Laserfiche WebLink
v y <br /> The overwhelming consideration that should have been given to these well(s) is the fact that they <br /> were apparently all closed-in within six months of installation, according to the attached <br /> documentation. This sienifiec that whatever was an en-yr;rolymental conrA+ f r rt P i�ctallar;nn <br /> in 1988 must no loneer be a concern This is particularly true in light of the fact that the wells <br /> were closed-in sixteen years ago and there has not been any publicly documented environmental <br /> investigation of the subject property in the interim. <br /> It may a possibility that the subject property well was installed to test for nitrate concentrations in <br /> the groundwater flowing under the Santos Ranch subdivision. This nitrate issue is discussed in <br /> the SSCR in the second paragraph on Page 3, and again in the third paragraph on Page 6. There <br /> are three mitigation and remedial actions that may be taken regarding the nitrate concentration <br /> underlying the subject property and Santos Ranch: 1.) Cease and desist all agricultural production <br /> upgradient to Santos Ranch, 2.) Place the entire subdivision on a P.O.T.W. or a package treatment <br /> plant, and/or 3.)Pump and treat the groundwater. None of these actions will take place in the <br /> foreseeable future, and probably will never happen. <br /> Consequently, as I have stated in the first paragraph of the Conclusions section of the SSCR, >a- <br /> corrective action is required within the boundaries of the subiPrt <br /> Respectfully submitted, <br /> CHESNEY CONS TING <br /> on Ches ey, R.E.A. 7 <br /> LLPage 2 of 2 <br /> Chesney Consulting <br />