Termination Of Orders

Here is an interesting email that just arrived:

lyris@swrcb18.waterboards.ca.gov <lyris@swrcb18.waterboards.ca.gov>

To:Lynette Tornatzky

Nov 2 at 11:40 AM

Dear Interested Parties,

NOTICE OF ORDER(s) TERMINATION

The Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board will meet at its San Luis Obispo offices on November 8-9, 2018. Item #10 on the agenda is the termination or an Order or Orders that were issued to properties related to the Los Osos Septic Prohibition. You are being sent this notice because you have expressed interest in items relating to Los Osos wastewater issues.

The meeting agenda may be viewed on the internet here:

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2018/november/index.html

Regards,

Jon Rokke

Water Resources Control Engineer

Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board

895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

I haven't even read all the stuff yet, but it is an amazing piece of history - DO follow the link above and the links for Item 10.

Last Gasp of the CDO Issue? Nah....

Found on the Regional Water Quality Control Board's agenda for both of their November meetings, Thursday the 13 and Friday the 14:

Closed Session

5.    Ken Berry, et al. v. Central Coast Water Board, et al. (Sacramento Superior Court; CEQA Challenge to Los Osos CDOs)

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2014/nov/Agenda/agenda_nov.shtml

I suspect this is NOT the last gasp. Those angry over their CDOs should drop Mr. Berry a thank you note I suppose. You can read about CEQA here, all 425 pages of it (and this isn't even the "official" copy, but it is prettier):

http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2014_CEQA_Statutes_and_Guidelines.pdf

CDOs on Regional Water Board Agenda!

Find relevant links here for the September 25, 2014 meeting:

Agenda link—see Item 13, "Enforcement"
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2014/Sepember/agenda_files/agenda_sep2014%20a.htm

Relevant documents page, off which are numerous links.
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2014/Sepember/item13/index.shtml

To cut to the chase, the Enforcement Staff's recommendations are thus:

1. The County has not yet completed the community system, and while we are confident that it will, this outcome is not guaranteed.
   
2. The main requirement of the orders, hooking up to the sewer when it becomes available, cannot yet be complied with. This requirement should stay in place until the system is available.
   
3. Even when the system is available, there may be dischargers in the prohibition zone who are reluctant or refuse to hook up. Leaving these orders in place maintains a disincentive for order recipients to continue violating the prohibition after construction of the sewer system. 

We ALL should have gotten CDOs OR NOVs to begin with. In other words, we all should have been treated equally. While I disagreed many times with the frantic fight against these orders, as in real life, they didn't amount to much unless one chose to react that way about them (think of all of those who simply signed that paper and moved on), the unfairness to not be treated equally, I think, we can all agree on.

There are just as many NOV holders, probably more actually, who may not comply with hooking up to the sewer when it is available, so point 3 just seems to be a way to cut costs or something on a CDO holder who does not comply. In other words, maybe the Board would have to start from scratch with a non-compliant NOV holder, but it wouldn't with a CDO holder? Again, it just looks like playing unfavorites. 

So, IMHO, I believe the Board should adopt the resolution offered which TERMINATES these orders!
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2014/Sepember/item13/item13_att2.pdf

The Mysterious Ordinance 3209

Really, Water Board give us a break!

Bruce Gibson spoke at the Central Coast Regions Water Board meeting on May 22, 2014 asking for the Los Osos Prohibition Zone CDOs to be rescinded. He was asked by the Board as to what the County could do to enforce compliance to hook up should they remove the CDOs.

This is when the mysterious Ordinance 3209 popped up which the Water Board apparently was unaware of (as was most of us too, although it was very public in its adoption if you were paying attention)!

This ordinance was introduced on October 5, 2010 and adopted December 14, 2010 by the Supes and you can read it off this link (it is toward the end of the staff report). Yes, it has TEETH!

http://slocounty.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=2&clip_id=1002&meta_id=198936

Here's how it went down:

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Luis Obispo, and ex-officio the governing body of all other special assessment and taxing districts for which said Board so acts, met in regular session at 09:00 a.m. 

PRESENT:	Supervisors: Bruce S. Gibson, Adam Hill, James R. Patterson, and Chairperson Frank Mecham
ABSENT:	Supervisor: K.H. 'Katcho' Achadjian

13

C-2

This is the time set for hearing to consider protests to an ordinance establishing a mandatory sewer connection requirement and sewer service charges for the Los Osos Wastewater project; and adoption of the ordinance if no majority protest exists; 2nd District.  (02:13 PM)

Staff Report

Chairperson Mecham:  opens the floor to public comment.

Mr. Tom Murphy, Mr. Hugo Conti, Ms. Gail McPherson, Dr. C. Hite, Mr. Don Bearden, Ms. Maureen Cormier, Mr. Bill Moylan, Mr. Bill Garfinkel, Ms. Beverley DeWitt-Moylan, Mr. Bo Cooper, Ms. Lacey Cooper, Mr. Al Barrow, Mr. Richard Margetson, Ms. Piper Reilly, Mr. Ben DiFatta, Mr. Chuck Cesena, Ms. Leslie Sands, Mr. Bruce Payne, Ms. Joyce Albright, Mr. Keith Wimer, Mr. Jeff Edwards, Ms. Julie Tacker, Ms. Linde Owen, Ms. Anna Easter, Ms. Elaine Watson, Mr. Alon Perlman, Mr. Dan Gilmore – Los Osos Community Services District General Manager, and Ms. Kathleen Jensen: speak.

A motion by Supervisor Bruce S. Gibson, seconded by Supervisor Adam Hill, to adopt the rates and charges ordinance, is discussed.  Mr. Warren Jensen, County Counsel, asks the Board to first make a motion finding a majority of protests was not received prior to approving the ordinance, with the motion maker and second withdrawing their motion.

Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Bruce S. Gibson, seconded by Supervisor Adam Hill, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Supervisors: Bruce S. Gibson, Adam Hill, James R. Patterson, Chairperson Frank Mecham NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor: K.H. 'Katcho' Achadjian the Board finds a majority protest has not been successful having received 801 written protests.

Thereafter, on motion of Supervisor Bruce S. Gibson, seconded by Supervisor Adam Hill, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Supervisors: Bruce S. Gibson, Adam Hill, James R. Patterson, Chairperson Frank Mecham NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor: K.H. 'Katcho' Achadjian the reading of the proposed ordinance is waived and said proposed ordinance is read by title only and ORDINANCE NO. 3209, ordinance establishing a mandatory sewer connection requirement and sewer service charges for the Los Osos Wastewater Project, adopted. Footnote: If you have time to watch the video of this, don't miss the comments (rantings) by Tom (Reclamator, or as I prefer "Wrecklamator") Murphy! He cites the "National Standards Enforcement Agency" and some confused words about the County of SLO and $500 million! Always entertaining that Mr. Murphy!

September Love...from the Regional Water Quality Control Board

Remember the song "September Love?" Or how about "See You in September?" That's the next step after today's Regional Water Quality Control Board informational meeting in San Luis Obispo on the topic of CDOs, or Cease and Desist Orders (September 22, 2014). Let's hope September's song will be in tune with what the community wants. Dump the CDOs! Take a step toward healing the community rift over inequity.

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.

RWQCB and the Ever Present Ken Berry

Who is Ken Berry? OK, I confess. I'm getting down into the sewer weeds with this post. But as I always do, I was looking at the agenda for our Regional Water Quality Control Board's meeting today (it's in Salinas). I do this just to see if any sewer-related Los Osian thing might pop up. And the usual closed session legal case was there,

"4.    Los Osos CSD v. Central Coast Water Board (San Luis Obispo County Case No. CV 060146 (TSO 00-131)."

Ho-hum. That has been on there for years. But then, I noticed this,

"6.    Ken Berry, et al. v. Central Coast Water Board, et al. (Sacramento Superior Court; CEQA Challenge to Los Osos CDOs)"

Apparently I have been very remiss in not noticing this, maybe because I have never read anything about this and who the heck is Ken Berry? I know all the known past Los Osos CDO players, but Ken Berry isn't even on the radar. I found the case listed in the Sacrament courts but there was no online access to actual documents. So I looked back to see where this all started, maybe there would be a clue. Here are the dates of this case on our Water Board's closed session agenda:

Thursday, January 30, 2014, 9:00 a.m.
Thursday, December 5, 2013, 10:00 a.m.
Wednesday, October 9, 2013

Thursday, July 11, 2013

Thursday, May 30, 2013

Thursday, March 14, 2013

Friday, February 1, 2013

Thursday, December 6, 2012

October 3, 2012

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Wednesday, July 11, 2012

Thursday, May 3, 2012

March 14, 2012

Wednesday February 1, 2012

OK, I got bored here and skipped around and just picked a date in a year.

Thursday, February 3, 2011

Thursday, February 4, 2010

Thursday, February 5, 2009

Thursday, February 7, 2008

This one is special, so I did a copy and paste—Friday, December 7, 2007 

(SEVEN Los Osos cases on a 15 item closed session agenda.)

4.      Los Osos Community Services District v. Central Coast Water Board (ACL Order R3-2005-0137) (San Luis Obispo County Superior Court Case No. CV 060633);

5.      Central Coast Water Board v. Los Osos Community Services District (San Luis Obispo County Case No. CV-051074);

6.      Stephen Onstot, Gregory Murphy and Julie Tacker vs. Central Coast Water Board and State Water Board (San Luis Obispo County Case No. CV 060196; Second Dist. Ct. of Appeal Case No. B195375) (Public Records Act);

7.      Los Osos CSD v. Central Coast Regional Board (San Luis Obispo County Case No. CV 060146 (TSO 00-131);

8.      Los Osos Community Services District (Bankruptcy), Central District of California Case No. ND 06-10548-RR;

9.      Ken Berry, et al. v. Central Coast Regional Board, et al. (Sacramento Superior Court; CEQA Challenge to Los Osos CDOs);

10.  Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund, et al., v. Central Coast Regional Board, et al. (San Luis Obispo Superior Court Case No. CV070472) (Los Osos CDOs);

But I digress. To continue with Mr. Berry's footprints,

Friday, October 19, 2007

Ken Berry, et al. v. Central Coast Regional Board, et al. (Sacramento Superior Court; CEQA Challenge to Los Osos CDOs)

Berry was NOT on the closed session agenda Friday, September 7, 2007 or Thursday, August 23, 2007.

And here we finally are, the FIRST appearance,

Friday, July 6, 2007 Ken Berry et al.  v. Central Coast Water Board (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 07CS00648).

So who the heck is Ken Berry? I did a bit of sleuthing and I will give a BRIEF rundown here, believe me, there is much more:

Spring 2003 Berry first appears online supporting an organization called "Recall Sanity." Its main concern was the plurality method of electing a new governor if California Governor Gray Davis was recalled.

(Next, and I have already listed this above, Friday, July 6, 2007 Ken Berry's case appears for the first time on the Regional Water Quality Control Board's list of closed session items: Ken Berry et al.  v. Central Coast Water Board [Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 07CS00648]).

October 2, 2008 Ken Berry writes to the Central Valley RWQCB his intent to comment and advance future actions on five projects in three different counties on three wastewater treatment plants, a landfill and the Port of Stockton all regarding Cleanup and Abatement Orders (CAOs) or Cease and Desist Orders (CDOs).

December 2008, Berry appeals the Amador Planning Commission's decision to certify an EIR for a subdivision project.

July 7, 2009 at the State Water Resources Control Board Berry files a petition on the City of Richmond's CAO.

September 2009 one finds Ken Berry In Pro Per against the City of Willits, Willits Environmental Remediation Trust, SWRCB - "Amendment of Petition for Review of Refusal To Enforce the California Water Code and the United States Clean Water Act , Darby Creek."

March 2010, Berry starts on the path to a lawsuit against a gravity water line project.

February 2, Ken Berry files a lawsuit in Amador County seeking Sutter Creek to rewrite it EIR for the Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort.

March 12, 2012, Jackson, California residents Ken Perano and Ken Berry filed a lawsuit in Amador County Superior Court against the Amador Water Agency (AWA).

Listed in a news article for 2012 was a case Berry filed in Mendocino County but I couldn't find it searching the Mendocino court cases.

Mr. Berry's address and phone number are readily available online and I was tempted to call or write to him to ask why, WHY? My observations are that there appears to be time, money and a repetitive legal wish to have various public and private entities to see things the Ken Berry way. He did not vanish as did the PZLDF CDO case, which lost, was aced out, erased from the Water Board's closed session list NO! he hangs in there, year after year after year in a limbo, a stasis of simply appearing to have some bone to pick for Los Osos. The burning question remains of course, once the sewer is built, will this case live on to bolster the dicey reputation of the sewer story that would not die?

I prefer to let the mystery remain and leave it here, in pixels, an unfinished story in the many chapters of weirdness that populate the Los Osos sewer saga.

PS, link to more weeds (on a Writ of Mandate). And "California Citizens for Environmental Justice" is a dead end on Google. I didn't get into the Donna Avila part, that would be a whole other story.

Infeasible Is Not A Dirty Word

Much ado has been made in the blogoshpere and public meetings of late over "dewatering." For those who have not chosen to fully live every phase of the sewer project, or prefer to leave water matters in the hands of the professionals, this water is that which is being pumped out of the trenches where the contractors are putting in the sewer pipe in the low lying areas. It is important to know that 1) You cannot lay and seal the pipe in water; 2) Anywhere from 300,000 gallons to 1 million gallons of water is going into the bay DAILY as a matter of natural course.

The County and contractors have been under fire by certain long-standing sewer critics for not using all of that water for recharge (at Tri-W, or rather the Mid-Town site, gets as much as it can percolate), or for dust control on the roads. And at Broderson. Some of that water has been pumped into the bay as there has been no other feasible place to put it, meaning trucking it "somewhere" or running pipe and pumps to some of the town's drainage basins would have had huge logistical and cost impacts.

The most definitive answer regarding Broderson, the place the sewer critics are pushing to put it lately, came from the County yesterday in the form of a letter from Dave Flynn, Deputy Director of Public Works to Kenneth A. Harris, Executive Director of the Central Coast Regional Water Control Board. Broderson is not feasible. Read the attached letter to see why.

The point is, the low lying areas needed to be dug up when there is no rain. Broderson has been a very lengthy process with all of the environmental work that was necessary and the project could not wait around for it to be finished.

To habitually scream 8 to 16 million gallons of water going into the bay!, with NO ACTUAL figures is just plain wrong, not to mention the irresponsibility of churning up panic or anger in the general populace by false statements. We now know that since July, there has been on average 750,000 gallons of dewatering a day. The average land disposal per day has been 550,000 gallons per day; of that, 400,000 gallons per day to Tri-W and 150,000 gallons per day used for construction purposes. So an average of 200,000 gallons of water is going into the bay (keep in mind 300,000 gallons goes in there NATURALLY).

So what is all this about? Critics latching onto a plausible-sounding argument with which to bash the County. Frankly, that just sucks and I am pretty sick of it.

I can only hope that County will consider the source of this dissension; it is tiny, long-standing in hating-every-aspect-of-this-or-any-other-doable-sewer-project, and while annoying, very annoying, it is only a small part of the populace who is otherwise getting along good-naturedly with the bumps and beauties of the project.

Regional Board's Response to LOCSD Letter

I heard about this letter Wednesday and here it is—the response from the Regional Board to the LOCSD's letter on de-watering. Looks like they are fine with what the contractors are doing and if they are not concerned, so neither should we be. To the hair-on-fire commenters on other online places, the fire is officially out.

Dewatering Letter, To Bay Or Not To Bay?

Thursday, September 5, 2013, the Los Osos Board of Directors will have a discussion on the sewer contractors putting water drawn from trench dewatering into the bay. This had been a hot topic by the usual Los Osos speakers at the Board of Supes. To be decided: shall a letter be written to the Regional Water Quality Control Board asking them to tell the sewer contractors to stop putting water in the bay?

Two contractors ARB (access their early dewatering plan here*) and W.A. Rasic (access their early dewatering plan here**)  have needed to pump water out of the ground while digging trenches so that pipe can be safely installed. The water you see the contractors spraying on the roads for dust control is from the trenches. Water has been unloaded onto the Mid-Town Property (formerly known as Tri-W) by ARB and according to their plans, more water is to go to the Fairchild retention basin. Some water has been going down culverts as well, but quantity and source are unclear.

The comprehensive Dewatering Plan written by CDM Smith was released in March of 2012, but not until recently were the crews in the areas where dewatering needs to occur.

That plan states on page 1 (color emphasis mine),

"This report has a preliminary recommendation to use a four-stage approach. The first stage is to use water for construction use (dust control, etc.) since no groundwater retention sites will be available when work starts. Stage two would continue to utilize construction use and would add the new Mid-Town retention site and the existing retention basin sites for groundwater disposal while the Broderson leachfield system and the recycled water pipeline from the treatment plant to the Broderson effluent disposal site are being constructed. During stage three, when the Broderson leachfield site and the recycled water pipeline have been constructed, both the Mid-Town retention site and the Broderson leachfield site will be operational and construction of the gravity collection system and pump stations and force mains can then proceed with the necessary dewatering. The intent would be to pump discharged groundwater to the Mid-Town and public retention basins for land disposal and Broderson for back-up. Discharge to the Mid-Town and existing public retention sites augmented with the Broderson leachfield site appears to be a viable and cost-effective means to dispose of the anticipated flows. Flow estimates range from approximately 620 to 1,300 gpm for one dewatering area, and 2,500 to 4,900 gpm for four concurrent areas throughout construction. Groundwater production in excess of 6,500 gpm would require a fourth stage involving agricultural reuse along Clark Valley Road. This would be necessary only if the groundwater production exceeds what could be disposed of with the combined capacity of the construction use plus Mid-Town and existing retention sites plus Broderson leachfield site. Treatment and disposal to the storm drains are a possible optional disposal method."

This plan went before the Regional Water Quality Control Board September 6 & 7, 2012.

For background, the perched aquifer and upper aquifer are overfilled due to septic discharges and are presently dumping an estimated one million gallons into the bay daily and have been doing so for years (more conservative estimates are for 300,000 gallons per day). I asked John Waddell if this would stop when the sewer has been running for a while. He said no, there would still be some discharge. So some amount would seem to be a permanent condition.

The Regional Board has sent a letter to the County concerning this water August 7, 2013. There were many questions on the W.A. Rasic plan and just two on the ARB plan. I can't find this letter online or I would provide a link. No where in the letter does the Water Board accuse the contractors of malfeasance or illegal discharge.

Rasic needs to fill out their dewatering intentions in order of importance and more fully. Both ARB and Rasic need to explain their contingency plans for rainy season.

Questions for the LOCSD board should revolve around the information they divulge with their own meeting with County staff***. Has water actually been discharged to the bay and how much? How much water is actually being pumped out of the trenches? Have ARB and Rasic updated their plans to accommodate the questions by the Water Board? If not, when will this be done? If discharge to the bay is the only feasible option, when will the Water Board approve it? (October 9, 2013 is their next meeting as the September meeting was cancelled.) When is Broderson going to be ready to receive water? Once questions are answered, the need for a letter will emerge (or not). And a refutation of some of the really infeasible ideas, such as trucking water off site to unnamed destinations should be put to rest.

Given the information above on the disposal options, the bay may be our last hope if there is just too much water. But given the amount already leaking into it DAILY, panic as to lost water supply might be just another angry disapproval for this wastewater treatment plant by certain long-time critics than a dangerous condition for our water companies.


* June 14, 2013 is a more current plan, unfound online.

**July 23, 2013 is the date of the current plan but I couldn't find it online.

*** Only two Directors met with staff, so it was not a violation of the Brown Act.

The Final, Final, Final End.

I reported a few days ago that the PZLDF case, Citizens for Clean Water (or PZLDF) vs. The Regional Water Quality Control Board et al., that flopped for years and was appealed to the next higher court until it finally made it to the State Supreme Court and WAS REJECTED by that court, had few more bits of business completed today: The administrative record was returned to the superior court, a remittitur was issued and finally, after so many years I can't recall where it all began, the case is now COMPLETE, DONE, OVER.

What is a remittitur you ask? (I know I wondered), so I looked it up here:
http://www.capcentral.org/procedures/case_manag/docs/FinalStep-AppellateProcess.pdf

"The remittitur is the final step in the appellate process. If neither rehearing nor review is granted, the Court of Appeal will issue its remittitur about 61 calendar days after the opinion has been filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272.) The issuance of the remittitur signals the end of the appellate court’s jurisdiction. The matter is now properly back before the trial court, which must carry out the higher court’s decision."

So that explains the statement, "Administrative record returned to superior court." But what was the superior court (I know, It has been so long)? It was: 

San Luis Obispo County Superior Court - Main (SLO Court 1)

Trial Court Case Number: CV070472 And what was the higher court, the appellate court's decision? CCW, PZLDF, must pay the court costs of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.  When did this all begin? The earliest pdf I have in my files is dated May 25, 2007.  Looks like a whole lotta court costs to me, likely in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps more. Those poor, poor people who fell for this DOA case. Sad, sad, sad. Addendum: On 1/23/13 the record of the case was returned from the supreme court to the  appellate court. The court language for the containers with the paperwork was listed as, "3 doghouses." Might be what the appellants will be living in once they pay the bills. http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=0&doc_id=2030576&doc_no=S206739 Doghouse defined: http://socal-appellate.blogspot.com/2011/03/in-doghouse.html To see the timeline of this case at the court of appeals: http://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=2&doc_id=1974927&doc_no=

Staff Reports by RWQCB Posted Today for 2-1-13 Meeting

This topic is the dewatering plan for Los Osos. Find the four reports at this link:

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/board_info/agendas/2013/jan/Item_22/index.shtml

Los Osos Dewatering Update at CC Regional Water Quality Control Board

Friday, February 1, 2013, David LaCaro will give a technical/status update report of the Los Osos dewatering plan.