Regarding The Partisan, March 21, 2019
If you go to the EIR, you will find the testimony of Margaret Nellor, the Sewage Engineer that gave her opinion that the PWM project was similar to several other existing projects. She was the PWM safety expert (zero disease training). She omitted to tell the Central Coast Water Board (and the CPUC) and the public, that never ever before has there been a recycle of agriculture wastewater for potable purposes (or even non-potable). PWM has admitted that fact in an e-mail to Ron Weitzman who asked the question at my prodding. So it was not similar,
but radical compared to any existing project.
BTW, You failed mention the Dept of Drinking Water Policy set forth in Scan 227, wherein the Dept of Drinking Water stated that agriculture and oil field wastewaters are not eligible for recycle for any use (potable or non potable). So how did PWM get a permit? At the time of the inception of the project, the Dept of Drinking Water issued a permit to proceed with the EIR. But under the law, the final Permit was authorized by the five board members of the Central Coast Water Resources Board, all lay people compared to the health safety issue. Now, with the new policy (Scan 227) the Dept. of Drinking Water will not issue a permit to proceed for an agriculture recycle project. Call them and ask.
No one has legally challenged the illegality of the PWM project, which is unfortunate. Needless to say the project is highly controversial in the recycle world. No other entity has dared to emulate the ag. recycle aspect of the project. I am surprised that you would risk your reputation by backing such a novel project. You rely on Sciuto and Stoldt, both trained in engineering. Unfortunately for them, the failure to inform about the risk of the ag. recycle component will IMO cause them to lose their immunity.
Ask them why they refuse to hire an expert with health safety credentials concerning the health safety of recycled water. Not in a million years.
John Moore
