CCMIN120799 - Laserfiche WebLink

porous than a sheet of freezer wrap. That is the product that would be put in the ground for five to twenty years before anyone drinks it. The water will be tagged by a safe molecule mixed with it that can be detected and that will confirm that what is predicted will really happen. Gary Pumell, 2472 Via de los Milagros, agreed not to argue the facts of the project, since the question on the agenda is whether to put a measure on the ballot and what the language will be, but it was hard for him to restrain himself. He thanked Council for putting this on the ballot. We need to see what the people want. He did not believe that Zone 7 or DSRSD would do that. He also felt that the results of any survey they did would not be accurate because of the way they would word the survey. Mr. Purnell had many doubts about how safe the treated wastewater would be. He wanted wastewater in the ballot language. Matt Morrison, 5581-A Sonoma Drive, indicated the source of the water was an important aspect. He agreed 3% of the South Bay Aqueduct water is wastewater which is treated to make it potable. What is going through the reverse osmosis treatment is 100% sewage. He agreed there are communities that are using RO, but do we want to be the second community in California to use it, or do we wait ten or fifteen years when the process will have been refined? Do we want to be guinea pigs? He has not received an adequate answer about what happens when there is a system failure. There is no way to clean up the groundwater basin. He was also concerned about the brine going into the Bay. Rene Steinhauer, 5524 Oakmont Circle, Livermore, agreed the advisory measure should be placed on the ballot because that was the democratic process. He did not feel there was enough information on the reverse osmosis process. He believed the public should make decisions on this. Ms. Dennis said if Council was putting forward a ballot argument in opposition to RO, then the public should be asked if it wished to have the Council continue to oppose the project versus asking the public what it thinks. Council must recognize that an advisory vote does not indicate either acceptance or rejection by the community. If we want an objective look at whether the community wants this, the City could write the survey questions and make certain there was something statistically valid. An election is not statistically valid. There have been contradictory statements. In the Zone 7 Board recommendation to the permitting agency, it said it would not go forward with the project until it had community acceptance. If the ballot measure is an attempt to determine community acceptance, she felt careful consideration should be given on whether Council should sign the arguments. If Councilmembers decided to sign arguments, then the question is whether the community supports the Council's position. She wanted to make certain Council is asking a precise question. She did not have strong feelings one way or another about the question, but who signs the argument needs to be reflected in the wording. Pleasanton City Council 18 12/07/99 Minutes