If you don't know the story, you probably don't want to. Let it be simply said, that the RWQCB was sick of having the sewer rug pulled out from under them by Los Ososians. Sewers 1 (by the County) and 2 (by the Los Osos Community Services District) were both stopped and there looked like little hope for a third iteration (due to the LOCSD's bankruptcy), so the RWQCB stepped in with a big disincentive to vote no to funding the next (State mandated) sewer, thrust upon the County of SLO to build (should they decide to accept the mission—they did). Thus the Los Osos CDO was born. Hook up by a certain date or expect to pay $5,000 per day to flush (or $10/gallon), plus pump your septic tank every three years.
In 2006, when these orders were first levied on 45 residents of the Prohibition Zone, the next step was to order a bunch more, continuing until every PZ household had one. But the hearings were so lengthy and onerous to both staff, board and citizens (read every meeting and every dollar in the Board's coffers could be dedicated to this task), the RWQCB stopped the process. So some people were under orders requiring them to pump their septic tanks and the rest of us were not. We only got Notices of Violation, which meant that if some day, when the sewer came along, if we didn't hook up, we'd get a Cease and Desist order. Some CDO holders got very, very upset, others just signed a settlement with the Board that they would hook up to the sewer when the time came.
These orders were in place since 2006 and might have gone away once the 218 vote had passed and the County started building sewer #3, had holders of those orders not decided to sue the RWQCB. That kept the orders in place—at least until the case was NOT accepted by the California Supreme Court, hence today's review of the CDOs and what to do about them.
Our District 2 Supervisor Bruce Gibson, many the CDO holders/friends of CDO holders and even me, a non-CDO holder, thought that they ought to go away, via written letters or by public testimony. They are unnecessary and unfair to those few under the mandate to pump when the rest of us don't. We should all be treated the same since no one will be suing the RWQCB any more!
So the Board will hear two items on this in September: an informational item to explain to the Board what the options are to vacating the CDOs and then a hearing to DO something about them, rescind them or not!
So mark your calendars for the SLO meeting of the Water Board in September for the next step in this seemingly endless, ever serpentine, sewer saga.
For the record, here was my speech:
My name is Lynette Tornatzky, I live in Los Osos and I have a Notice of Violation, not a Cease and Desist Order. I moved to Los Osos in April of 2005 and voted AGAINST the recall and AGAINST Measure B. I have been and still am in favor of your board holding the people of Los Osos responsible for cleaning up the obvious water pollution by ORDERS of some sort.
However, considering the lawsuit against you by CDO holders was thrown out of court and not unlikely to come at you again, I support equality in the orders against us, whichever type they are—we should all NOW be under the SAME orders.
There is always a chance, especially in Los Osos, that some people won't hook up to the sewer. But of the current 38 CDO orders that are in effect on less than 1% of the population out of a total of the approximately 4800 households, I would suggest that there is a far greater chance that the non-compliance would come from the sector that has Notices of Violation, the remaining 99% of Los Osos.
I don't know what your enforcement process would look like to an NOV holder as opposed to a CDO holder. It seems to me that most CDO holders have just accepted a settlement and gone on with their lives. I don't know their backstories. I only know the very public and unhappy CDO holders that filed that PZLDF lawsuit against you which failed rather miserably and cost you a lot of money. But even those defiant ones seemed to have been complying with the CDO requirements. So knowing that—LOGICALLY, the category most likely TO not COMPLY would come out of the NOV-holder category.
Since we are already paying part of the money of the sewer assessment on our taxes, to assess your risk in non-compliance, you might find out how many are protesting the sewer by not paying the sewer portion of tax on their property tax bill. I'd bet that the number is very small, and that those people are not all concentrated in the CDO-holder category.
Looking at the staff report, the reasons for leaving the CDOs in place were three. On point #1, barring devastating earthquake or terrorism, I don't see how the County won't complete the sewer. They have gone through a hateful verbal fire-and-brimstone punishment for this project to be realized AND they have survived thus far; they are not going to quit now. I agree with points 2 and 3 though, SOMETHING should remain in place as a disincentive.
However, looking at where the numbers of possible violators are placed, in the NOV category, it would make more sense that everyone should ACTUALLY be under a CDO if that effects a more likely compliance. BUT, looking at how costly that CDO process has been on you, I think putting everyone in the NOV category, where no hearings would need to occur until non-compliance occurs, would make the most sense.
(I ran out of time, so didn't deliver this part.) Today's item is only for discussion, but I would hope that you might put this on a future agenda for action, either for Closed Session, as there may be things legal going on here that I don't know about or understand, or in a future Open Session.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment