SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE_2004-2019

Home Browse Search

F3— the state, the county, Mr. Guinta, etc. Frankly, the idea, if there is one,that placing liens on the property to infinity and or in perpetuity will at sometime be paid by someone willing to buy the property is speculation at best. Not very possible and not very likely probable either, and would likely cause litigation between Mr. Kim, Mr. Guinta, and your agency in the future. Another no win situation which warrants careful consideration as to the avenue your agency takes in the near future as to present requirements and to any possible finalization prerequisites of this matter in the future. So, as you can see, the recent requirements and or request for additional orders and or requirements of lateral and vertical indications of the"plume" are just going to continue the downward spiral of equities resulting in a loss to all parties and your agency alike. Added, it is Mr. Guinta's understanding that the co-dischargers(the Ramsey's and otherwise) are likewise insolvent and could not help pay back the state for the additional proposed drilling and monitoring sites; not to mention some type of future remedial effort if there is one once the "plume" is actually physically located. As stated,no remedial remedies by your engineers and or Mr. Guinta's are actually guaranteeing a positive remedial result even if the"plume"was located by vast expended resources of the state, the parties, or otherwise. Therefore,the current orders in effect need to be modified as outlined above in this submission to a few already existing wells at random around the suspected "plume" area and plus monitor the current wells above the legal limits of MTBE, etc, for safety of the public of course. If that approach is taken by your agency the state could be guaranteed to be paid back 100%of the EAR account expended for those services. If the concentrations continue to subside, as is expected by all the engineer's reports in your file, the finalization plan could be as basic as removing monitoring to all but the actual wells above limits with filters on them until they fall below the legal levels at which point they would be removed and the matter closed. Please note that when the EAR account was first proposed by your agency by letter of July 24`x, 2003, Mr. Guinta respectfully declined and asked you not to take that approach because he wanted to continue using his assets he had at the time. His consultant wrote a letter stating as such and suggested it might be useful and or necessary in the future. As stated, Mr. Guinta request that the EAR account be used now rationally and reasonable because he has expended any and all assets available to him to continue without the help of the account. Mr. Guinta attaches your letter dated July 24, 2003 and the letter from his consultant dated July 31, 2003 for reference and consideration. This approach not only is rational but will provide the best possible outcome to all parties and most importantly would insure healthy water to the wells of the few parties still experiencing polluted water. The state will have the off-site ground in compliance with their regulations,will be paid back all expenditures, the parties can finalize their agreements,etc.; a true win-win situation. The only real loser will be Mr. Guinta because of his declining equity position after paying back the EAR account. But as previously touched upon, Mr. Guinta feels that is a small price to pay for the finalization of this matter that has been so long now endured by him and to his neighbors. Returning to the issue of Mr. Guinta's insolvency, which has been in skepticism by your 5