FRIDAY, MARCH 25th, 2016

CONTINUED UPDATE

OF THE

MONDAY MARCH 21 2016 LDPCSD meeting.

During his report Chief Plant Operator Randy Gilgo advised the new AMR (automatic meter reading) system, in combination with other equipment yet to be installed, will eventually be of great assistance in locating leaks and stopping the significant water loss the district has been experiencing.  He also stated that much time is being expended by operations in moving the barge “floating intake system” on Lake McClure due to water level fluctuations.  (They must shorten pipeline when water rises, and extend when levels subside and right now lake levels are coming up.)

Chief Operator GILGO explained the permanent intake control valves will need replacement with brand new equipment as the original equipment manufacturer no long supplies the required repair parts.  (Evidently these control valves were in a vault exposed to water which caused damaging rust.)  He also stated the last time intake was worked on involved the pumps and motors in 2009.  Some of this equipment had to be shipped to Texas for repair.

“QUICK LOOK! 

IS THAT A PINK COW DRIVING A WATER TRUCK!”

Here’s something you would have to look for and observe a few times in order to truly appreciate the method of operation because it is practiced, subtle, and very effective.  I don’t catch it myself sometimes.

This being the exquisitely smooth way in which the “WATER LOSS TOPIC” is quickly changed to district vehicle replacement by Director Emery Ross (REM? The cattle rancher with the “liberated water meter” and a “private water line”(and what appears to be a mysteriously appearing stock watering pond) that traverses his ranch in route to serve two other Outside MID Place of Use ranches near HWY 132…..whose cattle damaged pipe was repaired with concrete by non-district personnel…that has indicated repeated high water loss quantities due to a water meter finally being installed to monitor ……  after about twenty years…… with no CHECK METER…… what-so-ever?……gasp!..)

<easy now…breathe Lew..relax….slow down. You’re forgetting punctuation again…..breath…..lol>

I am still amazed at how much an audience attendee can miss while focused on meeting discussion.  Seriously, I cannot count the number of times I have returned home after a board meeting and listened to the audio tape only to discover I HAD COMPLETELY MISSED A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT COMMENTS while listening to someone else.  Sometimes it is not just a single director who changes the subject or otherwise manipulates the meeting flow, but a couple of them working together in concert or with “audience plants” to guarantee certain information is promoted while other uncomplimentary and/or undesired material is actively suppressed or completely concealed.  A real choreographed piece of work sometimes.   Impressive but if these folks would only spend a fraction of that time and energy in following the regulations such showmanship deception wouldn’t be necessary.

[This is another reason why I have always been in favor of video taping meetings and making them available on the internet for customers.  Besides providing necessary information to customers such recordings also cut down on much of the drama special interest protestors bring to meetings.]

ANYWAY, we will pick up this portion of the meeting in audio where President Danny Johnson brings up the possibility that maybe faulty and inaccurate district equipment is responsible for only an appearance of continued “SIGNIFICANT WATER LOSS” where no water loss actually exists.  Naturally Randy Gilgo acknowledges this is possible.  Who wouldn’t at least acknowledge the possibility?

Here’s the recording made approximately 22 minutes into the meeting:

ROSS CHANGES WATER LOSS DISCUSSION

I wonder what the Chief Operator’s opinion might have been concerning the possibility that there may be a number of property owners and/or businesses who have been/are “liberating water from the district” and have for some time – as revealed in other past utility theft cases?  later, Lew

 

?????????????????????????????????

March 24th, 2016

How rude of me!  Not to introduce you to your directors, but to be honest I did not know three of them either.  Heck, Monday was the first meeting I’ve attended since a director on the Board in December 2014.  So, please allow me to introduce you to

YOUR

LAKE DON PEDRO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD OF

 

GOVERNMENT GRANT MONEY MATERIAL

CONTAINED IN BOARD AGENDA PACKET

HEY LEW HERE AGAIN:

There must be ground water impacts since even during the capacity testing of the original Ranchito Drive well (according to Director Emery Ross) a neighboring property owner was harmed when his irrigation system which was based on ground water (property is outside of the subdivision) began having difficulties after many years of successful irrigation using his ground well.

This is something I have wondered  – what if all these ground wells KAMPA put in (to expand district service outside permitted areas as he advocated twenty years ago) were to drop the water table of existing ground well water users?

Could our District be liable since KAMPA can dance around singing how he is a LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY while laughing all the way to the bank?

You would think the additional wells would have some sort of impact in this fractured rock geology and drought prone foothill environment.

ANYWAY, tried to get just pages 14 and 15 to print but for some reason the printer kept trying to print over one hundred pages! NO WAY.  Here’s the link, just page down to page 14:  IRWM PROGRAM GUIDELINES

Here’s what I found regarding California Water Code Part 5.1 §5100 Div 2:

WATER CODE
SECTION 5100-5107

5100.  As used in this part:
   (a) "Best available technologies" means technologies at the
highest technically practical level, using flow totaling devices, and
if necessary, data loggers and telemetry.
   (b) "Best professional practices" means practices attaining and
maintaining the accuracy of measurement and reporting devices and
methods.
   (c) "Diversion" means taking water by gravity or pumping from a
surface stream or subterranean stream flowing through a known and
definite channel, or other body of surface water, into a canal,
pipeline, or other conduit, and includes impoundment of water in a
reservoir.
   (d) "Person" means all persons whether natural or artificial,
including the United States of America, State of California, and all
political subdivisions, districts, municipalities, and public
agencies.



5101.  Each person who, after December 31, 1965, diverts water shall
file with the board, prior to July 1 of the succeeding year, a
statement of his or her diversion and use, except that a statement is
not required to be filed if the diversion is any of the following:
   (a) From a spring that does not flow off the property on which it
is located and from which the person's aggregate diversions do not
exceed 25 acre-feet in any year.
   (b) Covered by a registration for small domestic use, small
irrigation use, or livestock stockpond use, or permit or license to
appropriate water on file with the board.
   (c) Included in a notice filed pursuant to Part 5 (commencing with
Section 4999).
   (d) Regulated by a watermaster appointed by the department and
included in annual reports filed with a court or the board by the
watermaster, which reports identify the persons who have diverted
water and describe the general purposes and the place, the use, and
the quantity of water that has been diverted from each source.
   (e) Included in annual reports filed with a court or the board by
a watermaster appointed by a court or pursuant to statute to
administer a final judgment determining rights to water, which
reports identify the persons who have diverted water and give the
general place of use and the quantity of water that has been diverted
from each source.
   (f) For use in compliance with Article 2.5 (commencing with
Section 1226) or Article 2.7 (commencing with Section 1228) of
Chapter 1 of Part 2.
   (g) A diversion that occurs before January 1, 2009, if any of the
following applies:
   (1) The diversion is from a spring that does not flow off the
property on which it is located, and the person's aggregate
diversions do not exceed 25 acre-feet in any year.
   (2) The diversion is covered by an application to appropriate
water on file with the board.
   (3) The diversion is reported by the department in its hydrologic
data bulletins.
   (4) The diversion is included in the consumptive use data for the
Delta lowlands published by the department in its hydrologic data
bulletins.



5102.  The statement may be filed either by the person who is
diverting water or, on his behalf, by an agency which he designates
and which maintains a record of the water diverted. A separate
statement shall be filed for each point of diversion.




5103.  Each statement shall be prepared on a form provided by the
board. The statement shall include all of the following information:
   (a) The name and address of the person who diverted water and of
the person filing the statement.
   (b) The name of the stream or other source from which water was
diverted, and the name of the next major stream or other body of
water to which the source is tributary.
   (c) The place of diversion. The location of the diversion works
shall be depicted on a specific United States Geological Survey
topographic map, or shall be identified using the California
Coordinate System, or latitude and longitude measurements. If
assigned, the public land description to the nearest 40-acre
subdivision and the assessor's parcel number shall also be provided.
   (d) The capacity of the diversion works and of the storage
reservoir, if any, and the months in which water was used during the
preceding calendar year.
   (e) (1) (A) At least monthly records of water diversions. The
measurements of the diversion shall be made in accordance with
Section 1840.
   (B) (i) On and after July 1, 2016, the measurement of a diversion
of 10 acre-feet or more per year shall comply with regulations
adopted by the board pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section
1840) of Chapter 12 of Part 2.
   (ii) The requirement of clause (i) is extended to January 1, 2017,
for any statement filer that enters into a voluntary agreement that
is acceptable to the board to reduce the statement filer's diversions
during the 2015 irrigation season.
   (2) (A) The terms of, and eligibility for, any grant or loan
awarded or administered by the department, the board, or the
California Bay-Delta Authority on behalf of a person that is subject
to paragraph (1) shall be conditioned on compliance with that
paragraph.
   (B) Notwithstanding subparagraph (A), the board may determine that
a person is eligible for a grant or loan even though the person is
not complying with paragraph (1), if both of the following apply:
   (i) The board determines that the grant or loan will assist the
grantee or loan recipient in complying with paragraph (1).
   (ii) The person has submitted to the board a one-year schedule for
complying with paragraph (1).
   (C) It is the intent of the Legislature that the requirements of
this subdivision shall complement and not affect the scope of
authority granted to the board by provisions of law other than this
article.
   (f) The purpose of use.
   (g) A general description of the area in which the water was used.
The location of the place of use shall be depicted on a specific
United States Geological Survey topographic map and on any other maps
with identifiable landmarks. If assigned, the public land
description to the nearest 40-acre subdivision and the assessor's
parcel number shall also be provided.
   (h) The year in which the diversion was commenced as near as is
known.


5104.  (a) Supplemental statements shall be filed annually, before
July 1 of each year. They shall contain the quantity of water
diverted and the rate of diversion by months in the preceding
calendar year and any change in the other information contained in
the preceding statement.
   (b) If there is a change in the name or address of the person
diverting the water, a supplemental statement shall be filed with the
board that includes the change in name or address.
   (c) A supplemental statement filed prior to July 1, 2016, shall
include data satisfying the requirements of subdivision (a) for any
diversion of water in the 2012, 2013, and 2014 calendar years, that
was not reported in a supplemental statement submitted prior to July
1, 2015.
   (d) This section does not limit the authority of the board to
require additional information or more frequent reporting under any
other law.



5105.  Upon failure of any person to file a statement required by
this part, the board may, at the expense of such person, investigate
and determine in writing the facts required by either Sections 5103
or 5104, provided the board first gives such person written notice of
its intention to investigate and determine the facts and 60 days in
which to file the statement without penalty.



5106.  (a) Neither the statements submitted under this part nor the
determination of facts by the board pursuant to Section 5105 shall
establish or constitute evidence of a right to divert or use water.
   (b) (1) The board may rely on the names and addresses included in
statements submitted under this part for the purpose of determining
the names and addresses of persons who are to receive notices with
regard to proceedings before the board.
   (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any person may submit, in
writing, a request to the board to provide notification to a
different address, and the board shall provide the notification to
that address.
   (3) If the board provides notice to persons who file statements
under this part, the notice shall not be determined to be inadequate
on the basis that notice was not received by a person, other than a
party to whom the board's action is directed, who fails to file a
statement required to be filed under this part.
   (4) This subdivision does not affect the requirement in Section
2527 to provide notice to all persons who own land that appears to be
riparian to the stream system.
   (c) In any proceeding before the board to determine whether an
application for a permit to appropriate water should be approved, any
statement submitted under this part or determination by the board
pursuant to Section 5105 is evidence of the facts stated therein.



5107.  (a) The making of any willful misstatement pursuant to this
part is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not exceeding one thousand
dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment in the county jail for not to
exceed six months, or both.
   (b) Any person who fails to file a statement required to be filed
under this part for a diversion or use that occurs after January 1,
2009, who tampers with any measuring device, or who makes a material
misstatement pursuant to this part may be liable civilly as provided
in subdivisions (c) and (d).
   (c) Civil liability may be administratively imposed by the board
pursuant to Section 1055 in an amount not to exceed the following
amounts:
   (1) For failure to file a statement, one thousand dollars
($1,000), plus five hundred dollars ($500) per day for each
additional day on which the violation continues if the person fails
to file a statement within 30 days after the board has called the
violation to the attention of that person.
   (2) For a violation resulting from a physical malfunction of a
measuring device not caused by the person or any other unintentional
misstatement, two hundred fifty dollars ($250), plus two hundred
fifty dollars ($250) per day for each additional day on which the
measuring device continues to malfunction or the misstatement is not
corrected if the person fails to correct or repair the measuring
device or correct the misstatement within 60 days after the board has
called the malfunction or violation to the attention of that person.
   (3) For knowingly tampering with any measuring device or knowingly
making a material misstatement in a statement filed under this part,
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), plus one thousand dollars
($1,000) for each day on which the violation continues if the person
fails to correct the violation within 30 days after the board has
called the violation to the attention of that person.
   (4) For any other violation, five hundred dollars ($500), plus two
hundred fifty dollars ($250) for each additional day on which the
violation continues if the person fails to correct the violation
within 30 days after the board has called the violation to the
attention of that person.
   (d) When an additional penalty may be imposed under subdivision
(c) for failure to correct a violation or correct or repair a
malfunctioning measuring device within a specified period after the
violation has been called to a person's attention by the board, the
board, for good cause, may provide for a longer period for correction
of the problem, and the additional penalty shall not apply if the
violation is corrected within the period specified by the board.
   (e) In determining the appropriate amount, the board shall
consider all relevant circumstances, including, but not limited to,
all of the following factors:
   (1) The extent of harm caused by the violation.
   (2) The nature and persistence of the violation.
   (3) The length of time over which the violation occurs.
   (4) Any corrective action undertaken by the violator.
   (f) All funds recovered pursuant to this section shall be
deposited in the Water Rights Fund established pursuant to Section
1550.
   (g) Remedies under this section are in addition to, and do not
supersede or limit, any other remedies, civil or criminal.

DO THE ABOVE SECTIONS DESCRIBE THE OUTSIDE MID POU PROPERTY REPORT?

I am not sure if this is the same thing that I’ve been complaining about with the MERCED IRRIGATION DISTRICT’s refusing to acknowledge over 16 years of L11395 and MID Place of Use compliance reporting by the LDPCSD or not.

Sure does sound like the OUTSIDE MID POU PROPERTIES REPORT.   Was our compliance reporting to the MID required to be  forwarded to the SWRCB or DWR or ABCDEF?  (lol)  Seriously, though, was this diversion information passed on to water regulating State Officials or just bounced around “in house” between the LDPCSD and MID?  Is that why 16 years of reporting can change with a “snap of Kampa’s fingers” and disappear into oblivion?

Come to think of it, I don’t know whether those reports actually stopped before or after grant applications.  They were “on and off” then quit.   MID must have been involved with this halt of compliance reporting. Is that why MID refuses to acknowledge their existence now, much less that they (MID) had previously required the monthly reports?  I honestly do not know because as stated before I am not an attorney but this all seems highly improper and started when PETE KAMPA was immediately appointed by the Board without a background check.

Come to think of it, when did Danny Johnson first speak with Pete Kampa about the LDPCSD?

****************************************

 

NEW INFORMATION REPORTING COMMITTEE?

A COMMITTEE MEETING with the primary focus being how to provide the Board of Directors with District information?  Oh really?  Seems there has been too much censoring and omission of traditionally available district public information already.  What about accurate information to the customers paying the bills?  What information will the Board in its infinite wisdom ultimately decide is appropriate and permissible for us “Mushroom Customers” to receive?

Listen to PETE KAMPA’S own words and see what you think:  KAMPA OVERVIEW OF HIS NEW COLOR CODED REPORTING SYSTEM FOR THE BOARD

I’m sorry, but PETE KAMPA did not instill much confidence considering this public meeting was the début of his new color coded reporting system for his VISION 2020 STRATEGIC PLAN.  [The example was printed in black ink on white paper.]   Not to mention be believes the information tables too hard to see and read.   But hey PETE, come on now, isn’t that really the whole point of creating a new information reporting system to the board anyway?  I mean – to make sure information is controlled so the “Mushroom Bunch” doesn’t learn and understand how KAMPA & KOMPANY have been re-configuring our SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT into a CASH COW for third party profit using our public funds and government assistance grants?

I guess I shouldn’t be too hard on PETE KAMPA for such a simple mistake as not taking into consideration BLUE, GREEN, YELLOW, and RED won’t display correctly on white paper using BLACK ink.  Besides, he likely was otherwise occupied snagging another “remote GM position” in some other special district like Los Osos (rem: when that confidential negotiation strategy material was published in the public electronic board agenda packet which may have hiked the easement cost?).

How can anyone possibly fault or blame PETE KAMPA & his KAMPA COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS LLC professional district management company for not being completely focused on Lake Don Pedro when they have the responsibility to remotely and “generally” manage other special districts as well?

Yes, I am indeed a dinosaur because I prefer the traditional concept of a resident general manager who is part of the community and not just collecting a pay check.

*********************************

AGENDA ITEM: Interim Manager’s Report by Peter J. Kampa  (Interesting how KAMPA’s GM title changes from situation to situation huh?)

PETE KAMPA explained to the board there has been much confusion in the records regarding what retirement benefits actually exist for former LDPCSD employees and how this affects future retirees.  KAMPA advised there was much conflicting information in the records dating back to 2005 with apparent failure of prior boards to “follow-up” on what was decided.  He stated submitted reports for 2010 and the recent one appear to be the same and correct.

************************************************

KAMPA updated on the ground well construction project stating it had stalled due to recent weather conditions and failing to hear from the USDA regarding the substantial anticipated grant of half a million dollars ($500,000) in public funds earmarked for the ground well project.

Here’s an audio clip of that report (it will take too much time to transcribe right now, maybe later.  Besides this way you might enjoy an adult beverage or  something while listening?  Jeez, we could all use that considering what our PUBLIC AGENCY IS DOING TO INNOCENT CUSTOMERS!)

GROUND WELL PROJECT AUDIO UPDATE BY KAMPA

Now referring to this audio recording – what recent request by the USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Rural Development?  Why wasn’t this included in the meeting agenda packet as all such correspondence traditionally was prior to the PETE KAMPA return to this district?

Here’s a link to more information regarding USDA RURAL DEVELOPMENT GRANTS

RE-PUBLISHING WHAT ARTICLE?

In what publication?  The every two week edition of the FOOTHILL EXPRESS that may or may not reach our “out of area owners” scattered all over the world unless it is the same issue that contains the LAKE DON PEDRO OWNERS ASSOCIATION newsletter (The Discoverer)?

Perhaps the weekly MARIPOSA GAZETTE?  (Of course most of our customers on the Tuolumne County side of the subdivision do not receive this publication)

Or maybe the SONORA UNION DEMOCRAT?  (Of course most of our customers on the Mariposa County side of the subdivision do not receive this publication)

Starting to appreciate another major aspect of the LDPCSD method of operation?  Lack of information to those who MOST REQUIRE SUCH?

WE ARE NOTHING BUT “MUSHROOM CUSTOMERS”!

KEPT IN THE DARK AND FED BULLSHIT UNSAVORY FOOD.

Why wasn’t this USDA request for further information regarding the KAMPA & BOARD pursuit of expanded water service boundaries using ground well water production not included in the agenda board packet as all such correspondence traditionally was PRIOR TO KAMPA’S RETURN TO THE LDPCSD? 

[Like the correspondence from the Department of Water Resources concerning their grant funds?]

KAMPA “BAIT & SWITCH” MEDIA BLITZ

Here is a short list of the massive “MEDIA BLITZ” that has been TOTALLY MISREPRESENTING what PETE KAMPA, KAMPA COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS LLC, and the LAKE DON PEDRO COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS had actually planned, executed and are continuing to pursue:

http://www.foothillexpress.com/index.php/about-us/8-news/25-lake-mcclure-mid-and-the-don-pedro-area-s-water-supply

February 6, 2015: the online SIERRA SUN TIMES ARTICLE: Lake Don Pedro Community Services District Issues February 3, 2015 Emergency Update on Water Supply to Community

March 11, 2015: CHOWCHILLA DAILY NEWS

March 13, 2015: California Public Radio

March 26, 2015:   WEATHER.COM    https://weather.com/news/news/photos-california-community-running-out-of-water

April 1^st, 2015:   KPIX 5 http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/04/01/california-drought-lake-don-pedro-la-grange-sierra-foothills-may-run-out-of-water-summer/

(APRIL 1^st?   How perfectly appropriate since every legally entitled Merced River water using customer under L11395 is a “FOOL” for allowing our Community Services District to continue pursuing the special interest benefit of water service to properties outside the permitted PLACE OF USE with PUBLIC FUNDS THEY [the LEGAL CUSTOMERS] MUST LEGALLY PROVIDE!)

April 13, 2015: CIRCLE OF BLUE article: http://www.circleofblue.org/2015/world/californias-rainless-summer-will-dry-up-drinking-water-supplies/

April 18, 2015:  SIERRA SUN TIMES http://goldrushcam.com/sierrasuntimes/index.php/news/local-news/2942-lake-don-pedro-community-services-district-drought-and-emergency-water-supply-informat

May 26, 2015:   http://www.capsweb.org/todays-news/small-california-town-pays-hefty-price-drill-water-during-california-drought

July 9, 2015:   MARIPOSA GAZETTE  http://www.mariposagazette.com/news/2015-07-09/Front_Page/Federal_agency_stalls_relief_for_Lake_Don_Pedro.html

August 5, 2015:  (CALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICT ASSOCIATION “CSDA”) aka “PETE KAMPA’s HOME GROUND TURF”  http://www.csda.net/blog/district-daily-press-249/

September 23, 2015: Forestlandowners.org  DROUGHT UPDATE: http://forestlandowners.org/files/8714/4332/0633/Drought_Update_09-23-15.pdf

September 30, 2015:  PETE KAMPA UPDATE

October 6, 2015:  KAMPA COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS LLC ARTICLE:  http://kampacs.com/drought-solutions-for-don-pedro/

December 18, 2015:  CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES UPDATE:    http://www.water.ca.gov/spotlight_archive/2015.cfm

There are more of these “PROPAGANDA” advertisements, but I trust my point has been made:

WHERE DOES IT INDICATE IN ANY OF THESE PUBLICATIONS THAT THESE PUBLICLY FUNDED GROUND WELLS WERE SPECIFICALLY CREATED and INTENDED TO FURTHER EXTEND SPECIAL BENEFIT WATER SERVICE FOR PROPERTIES OUTSIDE THE PERMITTED SERVICE AREA THAT ARE OTHERWISE NOT ENTITLED TO LDPCSD WATER SERVICE?

(there goes my bad habit again of using large color font!)

Please do not forget – we are talking about proposed expansive subdivisions and other land developments desirous of increasing their profit margins by wrongfully taking our Lake Don Pedro subdivision entitled water.  The issue is not about single family residences (as was legitimately planned) – it’s about using our SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO LAUNDER GROUND  WATER FOR ILLOGICAL SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPANSION FOR THIRD PARTY PROFIT!    (hey!  no color this time?)

“……using our SURFACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO LAUNDER GROUND  WATER FOR ILLOGICAL SPECIAL BENEFIT EXPANSION FOR THIRD PARTY PROFIT!”  (Perfect color – the color of money.)

THIS IS INSANE!

USING expensive newly installed PUBLICLY FUNDED GROUND WATER WELLS as an “alternative source” to FURTHER EXPAND DISTRICT WATER SERVICE OUTSIDE THE PERMITTED PLACE OF USE BOUNDARY UNDER WATER LICENSE 11395 – despite the fact advertisements clearly indicated these wells were to be the emergency water source for the legal Merced Water users in the subdivision?

I certainly am not a lawyer or any sort of expert in this field but this sure appears to be fraud to me.  A misrepresentation of the facts to obtain and then misuse PUBLIC FUNDS to provide third party water service special benefits despite the District’s lack of any obligation or legal duty to do so?  Much less asking for and acquiring any “consent” or “approval” by the 99% of customers who have paid the bills for over 35 years!

NOW BACK TO THE MEETING AUDIO

COUNTER OFFER ON EASEMENT?  Are you kidding me?

REMEMBER the March 5th comment about how confidential information regarding a future property easement negotiation plan was accidentally divulged in the public agenda packet?  I wrote then:

“[Ohhhh, FLASHBACK!]  I see why PETE KAMPA didn’t double check the Feb 16th Special Meeting agenda packet supporting data material for correctness….he wasn’t even here.  He was too busy picking up some more for-profit employment at the LOS OSOS CSD to make sure “Closed Session”  aka “confidential” information didn’t accidentally get included.”

Who knows?  Maybe that little boo-boo actually did increase the cost for that required easement purchase?  I wonder if KAMPA COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS LLC will pay for that increased cost?  HA HA HA HA HA!  (dating myself – that’s the “old style lol”)

OF COURSE NOT!  THE 99% of legal customers have always picked up any added costs in furnishing special benefits to other thirsty properties!

 

 

Sorry but I need a break.  More later, Lew