to talk to you about potential strategy from the property owners to stop a new board from stopping the project. I'll call you Thursday morning."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Wed, 28 Sep 2005

"To: Ben Campbell [Note: Barnard Construction was one of the contractors on the Los Osos CSD project.]

I have just gotten off the phone with Roger Briggs.
We MUST save this project!"
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Thu, 29, Sep 2005

"Only (9-percent) of (Prohibition Zone) respondents chose the mid-town (Tri-W) location..."
-- Los Osos Wastewater Project Community Advisory Survey, March 27, 2009

"Joyce Albright found out today that the Tribune will be allowing a section, once per week, on the sewer issue. Please do NOT copy the concepts in your letter, otherwise, the media will recognize our efforts as a group effort and we lose our credibility."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, August 9, 2005

"Pandora Nash-Karner - Chair, Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bruce Gibson."
-- SLO County Parks Commission web site, Current

Boom. Done. 39-seconds. (But only because I was laughing so hard... I gotta admit, the mixing and matching of my quote collection can be kind of fun.)

Imagine, Bruce, a steady diet of that for an entire year... while you're campaigning.

And every word of it will be posted on SewerWatch, for ALL (read: Cambria, Morro Bay, Cayucos) to see, just like this e-mail. (Cool huh? Kinda like magic.)

Now, if my excellent idea comes across as a little ultimatum-ish, that's because it is, but, hey, what can I say? Enough's enough (I mean, good lord, c'mon!), so that's my final offer: You appoint a new Parks Commissioner for 2010 (one with absolutely ZERO ties to your current Parks Commissioner [I recommend Lisa Schicker, if she's up for it]), and I won't do things like this:

"A recall will not move or stop the sewer... The County or State would take over our (Tri-W) Project, assume the permit and build the same Project in the same location."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

"The (SLO County Los Osos wastewater) Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan, believes that if either of those options are deemed by decision-makers to be the best solution for Los Osos, then serious consideration should be given by the Board to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."
SLO County Project team, June 29, 2009

"Don’t listen to gossip — learn the facts for yourself."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

"We are much stronger as a united community."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, from Save the Dream Newsletter #4, March 25, 2005

"I hope the CSD gets fined out of existence..."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Wed, Sept. 28, 2005

"To: Roger Briggs
I'd like to talk to you about potential strategy from the property owners to stop a new board from stopping the project. I'll call you Thursday morning."
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Wed, 28, Sep 2005

"I have just gotten off the phone with Roger Briggs.
We MUST save this (Tri-W) project!"
-- Pandora Nash-Karner, Thu, 29, Sep 2005

"(This prosecution) is there when we help our children with their homework and when we play with our pets. It is there when we talk to our grandchildren on the phone. It is there when we spend time with friends, attend church, or work in our gardens."
-- Anonymous recipient of RWQCB enforcement actions

"Pandora Nash-Karner - Chair, Representing District 2 for Supervisor Bruce Gibson."
-- SLO County Parks Commission web site, Current

[27 seconds]

... over and over and over again... for an entire year... while you're campaigning.

Deal?

As always, thank you for your time,
Ron

P.S. Just curious, did you ever get a chance to read my piece titled, Contrast?

It's at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2006/05/contrast.html

That's where I first broke the story that your Parks Commissioner developed, and then implemented, a "strategy" (her word) to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," (also her words) and then, seven months LATER -- AFTER I exposed the fact that your Parks Commissioner developed, and then implemented, a "strategy" to have the entire town of Los Osos "fined out of existence," you (re)appointed her to the Parks Commission.

I wrote about that at this ink:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2009/06/district-2-parks-commissioner-pandora.html

And, just to be clear, I WILL continue to report on that over and over again throughout 2010, regardless of what you do with your Parks Commission appointment.

Finally, I just Googled: los osos sewer

... and out of over 15,000 results, SewerWatch was #2, just behind the County's official site.

Happy holidays.

###

Fraudulent Concealment

- - -

"fraudulent concealment:

Definition

Deliberate hiding, non-disclosure, or suppression of a material fact or circumstance (which one is legally or morally bound to reveal) with intent to deceive or defraud in a contractual arrangement. See also suppression of evidence."

- - -

Lemme see here...

Deliberate hiding of a material fact? Check.

That one is legally or morally bound to reveal? Check.

With intent to deceive or defraud? Check.

Uhhhh-ohhhhhh!

2004 Los Osos CSD? Montgomery, Watson, Harza? I've got some very, very bad news for you... I'm gooooooood.

"Fraudulent concealment?"

No problemo (after all, this IS SewerWatch).

Ready?

First, we'll need this:



That's a screen shot from a 2005 LOCSD document that I (exclusively, of course) dug up back in 2005.

It's from something called a "value engineering" report, and what it shows is that the park amenities in the Tri-W sewer plant were estimated at over $2.3 million.

That's very important -- an official LOCSD document estimating the park amenities at over $2.3 million.

Next, we'll need this:

"... the (LOCSD) Board on June 17, 2004 agreed to add the picnic area, tot lot, amphitheater, and community garden (to the Tri-W sewer plant)..."

That's a quote from a LOCSD document titled, June 28, 2004 Response to CCC. (The quote shows up on page "111 of 113.")

What that quote shows is that the 2004 LOCSD Board "agreed to add" the amenities, which, shortly thereafter, the District's engineers, MWH, estimated at $2.3 million.

Additionally, the "November 2000" site plan for the Tri-W sewer plant shows (among other amenities) "picnic area, tot lot, amphitheater, and community garden."

Here's the 2000 site plan, developed by the Los Osos CSD and MWH:


Next, we'll need this:

MWH Memo comparing costs of TriW with Andre

What that is, is a pdf file that I created back in 2005, and it contains an LOCSD "memo" that I first dug out of June 28, 2004 Response to CCC. The "memo" was created by MWH in 2004. (The document -- also called "Exhibit 3-C" -- appears after my story in that pdf file. Hey, I created the pdf, so it's "me first," of course.)

That document is vital to this case, because it shows that MWH in 2004, at the request of the California Coastal Commission, created a "hypothetical" sewer project for the District to answer the Commission's question on why the project couldn't be moved out of town.

That "hypothetical" sewer project consisted of a gravity collection system, with a treatment facility east of town, located "adjacent to the cemetery," with a small "pump station" at the Tri-W site, or, in other words, nearly identical to what the county just spent almost four years and $7 million approving.

I repeat: The LOCSD's "hypothetical" sewer project from 2004, was nearly identical to what SLO County Supervisors just approved... in 2009.

Exhibit 3-C concludes that there was no "economic incentive" in 2004 to do what the county just approved a week ago... after four years and $7 million worth of analysis.

Now, here's the "fraudulent concealment" kicker:

In the cost estimates for the "hypothetical" sewer project, MWH failed to include almost all of the estimated $2.3 million in amenities. Additionally, the 20-year cost for operation and maintenance of those amenities, estimated at another $3 million, is nowhere to be found in Exhibit 3-C.

So, to cut up the fraudulent concealment meat, and spoon-feed it to regulators, and the local media (heeerrrre comes the aiirrrrplaaaane... into the hannngaaarrr... open wiiii-iiiide...):

In the EXACT same document -- June 28, 2004 Response to CCC -- where the 2004 LOCSD writes, "... the Board on June 17, 2004 agreed to add the picnic area, tot lot, amphitheater, and community garden (to the Tri-W sewer plant)," they failed to include the cost of those amenities in their Exhibit 3-C study, and, if they had, it would have changed the entire conclusion of that study, to where there WAS "economic incentive" to do almost exactly what SLO County Supervisors just approved.

In June 28, 2004 Response to CCC, MWH and the 2004 LOCSD deliberately hid over $5 million (at least!) in amenity and O&M costs in their cost estimates -- which they were legally AND morally bound to reveal -- with the intent to deceive the California Coastal Commission into approving the Tri-W project, and it worked!

To make matters worse, even with the ONE amenity that they did account for -- the dog park -- MWH grossly low-balls the cost of that amenity.

In Exhibit 3-C, where low-balled numbers for the mid-town Tri-W sewer plant benefited that "project," the dog park is estimated at "$60,000," however, just a few months later, in their "value engineering" report, MWH, and the Los Osos CSD, estimated that exact same dog park at "$690,000," more than a factor (factor!) of 11 from their previous estimate.



Which means, if MWH was SO wrong on that number, how many other numbers were they wrong on (by factors of) in that study? (An independent analysis of those numbers today, would REALLY help answer that question.)

Bottom line?

Not only did the 2004 Los Osos CSD and MWH fraudulently conceal the cost of the park (that the 2000 LOCSD Board originally included in the project, and that the 2004 LOCSD Board "agreed to add" to the project... in the exact same document that includes their "hypothetical" sewer project), but the ONE amenity that they did include in the comparison -- the dog park -- was ALSO a case of fraudulent concealment, because they deliberately (and grossly, I will add) hid the real cost of that amenity... by a factor of 11.5!

And had the Los Osos CSD and MWH not done all of that fraudulent concealment in 2004, it would have changed the conclusion of MWH Memo comparing costs of TriW with Andre to what the county just approved... in 2009... after almost four years and $7 million worth of analysis.

Oh, and one last thing -- fraudulent concealment "tolls" the statute of limitations.

###

Recently Approved SLO County Sewer Project Nearly Identical to 2004 Los Osos CSD "Alternative" Project

To: Local Media List
From: SewerWatch
Subject: Wanna see something cool involving Los Osos?
Date: 10/1/09

Dear members of the local media,

Wanna see something cool? Check this out...

The Los Osos sewer project that was just approved by County Supervisors, after over three years, and $7 million of analysis, is nearly identical to a project that I first reported existed back in 2005 (a week BEFORE the recall election) -- a project that the 2004 LOCSD developed, and had sitting in its filing cabinet, and it was an alternative to the Tri-W mess.

The project consisted of a gravity collection system, with a treatment facility east of town, by the cemetery, with a small "pump station" at the mid-town Tri-W site. And THAT project description is exactly what the county just spent nearly four years years and $7 million concluding is the best solution for Los Osos.

Here's the link to my (2005!) story, where I first showed that the LOCSD had an alternative project sitting in their file cabinet... with cost estimates down to the hundreds of dollars:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/09/better-cheaper-faster-nobetter-cheaper.html

I dug that report out of a 4-inch thick, 2004 LOCSD document that was in response to several Coastal Commission questions, including why the sewer plant couldn't be moved out of town?

Gets worse for the 1999 - 2005 LOCSD.

The report on that project concludes that it did not make economic sense to move the facility out of town in 2004, however, as I also first exposed, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2005/07/sewerwatch-exclusive.html

... the 2004 LOCSD failed to include millions of dollars worth of components associated with the Tri-W sewer plant in their cost estimates, therefore, it low-balled the costs associated with the mid-town project, and IF they HAD included those millions of dollars in additional plant costs in the comparison, it would have changed the entire conclusion of that report, just like I reported, to where it DID make economic sense to build a gravity collection system, with a treatment facility east of town, by the cemetery, with a small "pump station" at the Tri-W site... which is exactly what the county just spent nearly four years, and $7 million, concluding is the way to go.

All the LOCSD had to do was act on its 2004 memo (that I first exposed in that story) using REAL numbers, and the result would have been nearly identical to what the county just did.

To put this frankly, had the 2004 LOCSD not lied about the numbers in that report in an effort to deliberately low-ball the cost of their now-failed Tri-W project, it would have shown that their 2004 "alternative" project could have, and SHOULD have, been used in 2004, just like the Coastal Commission wanted, and just what the Board of Supervisors recently concluded is the best solution.

Cool, huh?

Anyway, just thought you might find that interesting... or not.

Questions? Just ask.

Thanks,