CCMIN090898 - Laserfiche WebLink

Steve Grimes, 3722 Cameran Avenue, had concerns about the injected water reaching the wells. He understood that wells could not be within 2000 feet of the injected groundwater, but does anyone really know how far the injected water will travel in one year. He asked who would be responsible if something does happen. He felt the City of Dublin and San Ramon should build their own RO project. He said people will not want to live in Pleasanton and believed property values will go down. He felt the community was not informed about this project. He asked if the Council was ready to take the responsibility if something goes wrong. Jim Day, 745 Cardinal Drive, Livermore, said he did not want to drink sewage water just so Dublin could have sewage capacity. He asked if the Council really understood what was being presented? Does the general public support RO injection? Has the general public really been informed? He said if the answers are no, then Council should pull its support. He felt the experts were not telling the complete story. He said there is no sewer problem and no need for this project. He felt it should be put to the vote of the people. He said the reports are too hard for people to understand. Kris Kumaran, 6450 Calle Esperanza, said he never thought he would be before the City Council pleading to keep drinking water and sewage separate. He agreed the City Council had an important decision to make. Injecting sewage water may contaminate the groundwater irreversibly thus affecting the residents' life for generations. He had five comments: 1) in November Pleasanton voters will be asked if they want to participate in the LAVWMA expansion project. If the project is approved then the RO project will be unnecessary; 2) the California Water Recycled Program was undertaken to provide additional wastewater disposal capacity to serve the demands of new development approved by the City of Dublin. He asked why should the City of Pleasanton try a potentially dangerous process and risk contamination of the groundwater to provide for growth within neighboring boundaries. He thought the health of Tri-Valley citizens was far more important than the development interests of a select few. 3) He understood DSRSD is nearing completion of treatment facilities that expect to be operational between January and March of 1999. He felt it was presumptuous to proceed without approval of all public agencies and the general public; 4) DSRSD recognizes that the project is not needed as a water supply project at this time. He felt the Council should wait for evidence that the groundwater will not be contaminated; and 5) It is not what we know, but what we don't know that will harm us. He said every resident he had spoken to opposed this project. The Safe Water Committee has a petition paper that deals with the technical details as to why RO is undesirable. He submitted that the Council should not take action until after November. He said let the people decide. DSRSD and Zone 7 have not accepted full financial responsibility if something goes wrong. The developers are dreaming if they want both water and sewer capacity at the public's expense and risk. He asked Council to vote to protect the water before it is too late. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard, agreed with the previous speaker. She said when presented with scientific data she has to decide whether she trusts the source. If she does not trust the source then it is best to rigorously question the data in order to get to the truth. She Pleasanton City Council 7 09/08/98 Minutes