Los Osos makes progress on water quality

Similar stories:

• Nipomo pipeline project expensive but necessary

  Nipomo pipeline project expensive but necessary

  Property owners in the Nipomo area soon will vote on whether to increase their property taxes to pay for a $26 million pipeline to import water from Santa Maria.

  The question isn’t so much whether the water is needed; even opponents of the project acknowledge that it makes sense to have another source of water. Rather, the debate is over whether Santa Maria water is the best source. Those opposed to the tax measure point to other projects — especially desalination — as better alternatives.

  We recognize that the pipeline will be expensive. If approved, Nipomo-area property owners will not only see their taxes increase, they’ll also pay higher water rates.

• Viewpoint: Nipomo pipeline a dead-end idea

  Viewpoint: Nipomo pipeline a dead-end idea

  The Mesa Community Alliance opposes the Nipomo pipeline project and sends a nitrate-laden, water-filled brickbat to The Tribune for its error-filled endorsement.

  The Tribune supports the Nipomo Community Services District pipeline project as expensive but necessary and describes opposition arguments as eleventh-hour objections.

  MCA, “the opposition” disagrees. “Eleventh hour” is hardly a description of our research. MCA formed in the fall of 2010 to provide Mesa residents with a voice on issues that affect our quality of life. We immediately began work on two issues: air and water quality, and have been meeting regularly for 18 months.

• Nipomo Mesa landowners vote against water pipeline funding plan

  Nipomo Mesa landowners vote against water pipeline funding plan

  The Nipomo Community Services District boardroom was quiet Thursday afternoon while some local residents watched as the final ballots were counted to determine the fate of a nearly $26 million project to bring water to the area from Santa Maria.

  The silence continued even after district General Manager Michael LeBrun announced the results: The measure had failed, gaining just 48 percent approval from property owners in voting weighted according to proposed land assessments.

  Nipomo Community Services District officials were leading the effort to form an assessment district by asking property owners of 8,077 parcels whether they would agree to levy a tax to cover the capital cost of constructing a pipeline to transport water to the Nipomo Mesa.

• Group: Los Osos sewer approval based on misleading info

  Group: Los Osos sewer approval based on misleading info

  A group of Los Osos residents has taken the highly unusual step of petitioning the state Coastal Commission to revoke its permit for the Los Osos sewer project, alleging that the approval is based on willfully submitted inaccurate information.

  The request was submitted by the Los Osos Sustainability Group and signed by Keith Wimer, Elaine Watson, Larry Raio and Chuck Cesena. No date has been set for the commission to hear the request.

  “Basically, the information we present shows that the Los Osos Wastewater Project could have disastrous adverse consequences on the Los Osos area, including the water basin and vital sensitive habitat, and agencies intentionally provided inaccurate, erroneous and incomplete information that failed to disclose these impacts,” they wrote in their request.

• Board adopts water quality regulations

  Board adopts water quality regulations

  After two grueling days of public testimony and deliberations, the state’s Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted rules Thursday that will require farmers to more closely monitor water quality and reduce polluted runoff.

  The vote caps 31⁄2 years of negotiations with farmers and environmental advocates, a process that water-quality regulators describe as one of the most exhaustive ever done in the state.

  The water board voted unanimously to require that farmers adopt irrigation and nutrient management plans as well as more closely monitor water quality around their farms and report that data to state water officials. The requirements are more stringent for larger farms and those close to polluted water bodies.