Pipe Colors Explained

DigLosOsos has a new posting on pipe colors. You can view it here:

http://www.diglososos.com/2012/11/30/pipe-colors/

Too bad such pretty colors will be buried underground!

What Won't Happen In Los Osos

It's been a while for some new sewer news on the home front, so here is a bit of sewer entertainment from Mexico City to tide us over. We will never encounter scenes like these, but just think, a tank of similar if less diverse stuff, sits right now in your very own front or back yard Los Osians! As for me, I will be happy to see the tank pumped one last time. And I'm keeping any skulls if there are any in there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh8k4Zxbh4

The Tiny Bit More PZLDF That Means A LOT

Off the the 2nd District Appellate Court's website:

11/16/2012

Petition for rehearing denied.

This means PZLDF must pay up those pesky and expensive costs the Water Board incurred litigating this hopeless case that PZLDF mounted against them . Can PZLDF pull another trick out of the battered old hat to avoid paying? The next stop up the court food chain is the California Supreme Court. We'll see.

Dig Los Osos Has A New Post

It's all about safety. You can read about it here:

http://www.diglososos.com/2012/11/16/tips-for-your-safety/

More PZLDF "News"

Right off the 2nd District Appellate Court's website:

11/15/2012

Letter sent to:

    CA Supreme Crt and courtesy copy to all counsel; Purs. to CRC Rule 8.1120, we enclose herewith copy of request for publication of the opinion in the above matter, along with a copy of the opinion. We do not recommend publication as the opinion does not, in our view, meet the required standards.

So....the request by the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board who wanted this case to be published and the court in Ventura thinks it shouldn't be but sent it on, is now going to the California Supreme Court for an opinion as to whether or not it can be.

This move should now give those in this now 501 (c) 3-less PZLDF group lots of time to figure out how to pay for this. Good luck. You might consider suing the person who talked you into this scheme maybe?

And it will require the Water Board to spend more of its time and more money of the citizens of California to pay for this—until the final bill is due, which it will be.............eventually.

Arghhhhhh....PZLDF Arises From The Dead, Yesterday. UGH.

UPDATE TO FOOTNOTE:

It wasn't clear until today, November 15, but it was the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board who asked Deputy Helen G. Arens to publish the case, the appellate court did not change its mind to request that it be published.

Original Story:

PZLDF just filed a rehearing petition. Is this a ploy to keep things in play so they don't have to pay? Who knows!

See for yourself here:

http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1974927&doc_no=

Footnote, the Deputy Attorney General handling the case, Helen G. Arens filed a request to publish the opinion given by the court in this case. That means:

 "Published opinions of courts are also collectively referred to as case law, which is one of the major sources of law in common law legal systems."

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_opinion

That would end anymore forward motion on this sad, sorry thing I think.

The poor, poor people who signed on to this dead end. I feel really bad for them when the bill for this comes.

Correcting Incorrect Assertions About PZLDF Case

The RAZOR ONLINE has written an article on the apparent demise of the PZLDF case. But the Razor got some things wrong.

"It’s unclear what the basis of the appeal actually was because the appeal document is not public record."
RAZOR

The appeal document is in the public record, it is just not online. I asked the court in Ventura (where the PZLDF case was heard) as to how to get a copy of that document and the answer was: to come to Ventura and ask to see a copy (no, they will not make a copy for you) or hire a service that does this - which is: they to come to the courthouse with a portable copy machine, request the document and make a copy for you for a price.

"One could speculate that CCW’s attorney Shaunna Sullivan wanted to move the case out of the area in hopes that the appellate judges would be further removed from local politics and biases."
RAZOR

One could, but that isn't how it works:

The vast majority of cases in the California courts begin in one of the 58 superior, or trial, courts — located in each of the state's 58 counties. (Which is the court the case was in before it went to the court of appeals.)

The next level of judicial authority within the state's judicial branch resides with the Courts of Appeal. Most of the cases that come before the Courts of Appeal involve the review of a superior court decision that is being contested by a party to the case. The Legislature has divided the state geographically into six appellate districts, each containing a Court of Appeal.

Source: http://www.courts.ca.gov/2113.htm

"At the tail-end of the opinion, the judge specifically stated that the costs to the respondents (CCRWQCB) shall not be published. "
RAZOR

That isn't what "not publishing" refers to. It refers to the case itself, being published or not published.

"An opinion that is not ordered published shall not be cited or relied on by a court or a party in any other action or proceeding except as provided: when the opinion is relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or when the opinion is relevant to a criminal or disciplinary action or proceeding because it states reasons for a decision affecting the same defendant or respondent in another such action or proceeding. January 1, 1974 Division 3 Rules for Publication of Appellate Opinions Rule 977 Citation of Unpublished Opinions Prohibited; Exceptions (www.nonpublication.com)" (From the California part.)

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/LawAndGovt/LegalEthics/Nonpublication/Arguments/PublicationRules.htm

You can read more than you would ever want to know about that here:

http://lawweb.usc.edu/why/students/orgs/ilj/assets/docs/14-1%20Wasby.pdf

"There is no question that taxpayers and the district are shouldering the burden of those costs, as shared by the LOCSD."
RAZOR

No, the costs are to be paid by PZLDF or CCW, and the names of those people who are unfortunately on that case are on the superior court document. The District is not involved.

County Releases LO Water Recycling Baseline GW Quality Monitoring Report

You can find it at this link:

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/Baseline+Groundwater+Quality+Monitoring.pdf

Looks like 16 of the 25 wells had total Nitrogen levels over 10 mg/l. Hmmm, hardly the one point above legal levels as asserted by some (assuming 10 mg/l average statewide allowed, but our level must be 7 mg/l or below). 8 wells had 7 mg/l or below, so approximately 2/3rds of the wells are over the limit.

On page 7 under "CONCLUSIONS" of the report, we find this,

"The average NO3-N concentration for the 25 wells sampled is 13.4 mg/l (median value 14.4 mg/l). The greatest concentrations of NO3-N are reported at wells in Baywood Park and south of Los Osos Valley Road. Individual fluctuations in NO3-N concentrations across the network, when averaged together, showed a 2.3 mg/l increase between October 2006 and August 2012. The number of monitoring network wells with water quality in excess of the NO3-N drinking water standard of 10 mg/l is presently 16 out of 25 wells tested."

It appears that things are getting worse, not better as some have asserted. Well, we have our baseline now and once the sewer is up and running let's see where these numbers go. I think we can forget all about the urban legends of decaying underground forests and cows in the valley to account for the nitrates.