Laserfiche WebLink
• Page 7 of 14 <br /> responsibility when the land is transferred to the City <br /> as part of the Regional Board permit. At that point, <br /> we understand that the City will have to arrange to <br /> properly destroy the wells if they are no longer being <br /> used for their intended purpose. The Monitoring <br /> Well Installation Report that Hydrofocus is sending <br /> you will also have a lot of information on which wells <br /> in the Mossdale area still exist and which of these <br /> are and are not being used. I believe this report will <br /> clear up some of the questions you have. In the <br /> meantime, feel free to contact me with questions. <br /> --Dave <br /> From: Mike Infurna [EH] <br /> [mailto:MInfu rna@sjcehd.com] <br /> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 12:05 PM <br /> To: umezaki, dave <br /> Subject: RE: Well Maps [Item 3 of 3] <br /> thanks..that clears up a bunch. <br /> But I still have concerns over your last sentence.... <br /> ( .."The California Natural Products or other <br /> private'monitoring wells that are not part of <br /> the network as described in the City's approved <br /> Monitoring Well Installation Workplan are <br /> under the responsibil iy,.o that owncr/ertity. <br /> My experience with a change in land onwership has <br /> typically caused problems with monitoring well <br /> maintenance/access/destruction <br /> ('responsibility'). Our County ordinance mandates <br /> that"wells" must be used for their intended purpose. <br /> In this case, monitoring wells MUST be monitored. <br /> If these private wells were placed for some'pre- <br /> developmental'evaluation and are NO longer being <br /> used for that purpose, I STRONGLY recommend <br /> that if they are NOT added to the CoLathrop/WRP-1 <br /> project, that they be destroyed under EHD <br /> permit...In other words, USE it or LOSE it. <br /> Another concern I have is that when these wells <br /> (private or CoL)were installed at all of these parcels, <br /> the paper work EHD required to get the permit <br /> issued typically identified a 'billing party'for our <br /> inspection fees and this sort of follow up work. 99% <br /> of these'billing' parties' are consultants, ie: Engeo- <br /> Tracy, Engeo-Roseville, Kleinfelder, etc. You can <br /> see that after this phase of work is done for the well <br /> installation, it's been my experience that the billing <br /> party/consultant ends their relationship with the <br /> client and doesn't tell EHD. When matters arise, like <br /> this, any billable time I spend enforcing our Well <br /> Ordinance gets billed to the billing party identified on <br /> 9/26/2005 <br />