Gail McPherson did not do her homework. In her letter to the editor (â€œYou want proof?â€? Jan. 20-27), she states:
The LOCSD did not look at alternatives. Well, in fact, the LOCSD reviewed numerous alternatives: locations (including the Andre Site), collection technologies (including STEP/STEG), disposal strategies, and treatment technologies (including ponds). Where were you?
The time schedule order was submitted by the LOCSD. The time schedule order was in fact submitted by the Regional Board to the LOCSD. It seems to bother the Regional Board that we have been polluting the bay and our drinking water since 1971.
The ponding systems were eliminated by the LOCSD. Yes, after it was determined they would not remove nitrates to an acceptable level (our pollution problem) and the ponds would require a great deal of acreage in a community that has a great deal of sensitive habitat.
To date, your group has provided no evidence of a cheaper solution that is acceptable to the regulatory agencies. To say the least, you are a little late in the process. Your group is continually increasing the cost of our sewer system. The Regional Board has indicated they will fine the LOCSD out of existence if we pursue a new alternative and/or attempt to move the system to a new location. The LOCSDâ€šs project has been approved by all the regulatory agencies â€” a major accomplishment. We are ready to start construction. It is your group that has provided empty promises. You cannot seem to hear the truth.
Jan Di Leo