Laserfiche WebLink
1 In this regard, the Health Department cannot demonstrate a <br /> 2 compelling interest in such discriminatory affect, nor even that <br /> 3 its action is the most reasonable and least burdensome <br /> 4 alternative to achieve a state interest. This is not a case <br /> 5 where an owner/operator has refused to undertake an <br /> 6 investigation. To the contrary, Petitioner conducted at least <br /> 7 three rounds of agricultural supply well sampling, drilled four <br /> 8 soil borings to a depth of 90 feet, installed a monitoring well, <br /> 9 and obtained a deep grabwater sample, even though soil sampling <br /> 10 data around the UST showed that the soil contamination around the <br /> 11 UST had been adequately addressed. To date none of these <br /> 12 sampling activities has revealed any contamination of concern at <br /> 13 the Site and two knowledgeable and well respected experts, <br /> 14 familiar with the standard applied in other California counties, <br /> 15 are of the opinion this case closure would be granted in other <br /> 16 jurisdictions. Johnson (Levine Fricke) Decl. at p. 6 and <br /> 17 Summerlin (SG&D) Decl. at p. 4. <br /> 1s Given the foregoing, Petitioner believes that additional <br /> 19 groundwater investigation is; impracticable and unreasonable. <br /> 20 Petitioner has been advised that installing the monitoring wells <br /> 21 described in the Order would cost in excess of $24,000 (primarily <br /> 22 because of the 100+ foot depth to groundwater) . In addition, <br /> 23 quarterly monitoring costs would easily exceed $6,500 per quarter <br /> 24 ($26,000 per year) , for an undetermined number of years. It i <br /> 25 unreasonable for the Health Department to request these actions <br /> 26 given the absence of any contamination at a level of any concern <br /> 27 at the site and the data previously collected by Petitioner. <br /> 28 <br /> -13- MIYMCCCOLORSPT\APP€AL.PL4(5P2) <br />