Literally hundreds of flyers
were distributed, placed on mailboxes and homes in the Rio Linda/Elverta
Community Water District from candidates Mary Harris and Cathy Hood. I received
my copy on October 5, 2002, between 8AM and 11AM. Directly under Cathy Hood's
picture is the assertion that "Experts say" the Water District made a "bad
decision" in siting our proposed new well. With the flyer was a sheet that
included another reference to "McClellan and all of its contamination." First
I will discuss the flyer:
Following up on the above
assertion by Cathy Hood and Mary Harris that experts say we (I serve on the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District Board) made a bad decision to site a
new well at 24th and Q Streets in Rio Linda based on the location's proximity
to McClellan, I asked a McClellan Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) member
to get me an official answer. The answer from McClellan was to solicit an
expert opinion from
James D. Taylor, R.G., of the California
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), who is a member of the McClellan Cleanup
team and a member of the RAB. I called Dawn Young, the McClellan Community
Relations Coordinator, who at my request forwarded the following email to
me:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: fwd: Re: water question
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:41:49 PDT
From: <dyoung@afbda1.hq.af.mil>
To: <jayobrien@att.net>
here you go.
Dawn J. Young
AFBCA Community Relations
(916) 643-1742, Ext. 233
---------- Original Text ----------
>>> <dyoung@afbda1.hq.af.mil> 10/07/02 08:44AM >>>
James - I am fielding a question from a RAB member about the buffer zone
around McClellan for putting in wells. Paul Brunner mentioned to me that
there is new ordinance about putting in the wells. Has this ordinance been
passed yet? What is the wording in the ordinance? If it has not been passed
yet, when is it planned? Paul mentioned something about a mile wide buffer
zone. I hope this makes sense.
I am trying to explain to the RAB person we at McClellan can not really
do anything about the putting in of municipal wells. People must go to their
water districts.
Dawn J. Young
AFBCA Community Relations
(916) 643-1742, Ext. 233
From: "James Taylor" <TaylorJD@rb5s.swrcb.ca.gov>, on 10/07/2002 10:41 AM:
To: Dawn Young@MCCLELLAN@AFBDA.DCM
Hi Dawn,
Yes, the new ordinance is in place, in the Revisions to SCC Chapter 6.28.
It was approved by the Board of Sups. in the last month or so (I do not have
the exact date).
The section you are referring to is called the Consultation Zone which states:
Any application for a well permit within 2000 feet of a known groundwater
contaminant plume is subject to special review by appropriate regulatory
agencies, including but not limited to the Sacramento County Environmental
Management Department and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
Central Valley Region, to evaluate potential impacts to public health and
groundwater quality.
The drilling prohibition for new supply wells west of the base is also still
in effect. That is the area that we have called the west side buffer
zone, and is shown on one of the poster boards that you have.
Hope this helps. Please contact me if you have any questions.
Thanks,
James D. Taylor, R.G.
taylorjd@rb5s.swrcb.ca.gov
(916)255-3069
After receiving the above,
I called Mr. Taylor on the telephone and followed up with this email to him,
providing him the location of the proposed new well:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Well location near McClellan
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 17:13:02 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: James Taylor <TaylorJD@rb5s.swrcb.ca.gov>
CC: Dawn Young <dyoung@afbda1.hq.af.mil>, Dave Andres <dandres@rlecwd.com>
James Taylor
California State Water Resources Control Board
Dear Mr. Taylor,
As a result of an inquiry via the McClellan Restoration Advisory Board, Ms.
Dawn Young, the AFBCA Community Relations Coordinator, referred me to you
as their expert in the evaluation of the effects of contaminants from McClellan
on groundwater.
The Rio Linda Elverta Community Water District (RLECWD), on which I serve
as an elected Director, has identified a proposed location of 24th and Q
Streets in Rio Linda for a new municipal well. Our engineers, understanding
the McClellan contamination plume issue, have assured us this is a viable
location that is not subject to contamination. I feel we have exercised due
diligence in siting this proposed well.
A flyer has been distributed in our community that states:
"Experts say it's a 'BAD DECISION'
District claims a new well is needed to fix water
pressure problem, However, they want to place
the well near McClellan and it's contaminants!"
As the expert in the McClellan contaminants, would you please assess the
decision to locate this new well at 24th and Q Streets from the standpoint
of contamination from McClellan?
Thank you,
Jay O'Brien
cc: Dawn Young, AFBCA Community Relations Coordinator
Dave Andres, General Manager, RLECWD
This is the answer received from Mr. James Taylor, from the California State Water Resources Control Board, who is a member
of the McClellan Cleanup team and a member of the McClellan Restoration Advisory Board (RAB):
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Well location near McClellan
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 13:55:41 -0700
From: "James Taylor" <TaylorJD@rb5s.swrcb.ca.gov>
To: <jayobrien@att.net>
CC: "Dawn Young" <dyoung@afbda1.hq.af.mil>, "Dave Andres" <dandres@rlecwd.com>,
<WilliamsSB@saccounty.net>
Mr. O'Brien,
You asked us to evaluate the location of a proposed supply well at 24th and
Q Streets in relation to McClellan groundwater contamination. The 24th
and Q Street location is approximately 1.5 miles north and upgradient to
the regional flow from the northern OU D plume at McClellan (OU D is in the
northwest corner of McClellan and the nearest plume to the 24th and Q Street
location) Groundwater contamination in the OU D plume extends to approximately
150 feet below ground surface and is captured by the operating extraction
wells that are part of the basewide groundwater pump and treat system.
There is an extensive network of groundwater monitoring wells at McClellan
that allow for tracking of plume migration and capture trends. There
are also numerous municipal water supply wells currently operating in the
local area. Data from quarterly groundwater monitoring reports prepared
to evaluate groundwater flow directions and concentrations indicate that
the McClellan groundwater contamination is controlled and not threatening
any currently operating supply wells. Investigation activities are
ongoing to better define plume boundaries to the east and south of McClellan.
We have not been provided with specific design details for the proposed supply
well at 24th and Q Streets. However, based on the available information,
we believe that the proposed location of the 24th and Q Street supply well
will not be affected by the McClellan plumes. The 24th and Q Street
location is significantly far away from the McClellan groundwater plumes
so that pumping at this location is not expected to draw contamination away
from McClellan. The operating extraction wells at McClellan create
capture zones that control plume migration toward the extraction wells at
McClellan. We will continue to monitor the groundwater plumes at McClellan.
Any significant changes will be documented in the McClellan Quarterly Groundwater
Monitoring Reports. We will take actions to protect public water supplies
that are threatened or impacted.
Any public supply well is also subject to state requirements that require
water quality testing and monitoring. Supply wells must meet all applicable
water quality criteria in order to be permitted for use as a public drinking
water supply.
We have in the past and will continue to report on groundwater activities
at McClellan at the quarterly Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) public meetings.
We encourage you and anyone who is interested to attend these meetings to
learn more about the cleanup activities at McClellan.
You also requested information on the new Sacramento County ordinance revisions
(Sacramento County Code, Chapter 6.28 - Wells & Pumps) that implement
a new "Consultation Zone" process for approving well drilling permits that
are within 2000 feet of a known contaminant plume. You can download
the well ordinance revisions at http://emd.saccounty.net/EMDforms.htm see
Documents and click on Well Ordinance (PDF file). Questions regarding
the "Consultation Zone" can be directed to me or to County of Sacramento
Environmental Management Department, Susan B. Williams at (916) 875-8452,
e-mail at WilliamsSB@saccounty.net.
I will also contact Dawn Young with the AFBCA to see if they can email you
a good map of the McClellan groundwater plumes, and if possible, in relation
to the 24th and Q Street location. We will get this to you as soon
as possible. If you have any further questions, please contact me.
Your interest in this matter is appreciated.
Thanks,
James D. Taylor, R.G.
taylorjd@rb5s.swrcb.ca.gov
(916)255-3069
Message from State Board and CalEPA: "The energy challenge facing California
is real. Every Californian needs to take immediate action to reduce
energy consumption. For a list of simple ways you can reduce demand
and cut your energy costs, see our Web-site at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov .
Mr. Taylor, State of California Registered Geologist #7303, is Associate Engineering Geologist, State Water Resources Control Board - Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region.
Now to discuss the sheet distributed with the flyer that I received on October 5th. It includes this statement from Mary Harris:
More Facts:
Remember the multimillion dollar Dry Pipeline we are paying for????
We hired an engineer for X amount (lots of money) to find a well site. The
site he came up with was in the original master plan. This site is only two
blocks from McClellan and all of its contamination. Am I the only one who sees a
problem with this?
The proposed well location at 24th & Q is over 1/2 mile from the
nearest McClellan boundary, on Elkhorn Blvd. on the west side of the north
end of the McClellan main runway. Per Mr. Taylor from the SWRCB, the proposed well is 1.5
miles from the northern OU D contaminant plume.
There are over 12 "blocks" in the City of Sacramento per mile. The length of "two blocks" is less than 900 feet.
My question is: Please specifically identify the exact "two blocks" cited in the statement copied above.
This message was sent to the "Rio Linda Net", our community mailing list:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] "Bad Decision" on well placement?
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 20:58:27 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>
Rio Linda Net and especially Cathy Hood,
Water Board Candidates Mary Harris and Cathy Hood produced a flyer which was delivered to my residence on October 5th.
Their flyer states "Experts say it's a 'BAD DECISION' District claims a new
well is needed to fix water pressure problem, However, they want to place
the well near McClellan and it's contaminants!"
With the flyer is an additional statement that the proposed well is "only
two blocks from McClellan and all its contamination." In fact, the location
is 1.5 miles from the nearest contaminant source.
As a Water Board Director, I participated in the decision. It was based on
advice from our engineering firm. In my opinion, our Board made the correct
decision, exercising appropriate due diligence based on the information available
to us at the time.
After receiving the flyer, in search of the facts, I sought expert opinion
from the government agency responsible for the groundwater contamination
containment at McClellan. That expert opinion agrees with our engineer; there
is no potential problem from the McClellan contamination plumes.
Mr. James Taylor of the State Water Resources Control Board, who is a member
of the McClellan cleanup team and the McClellan Restoration Advisory Board,
provided the expert opinion I received today including the 1.5 mile distance
cited above. See [link to this web page] for his evaluation of the proposed well location and
other related correspondence.
Cathy, as your picture is immediately over your contention that you have
expert opinions ("Experts say") that differ with the government opinion and
differ with the Water District opinion, I am addressing this to you. Please
provide the names of the experts you cite and how an interested party may
contact those experts.
Thank you,
Jay O'Brien
>From the Rio Linda mailing list
These responses were received from Mary Harris and Cathy Hood:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] "Bad Decision" on well placement?
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 12:31:25 EDT
From: (Cathy Hood)
To: riolinda@vrx.net
Jay, it does not take a well paid expert to know how contaminated the ground
is any where around McClellan A.F.B. There are many EXPERTS that are dead
because of the contamination McClellan A.F.B. and it's obvious disregard
for any kind of life has created. Too bad we can't interview the ones that
have suffered because of the EXPERTS.
Sincerely,
Cathy Hood
>From the Rio Linda mailing list
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] "Bad Decision" on well placement?
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 23:39:34 -0700
From: "Mary Harris"
To: "Rio Linda/Elverta" <riolinda@vrx.net>
Jay wrote:
Rio Linda Net and especially Cathy Hood, Water Board Candidates
Mary Harris and Cathy Hood produced a flyer which was delivered to my residence
on October 5th.
Their flyer states "Experts say it's a 'BAD DECISION' District
claims a new well is needed to fix water pressure problem, However, they
want to place the well near McClellan and it's contaminants!"
Cathy, as your picture is immediately over your contention that you have
expert opinions ("Experts say") that differ with the government opinion and
differ with the Water District opinion, I am addressing this to you. Please
provide the names of the experts you cite and how an interested party may
contact those experts.
--------------------
Jay,
Iam not Cathy, but here is the information you requested...The Experts
name is Marshal Davert from Mongomery Watson Harza. The meeting was
held on 4/15/02 and is on video tape at the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water
District office, If you would like to review Marshals response to me when
I asked him... if it was a Good Idea or or a Bad Idea to put a well in the
area surrounding McClellan with all its contamination.
I hope this helps
Mary Harris
>From the Rio Linda mailing list
I was not surprised to
learn that Harris and Hood were basing their "Experts" claim on their misrepresentation
of responses to Harris by Dr. Marshall Davert of Montgomery Watson Harza.
I thought that misrepresentation had been refuted adequately in April 2002,
but apparently not well enough for Harris and Hood.
I sent this message to the mailing list and to Water District constituents
to inform them of the gross misrepresentation by Hood and Harris in their
election campaign flyer.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] "Bad Decision" on well placement?
Date: Sat, 12 Oct 2002 11:29:32 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>
As I am presently in office as a Water Board Director, it is my fiduciary
responsibility to inform constituents of the gross misrepresentation contained
in the recently circulated Mary Harris and Cathy Hood election flyer. "Experts",
now specifically identified by Harris as one person, did not say that the
location for the planned new well was a "Bad Decision", as claimed by Hood
and Harris. That is an untrue statement, and I will present facts below to
back up this conclusion.
My message to Water District constituents is below, following a copy of Mary
Harris' October 11 message identifying the "experts" cited in the Harris
and Hood flyer.
Jay O'Brien
-------- Extract from Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] "Bad Decision" on well placement?
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 23:39:34 -0700
From: "Mary Harris"
To: "Rio Linda/Elverta" <riolinda@vrx.net>
Jay,
Iam not Cathy, but here is the information you requested...The Experts
name is Marshal Davert from Mongomery Watson Harza. The meeting was
held on 4/15/02 and is on video tape at the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water
District office, If you would like to review Marshals response to me when
I asked him... if it was a Good Idea or or a Bad Idea to put a well in the
area surrounding McClellan with all its contamination.
---
Ms. Harris and Ms. Hood,
Thank you for providing the name of the "experts" cited in the Mary Harris
and Cathy Hood election flyer. If you will recall, a transcript of that portion
of the meeting you identified above was contemporarily posted on the web.
---
Rio Linda Net, RLECWD Ratepayers and constituents,
The current misrepresentation by Mary Harris and Cathy Hood in their election
flyer and the previous misrepresentation by Charlea Moore of statements made
by Dr. Marshall Davert on April 15, 2002 was covered on the Rio Linda Net
on April 26, 2002. A transcript of the referenced portion of the subject
meeting was posted on the web at that time. The Hood and Harris election
flyer, however, clearly states "experts", meaning "more than one" to me.
Dr. Davert did not respond to a query about the proposed 24th and Q location;
instead he responded to a mischaracterization by Mary Harris of "within couple
blocks of it" (McClellan). Harris then refined her question to "One block
over" and Dr. Davert confirmed that would not be a good idea. The actual
proposed well location was not described to Dr. Davert by Mary Harris.
As a Board member, I also heard Dr. Davert on April 15th. I fully understood
the issue. My fiduciary responsibility to constituents dictated at that time
that I must refute the misrepresentation made on the Rio Linda Net by Charlea
Moore, who is now running for a seat on the Rio Linda & Elverta Recreation
and Park District Board of Directors.
The April 26, 2002 message that responds to Charlea Moore's misinterpretation
of Dr. Davert's statement to Mary Harris is below. The link in that message
to the transcript is still active; the transcript was placed on line April
26, 2002 and it has been available for review at all times since that date.
As a Water Board Director, I participated in the Board's decision questioned
by the Hood and Harris flyer. It was a "good decision".
Jay O'Brien
The following is from the Rio Linda Net on April 26, 2002:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [RL] RLECWD Meeting 4/15/02: misquotes corrected
Date: Fri, 26 Apr 2002 10:36:13 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>
To: Rio Linda Net
Cc: Marshall Davert
The message copied below was posted the day after our Water Board meeting
on April 15. It makes incorrect statements and misquotes a speaker at our
meeting. It cannot be left to stand without correction.
I verified the exact statements made at the meeting both by review of the
video tape and by direct contact with the person quoted incorrectly. I made
a transcript of what was actually said, and I have posted it on the web.
My responses follow the copy of the subject message.
Jay O'Brien
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] RLECWD meeting tonight
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 13:25:56 -0700
From: Charlea Moore
To: riolinda@vrx.net
Hi, Where do we go again??? The Water District is perhaps being a little
hasty in making their decision to locate a well in an area that may not be
safe. After attending the Water District meeting last night and hearing
an explanation of why they are putting a well at that location I can understand
it a little better. Nonetheless, a very knowledgeable gentleman named
Marshall made a good presentation on the Hexavalent Chromium hazard. (Think
Erin Brockovich) What was disturbing was when Mary Harris asked if
Marshall thought placing a well at that location (28th & Q) was a good
idea and Marshall replied "no it wasn't the ideal location." He thought
that the greatest safety lay in the "greatest possible distance" from the
hazard area.
Given that - it is fair to say that the greatest distance that will STILL
allow the Water District to remedy the pressure problem appears to be the
28th and Q area. The real question is; Is there a better way to solve
the pressure problem in that area? I think Mary makes a good
point in that there is no rush to do this and maybe the new General Manager
would have a better solution. Why not wait another two weeks and let
him come on board and maybe come up with a better plan?
Charlea
///responses from Jay O'Brien follow///
The very knowledgeable gentleman was Marshall Davert of Montgomery Watson
Harza. He did not make the presentation on Hexavalent Chromium as stated
by Ms. Moore. The presentation on Hexavalent Chromium was made by Ms. Bonny
Starr. Davert's presentation was on the Natomas/RLECWD In-lieu Groundwater
Recharge Feasibility Study. The discussion "quoted" by Moore followed Davert's
presentation on the feasibility study.
Mary Harris did not specify a location "(28th & Q)" when she asked Davert
for his opinion. Harris asked Davert about putting a well within a "couple
blocks" of McClellan.
Davert's reply was "I think it would not be a good idea to put a municipal
well on the eastern boundary of Rio Linda right up against McClellan Air
Force Base. That would be a bad idea."
Davert responded negatively to what he understood to be a proposal to place
a well "hundreds of feet away from the Air Force Base and where they have
some ongoing remediation", not at any specified location such as 28th &
Q Streets. He explained that a half-mile to a mile was reasonable, especially
given that different aquifers were involved.
The proposed well location at 24th and Q Streets is two miles north of the
groundwater contamination extraction wells on McClellan (OU D) and is over
a half-mile from the closest McClellan boundary on Elkhorn Boulevard. It
is not a "couple blocks" away as described by Harris.
///end of responses from Jay O'Brien///
See http://obri.net/recall/rlecwd020415.html for transcript.
>From the Rio Linda mailing list
This
article appeared in the Rio Linda Elverta News. The News article, however,
copied the text from the letter from Marshall Davert; for this web page I
have included a scan of the original letter.
Allegations made in water
district race are unfounded
Much like our top State race, allegations made in our
local election campaign for the Water Board are evaporating.
Mary Harris and Cathy Hood are campaigning as a slate
for seats on the Rio Linda/Elverta Community Water District Board of Directors.
They aspire to occupy the positions presently held by Board President Doug
Cater and retiring Director Jay O'Brien.
They have distributed flyers to voters in the District.
Those flyers have been shown to include misrepresentations of fact.
Their flyer claims "Experts" say it's a 'bad decision'
to place the planned new Water District well "two blocks from McClellan
and all of its contamination." In fact, the proposed new well at 24th and
Q Streets is over 1/2 mile from the nearest McClellan boundary on Elkhorn
Boulevard, and is 1 1/2 miles from the closest contaminant source at McClellan.
Harris admitted they are only quoting one expert, Marshall Davert, and
stated that expert's conclusion was on tape, recorded at the April Water
Board meeting. Marshall Davert, Vice President of Montgomery Watson Harza,
refutes their flyer's quotation in the letter published below. In addition,
the California State Water Resources Control Board confirmed this month
that the proposed well site will not be affected by the underground McClellan
contamination plumes.
Their flyer claims the Water Board has implemented "costly
new retirement medical benefits" when in fact the Board, in enacting a
Resolution in September, closed potential loopholes in its previously unwritten
retirement policy, and is now stating the policy in writing. The resolution
does not add any new benefits or new costs for the District.
Retiring Director Jay O'Brien, who researched and documented
these false claims, said "It is indeed unfortunate that they are taking
the low road, and it isn't just what is in their flyers. Mary Harris' neighbor
told me she actually caught Harris trespassing on her property removing
an opponent's campaign sign from that neighbor's fence!"
Doug Cater, a candidate for re-election, was asked about
sign damage. "The first night I put up a sign on my property on Rio Linda
Boulevard, it was spray painted over. I don't know who was responsible.
We have all signed a 'Code of Fair Campaign Practices', so I hope it wasn't
defaced by my opponents." Cater and Joe Gluvers are campaigning together
for the two Board seats.
O'Brien added "Harris criticizes the rate increase, yet
she doesn't readily admit she was on the committee that set the current
rates. Her committee unanimously supported the rate structure now in place."
O'Brien's documentation is on line at http://obri.net
.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [RL] "Bad Decision" on well placement?
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 19:48:07 -0700
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Rio Linda Elverta Mailing List <riolinda@vrx.net>
Of issue here is that candidates Harris and Hood attributed the statement
in their election flyer "Experts say it's a 'bad decision'" to Dr. Marshall
Davert. The candidates misquoted Dr. Davert rather than contact him, verify
his statement, and obtain his agreement to be quoted. Dr. Davert did NOT
make the statement quoted by the candidates. That is a fact. And he most
certainly did not agree to be quoted.
Another fact is that the proposed well site at 24th & Q is NOT a problem.
If it were a problem, then consider wells 4, 8A and 11, AND the Grant Joint
Union High School District drinking water well between the High School and
the Junior High School, all of which are closer to the McClellan contaminant
source than the proposed new well at 24th and Q Streets.
This community needs representatives that will research and verify facts rather than those that will embellish half-truths.
Jay
Click here to jump to the top of this web page
Click here for other Rio Linda Elverta Election 2002 Issues
Click here for other Rio Linda links
