Tuesday, August 31, 2010

“What will all of you do with the extra time, once the Annie situation is resolved?”

TO: Bob Cuddy, Reporter, The Tribune
DATE: 8/31/10

Hello Bob,

Just a quick note to say that I enjoyed your piece in today's Tribune, "To all involved in this mess, take a good look inside yourselves."

In it, you write, "we might also ask ourselves why we are giving so much energy to a dog when there is so much human suffering in the world: Haiti, Pakistan, the poor and homeless in our own country and county.
In other words, who are we?"

That gets right to the point of this e-mail.

I recently exposed on my blog, SewerWatch, at this link:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com/2010/08/how-water-quality-control-board.html

... how four years and $7 million worth of careful County analysis concluded, just this year, that the former "Tri-W" sewer project that the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD spent $25 million developing, was a complete disaster, just like I first exposed in my 2004 New Times cover story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, at this link:

http://archive.newtimesslo.com/archive/2004-09-22/cover/index.html

... and, therefore, the fact that Los Osos voters elected to stop that disaster in 2005 was a VERY good thing.

In that same blog post, I also showed how the current Chair of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Jeff Young, during the January 2006 RWQCB meeting where his Board issued enforcement actions (Cease and Desist orders) against 45 randomly selected property owners in Los Osos, said:

"I can tell you one thing, that had the community not put the blocks on the current project (the Tri-W project) that we would not be here with an ACL hearing."

Then I showed how the stress associated with those enforcement actions -- because the recipients of those CDOs now live under the threat that they could have their homes "condemned" by the State of California -- have sent (and continue to send) the recipients of those enforcement actions (many, elderly) to the hospital.

Then I showed how the RWQCB (what I term) "Sherroded" those 45 property owners in early 2006, by making "determinations and judgments without a full set of facts."

Those baseless enforcement actions are, currently, still active, and the people that have suffered with them for the past five years STILL have to adhere to all kinds of stressful RWQCB demands.

I conclude my piece by saying that, considering that four years and $7 million worth of SLO County analysis showed that stopping the Tri-W disaster was the exact right thing to do, that the RWQCB should now vacate those enforcement actions, and apologize to those 45 property owners.

Here's where you come in.

I published my blog piece (and made County Supervisors aware of it) just days before the "Annie the dog" story blew up.

I then contacted all County Supervisors and asked them if they could give the same kind of attention (media appearances, top level staff meetings, etc.) to the completely innocent CDOers in Los Osos, as they have for Annie the dog.

Not one of them replied.

I then asked, radio talk show host, Dave Congalton -- that heavily publicized the Annie the dog story -- if HE could give the same amount of publicity to the completely innocent property owners in Los Osos, that he gave to the Annie the dog story.

At least Congalton, unlike (all) County Supervisors, replied.

He wrote, "Have a good life, Ron," and then, just like County Supervisors, did absolutely nothing for those completely innocent people.

In today's piece, you also write, "all of us who were involved in this (Annie the dog story), starting with yours truly, should re-examine our behavior."

Bob, here's your chance -- here's your chance to "re-examine (y)our behavior" by covering this very important story, with the same vigor that the Trib used to cover the Annie the dog story.

Finally, in your piece, you write, "There’s an old editor’s line, 'If your mother says she loves you, check it out.' I didn’t do that with the Annie story."

For this story, I can greatly assist with that, because I've already completed all of the research.

I originally dug this quote, "I can tell you one thing, that had the community not put the blocks on the current project (the Tri-W project) that we would not be here with an ACL hearing."

... out of the official transcript (page 433) [Clarification: page 433 of the pdf file, not the actual transcript], linked here:

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/board_info/minutes/2006/01_06_los_osos_hearing_transcript.pdf

(Incidentally, a badly confused Roger Briggs, executive director for the RWQCB, wrote in a 2004 document, "The LOCSD has developed a technically, environmentally, and economically sound project [with the Tri-W project].")

And, one-of-the-many documents that the County produced over the past four years that shows the Tri-W "project" to be the exact same disaster I first reported it to be in 2004, is at this link:

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/TAC/TAC+Final+Pro-Con+Component+Analysis+8-6-07.pdf

Finally(er ;-), I'd like to finish with a quote from your piece.

It comes from the decent (yet, strangely, vilified) person that adopted Annie, "What will all of you do with the extra time, once the Annie situation is resolved?”

I recommend helping the innocent people in Los Osos, that are being sent (present tense) to the hospital due to the completely baseless enforcement actions of the badly confused, and horribly misinformed, RWQCB.

Apparently, SLO County Supervisors, and Dave Congalton do not agree with me.

Does the Trib?

Thank you for your time,
Ron

P.S. Just a quick reminder: The Trib, in the days just before the 2005 LOCSD recall election, published three editorials, all in support of the "infeasible" Tri-W disaster. In other words, it appears that the RWQCB wasn't the only agency that was making "determinations and judgments without a full set of facts."

P.P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[35 weeks down... 17 to go.]

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

"Honoring" 20 Years of "Service". . . Please!

[Left: District 2 Parks Commissioner, Pandora Nash-Karner, addresses the crowd at a recent SLO County government function.
Photo courtesy: slocountyparks.com]






TO: Tami Douglas-Schatz, Human Resources Director, SLO County Government
DATE: 8/25/10

Hello Tami,

I'm researching a story, and I just had a quick question that I thought you might be able to help me with.

On the agenda for the previous (8/24/10) Supervisors' meeting, there was "Presentation of employee 20 year service awards."

Here's my question:

Is there a similar recognition that the County presents for its longtime commission appointees?

The reason I ask, is because next January (2011), Pandora Nash-Karner will mark her 20th year as a SLO County Parks Commissioner (she was first appointed to the Commission by former District 2 Supervisor, Bud Laurent, in January 1991, after working as Laurent's "campaign materials manager" throughout 1990, and then re-appointed to two more terms by former Supervisor, Shirley Bianchi, and then re-appointed in 2007 by Supervisor, Bruce Gibson, so, I'm assuming he's also going to reappoint her again, when her current term expires at the end of this year.)

So do you know if the County honors its longtime commissioners like it does with its longtime employees?

I sure hope so, because if SLO County Supervisors were to publicly "honor" Nash-Karner at a Supervisors' meeting next January, for her 20 years of "service" on the Parks Commission -- complete with an official Resolution, and public comment -- that would be excellent for my story.

Thanks in advance for your answer,
Ron

P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

Monday, August 23, 2010

If Only the Innocent CDOers in Los Osos were "Annie the Dog"


TO: SLO County Board of Supervisors (left to right in photo: Frank Mecham [Chairperson], Bruce Gibson, Adam Hill, "Katcho" Achadjian, James Patterson/PHOTO COURTESY: SLO COUNTY GOVERNMENT)
DATE: 8/23/10

Dear SLO County Supervisors,

For once, I'm (almost) at a loss for words.

For the past month, I've cc'd all of you on my e-mails to the chair of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, where I showed that $7 million and four years' worth of County analysis recently exposed that the RWQCB was badly confused about the former mid-town "Tri-W sewer project" in 2005, and solely because they were badly confused about that disaster, they launched enforcement actions (Cease and Desist Orders) on 45 randomly selected (and, ultimately, completely innocent) property owners in Los Osos -- enforcement actions that are so harsh (present tense), that they could "condemn" homes, and the stress associated with that real possibility sends (again, present tense) those innocent people to the hospital (just like it has for the past five years) and, during the exact same time that I'm showing your Board all of that (and while your Board did absolutely nothing for those completely innocent citizens), the "Annie the Dog" story, that involves a local man that lost his dog last month, has led to members of your Board making numerous media appearances, and the involvement of several top-level county government staff (including meetings with Chief County Counsel, Warren Jensen, according to Supervisor Hill, during one of his many appearances on the Dave Congalton Show over the past month to discuss the "Annie the Dog" story)... all at the same time that I made your Board aware that the 45 CDO recipients in Los Osos are completely innocent, and currently twisting in the wind, and you did absolutely nothing to help them.

Now, it's hard to find a bigger Australian Shepherd/Border Collie fan than I, so I do appreciate your effort with the "Annie the Dog" story, but, c'mon -- if you gave that kind of effort to help those 45 property owners in Los Osos (that I recently showed you, using your own excellent primary sources, are completely innocent) that you gave (and are giving) to the "Annie the Dog," story, you would really help those citizens.

To summarize:

Over the past month, I showed you how RWQCB chair, Jeff Young, said in 2005:

"I can tell you one thing, that had the community not put the blocks on the current project (the Tri-W project) that we would not be here with an (enforcement action) hearing."

I also showed you how RWQCB executive office, Roger Briggs said in 2004:

"The LOCSD has developed a technically, environmentally, and economically sound project (with the Tri-W project)."

I also showed how $7 million and four years' worth of your own careful SLO County analysis showed that the Tri-W project was the exact disaster that I first reported it to be in my 2004 New Times cover story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, archived at this link:

http://archive.newtimesslo.com/archive/2004-09-22/cover/index.html

... which all means, of course, that the voters of Los Osos in 2005, instead of being punished by the RWQCB, should have actually been commended by the RWQCB for stopping the Tri-W disaster.

And then I showed you that because the RWQCB was badly confused about the Tri-W disaster, they issued baseless enforcement actions in 2005, that have sent completely innocent people (many, elderly) to the hospital for the past five years-and-counting.

And, now armed with all of those indisputable, and amazing, facts, your entire Board does absolutely nothing for those innocent citizens in Los Osos, yet, at the same time, mobilizes that amount resources for "Annie the Dog?"

Huh?

So, yes, I suppose am at a loss for words here. I don't know what else to say, other than I'm going to continue to report on this amazing story, and if your Board wants to give the kind of attention to those 45 innocent property owners in Los Osos, as you have to Annie the Dog, well, that would be a very good thing for those completely innocent San Luis Obispo County citizens.

It may even save them more trips to the hospital.

Very sincerely,
Ron

P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[34 weeks down... 18 to go.]

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

The Local Water Quality Control Board Gets Lucky: They're Being Sued

I finally got a comment back from Jeff Young (left), the chairperson of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, regarding my post from a couple of weeks back.

In that post, I showed (again) how nearly four years and over $7 million of official SLO County government analysis, proved my 2004 New Times cover story, Three Blocks Upwind of Downtown, 100-percent accurate: That the former mid-town Tri-W sewer "project," that the Los Osos CSD wasted $25 million and six years (1999 - 2005) developing, was a complete, nonsensical, embarrassing, "sewer-park" disaster.

I also showed in my piece that, solely because Los Osos voters elected to stop that disaster in 2005, the local Water Quality Control Board randomly selected 45 property owners in Los Osos, and then launched hard-core enforcement actions on them -- enforcement actions that caused so much stress to the recipients, due to the very real possibility of losing their homes, that the actions sent people (many, elderly) to the hospital.

And, finally, I also dug up a quote from Jeff Young, where he said that the only reason his Board ordered the enforcement actions was because the voters of Los Osos put the Tri-W project "on blocks" in 2005.

So, my e-mail to Young was seeking comment on a version of this great question:

- - -
Now that nearly four years and over $7 million of official analysis has shown the Tri-W "project" to be the exact disaster that I've reported it to be over the past six years, starting in 2004, and, considering that you (Young) said, "I can tell you one thing, that had the community not put the blocks on the current project (the Tri-W project) that we would not be here with an ACL hearing," will your Board, considering that your conclusions on the Tri-W "project" in 2005 were 180-degrees wrong from the truth, now be abandoning the enforcement actions altogether and issuing an apology to the 45 property owners, because, as it turns out, putting the Tri-W disaster "on blocks" was the exact right thing to do (for many, many reasons, including environmental), and, therefore, instead of being punished by your Board, the voters of Los Osos should actually be commended by your Board for putting the Tri-W disaster "on blocks" in 2005?

Will your Board now be doing that?
- - -

Well, I finally got an "answer" to that great question:

"Los Osos enforcement actions are subject to a lawsuit and the board members will not make any comments at this time with respect to these enforcement issues," Jeffrey Young, Chair, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Yep, after nearly two weeks, that's how he responded to my question.

I replied (and this is great):

"If the CCRWQCB were to simply abandoned the enforcement actions altogether, as you clearly should, there would be no enforcement actions that would be "subject to a lawsuit," and then you could comment on the subject."

To which, Roger Briggs, Executive Officer, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, responded:

"The Deputy Attorney General handling the lawsuit has advised the Board not to engage in discussions about this matter, so asking the questions again doesn't change the fact that the Board will not discuss the issue."

So, look at this situation, it's excellent:

The fact that the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board is currently being sued by the Prohibition Zone Legal Defense Fund over the Los Osos enforcement actions, is actually VERY fortunate for the CCRWQCB, because now they CAN'T comment on the fact that nearly four years and over $7 million of official analysis shows that they were so wrong in 2005, and, because they were SO wrong, they continue to wrongly punish (present tense) 45 completely innocent property owners in Los Osos, and send them to the hospital.

So, it is extremely lucky for Jeff Young, that that lawsuit exists, or else he'd have to comment on my story.

[Uh, PZLDF? Could you do me a favor? Please drop your lawsuit... you know, for the sake of my story. If that lawsuit were to go away, then Jeff Young wouldn't have an excuse to NOT answer this question:

Now that nearly four years and over $7 million of official analysis has shown the Tri-W "project" to be the exact disaster that I've reported it to be over the past six years, starting in 2004, and, considering that you (Young) said, "I can tell you one thing, that had the community not put the blocks on the current project (the Tri-W project) that we would not be here with an ACL hearing," will your Board, considering that your conclusions on the Tri-W "project" in 2005 were 180-degrees wrong from the truth, now be abandoning the enforcement actions altogether and issuing an apology to the 45 property owners, because, as it turns out, putting the Tri-W disaster "on blocks" was the exact right thing to do (for many, many reasons, including environmental), and, therefore, instead of being punished by your Board, the voters of Los Osos should actually be commended by your Board for putting the Tri-W disaster "on blocks" in 2005?

Will your Board now be doing that?]

###

[33 weeks down... 19 to go.]

Friday, August 13, 2010

In Our "Right Mind"

From Garrison Keillor's, Writer's Almanac:

Today (August 13) is International Left-hander's Day, a day in which left-hander advocacy groups remind you that left-handed scissors, school desks, and computer mice are nonexistent in many places and hard to come by in others. The holiday was first celebrated on this day in 1976, started by Left-hander's International, with the guiding mantra, "Lefties have rights."

The group also puts out bulletins with information like this: "Did You Know? Right-handed people operate in the left side of the brain. Left-handed people use their right side. Therefore, only left-handed people are in their right mind."

###

[32 weeks down... 20 to go.]

Friday, August 06, 2010

How the Water Quality Control Board "Sherroded" 45 Los Osos Property Owners

"Members of this administration, members of the media... have all made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts. I think without a doubt Ms. Sherrod is owed an apology."
-- White House Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, 7/21/10, speaking about recently fired USDA head Shirley Sherrod, after learning that the comments that led to her firing were taken extremely out of context

TO: Jeff Young (left), Chairperson, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
DATE SENT: 8/6/10

Dear Chairperson Young,

I'm researching a story, and I'm hoping that I can get a comment from you regarding the enforcement actions that your board approved in Los Osos on January 5, 2006.

As you probably remember, those enforcement actions (Cease and Desist Orders) included 45 individual property owners in Los Osos, and, since your board ordered those enforcement actions, correspondence that has come across my desk from some of those 45 property owners include, "Faced with the CDO's causing condemnation of our home and causing us to have to vacate our home - well, it's more than anyone should have to live with," and, "(This prosecution) sends us to the hospital for emergency treatment for high blood pressure, heart conditions, and stress."

I'm writing you today, because, after nearly four years, and more than $7 million of careful analysis of the Los Osos wastewater project by SLO County officials, it appears that your board, in 2006, made a big mistake in issuing those enforcement actions.

Clearly, judging from the mountain of evidence that the County of SLO has produced over the past four years, your board, in January 2006, "made determinations and judgments without a full set of facts."

For example, the following quote is from you, and it comes from the official transcript of the January 5, 2006 meeting, available at this link:

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb3/board_info/minutes/2006/01_06_los_osos_hearing_transcript.pdf

... where your board voted to issue the enforcement actions against the community of Los Osos, including the 45 randomly selected property owners.

According to that official transcript, you said, "I can tell you one thing, that had the community not put the blocks on the current project (the Tri-W project) that we would not be here with an ACL hearing."

So, to be clear, according to you, had Los Osos voters, in September 2005, "not put the blocks" on the so-called "Tri-W project" by recalling three Los Osos CSD directors that were largely responsible for developing that "project," your board, in early 2006, would "not be here with an ACL hearing" to begin with.

Here's why that quote is extremely interesting in 2010:

Three-plus years and more than $7 million of careful analysis of the Los Osos wastewater project by SLO County officials now shows that the Tri-W project was an unnecessarily expensive, wildly unpopular, environmentally "infeasible," mid-town-sewer-"park" disaster, and your board was badly misinformed about that disaster when you issued those enforcement actions -- enforcement actions that were issued, solely, according to you, because the community voted to "put the blocks" on that disaster.

Mr. Young, it gets worse for you.

According to that official transcript, you also say, "What I heard in terms of complaints about (the Tri-W project) is it's not environmentally superior, it's not aesthetically superior, I mean those may be realities to some individuals. I look at them as being subjective and not objective."

You were wrong there, and, according to $7 million dollars worth of (relatively) objective County analysis, very wrong.

The following is what just some of that past three years, and $7 million dollars worth of careful County analysis says about the former Tri-W project -- a "project" that the 1999 - 2005 Los Osos CSD spent (read: wasted) some six years and $25 million developing, and called for a sewer plant in the middle of Los Osos.

Here's what the County's Pro/Con Analysis, available at this link:

http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PW/LOWWP/TAC/TAC+Final+Pro-Con+Component+Analysis+8-6-07.pdf

... says about the LOCSD's former Tri-W project:

- "(Tri-W's) downtown location (near library, church, community center) and the high density residential area require that the most expensive treatment technology, site improvements and odor controls be employed."

and;

- "It (The Tri-W sewer plant) has high construction costs..." ($55 million. The next highest treatment facility option is estimated at $19 million.)

and;

- "Very high land value and mitigation requirements"

and;

- Tri-W energy requirements: "Highest"

and;

- "Small acreage and location in downtown center of towns (sic) require most expensive treatment"

and;

- "higher costs overall"

and;

- "Limited flexibility for future expansion, upgrades, or alternative energy"

and;

- "Source of community divisiveness"

and;

- "All sites are tributary to the Morro Bay National Estuary and pose a potential risk in the event of failure. Tri-W poses a higher risk..."

and;

- "NOTE: It was the unanimous opinion of the (National Water Research Institute) that an out of town site is better due to problematic issues with the downtown site."

and;

- "ESHA – sensitive dune habitat"

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

What I find very interesting about that quote these days, is that, according to a June 24, 2004, document, Roger Briggs, Executive Officer, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, said, "The (Tri-W) wastewater project is truly a community-based project."

Again, even your executive officer was/is wildly inaccurate regarding the Tri-W project.

He called it "truly community based," and then, five years later, an official survey showed that over 90-percent of the Prohibition Zone residents did not want an industrial (read: not ponds) sewer plant in the middle of their beautiful coastal town, after all... of course.

Additionally, in a June 2009 letter to the California Coastal Commission, the SLO County "Project team," writes, "The Project team, given the clear social infeasibility issue associated with Mid Town (Tri-W project) and the infeasible status of the LOCSD disposal plan [bolding mine], 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 (of Supervisors) to adopt a due diligence resolution and not pursue Project implementation."

I also recently asked SLO County environmental specialist, and Los Osos wastewater project planner, Mark Hutchinson, to, today, put himself in the shoes of the people that were responsible for wasting $25 million and six years on the "infeasible" Tri-W disaster. He just laughed... out loud. That was his answer to that great question; laughing.

Finally, out of all the documents the county produced on the Los Osos wastewater project, not one of them -- not one -- is favorable to the Tri-W "project," and, in the end, which was on June 11, 2010, when the Coastal Commission gave final approval for the County's proposed project (that includes an out-of-town sewer plant), the Tri-W "project" didn't even come close to working.

So, look at this situation, in 2010, it's very, very interesting:

In a February 6, 2004 document, Roger Briggs writes, "The LOCSD has developed a technically, environmentally, and economically sound project (with the Tri-W project)."

However, that wasn't even close to being accurate.

As we now know, thanks to almost four years and $8 million worth of County analysis, the Tri-W disaster wasn't "technically, environmentally, and economically sound."

Not even close. It was an embarrassing, "infeasible" mess.

However, according to you, the sole reason why your board issued enforcement actions against the community of Los Osos in 2006, is because they voted to "put the blocks" on the Tri-W disaster, which, as almost four years and $8 million worth of County analysis now shows us, was the exact right thing to do.

In fact, what it really looks like, is that the (2004 to) 2006 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (and staff) was badly confused regarding the Tri-W embarrassment, so the voters of Los Osos were forced to do your job, and had to form a recall election to vote to finally put the "infeasible" Tri-W disaster "on blocks" -- clearly the right thing to do -- yet, according to you, "had the community not put the blocks on the (Tri-W project) that we would not be here with an ACL hearing," in January 2006.

Which brings me to my three questions:

1) What is your response to the fact that there is now a mountain of official evidence that shows that the Tri-W project was a technical, environmental, and economical disaster, yet the only reason your board fined 45 Los Osos property owners, is because the town's voters put that mid-town sewer plant disaster "on blocks?"

and;

2) Considering the mountain of evidence that shows that the Tri-W project was a disaster, and stopping that disaster was clearly the right thing to do, and considering that the only reason your board fined the people of Los Osos is because they voted to stop that disaster, will your board now be abandoning the CDOs against the 45 Los Osos property owners, that are clearly innocent, and offering them an apology?

(And, what's even more interesting here, is, not only are those property owners completely innocent, but, if you think it through, your board should actually commend the voters of Los Osos for doing the right thing in 2005, and putting the Tri-W disaster "on blocks." They should be commended for that... because it was clearly the right thing to do.)

and;

3) How do you explain how your agency was so wrong about the Tri-W "project?" Why were your agency's conclusions about the Tri-W disaster almost the exact opposite of the county's conclusions about that embarrassment?

How do you explain that?

I look forward to your answers.

As always, much thanks,
Ron

P.S. I've published this e-mail on my blog:

sewerwatch.blogspot.com

###

[31 weeks down... 21 to go.]

- - -

[UPDATE (8/9/10): Oh, do I have a GREAT follow-up to my post.

This is excellent! -- a perfect example of your State government in action:

Last Friday, when I sent my e-mail (above) to Jeff Young, I sent it to Roger Briggs, because, when you click on the "Contact the Board" button at the CCRWQCB web site, it links to Briggs's e-mail address.

And then, I wrote at the top:

"[Hello Roger,

I'm trying to send the following e-mail to Jeff Young, but I didn't see his e-mail address on your web site, and I was hoping that you could forward it to him. You might find my e-mail interesting, too. Thanks!]"

Now, watch, and behold the comic genius found in the sequence of events that that one simple act -- trying to send an e-mail to a State Board member -- unfurled:

I sent my e-mail (to Jeff Young) to Roger last Friday, August 6th. He replied that same day, "I'm out til Aug 16. I'll read your email when I return, or please contact Carol Hewitt..."

[Really, Roger? I send you an e-mail -- especially THAT e-mail -- addressed to your boss (as per your web site) on August 6th, and you're not even going to read it until the 16th? Um... o.k.?]

So, of course, I contact Carol Hewitt, that same day:

- - -
"Hello Carol,

Apparently, Roger's out of the office until the 16th.

Could you please forward my e-mail (below) to Jeff Young.

Better yet, because all of the italics, and bold, and links stay preserved on my blog, could you please just send Mr. Young to:

http://sewerwatch.blogspot.com

My e-mail to Mr. Young is also published there."
- - -

Just, this morning, Hewitt cc's me on this e-mail:

- - -
"To Board Member Young (bc):

Please see attached email from Ron Crawford.
Thank you.

Carol Hewitt, Administrative Assistant II/Notary Public
Regional Water Quality Control Board - Region 3"
- - -

The very next e-mail in my in-box is from the "OPA Water Boards Public Affairs."

It reads:

- - -
"Hi Ron,

According to our directory, there is no Jeff Young working for the State Water Resources Control Board headquarters in Sacramento. Since Los Osos is under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, you might try contacting them instead. Here is their contact information:

Central Coast RWQCB (3)
Address: 895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101 San Luis Obispo,CA 93401 Phone: (805) 549-3147 Fax: (805) 543-0397
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/

Kind regards,
Cortney Stevenson

-----------------------------------
State Water Resources Control Board
Office of Public Affairs"
- - -

The unexpected places that beautiful humor pops up in this story, amazes me.

Well, thanks for that, Cortney. And, had I actually been trying to contact a "Jeff Young working for the State Water Resources Control Board headquarters in Sacramento," I would have found your e-mail useful.

Wait, maybe I still can find some use.

My girl, Cortney, wrote:

"Since Los Osos is under the jurisdiction of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board, you might try contacting them instead."

Hey, there's a good idea. Why didn't I think of that?

Oh, Roooogggeeerr...]