1. science
2. ecology
3. pollution

THE LAST FISHERMAN,
FISHERMAN P4
VENHUIZEN’S COMET P6
“Guardian of the Coast ”
M AY- J U N E
25¢ MORE OR LESS
Who Will Win…The Battle for Tri-W
W?
The LOCSD, Pandora Nash-Karner, Bruce Gibson and the County face off for the big prize, the still-beating
heart of Los Osos, with Jeff Edwards across the street at Sunnyside waiting in the wings.
Aerial view, pre-construction (Photo by Abe Perlstein)
ponds not big enough yet to be ruled by the RWQCB.
In April the Tri-W site on Los Osos Valley Road in
Los Osos was appraised at over $4 million, and there
were “at least four informal inquiries,” according to
the Los Osos Community Services District Interim
GM Dan Bleskey in March. “We have not set any
other conditions upon interested parties,” he said.
“This will be refined as we approach negotiations and
are further along in the process. Although the District
is currently obligated to obtain the highest bid, this,
however, could change with time. The District is open
to bids by any reasonable purchase offer.”
So step right up, ladies and gentlemen, what do
you bid for this prime slice of viewshed real estate
uphill from the bay in the very heart of paradise?
By ED OCHS
It looks very much like any construction site anywhere—the chain-link fence, the barren terrain waiting for the building to begin. But this is an abandoned
site, this bulldozer-sculpted, giant ribbed saucer of
dirt, and the building doesn’t look like it’s coming
anytime soon, even if the April rain were to stop.
As recently as last August it was the site of a raucous, ridiculous “groundbreaking ceremony” for the
decades-overdue wastewater treatment facility and
park. By early February it was a site for sore eyes,
and the Los Osos Community Services District decided to list the Broderson and Tri-W properties. Today,
six months later, it’s home to ponds of rainwater,
COVER STORY
Zoning, Limitations and Mitigation
The three acres of Tri-W nearest the library are
zoned Office Professional (allowed uses include
downtown professional activities) and its western
eight acres zoned Commercial Retail (stores, offices,
services establishments and amusements—a park
would be allowed).
“These zonings are not suitable for wastewater
treatment,” said LOCSD Director Julie Tacker. “In
Rainwater forms a lake in mid April
2002—some seven months before [Tri-W’s]
$3,010,025 escrow closed—the LOCSD requested of
the County and the Coastal Commission, and was
granted, a zoning change through an amendment of
the Local Coastal Program (LCP) giving Public
Facilities zoning to allow wastewater treatment to
occur at that location. This zoning is an overlay that
runs with the land should any public agency—including the County—own it, allowing that agency to build
a wastewater facility on that site. The overlay falls
away if Tri-W is sold to a private party.”
Not only does the LOCSD badly need the money,
but if Tri-W is sold to a private party, believes Tacker,
the site will finally die as future home field for the
midtown megasewer—and there will be no Phantom
Continued on page 8
How to Defuse the Gravity Bomb
The Morro Bay/Cayucos joint sewer system and the gravity system pegged for Los Osos incubate immune
pathogens with a high mortality rate and no certain cure to date, says Dr. John Alexander.
He offers to defuse Morro Bay and warns Los Osos.
Currently unrelated plans to upgrade the Morro
Bay/Cayucos Wastewater Treatment Facility and to
build a conventional wastewater facility out of town
in Los Osos both share at least one characteristic in
common, according to civil engineer/environmental
scientist Dr. John Alexander of John Alexander
Research in Cayucos: They are both dangerous.
“The $25 million ‘upgrade’ to the (Morro
Bay/Cayucos) sewer system is far too costly and will
not solve the contamination problem,” Dr. Alexander
said. “The consultants have not kept abreast of the
changes with immunity of pathogens, and the mutation which takes place in the so-called secondary
treatment of a standard treatment plant.
“The proposed (Morro Bay/Cayucos) program will
have exactly the opposite effect of the intention,” he
told The Rock. “It will be a breeding place for
pathogens. Those pathogens are already creating pandemics resulting in 60%-70% mortality. Chlorine is
just no longer adequate. For about $4 million, a physical chemical treatment could be added to the present
EXCLUSIVE
plant. This would add at least 30% to the plant’s
capacity and overcome the contamination problem.”
Dr. Alexander is glad to share information or data
with consultants, and offers his help without charge.
Troubling Research
The Morro Bay/Cayucos plant, built in 1954 and
upgraded in 1984, is one of only three in the entire
state that doesn’t meet all required clean water standards. Under a waiver, it is permitted to dump
partially treated sewage into the ocean north of Morro
Rock. Environmental groups want state water regulators to cut in half the time projected (2015) to bring
the plant up to federal standards for secondary treatment, yet Dr. Alexander warns that rushing to meet
secondary treatment standards is “exactly the wrong
thing.”
“Secondary treatment is the most deadly part of the
whole situation, because when they mix the sewage
we’re beginning to get [pathogens] that are not curable anymore, and secondary treatment is actually
growing this bacteria. Not only is it incubating the
bacteria that is already what you might call poisonous, but (that bacteria) is mutating over to the other
bacteria. One family could contaminate
thousands.”
For decades it was widely accepted that active offshore currents quickly diluted effluents, and that was
the basis of the discharge waiver. That isn’t as true
anymore. Now, also surviving release into the ocean
are pathogens, including bacteria resistant to antibiotic drugs, that pass through the plant’s incomplete
treatment process. According to a recently released
report by John Alexander Research on “Drug
Resistant Bacteria in Conventional Water Treatment
Systems,” “Studies reported in the scientific and
medical literature dating back to at least the 1970s
NEWS · INFORMATION
INFORMATION · ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS · PERSPECTIVE
Continued on page 9
2
M AY- J U N E
Getting Along Swimmingly
Wave a Towel for the Community Pool at
Sunnyside…or for the Aquatic Center at,
yup, Tri-W.
Summer is just around the corner, and it will come
and go, as always, without a community pool to cool
off over-heated Los Ososans burnt out on the sewer.
In lieu of a refreshing dip in a pool yet to be built—
and whose official location has yet to be named—its
main boosters were left to muse exactly where the
new pool would make the biggest splash.
Several locations have been proposed including at
the Middle School and most recently at the
Sunnyside School site. Now the Tri-W site is in the
picture. What picture?
“The pool is going in at Sunnyside,” insisted
Sunnyside/Sand Hill developer Jeff Edwards. “The
pool association has endorsed it there.”
“Jeff Edwards is correct,” said Pandora NashKarner, member of the County Parks & Recreation
Committee. “The Los Osos Community Swimming
Pool Board voted to locate the pool complex at the
Sunnyside School site if he is able to obtain the
property for his mixed-use project, Sandhill Village.
The Sunnyside School site would be ideal for a
community aquatic center, and Mr. Edwards’ project
concept is an excellent one.
“The project will bring many benefits to Los Osos
including housing, retail stores, professional offices,
senior and affordable housing, an entertainment center, and job opportunities.
“However,” Nash-Karner said, “San Luis Coastal
Unified School District has not yet made the decision
to sell or lease the property for permanent development. The Pool Board is certainly hopeful the School
District will make that decision; however, until they
do, the Pool Board must remain open to other potential sites, opportunities and possible pool partners.”
OPENERS
THE ROCK
NEWSFLASH!
“ENDANGERED SPECIES FOUND AT TRI-W”
Los Osos has long wanted a swimming pool and
there is a lengthy history of work done toward that
goal. Most recently, the Los Osos Community Pool
Association, a 501c3 corporation, hired a national
sports management consulting firm to prepare a
feasibility study. And the Pool Association Board of
Directors and Sports Management held a series of
community-wide meetings, both with public and
stakeholders, in order to develop a precise needs
analysis. The County Park & Recreation Element
incorporated those needs into their proposal.
The County Park & Recreation Element proposes
an “Aquatic Center/Recreation Facility” for Los Osos
that should “provide a balance of programs for all
age groups. The facility should offer 1) fitness
classes and lap swimming, 2) therapy and injury
rehabilitation programs, and 3) active recreational,
instructional and competitive programs. The facility
should include (a) an indoor and outdoor pool, (b) a
kitchen and concession area for daily and special
events, (c) a multi-purpose room for classes, training,
events and physical therapy, and (d) an outside deck
for seating.”
The County has formally expressed in writing their
interest in purchasing Tri-W for a park. Said Pete
Jenny, Manager, County Park Division: “An aquatic
center would need a minimum of 2-3 acres, more if it
needed its own parking facilities. Any site of 5+
acres could work. County Parks has also
previously explored partnerships both with the City
of Morro Bay and with the San Luis Coastal Unified
Continued on page 10
3
M O R R O B AY
M AY- J U N E
THE ROCK
Science Alliance Maps Bay’s Future
Morro Bay is under the microscope of a small army of experts on a $3.5 million
mission to better manage the ecosystem. Monitoring pollution is a key component.
In a boost for comprehensive watershed management of the Morro Bay ecosystem, a three-year $3.5million study of Morro Bay by the newly formed San
Luis Obispo Science and Ecosystem Alliance
(SLOSEA) is presently developing a six-point profile
of the struggling body whose health is vital to the
Central Coast.
“All the major resource agencies in the area are
participating, as well as stakeholder groups like the
Marine Interest Group and the Morro Bay Estuary
Program,” said Dean Wendt, Program Director and
Assistant Professor, Biological Sciences Department
and Center for Coastal Marine Science at Cal Poly.
“We have scientists from Cal Poly, UCLA, and
CSUMB participating in the study.”
Said Dan Berman, Director of the Morro Bay
Estuary Program: “The SLOSEA effort is a big step
forward for the bay as well as for the larger San Luis
Obispo coast and near-shore ocean. The SLOSEA
initiative includes a diverse set of research and monitoring efforts designed to provide critical scientific
data to improve resource management by groups and
agencies like the MBNEP, State Parks, DFG, the
Water Board, and more. It also builds on the model of
the MBNEP and MIG in bringing resource managers,
scientists and stakeholders together to guide the work
and look for opportunities for collaboration.
“The MBNEP has supported and conducted many
scientific studies and monitoring efforts, but the
SLOSEA is a huge step forward for high quality
research in the estuary and nearby ocean.”
Wendt said SLOSEA’s work will not directly
restore the bay, but deeper knowledge and better communications will pave the way. “We are embarking on
a series of science and monitoring projects. Our work
may lead to and inform restoration efforts, but the
program is not explicitly focused on restoration.
“The end product,” he said, “is a better understanding of the bay/estuary ecological processes and
enhanced communication among stakeholders,
resource managers and scientists, and quality data for
resource managers that need to manage the bay.”
In that regard, Berman said, the process never
stops. “This is not a task that gets done and checked
off a list. It will continue to be an ongoing challenge
to balance human activities and the capacity of the
ecosystem to support them. I think SLOSEA is
already demonstrating success in its immediate goal
of getting diverse groups working together to direct
meaningful scientific work that will improve a
holistic approach to resource management.”
Mapping and Monitoring
The first year of the program will study the
relationship between bay and ocean, and involve
mapping the bay bottom, determining what fish and
wildlife use the bay, and setting up water-quality
monitors. Five instrument clusters will be placed at
creek mouths to the bay and nearby open ocean, and
continuously sample the water for nitrates, sediment
and key chemical compounds.
‘The cost of standing by and
watching Morro Bay become
increasingly polluted would be
both financial, and maybe more
importantly, a spiritual and
moral loss. The bay defines the
communities around it.’
---Dan Berman
“We are going to measure nitrate levels using realtime water quality equipment deployed at several
locations in the bay to get an idea of sources and
sinks of nutrients into the bay,” Wendt said. “The
equipment will measure nitrate levels at regular time
intervals—minutes to hours—and send information to
a web server. We are not measuring other types of
pollution directly, although we are using a technique
to look at how indicator organisms like mussels
respond to environmental stress, which would include
various types of pollution.”
Measuring pollution, Berman said, is at best a
difficult proposition from many angles. “There are
many types of water pollution, and their effects are
complex and can be difficult to directly measure.
High bacteria levels impact the oyster fishery, pose
risks to human health, and may be an indicator of
diseases affecting sea otters and other marine life.
High nutrient levels may contribute to harmful algal
blooms, low dissolved oxygen, and shifts in the biotic
community. Oils, metals, and other urban runoff
pollutants in stormwater can be toxic to marine life.
“Restoring degraded and polluted resources to a
healthy state is incredibly difficult and expensive,
especially because the source of the problem is often
essentially irreversible,” he said. “For instance the
conversion of our rural farms and ranches to housing,
as we have seen in so many other places in the state,
would replace grass and fields with roofs and
pavement, causing permanent declines in water
quality flowing through the creeks and to the
estuary.”
Berman cites sediment buildup in the bay as a
serious threat to the bay’s health. “Sedimentation is
filling in the estuary, and as it gets shallower, some
habitat types, like our eelgrass beds, are going to be
lost or greatly reduced, while others like the salt
marsh will likely grow. These changes will benefit
some species at the expense of others. Our eelgrass
beds are critical for the brandt geese and for many
fish and invertebrates, and are an imperiled resource
throughout California.”
The ultimate price of not maintaining the bay is
too high to pay, he said. “The cost of standing by and
watching Morro Bay become increasingly polluted
would be both financial, and maybe more importantly, a spiritual and moral loss. The bay defines the
communities around it. We are here in part because
we love the bay. If we can’t act to protect this
resource for our own use and enjoyment and for all
the other species that depend on it, we will all suffer
a personal and collective loss. Thankfully I think we
continue to see the commitment for protection from
the local communities, and from our government at
many levels. The MBNEP and the SLOSEA initiative
both reflect that support.
“One of the exciting components of the SLOSEA
research will be a more detailed socioeconomic study
of the value of the bay,” he said, “both in traditional
terms of fish produced, real estate prices, tourist dollars; but also in the non-consumptive values of kayaking, bird-watching, spiritual renewal and beauty. We
live in a dollars-based world, and by better quantifying the estuary’s ‘value’ in those terms, we will be
better able to justify and fund our efforts to protect it.
“SLOSEA’s links with Cal Poly and other
universities brings significant new opportunities and
resources for high quality scientific research in and
around the estuary,” Berman said. “The MBNEP is
proud to be a part of that effort, and will work to
ensure that the results lead to improved resource
management.”
The program will be guided by an advisory
committee that includes members from Cal Poly,
National Estuary Program, the City of Morro Bay,
State Department of Parks and Recreation and the
Marine Interest Group of San Luis Obispo County.
At the time of this writing the advisory committee did
not have a member from Los Osos. “We had a
member from the previous board,” said Wendt. “We
need to reestablish a connection with Los Osos.”
Committee meetings will provide an exchange of
views for sometimes over-lapping agencies and
groups with an active stake in Morro Bay. “The
incentive for agencies is that they are shifting to
ecosystem approaches,” Wendt said, “and our project
is a forum for them to cooperate and learn how to use
integrated ecosystem approaches to management.”
The three-year mark won’t mean the end of the
project, Wendt said. “I don’t see us as packing our
bags and leaving after three years. This is a careerlong endeavor and a long-term effort by the
community. We have three years of funding, but I
expect our research will continue long into the
future.”
One third of project is funded by the Packard
Foundation, with additional funds from Cal Poly, the
Resources Legacy Fund Foundation, and State
Coastal Conservancy and Ocean Protection Council.
The six-point program will profile the bay by Water
Quality, Biological Indicators, Socio-Economics,
Nursery Area, Human Access and Institutional
Framework. —Ed Ochs
4
M O R R O B AY
M AY- J U N E
THE ROCK
Morro Fisherman: Endangered Species
New regulations have cut the number of local fishermen working in the
California live fish trade from thousands to under 200—and sinking fast.
By LINDA OLSON
Ed Dumong of Morro Bay, a commercial fisherman for 36 years, cannot imagine himself doing anything else. He tried various trades, but “the fishing
always drew me back. I moved out on my boat, and
gave up everything of my former life to go into this.
It was that important to me.” Now, it appears that
Dumong’s days, and those of his fellow fishermen,
may be numbered.
It is well known that fishing at sea is one of
world’s most dangerous occupations. Fishermen know
that any day at work may be their last. Yet, the greatest danger now faced by Central Coast fishermen may
be what they call a “slow death” by suffocation under
the ever-increasing burden of government regulation.
For now, Dumong is that rare individual who is
completely happy working in his profession. He
works in the shallow waters off the Central Coast as
a hook and line fisherman, selling live fish, primarily
to Asian markets. “Not many people in the world can
jump up out of bed and say, ‘God, I can’t wait to go
to work,’” he said. “It’s the freedom; the decisions
that you get to make every single day, the life and
death situations, the fears, the winds, the swells.
Sometimes, when you’re out there, and you’re
coming in, and you’re scared to death, you say, ‘I’ll
never do this again.’ But as soon as you get up the
next morning, you’re ready to go back out there.
“You see some amazing things. The other day I
was coming up the coast. A friend of mine was
running ahead of me, and as I looked to see where he
was, right behind him, a gray whale jumped
completely out of the water. To be able to be out there
and see it happening... We’ll be sitting out there
fishing, and all of a sudden, you’ll have a school of
dolphin come up to your boat and actually let you
touch them. It’s things you’ll never forget… watching
a herd of bottlenose dolphins, 10,000 of them,
jumping in the water, heading up the coast (and)
suddenly you’re in a massive school of life.”
Survival Skills
In contrast to the exhilaration and satisfaction are
the terrible risks. According to Dumong, the weather
is the greatest danger. “Probably a third of our year is
taken away from us by weather, but it’s just nature.”
The worst thing is, he said, “probably the winds.
Knowing what to do, how to do it, and being able to
react in a split second are crucial to survival. Some
of it is reaction. Some of it is knowing how to read
the water, to read and feel what’s going on around
you, “because it only takes a second—one mistake,
and a boat flips over. I’ve lost six friends that
drowned from boats being rolled over.”
The creatures the fishermen share the ocean with
pose more dangers. Local fishermen have seen a
significant increase in the white shark population
since gill netting was stopped. “The first 20 years, I
never saw a white shark. Now I see them, sometimes
twice in a month. They’re not afraid of boats, and
they’re not afraid of people. They come right up to
the boats. They’ll take the fish right out of our hands
if we’re not careful.”
Knowledge and experience are the keys to a fisherman’s survival, Dumong emphasizes. “You have to be
a scientist, an environmentalist, a weather forecaster.
You have to have knowledge of everything around
you. There are huge currents. There’s the onshore
current, there’s the current along the shoreline that
runs one way, and you get offshore and you have
currents that are running different patterns.
“You have to read the clouds... You have to be a
tradesman—in carpentry, in fiberglassing, everything
to keep the boat afloat. You have to be a mechanic.
There is no school you can go to become a commer-
cial fisherman.”
For 36 years, he has studied the habits of the fish.
“Different fish bite at different peaks of the different
tides. Some fish move in and feed. As soon as the tide
drops a little bit, that school moves out and a new
school of a different type of fish will move in and
feed. There’s always something working back and
forth. God controls it. He puts them into a pressure
system where they know when the tides are changing,
the weather’s changing, when they’re not going to be
able to feed, so (fishermen) work with this. It takes
years of figuring out, but I can almost tell you the
exact minute that they’re going to start biting.”
Tradition in Trouble
Dumong feels strong sense of continuity, of connection with an ancient tradition. “You can’t open the
Bible without seeing fishermen in it. Some of the
disciples were fishermen, and before Jesus Christ,
those men were standing on the beaches, throwing
their nets and fishing.”
The tradition, however, is in danger of ending on
the Central Coast. Dumong has seen the number of
Morro Bay fishermen dwindle in recent years, as
more and more are forced out of their jobs by
government-imposed restrictions.
According to Dumong, pressure from environmental interest groups has precipitated the development of
new regulations that have drastically cut the number
of fishermen working in the California live fish trade.
He has seen the number reduced from about 5,000, to
about 175. Dumong believes that some environmental
groups want to put the fisherman out of business.
“They’ll say it when they’re talking to me one-onone. I was told by a guy on the beach that it was part
of the environmental program: ‘We couldn’t take you
all out at one time, so the government told us we have
to squeeze you out of business (until) there’s not
enough of you left to resist.’ They’ve almost won.
“They started with the cabezon fish. They said,
‘We’ll only allow you to fish cabezon on Mondays,
Tuesdays and Wednesdays.’” This new rule proved
disastrous for local fishermen who, in order to make a
living, saw no alternative but to fish on the allotted
three days, regardless of conditions. “We lost six local
fisherman, killed in about a two-year period of time.
“Then they said, ‘OK, the Monday, Tuesday,
Wednesday deal isn’t working. We made a mistake.
So now we’ll put size restrictions on your fish.’”
Quotas were imposed to further restrict commercial
fishing. Dumong is not opposed size limits. “Then,”
he said, “everything gets a chance to grow to
maturity. To reproduce three, four, five, maybe six
times in their life cycle before they’re harvested.” He
supports quotas, but not the way they have been
implemented. “Commercial fishermen get 20% of the
total catch. Sport fishermen get 80%. They put the
commercial against the sport, and we’re outnumbered. There are over two million sport anglers that
get licenses in California.”
Next came restrictions on the number of commercial fishermen. “They said, ‘Only those of you that
fished in the beginning, through this certain amount
of time, are going to be able to get licenses. The
newcomers don’t get to keep their licenses.’”
Quotas, size limits and number-of-license limits
are not the only restrictions facing the fishermen still
in business. California was divided into four areas,
and Dumong, like other commercial fishermen, is
restricted to one of them. “Now, the Marine Protected
Areas (MPAs) will take that restricted area that
they’ve assigned me and shrink it to give me a
quarter of that. That’s the final thing that’s going to
push most of the small fishermen out of business.
They’ve got small boats, and they can’t travel 50
miles up the coast because of the weather and the
conditions.”
Who Is Depleting the Fisheries?
Dumong sees a strange irony in the ongoing battle
with the environmental protection groups. He has
always seen himself as a dedicated environmentalist.
“I go out of my way to take and keep only what I can
use, what I can sell.” If he catches a fish he cannot
use, it is thrown back, alive, into the sea. “My father
raised me on the fact that to kill something, unless
you’re going to use it, is against God.”
Dumong does not believe that fishermen are to
blame for all of the problems in the fisheries. In their
daily work, fishermen see huge quantities of pollution
generated by local residents. “After a storm, you see
oil slicks, dirt and trash in the ocean. The cycle that I
was taught in school says that the clouds go up above
the ocean, hit the mountain ranges, develop rain, the
rain fills the creeks, and it all flows back to the ocean.
The ocean is the beginning and the end of
everything.”
The damage that oil and trash do to marine life is
well known, but this is not the only harm that can’t
be blamed on fishermen. Much has been written
about the effects of the Diablo Canyon and Duke
power plant on marine life. Dumong focuses on the
destruction of fish larvae. “When I harvest a fish
that’s fully grown, it’s probably reproduced four
times in its lifetime, a thousand eggs each time. But
a power plant takes those four thousand eggs—
inhales them, kills them, and brings out sterile water.
What’s happening to the fish?
“When I fished down at Diablo, before they put the
closure in, I’d catch fish with huge sores on them. In
1982, I took three gopher cod to Diablo Canyon. I
caught them right out of their discharge. I went to the
gate, got one of their scientists to come down, and I
said, ‘Hey, you need to examine these fish because
I’m catching them out of your pool and they’ve got
sores on them. I go a mile either side of your area,
and I’ve never caught a fish with sores.’ I gave him
the fish, and it was never mentioned again.”
Fishermen continued to observe the lesion-covered
fish until the waters around Diablo Canyon were
closed after 9/11.
Environmental groups have had little success in
dealing with the power plants. In their compelling
article, “Licensed to Kill,” which focuses on environmental damage done by nuclear power plants, coauthors Linda Gunter, Paul Gunter, Scott Cullen and
Nancy Burton discussed the catastrophic effects of
Diablo Canyon on local marine life. They wrote:
“Despite publicly documented evidence, and even
evidence of its own, PG&E argued that no mitigation
action was needed. Using a threat to outspend
environmental regulators in legal actions appealing
the cease and desist order, PG&E forced the authorities to back down.” State authorities agreed to a
settlement that “in effect allows the utility to
continue its business-as-usual practices while
sacrificing an entire indigenous marine life
community as the cost of marketing electricity.”
Managing the Fisheries
Power plants have “deep pockets” and can stop the
authorities from interfering with their business
operations. Local fishermen do not. Suppose,
however, that fishermen could convince authorities to
ease the burden of regulations that threaten to wipe
out their industry. Clearly, if the fishing industry were
allowed to operate without controls, fishermen could
potentially do significant damage to the marine
environment. Dumong believes self-regulation of his
industry is the answer. While the idea of putting
5
M AY- J U N E
fisherman in control of the fisheries might not sit well
with government agencies or environmental groups,
co-management by government and fishermen has
been successful in other areas.
In her article, “Property Rights, Creating
Incentives and Tools for Sustainable Fisheries
Management,” Canadian Elizabeth Brubaker writes:
“In many fisheries around the world, including most
in Canada, governments are in control. And for the
most part, they’re doing a rotten job. It’s not that
individual bureaucrats, or their political masters,
mean ill. And it’s not that they’re incompetent.
Unfortunately, when governments are in control,
fisheries don’t have the right incentives or tools
either. No one does.”
Michael De Alessi, Director of the Center for
Private Conservation, a specialist in marine conservation issues, wrote: “Allowing groups or individuals to
own resources in the oceans is the ideal solution, but
in cases where this is not a feasible reform, privatizing access rights has also proven effective. One such
exclusive access right is the Individual Transferable
M O R R O B AY
Quota (ITQ), a transferable right to harvest fish. New
Zealand is particularly noteworthy for its experiment
with ITQs, which has transformed fishing there by
creating incentives to demand more sustainable catch
levels and by reducing incentives for political wrangling over resources.”
In his New York Times article, “A Tale of Two
Fisheries,” John Tierney quotes Rick McGarvey, a
biologist monitoring fisheries for the South Australian
government: “Fishing may be the only economic
activity in which you can make more money by doing
less work. By fishing less, the fishermen leave more
lobsters out there to produce more eggs, which will
make it easier for them to catch lobsters in the future.
It’s a win-win for the fish and the fishermen. The
lobsters are thriving, and the fishermen are spending
more time at home with their families.”
In this country, many point to the success of the
co-management system that controls Maine’s lobster
fisheries. The system has reportedly achieved great
success, despite predictions of
those who opposed it when the
law that established it was passed
in 1995.
Dumong and his fellow fishermen would like to see a new
system of fishery regulation for
California, one that involves them
in management and preservation
of the fisheries, and allows them to
make a living. However, it seems
clear that if Morro Bay commercial fishermen are to survive, and
our fisheries are to be adequately
protected, we will need to gain
control of the larger forces that
contribute to the destruction of
marine life.
THE ROCK
To blame the fishermen for the bulk of the damage
that has been done to fisheries, to ask them to bear
most of the burden of correcting the problem, seems
unjust.
So, who is at fault? It appears that, to some degree,
we all are. Clearly, the power plants do serious
damage to marine life, but those who run the plants
cannot be given sole responsibility for the problem.
No business can make money selling a product or
service unless there are customers ready and willing
to buy it. Other forms of pollution created by our
daily activities, the oil, other chemicals and trash that
wash into the sea every day, are a major factor. It will
take a comprehensive approach, addressing all
sources of damage to marine life, to restore and maintain our oceans and fisheries, and allow the fishermen
to continue to pursue their ancient profession.
Linda Olson is a Morro Bay-based writer and
frequent contributor to The Rock.
6
NEWS
M AY- J U N E
THE ROCK
The Rock Interview
DAVID “THE WATERGUY” VENHUIZEN
The Austin-based alternative wastewater expert was supposed to speak at a community workshop in Los Osos in
mid April, but it was cancelled. Fortunately, a thick slice of his expertise and wisdom is served up in this exclusive
interview with The Rock in which he tries to make sense out of the RWQCB's “partial pump-and-haul” policy---which removes only a fraction of the problem, and Los Osos’ pursuit of a septic tank management plan.
Amazingly, though he has never set foot in Los Osos—and as unique as Los Osos is—he possesses an uncanny
ability to grasp on-the-ground realities long distance. But then that’s why he's called “The Waterguy.” The following
Q&A is based on an interview with The Rock and additional correspondence adapted for this feature.
Q. You have some idea of
what’s going on here...the
sewer wars, now the CDOs
against homeowners... If money
wasn’t the bottom line and
determining factor, not part of
the mix, what would be your
“septic solution” for Los Osos?
A. As I understand it, the major
problem is nitrogen pollution of
the groundwater. Thus, the solution would be to use
either a type of system that removes nitrogen or to
transport the “waste” water out of the area and/or
utilize the water in some manner that does not result
in groundwater recharge, or some combination of
these. Based on my limited knowledge of the local
situation, I would guess that the “best” solution would
be to utilize a denitrifying pretreatment system and to
disperse the effluent (reclaimed water) in subsurface
drip irrigation fields to maximize uptake of nitrogen
by plants and in-soil denitrification.These treatment
units could be deployed at any scale, from individual
lots, to multi-home “clusters,” to multi-block
“clusters,” up to one treatment unit for the whole
community. There is nothing that says you have to
address every area of the community with the
identical strategy—that is, you can have some
individual on-lot systems, some “small” clusters,
some “large” clusters, as relevant for the nature of the
area being served. This, of course, runs counter to
“mainstream” thinking, which typically addresses the
problem with a “one-size-fits-all” mentality, thinking
that a “wastewater system” can only be a sewerage
system leading to ONE large-scale plant.
Q. What do you think is the best way to manage the
septic tank problem in Los Osos?
A. Again, the basic problem is nitrogen pollution
(with saltwater intrusion also being a concern, and the
connection of that to “waste” water management is
that if you stop leaching “waste” water you stop
replenishing the freshwater “bubble”). The systems
in place are what they are, producing the nitrogen
pollution that they do. What are you going to do to
“manage” the existing systems, other than turning the
septic tanks into holding tanks, to be pumped out
instead of allowing them to overflow into a leachfield? That is a VERY expensive proposition—and it
begs the question of whether the tanks are even
watertight so that pumping would indeed “work” to
remove the problem. So the way in which you would
“manage” the problem to actually get you around it is
to replace the existing systems with systems that
don’t result in nitrogen pollution. On a lot-by-lot
basis, I expect you’re looking at a minimum of
$15,000/lot for that. Will that end up being a “good”
way—a cost-efficient way—to manage the problem?
You won’t know that until you compare it with other
options, which, as I understand it, is what the facility
planning process is supposed to be all about. But it
appears that some there don’t seem to see it that way;
rather they see the facility planning process as being
JUST about “sewering” in “the zone” rather than
about putting in place what is required for the
community to manage the community’s problem. I
don’t think this a “rational” way to proceed.
Q. Is it safe to assume right up front that there are no
cheap stopgap solutions?
A. I don’t have any cheap “stopgap” solutions. The
technology does what it does, and you either employ
technology that is equal to the task, or you continue
to have the problem. Assuming that addressing the
problem on a lot-by-lot basis is even desirable, I
could tell you what technology to use to solve the
problem and how to organize to assure that it is properly managed so that it continues to perform its
intended function in perpetuity. But as I said, it’ll
probably be $15,000 minimum, so I sincerely doubt
any of the owners would rush to sign up to do it.
They are most likely going to want something cheaper and more painless as a stopgap, and I don’t have
any such “magic bullet.”
‘I cannot see that (pumping a
home septic tank every two
months for several years) has
any value but PR, to make it
“look” like something is being
done.’
the system. Urine is the source of the majority of the
nitrogen in domestic wastewater. This nitrogen is in
the form of urea, which is mostly broken down into
ammonium nitrogen in the septic tank. Water coming
out of a septic tank will have most of its nitrogen in
the ammonium form, with some as organic nitrogen.
It is in the soil where the ammonium nitrogen is
nitrified to form nitrate nitrogen. Most of the nitrogen
entering the soil is either denitrified to nitrogen gas,
taken up by plants, or percolates into groundwater.
What you want is a type of system that denitrifies
within the treatment unit to reduce the amount of
nitrogen introduced into the soil and a type of
dispersal field that encourages plant uptake and insoil denitrification, so that you reduce the amount of
nitrogen that is leached into groundwater.
Q. What do you see as the value of establishing an
onsite management district to manage the pollution
problem, as the RWQCB defines it, in the near term,
until a sewer is built?
Small-scale systems. This is a performing arts center
and office buildings. You can see the hatches of the
sand filters on the level next to the lowest building,
and the hatches of other system tanks below that.
They had not finished the treatment center area off
very well. -DV
Q. Speaking of a “stopgap” solution, what are the
advantages and disadvantages of pumping a home
septic tank every two months for several years?
A. I cannot see that this has any value but PR, to
make it “look” like something is being done. Let’s
assume the average daily flow into the septic tank is
250 gpd. (Don’t know the demographics there, so
this may or may not be accurate.) Let’s say the tank
has a capacity of 1,000 gallons. So when you pump
the tank, you remove four day’s flow. If you do that
every 60 days, you remove 4/60 = 6.7% of the total
flow. This implies that you are removing 6.7% of the
pollution that issues from that system. Don’t know
what pumping costs there, around here it would run
over $100/pumping [$300 in Los Osos]. Is that is a
“reasonable” cost for removing a very minor fraction
of the problem? I cannot fathom the point of this
“partial pump-and-haul” idea.
A. Again, if all you do is “manage” the existing
systems, I have difficulty in seeing how there could
be a stopgap embodied in an “onsite management district” that would actually solve the problem. This, of
course, is not to say that things in motion there don’t
still “compel” you to proceed in the manner you are,
rather only that I cannot see how it makes much sense
in terms of actually solving the actual basic problems—too much nitrogen pollution and saltwater
intrusion that may be exacerbated if “waste” water
does not continue to leach to maintain the freshwater
“bubble.”
Q. Is Los Osos in danger of missing the “big picture”
by buying into what you call the dichotomy view?
A. Whether it is a “septic system” or a “wastewater
system,” it is ALL your community’s “waste” water
Q. Is there a “home litmus test” a homeowner could
fairly cheaply put together to test for nitrates in the
septic tank?
A. There are testing kits made by Hach that I understand can be used to obtain some information about
nitrogen levels. I’m not conversant with the details.
But if the owner urinates and flushes this into the
septic tank, then the owner is inputting nitrogen into
The "Elysium" is the treatment center for a few homes
and two office buildings. The area around the tanks is
drip-irrigation field, being water with the treated
effluent. These clients didn't care about aesthetics, so
chose to leave the tanks uncovered, uncamouflaged.
-DV
7
M AY - J U N E
NEWS
THE ROCK
urban setting. Anyone could fabricate those
systems—it is an “open” technology. You don’t need
to be dependent on any vendor of a “widget.” In any
case, a vendor should never be in a position to put
any aspect of the program in jeopardy if the vendor
“goes south.” All management functions should be
run in a manner that reasonably guarantees perpetuity
of function. As I noted, ideally, there would be ONE
technological approach implemented on all lots so
that the management system would only have to be
trained to address one approach, and it would be best
if the generic approach was an “open” technology
rather than a proprietary “widget,” so that there
would be the greatest flexibility in servicing and
maintenance.
A treatment center in New Mexico getting ready for start-up. The six filter beds will have insulated covers on
them to protect them from the elements and to contain odors before they start feeding wastewater into the
system. They were left off at this point to facilitate observations and set-up procedures. The design flow rate
for this treatment center is 2,500 gpd, so it would probably accommodate perhaps 10 homes, and would fit on
an area smaller than one of your typical urban lots. The technology of this system is stable and robust, and is
able to consistently and reliably produce a high quality effluent with a minimum of active oversight. The
planned protocol for this system is to monitor alarms, make observations monthly, do fairly minor functional
testing and routine maintenance every three months, and do other monitoring annually. ---- DV
management system. Los Osos seems to be subscribing to what I call the “dichotomy view”—that you
either have all individual on-lot systems or the whole
community is collectivized into one central system. I
subscribe to a “continuum view” which considers not
only those two extremes but also the full range of
options in between them. It seems to me that you
should be aiming to integrate ALL forms of “waste”
water management under a single management entity
that can address ALL your “waste” water related
problems—including all impacts on your drinking
‘No matter what, the
community does have one
“waste” water system---it all
goes to the same place. It
should be under one
management, implemented for
the community to deal with its
own community problem.’
water supply—on a holistic basis, implementing the
most beneficial strategies in each situation. You
should not be parceling out responsibility/authority
on the basis of which end of the dichotomy view the
system happens to be at and implementing “one-sizefits-all” fixes categorically in conformance with this
dichotomy view. Unfortunately, that is not the way
the “mainstream” thinks, so instilling a continuum
view is going to require resolve by the locals.
Q. It seems that the pressure to produce instant results
to satisfy the waterboards will cause Los Osos to
forsake any comprehensive program for the entire
community, force a centralized-conventional plant for
part of the community and ignore the rest. Does this
make sense to you?
A. No. No matter what, the community does have
ONE “waste” water system—it ALL goes to the same
place. It should be under ONE management, implemented for THE COMMUNITY TO DEAL WITH
ITS COMMUNITY PROBLEM. This one system
may be implemented with different arrangements of
hardware in different areas of the community to suit
the needs and opportunities created by different
settlement patterns and differing site characteristics.
Indeed, one of those arrangements could be “managed
on-sites” and one of those arrangements could be a
highly collectivized system. What “the system” delivers is a SERVICE, not one—and only one—explicit
arrangement of hardware. That would be the tail
wagging the dog. However, this simple concept is
what you might have to “pull teeth” to get your
mainstream consultants—and the regulators too,
unfortunately—to understand and embrace.
Q. What are the primary approaches the town could
take to including on-site systems in a program that
works and works well?
A. You must consider: Is the approach going to be
every lot owner doing his/her own thing (maybe with
a collective management component), or is the
approach going to be the creation of a COMMUNITY
“waste” water management system? And if it is
determined to attack the problem lot by lot, if there is
going to be any sort of organized management
function (which, it would seem, there absolutely must
be, given that you must use more “advanced”
technology in order to remove nitrogen), it behooves
the community management organization to have
primacy in determining the methods—the “widgets”—to be used. It would be a far more
“controllable” situation to use one technological
approach rather than to have to manage anything that
the owner gets sold on by the vendors. Given that
nitrogen reduction is a major aim, there will be
precious few technological approaches that are
tenable in small-scale application in any case.
Q. How important is it to consider system types that
we can “unplug” and “plug in” as necessary and cost
efficient?
A. I would suggest that before any “device” is even
considered, first you need to review the technologies
available to achieve the treatment standards deemed
to be required. Based on what I know about available
technologies, the denitrifying “sand” filter concept is
probably the “best” choice for Los Osos. It will be
highly reliable with a minimum of active oversight
and is compact and unobtrusive enough to fit into the
The focus of the system is on reuse, not "disposal,"
as the effluent is being used to irrigate grounds and
landscaping beautification. To the extent that
landscape irrigation is practiced in Los Osos, it would
seem that every bit of it should be addressed with
effluent, given Los Osos’ water supply realities. ----DV
Q. You have yet to visit Los Osos, but one of the first
things you’ll notice when you get here is that there is
broad diversity of views to contend with. Some people talk about sewering just the Prohibition Zone, others talk about dismantling the Prohibition Zone and
sewering other parts of the community as well, except
for those areas on community septics. It’s difficult to
generate a consensus and get things done in this fractured environment…
A. It may be that my perspectives simply do not
“measure up” to some of the institutional realities
there. That some are questioning the need to look at
anything but “sewering” in “the zone” is a case in
point. That explicitly conflicts with my perspective on
what the COMMUNITY needs to accomplish—a
COMMUNITY “waste” water system that is implemented to solve a COMMUNITY PROBLEM.
Perhaps a very fundamental problem is that Los Osos
is simply not a community in any functional sense—
that it remains unincorporated with a population of
15,000 does indeed seem to indicate a lack of
community identity or cohesion. So the “real
problems” in Los Osos may be much deeper than the
lack of proper “waste” water management services.
As far as how you “create a community” which then
works TOGETHER to address a common problem—
protecting your drinking water supply—that’s something you locals know a whole lot more about than I
do, obviously. No “waste” water consultant can come
in and solve THAT problem. And it seems that the
attitude of your State Water Board is doing more to
drive wedges between the factions than it is to unite
them in a common effort.
David Venhuizen: 'The Original Purveyor of
Decentralized Concepts for Wastewater Management'
When the home page of David Venhuizen's Web site,
www.venhuizen-ww.com, pops up on your browser, you are
met by the preface,"Dedicated to the Decentralized
Concept of 'Waste' Water Management." The next line says:
"When conventional sewerage is a poor answer (and it IS
a poor answer more often than you think)…Who do you
call?" The answer? "Venhuizen (ven-hi-zen). The original
purveyor of decentralized concepts for wastewater management." Many professionals in the field call the Austinbased engineer simply "The Waterguy." Venhuizen has
promoted the use of "innovative" and "alternative" wastewater management concepts for more than two decades.
Recognizing problems inherent in conventional
mechanical-biological technologies and the "regional"
management philosophy favored by most engineers and
system operators, he formulated his "decentralized
concept" of wastewater management. Under this concept
on-site systems, small collective systems, and more
centralized systems could be integrated under a single
management entity. Over the years, Venhuizen has led
efforts to "mainstream" the innovative/alternative system
concepts and treatment and dispersal methods that would
best serve these concepts. Venhuizen has also applied
innovative/alternative treatment concepts to individual onsite wastewater systems. He was one of six nationally
recognized experts to serve on the Technical Advisory
Committee for the first phase of EPA's National Onsite
Demonstration Project. He has conducted seminars on
innovative/alternative small-scale wastewater management
in Colorado, Massachusetts, Texas, and Oklahoma.
8
M AY - J U N E
TRI-W
Continued
from page 1
Will the Tri-W site
become a sewer plant, a
park with a pool, a
grove of shops and
offices…or all three?
of the Sewer at Tri-W. That was supposed to be the
primary goal of now-defunct Measure B, and the
main plank in the campaign platform of LOCSD “yes
on recall” board members. Tri-W is also considered
Scenic Coastal Viewshed, providing limitations for
its development, i.e. obstructing views from a public
road (Los Osos Valley Road). “It is likely the
development would be low profile and nestled near
the library,” said Tacker. “Tri-W is still considered
ESHA in the eyes of the Coastal Commission staff.
Its soils will support the native plants and animals if
allowed to regenerate. This ESHA determination
limits its development, even for a park.”
As an example of those limitations, Tacker cites
the draft Habitat Conservation Plan identifying that
parcels in the surrounding area over five acres be
required to ‘self-mitigate,’ meaning any prospective
buyer would have to mitigate its damages to ESHA
by preserving property on site in a 3:1 ratio, three
acres preserved to every one acre destroyed. “If a
buyer intends to develop the Tri-W site, depending on
their development,” said Tacker, “it is likely they
would be required to restore (native species and) the
majority of the land for open space.”
Tacker believes that should a developer choose to
develop the entire 11 acres, including a park, Coastal
Commission staff will apply the same mitigation to
the site and require the developer—private or public—to purchase and preserve 40 acres of the
Broderson parcel that was used as mitigation for the
former wastewater project site.
“There are overarching issues related to the ability
to develop the Tri-W site,” she said. “Until there is a
comprehensive Groundwater Management Plan,
including water conservation, and a Habitat
Conservation Plan in place and adopted through an
LCP amendment, the site suffers the same fate as the
500 +/- other vacant lots within the Los Osos
Prohibition Zone.”
As a result of these complexities, Tacker said it
Photo by Abe Perlstein
NEWS
will be “tricky” but thinks the property is “sale-able.”
While the District takes no position on a ‘preferred
outcome’ of the sale of any property, she said, “I
personally would like to see the community pass that
hat like they did to acquire the Elfin Forest, to buy it
themselves. In my work as an activist and Director,
I have learned of several developers and
County Park interest in the Tri-W site. Those
are casual interests—to date the District is not
entertaining any offers. It is likely that all
interested parties (were) waiting the appraisal.”
The District has contracted Hamner & Jewell
Government Real Estate to broker the sale of
the properties. The firm also handled the
acquisition of the site. “I am under the
impression that the District must take the
highest best offer for the properties,” Tacker
said. “We cannot allow our personal preferences
to weigh in our decision for the outcome of the land.”
The County and Parks
The LOCSD has good reasons, as they see it, for
selling Tri-W. The number one reason—to forever
take it off the table as a location for a treatment
plant—does not sit well with those who have vowed
to return the facility to Tri-W. For that reason alone,
the battle for Tri-W has become a war within a war, a
race against time and politics to sell it—or keep it
from being sold. The finish line to this Great Race
may lie years in the future. Most lack the tenacity and
vision to plan that far down the road, but not all.
Pandora-Nash Karner, a member of the County
Parks & Recreation Committee, was a major force,
along with the Gustafson-Hensley-LeGros voting bloc
on the old 3-to-2-locked board, behind the development of the treatment facility and park at Tri-W.
History will show that those plans were scuttled by
the recall election and passage of Measure B a few
weeks after the ill-timed groundbreaking. The County
is one of the potential buyers for Tri-W, and some
can’t help but wonder if Nash-Karner is trying to
make an end run to secure Tri-W for the County, if
and when the LOCSD is dissolved and the sewer
project reverts to County control.
“I believe the present CSD board would like to see
the Tri-W site sold because they believe it will ensure
the sewer cannot be built there,” Nash-Karner said.
“It is my understanding the law requires the CSD to
offer the land to another government agency before
offering the property on the open market. The County
Park Division has written a letter expressing an
interest in purchasing the land for much needed
additional parkland in Los Osos.
“Los Osos is dramatically underparked and the
County Park & Recreation Element specifically calls
for more park acreage in Los Osos. The Tri-W site, as
well as Cuesta Inlet, would make ideal park locations
for Los Osos. This naturally is dependent upon funding to purchase these lands,” Nash-Karner said.
Bruce Gibson, County Planning Commissioner for
the 2nd District, and a candidate for District 2
Supervisor, confirmed the funding: “I would expect
that process (of acquiring property from another
public agency) to be underway in regards to the TriW site. My understanding is that funds for land
acquisition are currently available.
“If the land were acquired,” Gibson said, “the
process of developing a park or other facilities would
be a separate project. The decision on whether an
aquatic center or sewer plant should be located on
that site would require a wide consideration of
THE ROCK
feasibility and community needs. At present, the
LOCSD has sole authority and responsibility for the
sewer project. If, in the future, the County is responsible for the sewer, I would propose a review of all feasible project alternatives—including the previouslypermitted project—before proceeding with the one
that gets a sewer plant built in the most direct manner
possible.”
The County Park & Recreation Element also
proposes an Aquatic Center/Recreation Facility. Los
Osos has long wanted a swimming pool and there is a
long history of work done toward that goal. The pool
has long needed a home. Several have been proposed
including at the Middle School, and most recently at
the Sunnyside School site.
“As I understand the law—from when I was still
on the LOCSD Board,” Nash-Karner said, “agencies
selling real estate must first offer that land to another
agency before they can offer it to the general market.
County Parks has made it clear, by letter, they are
interested in purchasing the Tri-W land for a park. It
is in an ideal location since the Los Osos Community
Park across the street is a county owned and operated
park. There would be many opportunities with this
11-acre parcel. Green areas could be developed for
youth activities.”
The County sees the Aquatic Center at Tri-W as a
possibility it would consider, according to NashKarner. And that, for her, would be a ‘win-win.’
The Sunnyside of the Street
Developer Jeff Edwards, who options or owns land
at Sunnyside and on Ramona north of Tri-W, accepts
that Tri-W’s future no longer includes a sewer treatment facility there. “There is almost no scenario in
my view that is going to lead us back to that site. I
just can’t think of one,” he said.
“The CSD needs to get the value out of that property. They paid $3 million, and it’s gone up in value
theoretically. It’s a prime commercial property. It’s
probably worth in excess of $4 million dollars right
now. The notion that there’s going to be a park there
is absolute bull.”
What about Pandora? “Pandora wants to try to preserve that location so someday somebody can come
back and build a sewer plant there—and it ain’t gonna
happen,” Edwards said. “She oughta let go of the
bone. It’s over.
“I don’t believe the County’s interest is sincere.
The County doesn’t have the money,” Edwards said.
Pandora used her influence to get a letter written by
the county, he added, but “it’s a fiction.”
As for the future of Tri-W, “not a lot is going to
happen in my view,” Edwards said, “because of the
value of the property—it’s not worth a plug nickel if
there’s no wastewater project. You couldn’t give it
away.
“What are you going to do with it? You’ve got to
keep people off of it, you’ve got to keep the weeds
down, you’ve got to pay property taxes—and you
can’t do anything with it. What are you going to do
with it, plant grass?
“They have to sell it, but more importantly, they
have to wait until there’s some certainty regarding the
wastewater project so that it actually has value.
Because the appraisal is going to say, yeah, it’s worth
$4.5 million if there’s a wastewater project. If there’s
no project, there’s no value.”
Of course, the sewer will make Tri-W “buildable,
developable,” said Edwards. “It’s zoned now for
Continued on page 10
9
M AY - J U N E
GRAVITY BOMB
Continued from page 1
show failure of treatment to kill or remove all pathogenic bacteria. Thus, this is hardly new knowledge.”
What is less known by the public is the extent of
the problem, the increased threat to public health, its
historical context, and the real potential for an outbreak. “Multiple drug-resistant bacteria are particularly problematic due to the decreasing number of
therapeutic options,” the report warns, options that
include the latest and most widely used “wonder
drugs.” These cornerstone drugs of modern medical
treatment, the report acknowledges, “seem to be in
trouble.”
“A less understood and even more troubling
mechanism for the transfer of multi-drug-resistant
bacteria is also found at the local sewer treatment
plant,” the report also states. “As bacteria wind their
way through these treatment processes, the selective
pressures against them increase. In consequence, there
is a greater effort by bacteria to pass on survivalenhancing genetic information. Additionally, as the
environmental stresses increase, the bacteria
up-regulate numerous other survival mechanisms to
assure that they and their genetic material survive.
These survived mechanisms can include increased
chlorine resistance.”
“The fact is,” said Dr. Alexander, “all the
contaminated sewerage goes to one place, and then
they do secondary treatment, which is doing nothing
but incubating the bacteria so there are enough of
them to grow the pathogens. This was a fairly reasonable (procedure) for many years, but unfortunately,
bacteria and viruses have become immune to treatment. Our ‘wonder drugs’ just aren’t cutting it at all.
“At one time they had a natural life cycle, but these
NEWS
pathogens have developed an immunity because of
our misuse of ‘wonder drugs.’ We now have bacteria
and virus that can take a temperature of 450 degrees.
The old 250 degree (standard) doesn’t mean anything
anymore (in that particular set of species).”
Emphasizes the report: “The take-home message is
that drug resistance and the transfer of multi-drug
resistance among and between species occurs in
wastewater treatment plants. This information is now
over a decade old.”
The Gravity Menace
The expensive Tri-W gravity plant for Los Osos,
approved by the RWQCB and other state regulatory
agencies, but defeated by voters at the polls last
September, is a potential menace in the making, in
town or out, according to Dr. Alexander. “It doesn’t
make any sense at all. The fact that they gather the
waste from thousands of people and put it in one
common ‘mixing ground.’ All you’ve got to do is
have one family that has ‘the bug.’ They get mixed up
with the rest of [the bacteria] between incubation and
mutation, and one family could end up producing
trillions of pathogens that are contaminated and
without cure… Dilution doesn’t work anymore. These
pathogens are surviving even in saltwater… And they
can spread around the world.
“Either of the programs the RWQCB is demanding
is more dangerous than the bomb,” Dr Alexander said.
“In either case, (these systems) are breeding deadly
pathogens that are already pandemic with high mortality.
“[The RWQCB] has absolutely no concern their
one-track programs are totally obsolete in the modern
world. It hinders the technology that will eliminate
our water shortage and the energy shortage. They
spend their time trying to kill a flea on an elephant…
Now, the very system they’re developing is one of the
biggest hazards in life.”
The RWQCB hadn’t taken much of an
interest in pathogens until revised, post-dated
CDOs were received by selected Los Osos
homeowners in early April, with pathogens
added to nitrates and fill-in-the-blank “other”
as pollutants for which individual home
owners are now also responsible for cleaning
up—or face fines and liens and who knows
what else.
But that hasn’t changed the RWQCB’s
pursuit of a conventional sewer for Los
Osos—even though all that sewage into one
big plant is a disaster waiting to happen, Dr.
Alexander asserted; because, for one, there is
no such thing as an earthquake-proof sewer
treatment plant. An earthquake could rupture
sewer lines and knock out power to the
plant—and the public health impact could be
devastating. “Additionally,” the report states,
“if the sewer mains are leaking, this increases the potential risk for materials reaching
the environment, aquifer, rivers, or beach and
ocean.” And, in this post-9/11 world, it can’t
be overlooked that with its capacity to disseminate pathogens near and far, a central
sewer plant could be an easy target for terrorism; it’s a far easier target than individual
household units.
THE ROCK
“The tendency now is to go back to individual systems, so we don’t have this massive problem to treat,”
Dr. Alexander said. “The individual system certainly
could have an overflow, but one little overflow is
nothing compared to what you will have if you have
millions of gallons of raw sewage floating around.
“Certainly, the system they are using now [in
Morro Bay], even without the MRSAs [methicillinresistant staphloccus aureus, a virulent strain of
common staph bacteria] and ecoli 157, are making
lots of people sick because they’re only half treating
it, and the pathogens are not being killed by chlorine.”
Progress Made
John Alexander Research is working with the
Center for Disease Control in Atlanta to analyze
various pathogens, discover their dissemination points
and how they can be stopped. Alexander Research has
developed a system called PH Pasturization, according to Dr. Alexander, which kills “identifiable” bacteria that have built up a resistance to even chlorine.
They are also working on other promising approaches, including one that eliminates the water contained
in the pathogens by “zapping the water and the water
alone by using electro-magnetic energy.” He believes
they are on the right track, but more conclusive proof
is needed before scientists can claim success.
A broader, more frightening question lies in
whether any of these pathogens can be found in our
drinking water. Dr. Alexander doesn’t think so but
can’t completely rule it out, since there is no
conclusive proof available today that as-yet-unidentified pathogens are not in the drinking water.
Dr. Alexander believes the public needs to pay
closer attention to the pathogen problem and protest
their concern to local and state officials who permit it.
“It is despicable to let a handful of people, for
personal gain, destroy the lives of thousands of
people. It takes guts to fight city hall, but with so
much at stake it is cowardly to give up,” he said.
“Many Los Osos citizens think they have no choice
and are willing to put up with the nonsense being
pushed upon them. Thank goodness our forefathers
had more intestinal fortitude.”
—Ed Ochs
THE ROCK
Guardian of the Coast
STAFF
Ed Ochs
Editorial Director
Debi Pavek
Research
Abe Perlstein Aaron Ochs
Photography
Aaron Ochs
Graphics
The Rock is a publication of the Los Osos Taxpayers Assn.
No article or material appearing in The Rock may be
reprinted in part or in full without the written
permission of the Publisher.
P.O. Box 6315, Los Osos, CA 93412. (805) 528-1224.
© 2006. All Rights Reserved.
Your first copy of The Rock is free;
$1 for each additional copy.
One-year subscription: $12
10
M AY - J U N E
TRI-W
Continued from page 8
commercial retail on eight acres and zoned office and
professional on three. You could do some rezoning,
but I think the zoning is adequate for any combination
of possible projects there. Whoever were to acquire
that property would want to have the mitigation
package included; in other words, it remains clear for
development.”
Until the sewer is on line, according to Edwards,
Tri-W has “limited possibilities. It’s probably going to
sit there for the foreseeable future. If and when we
can get our arms around this wastewater project, then
it will have some value, and I probably would be
interested in it at that time.”
Edwards doesn’t foresee a quick sale, or any sale.
“I doubt it will be sold, they’re going to hang on
to it. The appraisal comes back and it says, ‘If you
don’t have a wastewater project it’s not worth anything. Who’s going to buy it until there’s a wastewater
project? So it’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. If
they move forward and identify a new treatment site
location and get the project kind of back on line, then
it starts to have value. One’s got to happen before the
other.”
Until then, Edwards agreed, Tri-W stands as a monument to failure. “It’s a community failure. We failed
as a community. We can blame it on any number of
people, but the bottom line is we failed as a collective
community.”
That failure doesn’t preclude a better future for TriW. “Long-term,” Edwards said, “I see a library expansion theoretically over in that neighborhood. I
possibly see the District offices. I see a new fire
station at that location. I see a mixed-use project on
the eight acres…some residential. There will be an
open space/park component—a component, not the
whole thing. Nobody’s got the money to buy the
whole thing and put it in an open space. This is a
prime, urban-center property, and we don’t have
many of these for development. So we’ve got to
preserve the ones we have for development, and
develop them in a timely fashion, with uses the
community will take advantage of.”
Whitaker Construction “smoothed” out some of the
large holes in the property, through a change order to
their contract for $10,000. The entire site could not be
regraded because of the water holes. If the holes are
eliminated, the water might leave the site, and the
CSD is responsible for the runoff—and the CSD
doesn’t need any more lawsuits. The fence will
probably remain for a while, although it has been
moved back from the road a bit, providing a little
breathing room between cars and the fence, the bike
lane and strollers.
Tacker, long-time ‘spokesperson’ for what she
describes as “the three-acre ‘boot’-shaped parcel of
land that once was home to ESHA—Environmentally
Sensitive Habitat Area,” still mourns the creatures
NEWS
“unnecessarily disturbed, killed or displaced as a
result of a premature start to a failed $165 million
wastewater treatment project. I still love Tri-W, it has
changed my and others lives forever. It stands fenced
and barren as a reminder of a sewer saga that should
never have been.”
“Either way, as I see it, the old site is off the
table,” said Bleskey in mid April after Measure B was
ruled invalid in court. “It is far too costly to resurrect
that project, and far too controversial.” On April 20,
the LOCSD considered adopting a wastewater plant
siting ordinance. “Unlike the public,” said an
LOCSD press release, “the District Board can require
environmental and economic siting requirements for a
wastewater treatment facility and make other
determinations, whether they are legislative or administrative in nature. District attorneys are preparing
options for consideration by the District Board that
‘We can blame it on any
number of people, but the
bottom line is we failed as a
collective community.’
—Jeff Edwards
will prohibit construction of a facility in close
proximity to the library, schools, the community
center and public gathering places.”
Is that the end of the story?
Not to Tri-W diehards. They read Judge
Tangeman’s ruling striking down Measure B as
unlocking the gates of Tri-W. Considering all the
obstacles, could the once-defeated megasewer
somehow still find its way back home to Tri-W for
one more stand? Highly unlikely. Ironically, if the
Tri-W site were put before the water boards today,
it would not meet new requirements for a wastewater
facility on grounds of sustainability and water reuse,
so while diehards may think they have a site, now
they don’t have a plant. That said, could somehow all
laws and regulations be ignored, new requirements
amended, and the Tri-W plant arise from the ring of
dirt? It wouldn’t be the first time that laws were
circumvented to secure the Tri-W plant.
Move the Sewer advocates won’t be convinced TriW is “off the table” until the day the first office or
store opens for business there—and it’s not called
Tri-W any longer. Then and only then will anyone in
Los Osos say for sure that it’s impossible, not just
improbable. Because in San Luis Obispo County,
where the law is whatever you can get away with,
it’s just a few shorts steps from the Prohibition Zone
to “The Twilight Zone.”
Or, to adapt an old Irish proverb: “In Los Osos the
inevitable never happens and the unexpected
constantly occurs.”
THE ROCK
The Legend of Tri-W: In the Beginning
Like the O.K. Corral was center stage for an earlier
legendary downtown shootout, Tri-W will forever be
known as the almost-site of the Los Osos Wastewater
Facility and Community Park. But where did the
Tri-W moniker actually originate?
According to LOCSD Director and local historian
Julie Tacker, Tri W Enterprises is a real estate
company in Santa Maria owned by the three Williams
brothers, who owned Los Osos property and passed it
on to their children. The Williams, who also used to
own Williams Brothers grocery stores around the
Central Coast, still own the Vons/Carlock’s Shopping
Centers and the post office center.
The Williams brothers bought the Vons/Carlock’s
land from Al Switzer. It was the only commercial
property in Los Osos that could house a supermarket—until Jeff Edwards was “magically” able to
change the zoning on the land that Ralphs now occupies. The Williams hoped to stave off competition by
monopolizing the commercial spaces for groceries.
Then came Ralphs—and no more monopoly.
So when the LOCSD wanted Tri-W during a building moratorium, the Williams were glad to comply.
For a $5,000 retainer in the fall of 2000, and after
nearly a four-year escrow on the $3,010,025 purchase
price, the Tri-W sale closed in March 2003.
Tri-W proponents said at the time that the site was
chosen because its central location would reduce
pumping costs. In comparison to the $3 million price
tag for Tri-W, said SewerWatch.com Editor-in-Chief
Ron Crawford, “Sites out of town were about
$500,000. That $2.5 million difference in land cost
alone would have paid for about 100 years of the
extra energy it would take to pump effluent about two
miles out of town.”
And that’s just the beginning of the legend of
Tri-W.
GETTING ALONG
Continued from page 2
School District for a potential pool in Morro Bay
or at the middle school in Los Osos. As of yet, those
options are still being explored with no agreement at
hand. Other options may exist which we have yet to
explore.”
LOCSD director Julie Tacker believes NashKarner should pin her hopes for a pool on Jeff
Edwards’ Sand Hill Village proposal. “Jeff is likely to
pull that re-development off long before any funding
for a pool would come from the people of Los Osos
or the County.”
“It’s not going in at Tri-W,” Edwards said. “That’s
the fiction of the whole thing. Pandora just can’t let
go of her former involvement. She invested emotionally and psychologically. It’s absurd… as the whole
reason the old board couldn’t let go of that site in the
end. They should have cut Tri-W loose in terms of a
viable treatment site location years
ago. She just
doesn’t get it. It ain’t going there,
period, end of story.”
Or is it? Does the County have
the bounty? Will Nash-Karner poolvault back into the Tri-W site? Will
Edwards get the last laugh poolside
at Sunnyside? It may yet come to a
vote. The pool won’t be able to fill
up with water until at least 2010, so
there’s still plenty of time for the
community to barely pass a Measure
P to move the pool out of the
town… next to the new sewer plant.
—Ed Ochs
11
M AY - J U N E
FOOD & DINING
THE ROCK
The Colossal Cajun Creations of Bon Temps
Way down yonder in San Luis Obispo, on Olive
Street off Santa Rosa, is the nearly hidden culinary
oasis of owner-chef Phil Lang’s Bon Temps Creole
Café. Located on a short street that is a busy entrance
to the 101 South, and sharing a red sign with the
Ramada Inn behind it, Bon Temps seems to disappear
from the brief stretch of sidewalk—except to the
eagle eye of taste-starved explorers in search of the
rarest of robust flavors, wherever they might be
found.
Diners relax amid festive, funky-casual décor of
New Orleans. Over the speakers seep the seductive
strains of classic New Orleans rhythm & blues and
Zydeco music, anchored by convulsive accordion and
harmonica outbursts that seem to gently sway the
café. But the Big Easy backdrop can’t possibly prepare you enough for the authentic aromas that burst
out of Chef Lang’s open kitchen—wafting from
brilliantly colored Cajun and Creole dishes that look
and taste like a Southern side of Heaven on Earth you
can’t find anywhere else on the Central Coast.
Take the New Orleans breakfasts (now extended
till 2 p.m.), specialties you would never make for
yourself at home in a million years and won’t find for
hundreds, maybe thousands of miles between the
Central Coast and Gulf Coast. For example:
Glistening Eggs Sardou—two artichoke bottoms
filled with poached eggs with Hollandaise sauce on a
bed of Cajun creamed spinach, served with Cajun
hash browns and a muffin, toast or biscuit. ($7.95)
Lunch features Muffalettas, very large sandwiches
on sesame loaf filled with ham, bacon and spicy
Creole sausages, lettuce, tomato, pickle and Creole
mayonnaise, and served with Bon Temps’ Cajun olive
salad. Whole meatless sandwich $10.95, half $6.50;
whole regular $12.95, half $7.50. And Hail the Kings
of Louisiana Kitchen Specialties—Shrimp and
Andouille Jambalaya, Crawfish or Alligator Etouffe,
Shrimp Creole and Genuine Cajun Seafood Gumbo,
all served with warm cornbread. ($9.95 to $10.95)
So if you happen to drive past Bon Temps the first
time around, be sure to make a safe U-turn in one of
the nearby lots and, if you can’t find a space on the
street, park in the back of the Ramada Inn by the
motel’s exit. Now you know the way. Enjoy!
Bon Temps offers an extensive collection of
Central Coast wines with blackboard specials at $6
and $5 a glass. Live blues on Wednesday nights alternate Karen Tyler and Val & Al. Bon Temps is located
at 1000 Olive St. Hours: 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. daily for
breakfast and lunch, from 5 p.m. to 9 pm. for dinner.
—Ed Ochs
805-544-2100.
Insert Nursery Ad
Here