My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES RECLAIMED WATER SETTLEMENT
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
LONG TERM AGREEMENT
>
D
>
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES RECLAIMED WATER SETTLEMENT
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/22/2013 2:16:47 PM
Creation date
12/2/2009 10:27:35 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
LONG TERM AGREEMENTS
LONG TERM AGREEMENTS - DOCUMENT DATE
5/9/2003
LONG TERM AGREEMENTS - NAME
DUBLIN SAN RAMON SERVICES DISTRICT
LONG TERM AGREEMENTS - TYPE
WATER SERVICES AGMT
LONG TERM AGREEMENTS - RECORD SERIES
704-06 (Long Term Agreements)
LONG TERM AGREEMENTS - DESTRUCTION DATE
PERMANENT
LONG TERM AGREEMENTS - NOTES
RECLAIMED WATER
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Kolb, approved the technical report for a Category B small -scale recharge demonstration project: <br /> Phase I, Group B, of the groundwater recharge element of DSRSD's Clean Water Revival Project <br /> (Revival Project). The Revival Project was designed to inject into the Livermore Amador Valley <br /> Groundwater Basin (Main Basin) up to two and one -half million gallons per day of tertiary treated <br /> waste water. <br /> C. On January 29, 2001 and February 5, 2001, respectively, Pleasanton and Zone 7 filed <br /> petitions for writs of mandate seeking to set aside the acting Executive Officer's approval described <br /> above, and to prevent implementation of the Revival Project. After briefing and hearing, the San <br /> Francisco Superior Court granted the petitions by its orders dated April 29, 2002 and May 22, 2002. <br /> On May 22, 2002 the Court filed its statement of decision. The Court determined that the Board <br /> itself must exercise discretion with respect to the above described technical report, and in doing so <br /> it must take into consideration, among other things, the opposition of Zone 7 and the Pleasanton vote <br /> on Measure J. <br /> D. On July 15 and August 12, 2002, DSRSD and Livermore filed appeals from the <br /> Court's orders, which appeals are now pending before the First District Court of Appeal. To avoid <br /> the prosecution of any appeals in these proceedings, the Parties have agreed to dismissal of the <br /> actions without prejudice on the terms embraced in this Agreement. <br /> E. The Parties wish to resolve the outstanding litigation among and between them on <br /> the subject of the above described Revival Project and to clarify the conditions under which certain <br /> present and future projects will be submitted for approval under the Master Permit and then <br /> implemented. The Parties further wish to put aside their differences and approach future projects <br /> 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.