City Plans for Water Unclear (Daily Bulletin Jan. 27. 2008) Owen led aggressive legal effort, however he was LET GO, for poor performance!.

BS Ranch Perspective

I am thinking that now that Owen is gone, they should look to get another attorney and look to what has worked for the other Municipalities & Counties and if they had a Law Suit work then stay with a Suit, however if they went directly to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) that they should look to get out of the suits as soon as possible and then go to the EPA and get the Reverse Osmosis Filters that are needed to remove the Perchlorate from the water supply that is brought up from the ground water Supply. However to just take the existing road without looking to what worked the easiest and most inexpensive for the other Municipalities and Counties would be Stupid!!

BS Ranch

City plans for water unclear

Owen led aggressive legal effort

Jason Pesick, Staff Write

Article Created: 01/27/2008 09:52:51 PM PST

RIALTO - City Attorney Bob Owen was the quarterback of the city's high-profile battle to pursue the parties charged with contaminating the city's drinking water.

But last week, the City Council fired him. What's not clear is if they want to send his cleanup strategy out the door with him.

The water supply is contaminated with perchlorate, an ingredient in explosives, and the cleaning solvent trichloroethylene. Although an audit the council requested on the cost of the city's efforts has not yet been made public, the best estimate is that $20 million has been spent trying to hold dozens of suspected polluters responsible.

Only $3 million has been spent on treatment.

"I think we have to take a look at the strategy, what it's going to cost," Councilman Joe Baca Jr. said when asked if he wants to nix the specialized lawyers Owen brought in.

Baca, Mayor Grace Vargas and Councilman Ed Scott, a member of the council's perchlorate subcommittee, voted to give Owen 30 days' notice. Owen's contract states the city will have to pay $500,000 to end his contract early. Councilwoman Deborah Robertson and Councilwoman Winnie Hanson, the other member of the subcommittee, wanted to keep him.

"I'm hoping that this is not detrimental to our court case," Hanson said. A massive federal lawsuit to determine responsibility for the contamination is set to begin this year.

As costs have mounted and state regulators have failed to initiate

a widespread cleanup, the City Council reversed a long-held view and invited the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to town to declare part of the source of the contamination a Superfund site.

The council decided to pursue the suspected polluters in court long ago, Robertson said.

"We did it with the understanding that we would pursue litigation and seek to recover as much as we can," she said.

She said she has noticed gradual changes in strategy as of late. The city has tried to reach settlements with the suspected polluters and has sought state and federal money.

"These exit strategies don't appear to do anything to return anything to the ratepayers," she said.

The ratepayers are the customers of Rialto's water department, which serves about half the city. The customers have funded the bulk of the city's efforts through a surcharge on their water bills.

Baca said residents should not pay a surcharge that funds lawyers and experts.

"It should go to treatment," he said.

Scott said the city can't eliminate the surcharge while the litigation continues.

But he said any money from a settlement or court order should reimburse ratepayers before going to the city.

He said he hopes the litigation can end soon.

"In fact, the olive branch is out there to settle the lawsuit," he said.

He also said the lawyers working on the case remain in place.

"Currently, we're steadfast on the existing strategy," said Scott. "There's been no change by the council on the lawsuit. That's not to say there won't be at some point."

jason.pesick@sbsun.com

(909) 386-3861

City Seeks Superfund (SB Sun December 4, 2007) Rialto Files Petition for EPA Perchlorate-Cleanup Help

BS Ranch Perspective

Rialto should have set off to looked at petitioning the Environmental Protection Agency for  Clean-up assistance at the get-go when this whole thing started, But instead, The City Father's (City Council) had to listen to the City's Hired Attorney for advice, the same Attorney whom all he could see was dollar ($$) Signs for his pockets. Mr Owen figured that it would be a simple open and closed case and he would pocket a cool million in the process. What Mr. Owen didn't think would happen was that there would be an actual fight on his hands by the businesses that may or may not be responsible for the contamination of the Water supply.  To Date the City of Rialto has spent a total of upwards of $23+ Million Dollars and the Company has been fighting it all the way.

Any way that we look at it, they might have been within their Rights at that time to have Disposed of the Perchlorate the way that they did back then!! Mr. Owen in his desperation to fill his pocket with Green, has made a desperate Miscalculation by wanting to fight the companies with whom probably purchased smaller companies of companies which disposed of the Perchlorate the way that they did in back in the day!! Mr. Owen still is filling his pocket, and it is being filled more then he wanted with no end in sight, and now that he wants it to end, he cannot just end it with a Vote to go to the EPA, because the EPA will not take the "case" when it has an active case on the situation So, now Mr Owen has to Petition the Environmental Protection Agency to step in to review the case again, now that they are at a stand still in court due to the whole situation regarding the whole situation. 

I mean the situation is this, Now that it is tied up in court NOBODY wants to touch it!! Nobody, not the EPA, not the Court, nobody, so we will see what happens with the EPA Again!!

We will have to wait and see what happens again!!!

BS Ranch

City seeks Superfund

Rialto files petition for EPA perchlorate-cleanup help

Jason Pesick, Staff Writer

Article Launched: 12/04/2007 10:44:31 PM PST

RIALTO - The City Council has unanimously endorsed a move to petition the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to list a 160-acre industrial tract in the city's northern fringe as a Superfund site.

"It has become very apparent that we need to seek all the help and assistance that we can," said Councilman Ed Scott, immediately prior to the 5-0 vote Tuesday evening.

Even an EPA official who attended the meeting seemed to offer a premature vote of support to the city's efforts to attain the vaunted Superfund listing.

"I think we, like others, started to become concerned last year when the state's process began to get bogged down," said Wayne Praskins, Superfund project manager with the EPA.

The packed Council Chambers burst into applause following the vote.

Superfund is the federal government's hazardous waste cleanup program.

A chunk of the city's northern edge during World War II was a military storage facility and continues to be used as an industrial site.

The chief contaminant, perchlorate, was discovered in 1997 in Rialto.

Perchlorate is used to produce explosives, such as fireworks and rocket fuel. The perchlorate is flowing underground through much of the city in a plume that continues to grow.

In humans, perchlorate can interfere with the thyroid gland, which is necessary for regulating metabolism and development of the central nervous system.

The council-endorsed resolution petitions the EPA to designate a 160-acre area, bounded by Casa Grande Drive on the north and Locust Avenue on the east, as part of a Superfund site.

The resolution also asks the EPA to consider areas surrounding the source area as part of the possible Superfund site.

Numerous source areas of the perchlorate have been identified.

One of those areas is southwest of the 160-acre site and is being cleaned up by San Bernardino County under order from a state agency.

Praskins recently said state and federal environment officials will ask some of the parties accused of contaminating the area to begin doing investigative work at the source of the contamination.

Over the years, city officials have strongly opposed going the Superfund route and put their faith in state regulatory bodies and an upcoming federal lawsuit against dozens of parties. But the suspected polluters have used their lawyers' mastery of jurisprudence to befuddle state regulators and halt the regulatory process.

The State Water Resources Control Board was supposed to hold hearings to see if three companies - Goodrich, Black & Decker and Pyro Spectaculars - should pay to clean up the contamination, but a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge stopped those hearings from moving forward until questions about the fairness of the process could be settled.

The council has also faced scrutiny after it was reported that the city has spent about $20 million on investigations, litigation, treatment and other costs because of the perchlorate.

Praskins said the earliest an announcement on whether Rialto could get added to the Superfund list is sometime in late 2008.

The suspected polluters have complained that the state regulatory process is biased and unfair, prompting them to challenge it in court. EPA's process may be more difficult to challenge because federal courts can award significant penalties to parties that do not comply with EPA orders.

Rialto Area Water District Quits Perchlorate Suit (Press Enterprise 10-02-07)

BS Ranch Perspective:

The contest about this water situation is just what the Butch said regarding West San Bernardino Water District when they dropped out of the law suit and that was this, This whole situation occurred at a time when there was no Environmental Protection Agency that looked to Ground Water protection, and it was perfectly Legal to dispose of Perchlorate by spilling it into the ground, and to go back and impose a penalty for something that was legal at the time when it was done, is a little crazy, the thing is that it needs to be Cleaned up, and the Environmental Protection Agency should be the one that has their hands fully extended into the ground and helping to solve the clean up of the chemical from the grounds in the North end of Rialto, After all with the Land Fill up there in the north end there has to be some contamination coming from that place that effects the Water Table as well to some certain degree!!

To Me this whole law suit is just the Lawyers that are there to make money off the smaller Cities, and Taxpayers, and when they are talking about $23MILLION, that is just plane insane, because you know or have to know that all of that money isn't needed to to clean up all the water, I BET that less then half is needed, the other half lines the pockets of the litigators, in this case!!!

BS Ranch

Black & Decker Accuses Rialto Of Mismanaging Perchlorate Probe

Thursday, 27 September 2007

By Chris Levister In a full page letter published in the San Bernardino Sun, Black & Decker denies the company had anything to do with the massive perchlorate contamination of drinking water wells on a 160-acre site in Rialto's north end.  The company accuses the Regional Water Board and the City of Rialto of mismanaging the issue from the outset, and said the City of Rialto "has charged its citizens for the mismanagement." "As citizens you deserve the whole story ...not just the parts that certain bureaucrats and self appointed "community activists" want you to hear." Black & Decker identified along with B.F. Goodrich and PyroSpectacular are accused of contaminating 22 wells serving Rialto, Fontana and Colton. The company says it has spent $2.3 million on a voluntary investigation of the sources of contamination on the site. In the letter Black & Decker said the only confirmed source of contamination at the site is a waste disposal pit called the McLaughlin Pit. The company claims city officials and the Regional Water Board agreed that Black & Decker has no connection to the McLaughlin Pit or the contamination it is causing. "Nevertheless, officials at the Regional Water Board have refused to consider sound science and instead pursued a faulty legal strategy to avoid blame and target so-called "deep pockets." The letter stated Black & Decker supports a comprehensive strategy to address the contamination but, "...it is time for the Regional Water Board and the City of Rialto to admit that a strategy based on faulty science and hasty decisions is doing nothing to improve water quality and is only padding the pockets of trial attorneys and high-priced consultants." Rialto officials would not comment on the published letter. In an effort to get the accused parties to pay for cleanup Rialto filed a lawsuit in 2004 naming as defendants the County of San Bernardino, the Department of Defense and 40 corporations that used the chemical during the 1950s and 60s for rocket fuel and fireworks. City officials are seeking $23 million in emergency funds from the state because of contamination in the drinking water. The contamination is expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up. Black & Decker along with Goodrich and PyroSpectacular were the subject of a community protest last month in which company officials were called "environmental terrorists" and labeled "public enemy #1."

Rialto officials call ad 'inaccurate,' 'deceptive'

		Download story podcast

10:04 AM PDT on Friday, September 28, 2007

By MARY BENDER
The Press-Enterprise

Two Rialto City Council members criticized Black & Decker for taking out a full-page newspaper ad this week, in which the company denied responsibility for contaminating the local drinking-water supply with perchlorate.

The advertisement, which ran Monday in The Press-Enterprise, was titled "An open letter to the Rialto community." Black & Decker, headquartered in Maryland, manufactures tools and home appliances.

The city contends that a Black & Decker subsidiary, Emhart Industries, was one of many companies that operated on the Rialto land fouled by perchlorate, an explosive chemical used in rocket fuel and fireworks.

Councilman Ed Scott and Councilwoman Winnie Hanson sent a letter Wednesday on Rialto city stationery to Nolan Archibald, the company's president and CEO, criticizing the ad as "inaccurate" and "deceptive."

"We have a number of eyewitnesses who worked at the 160-acre site and will testify to Emhart-Black & Decker's disposal of perchlorate at the industrial site," the council members' letter says. "We are prepared to place our case before the State Water Board. Why is Black & Decker afraid to make its case?"

Each month, their letter says, "360 million gallons ... of fresh water are being contaminated by the plume of perchlorate as it moves like a slow-moving grass fire across the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin. The day your ad ran, the plume moved about 20 inches and cost our community about 12 million gallons of fresh water."

The advertisement, meanwhile, says that Black & Decker has spent $2.3 million on "a voluntary investigation of the sources of perchlorate contamination" on the land north of Highway 210.

"The pollution at issue has nothing to do with any Black & Decker operations or products," the company's ad states. "The only confirmed source of perchlorate contamination on the 160-acre site is a waste disposal pit called the McLaughlin Pit. Everyone agrees that Black & Decker has no connection to the McLaughlin Pit or the contamination it is causing."

Pyro Spectaculars, a fireworks company, still operates at the site.

Reach Mary Bender at 909-806-3056 or mbender@PE.com

Rialto, Colton residents rally against perchlorate

		Download story podcast

12:11 AM PDT on Thursday, June 28, 2007

By MASSIEL LADRON DE GUEVARA
The Press-Enterprise

Survey: Are government agencies moving quickly enough to get perchlorate contamination cleaned up?

Chants of "si se puede," "it can be done," echoed through the San Bernardino County Auditorium where about 200 Rialto and Colton residents expecting to see a farmworker labor leader gathered to demand those responsible for contaminating the area with perchlorate pay to eradicate the chemical

Dolores Huerta, who co-founded the United Farm Workers of America with Cesar Chavez more than four decades ago, was unable to attend, but sent a representative who called for residents to consider boycotting the companies accused by Rialto of polluting the groundwater.

The companies include Goodrich Corp., Black & Decker and Pyro Spectaculars, which produces fireworks.

Perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel and fireworks, has contaminated six Rialto water wells.

It is believed the chemical interferes with thyroid function and brain development. Human fetuses and newborns are considered most at risk.

Huerta has spoken out against pesticides that threatened farmworkers and the environment and helped organize a grape boycott in 1967 that resulted in the California table grape industry signing a three-year collective bargaining agreement with the United Farm Workers.

"You have very visible targets with Goodrich, Black & Decker and Pyro Spectaculars for a boycott," Jim Rodriquez, representing Huerta and the Dolores Huerta Foundation, said.

"They have the money, but we have the people and you have the support of Dolores Huerta and the foundation."

Going after the pocketbook and public image of organizations accused of polluting the water will frighten them, Rodriquez said.

"Whatever you need from us, let us know because we are here with you," he said.

Members of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, who organized the meeting, are calling for residents to attend a second meeting July 12 where action plans will be reviewed.

"We want to analyze what our next step is, whether it be a boycott or going to legislators and demanding they step in," said Penny Newman, executive director of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice.

Rialto's cleanup strategy relies on lawsuits filed against San Bernardino County and 41 other agencies and companies accused of contributing to the perchlorate contamination. Cleanup efforts for the Rialto/Colton water basin are estimated to cost $200 million to $300 million, City Attorney Bob Owen has said.

Rialto residents are charged a $6.85 fee for perchlorate cleanup on their water bills. An additional charge is assessed based on consumption.

Rialto adopted a zero tolerance for perchlorate in 2005, which guarantees no water with detectable levels of the chemical will be served to residents, said Mayor Grace Vargas.

Several residents spoke out on the surcharge and demanded those responsible for polluting the water pay to clean it.

"I'm paying a lot of money each month while the polluters only make money," Carmen Navarro, who has lived in Rialto 17 years, said in Spanish. "I want them to pay now."

Vargas said residents will be reimbursed once cleanup funding is made available.

"It took 50 years for perchlorate to surface and be detected, and it'll probably take another 50 years to clean it up, but, in the meantime, we will do everything in our power to make sure the people responsible for the pollution pay," she said.

Reach Massiel Ladron De Guevara at 909-806-3054 or mdeguevara@PE.com

Rialto-area water district quits perchlorate suit

		Download story podcast

10:00 PM PDT on Tuesday, October 2, 2007

By JENNIFER BOWLES
The Press-Enterprise

West Valley Water District in Rialto dropped out of a costly federal lawsuit aimed at finding those responsible for perchlorate contamination that has polluted its drinking water wells.

The costs became too much, around $2.5 million in attorneys fees, to continue with the lawsuit filed about two years ago, said Anthony "Butch" Araiza, the agency's general manager, Tuesday.

"We were just afraid we'd still be in the same quagmire, and we'd end up spending $25 million trying to prove what the government really needs to do," Araiza said.

He said he hopes that state and federal regulators will successfully pursue action against the culprits and prompt a cleanup.

The cities of Rialto and Colton remain plaintiffs. Fontana Water Company also dropped out.

Araiza's district serves about 70,000 people in Rialto, Colton, Bloomington and Fontana. Five of eight wells tainted with perchlorate have or will soon be rigged with equipment to filter out the perchlorate. The chemical used in fireworks and rocket fuel has been linked to thyroid illnesses.

The Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, based in Riverside, has been investigating the 6-mile underground plume of perchlorate for about five years. Investigators believe a 160-acre industrial site in northern Rialto, where fireworks manufacturers and defense contractors have operated for more than 60 years, is the source.

Legal wrangling has plans for a State Water Resources Control Board hearing to determine responsibility on hold.

A federal hearing is set to begin in October 2008.

Rialto Councilman Ed Scott said the city continues to pursue the lawsuit and has paid about $18 million for attorneys, consultants and investigations into the plume. He said the city is talking to state and federal regulators to see whether they can help.

Reach Jennifer Bowles at 951-368-9548 or jbowles@PE.com or view her blog at www.PE.com/blogs

IT's Time For Rialto to Call in the E.P.A.!!! A.S.A.P.!!

It's time for Rialto to call in the EPA
Article Launched:07/16/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT

When is enough enough? When should Rialto throw in the towel and call in the big dogs?
The city has been fighting for a decade to get suspected polluters, including major corporations and the Pentagon, to pay the costs of cleaning up perchlorate that has contaminated Rialto's wells. But the lawsuits and extended legal battle have cost more than $18 million so far and could go much higher.
And while Rialto's city attorney seems content to play David to the suspected polluters' Goliath - albeit, with the help of a cadre of top-level lawyers - it's chiefly customers of the city's water utility that have had to bear the burden, and the brunt of the costs, with no quick end in sight. So far, the city has spent the equivalent of its Police Department's budget on the fight.
The city's water agency serves about half of Rialto, with Fontana Water Co. and West Valley Water serving the rest. And so, it is about half of Rialto residents who are footing the bill for the city's legal juggernaut. The surcharge on water bills starts at $6.85 a month and rises from there.
If Rialto eventually wins its case in court, resident ratepayers will be reimbursed. But that could be a long time in coming. And the total for actual cleanup of the contaminant could be $300 million.
Besides ratepayers' hefty chunk, the City Council also contributed $5 million from general fund reserves to escalate the fight last year. But even the council has become leery, without seeing much in the way of results.
Why won't Rialto call in the cavalry and ask the feds for help? We're sure city ratepayers would like to know.
Why is it that the city has insisted on going it alone, without bringing the resources of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to bear?
Commenting on Rialto's reluctance to do the logical thing, Penny Newman, executive director of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, said, "I think going with EPA and the Superfund program is probably the strongest mechanism a city or community has. I'm always amazed that people - communities - shy away from that."
Indeed, Rialto has become almost territorial in pursuing the fight on its own. It's almost as if time and money were no object. Let the ratepayers pay it - that seems to be the city's attitude.
But with the pricetag reaching into the millions, it's time to regroup. The city needs to take a more regional approach and spread out the costs.
Rialto initially considered going with EPA. But after looking at a variety of Superfund projects, and finding that each took 17 to 27 years to start cleanup, the city felt it would take too long, said City Attorney Bob Owen.
So, this is any better? How long does the city expect ratepayers to keep fronting litigation costs?
The state Water Resources Control Board, which has taken over from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, plans hearings in August. At that time, it could order three suspected polluters - Goodrich, Pyro Spectaculars and Emhart Industries, parent company of Black and Decker - to remove the contamination.
Then again, those companies all have been fighting long and hard to delay any consequences.
The San Gabriel Valley Water Co., which owns Fontana Water Co., and the West Valley Water District have urged Rialto go with a regional coalition that works with the EPA.
Rialto has been fighting for cleanup of the Rialto-Colton Basin, without regard for pollution of West Valley and Fontana wells.
And while a fault separates the West Valley and Fontana wells from the Rialto-Colton Basin, such that the regional agency has said it can't prove the suspected Rialto-area polluters caused contamination of the other wells, it's all the more reason for a regional approach that takes all of the pollution into account.
Yet Rialto persists in its one-sided struggle.
Better to lean on the EPA - and save residents the aggravation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BS Ranch Perspective

I am wondering why, the County of San Bernardino is not mentioned in this fight for the water rights and the fight for the water, and the monies to pay for the filtration to clean out the Perchlorate from the filters. I did a vast Search across the State and found that there was over 200 Wells in California that was effected by Perchlorate, many wells had to be shut down and some had to be filtered with the Revers Osmosis Filtration system, Each filter, I am talking about one filter, costs $4 Million Dollars, and they are very expensive. Rialto needed to have many of these Expensive Filteration systems on their system to clean the water and make it safe from Perchlorate!

But The question that Remains is What or who paid for the cleaning of those other 190 wells in the State of California tha that I could not find any news on? Who paid for the Filtration systems, and why didn't I find any other City's or Counties taking the Privious Owners of the Businesses to court that was responsible for placing the Perchlorate in the Water Table in the first place? I guess I can tell you that one thing is for sure.

Back when they started and found out that they had Perchlorate in contamination in the water table in Rialto, Rialto's Council Immediatly said that he must start a law Suit against the Businesses that were found to be responcible for the contamnation of the Perchlorate in the Water Table. I have Written all along that this was a bad Move since the Companies all have said that they were going to pay for the filters and clean up what they could of the Perchlorate from the Water Table, but Owen said that even with the Company spoksman saying that they were going to pay for their clean up.

I beleive that Owens, with all the extra pay that he received from the city should be held responcible for paying for the clean up of the water table, and the Perchlorate! They cannot beleive that Owen's did this law suit for the City of Rialto's Benefit, because Clearly it was not for the City of Rialto's Benefit, since it didn't benefit the City of Rialto!

Rialto Lost in this whole thing, Clearly since Owen's Continued his Pursuit of the Law Suit against the Businesses that admitted to being responsible for the Perchlorate Contamination of the Water Table, Dating back to World War One, and Clearly they were not the owners of those businesses then, they were the purchaser's of the businesses, so they got the businesses, and with that they inherited the responciblity of the Wrong Doings of those companies form a long time ago. When Owen's Representing the City of Rialto Took the Responcible Businesses to Court they decided to pay for only the stuff that they were told topay for, that left a huge amount that was left unpaid and The City of Rialto's Water Department was left with these Bills for the Remaining Clean up.

You Clearly Cannot Blame the Businesses, but the Lawyer's that Represented the Law Suit that started it!!

THE LAW SUIT IS TO BLAIM FOR THE LIMITED CLEAN UP OF IT!! NOT THE BUSINESSES HERE! THE LAWYERS ARE TO BLAME!

When I say lawyer I mean the one that started the whole Law Suit, OWEN!

The City of Rialto, and The Rialto City Council should fire their council, Owen, simply has to go, he has been there long enough and has made his milliions off the city, and if left in the City Representation Positon, he will make himself a millionare over and over and over again. With Law Suits, JUST LIKE THE ONE THAT THEY JUST LOST!! 10 FOLD W/PERCHLORATE!!

BS Ranch

$18 Million Down The Drain? (SB Sun July 9, 2007) With NO Results yet, City's Perchlorate Strategy Questioned!!

BS Ranch Perspective The strategy that the city is taking should be questioned? The City of Rialto is trying to take this on and get it all for FREE!! The City of Rialto wants the business that has been found to be responsible for the contamination of the Perchlorate, However in many cases they are not the original company that are responsible, since they purchased the company that caused the contamination long ago during The First World War! It has long been my thought that Owen has wanted a case like this that he could charge the city an almost open Check Book of charges for Lawyer Fees, It is not surprising that it is up to $18 Million, I just wonder how much of the $18 Million has entered the bank accounts of Owen's Private home account!! He after all knows that the city of Rialto has to be getting tired of the over paid fees that they pay him, after all to pay a Layer almost $734, 000.00 a year just to be present in most City Council Meetings is just a little bit much. Now Rialto gets this Perchlorate Contamination in their Drinking water, and come to find out that there are many Southern California Cities that also had Perchlorate Contamination in their Drinking Water Wells within their City Limits!! Rialto Spends 18 Million in Legal Fee's to clean up the Perchlorate, and gets no where!! All the other Cities in Southern California Clean their Perchlorate Problem, with the help of the "EPA" and spend a total of about $1 Million, with all their filters needed and the water is all paid for and everything is clean!! What does Rialto Have that is different then these other cities that seem to be able to get things done at about $17 Million cheaper and counting, that difference is a Lawyer by the name of Owen. Rialto City Council needs to wake up and get rid of this guy and try to clean up his mistake in this "Lawsuit"! BS Ranch $18 million down the drain?

With no results yet, city's perchlorate strategy questioned

Jason Pesick, Staff Writer San Bernardino County Sun

Article Launched:07/09/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT

RIALTO - City officials see their fight to clean up perchlorate-contaminated drinking water as a classic underdog story - a modest city going to court to get big corporations and the Pentagon to clean up a mess. To City Attorney Bob Owen, it's like David and Goliath, with Rialto as David of course. It might take more than a slingshot to do the job, though. It might take $300 million to clean up contamination discovered in 1997. Thus Rialto has armed itself with a team of top-tier lawyers to pursue lawsuits against suspected polluters. City leaders say they're on a righteous quest, but some water-cleanup experts and others who have dealt with similar challenges call it folly. Taking on the likes of the Defense Department, Goodrich, and Black and Decker during the past decade has already cost the city the equivalent of the Police Department's annual budget. Critics want to know what that money has bought beyond constant delays in court and before state regulatory boards. They also want to know why the city didn't seek the help of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, as other communities with similar problems have. "It's just beyond imagination how much money they've spent on this thing," said Anthony "Butch" Araiza, general manager of the West Valley Water District, which also serves water to Rialto residents. Owen said the city has spent about $18 million on lawsuits, legal investigators, water treatment, public relations and community meetings. It sounds good to say the city shouldn't spend so much on attorneys, Owen said, but the city would have to pay much more to clean up the mess. "Everybody hates lawyers," he said. "We know that." Residents foot the bill Rialto's legal battle is funded largely by a surcharge for customers of the city's water utility. The surcharge starts at $6.85 a month and rises based on usage. The city water agency serves about half of Rialto, meaning about half the residents fund the formidable perchlorate effort. West Valley Water and the Fontana Water Company serve the rest. If Rialto wins its case in court, residents will be reimbursed, Owen said. The council also has allocated $5 million from General Fund reserves to escalate the legal effort last year. Rialto's best hope at getting perchlorate cleaned up quickly is the State Water Resources Control Board, which has planned August hearings on the contamination. The board could order three suspected polluters, Goodrich, Pyro Spectaculars and Emhart Industries, which the city says is really Black and Decker, to remove the contamination. "There's been a wealth of evidence that's been generated as a result of Rialto's litigation," said Kurt Berchtold, assistant executive officer for the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and member of the advocacy team that will argue alongside Rialto during the state hearings. But the companies' legal maneuvers have delayed those hearings numerous times. The state water board took over cleanup efforts because the Santa Ana board couldn't move forward. "It's gone from bad to worse to untenable," said Michael Whitehead, president of the San Gabriel Valley Water Company, which owns Fontana Water. Whitehead and Araiza have publicly talked about the benefits of bringing in the EPA to take over the cleanup. The hearing delays have upset environmentalists as well. "The corporations know how to use the legal system," said Penny Newman, executive director of the Riverside- based Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, which will be a party in state hearings. She defended the city's strategy and the amount of money it has spent. "When you've been harmed, you go after the person who harmed you, which can be difficult for people of limited income," she said. The idea is simple: Polluters should clean up their messes. "Is it an Erin Brockovich scenario? You bet," Rialto City Administrator Henry Garcia said at a council meeting. But "Erin Brockovich" is the wrong movie to emulate because the contamination is too complicated, Whitehead countered. He suggested watching "A Civil Action," in which the EPA takes over because the case costs too much money to put on in court. "It's a very conventional legal strategy. It's also a failed legal strategy," Whitehead said. He and Araiza recommend using the model the San Gabriel Valley used to clean up contaminants including perchlorate: a regional coalition of entities working with the EPA. Comparing situations To remove perchlorate discovered in 1997 from Baldwin Park, Whitehead said the San Gabriel Valley Water Company spent less than $1 million on legal fees. Polluters and the U.S. government paid most of the cost. Wayne Praskins, an EPA Superfund project manager, said that if a polluter refuses to follow an EPA cleanup order but is found responsible in court, the polluter faces penalties of three times the cleanup cost. "I think going with EPA and the Superfund program is probably the strongest mechanism a city or community has I'm always amazed that people - communities - shy away from that," Newman said. But the EPA doesn't have super powers. The San Gabriel Valley was already a Superfund site as early as the mid-1980s, which made it easier and faster to get perchlorate cleaned up. "It's a tough comparison," Praskins said. "It took a long time to reach agreements in the San Gabriel Valley." To Owen, the city attorney, comparing the Rialto-Colton Basin cleanup to that of the San Gabriel Valley is like comparing apples to oranges. The EPA started looking at contamination in the San Gabriel Valley in the 1970s. When it was looking at whether to go the EPA route, Rialto looked at a number of Superfund sites, and in every case it took between 17 and 27 years to start cleaning the contamination up, Owen said. "And that was simply unacceptable to us." The EPA has followed the case but hasn't yet decided whether to take over, Praskins said. A combination of factors kept the EPA from taking the lead from the get-go. Rialto thought the EPA would take too long. Owen has also said he was afraid a large Superfund site in the city would create a stigma. EPA officials also thought state regulatory agencies could handle the case. Berchtold speculated that Whitehead and Araiza might be pressing for an EPA takeover because the state would probably not order cleanup of some West Valley and Fontana wells. A fault separates those wells from the Rialto-Colton Basin, and Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board staffers said they can't prove the suspected Rialto-area polluters caused the contamination in those wells. Whitehead says the board is in over its head. Despite the fault, Araiza prefers a regional approach and said Rialto is selfish for excluding other water agencies. "I just don't understand being that territorial about this." Owen said he's just looking out for Rialto. He doesn't want to divide money equally because the problem doesn't affect all agencies equally. Rialto's City Council is getting uncomfortable with the cost. The council called for an audit of how much the city has spent on perchlorate, but members insist there will be no strategy change. The newest councilman, Joe Baca Jr., thinks there should be. "I'm concerned about there being a blank check out there for the attorneys," he said. He said he can't even find out how much the city has spent. "We have to look at it as a regional approach," he said. Owen, on the other hand, doesn't want to change course now. "This city's involved in possibly its largest legal battle ever in its history," he said. "Now is not the time to blink." What is perchlorate? Perchlorate is used to produce such explosives as fireworks and rocket fuel. It flows from industrial sites on Rialto's north end through the city and into Colton. It's not clear how dangerous perchlorate is, but a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released last year says even low concentrations of perchlorate can affect the thyroid gland. Treatment systems remove perchlorate from the water before it reaches residents.

Rialto Takes Perchlorate Stand (San Bernardino Sun July 28, 2007).

BS Ranch Perspective

I figure that the Law Suite route that they took forced the hand that they have to pay some of the cost, so in order to get away from that now they must go after the Government to get the money needed in order to get the water filters that are needed to clean that perchlorate out of the water and away from the Water Drinking Public!!

I guess, they will be having to shake the hands of the Government to get this done now, since Owen's Idea of a Law Suit has Failed!!

BS Ranch

Rialto takes perchlorate stand

Article Launched:07/28/2007 09:59:16 PM PDT

According to the most recent Study by the Center for Disease Control, perchlorate in drinking water, even at low doses, is a threat to the thyroid function of many of U.S. women, and to brain and nervous system development in children. By 2002, it had become apparent that a 6-mile-long plume of perchlorate, a key ingredient of rocket fuel, and trichloroethylene (TCE), a hazardous solvent phased out of industrial use by the 1980s, contaminates the otherwise pure groundwater aquifer that supplies drinking water for the city of Rialto and the Rialto Utility Authority. The source is a World War II ordinance depot later used for manufacturing by large defense contractors and fireworks manufacturers. The contamination comes from land now used by San Bernardino County for its Mid-Valley Sanitary Landfill, to the west, and a 160-acre site to the east occupied by Goodrich Corporation, Emhart (Black & Decker), Pyro Spectaculars and other manufacturers. In response, the Rialto City Council adopted a policy of shutting down contaminated wells to avoid serving perchlorate in any amount to its citizens. Initially, perchlorate concentrations were detected in the dozens to several hundred parts per billion (ppb). Additional investigation and testing found perchlorate as high as 5,000-10,000 ppb, the highest level in the nation in a domestic water supply. The state of California action level is 6 ppb. Protecting citizens' health is paramount, but the potential effects on business, development and the city's finances are also dire. Installing wellhead treatment costs millions, and operational costs add millions more. With the new 210 Freeway, parts of the city are poised for increased development and employment. But if the city cannot assure a 20-year supply of water, state law prohibits local development. Projected costs for the cleanup run as high as $200 million to $300 million. Initially, Rialto turned to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board - Santa Ana Region (RWQCB) for assistance. EPA undertook some studies and issued investigation orders to some of the dischargers. At the time, the Bush administration, under pressure from major defense contractors that had used perchlorate nationally and the Pentagon, resisted adoption of a federal cleanup standard or rigid enforcement by the EPA. EPA took no further action, and deferred to the state of California. The first prosecution effort by the RWQCB ended in a dismissal for lack of evidence. In 2003, Rialto turned to San Bernardino County and asked it to take steps to control the perchlorate from its Mid-Valley Landfill. Through then-supervisor Jerry Eaves, the county declined to offer Rialto any help and denied the extent of the contamination later confirmed by more testing. Faced with ineffective action from EPA and the regional board, a rejection of liability from the county, and some expiring statutes of limitation, Rialto brought suit in federal court in 2004 to make the large corporate polluters and insurance companies - rather than its own citizens - pay for the cleanup. Through investigation of activities as far back as the 1940s, and under federal discovery authority, a mass of evidence was collected and delivered to the RWQCB and EPA. Using some of this evidence, Rialto was successful in November 2005 in obtaining a Clean-up and Abatement Order from the RWQCB that requires the county to clean up the perchlorate emanating from the landfill. By late 2006, the RWQCB began a further prosecution of Goodrich, Emhart/Black & Decker and Pyro Spectaculars, supported in substantial part by the evidence from the federal litigation. Rialto's strategy is straightforward: use the federal litigation to supply evidence to EPA and the regional board with the objective of obtaining orders for cleanup of the basin. California law requires such a lawsuit to invoke the decades of insurance coverage of many of the dischargers, some of whom otherwise lack funding. Rialto's objective has always been to play a supporting role to federal and state agencies to obtain the orders for prompt cleanup. That strategy has worked as to the county and its landfill. The current State Water Board prosecution, which goes to hearing in Rialto Aug. 21-30, will hopefully result in a cleanup order on the eastern part of the plume as well. Rialto will participate and assist the RWQCB in presenting important evidence. If that hearing, which has been delayed four times by the large, well-funded law firms representing the dischargers, is not successful, Rialto has as a backup its federal lawsuit, which should go to trial in late 2008. Either way, Rialto is committed to making the large corporate polluters and insurance companies pay for the cleanup. The same federal litigation has been filed by the city of Colton, West Valley Water District and the private supplier Fontana Water Company. Right now, Rialto and Colton are doing the work in the litigation. The same water purveyors, and the county - both singly and jointly - have applied for federal and state cleanup money for years with only limited success. Rialto is following a dual approach of assisting the administrative agencies and using the federal litigation as a backup. We request this newspaper and all affected citizens to support the current State Water Board prosecution in Rialto Aug. 21-30. The state Legislature should be encouraged to supply funding for prosecution of the dischargers and to assist with the cleanup. EPA should likewise be more actively involved, and take further action on the evidence that has been supplied to it. The health and welfare of Rialto's citizens, and its women and children in particular, deserve nothing less. - Winnie Hanson, Rialto's mayor pro tem, and Ed Scott, council member, comprise the Rialto Perchlorate Subcommittee.

It's Time for Rialto to Call in the EPA, (SB Sun July 16, 2007) Rialto City Council, and the Citizens should blame the Lawyers for this!

It's time for Rialto to call in the EPA

Article Launched:07/16/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT

When is enough enough? When should Rialto throw in the towel and call in the big dogs? The city has been fighting for a decade to get suspected polluters, including major corporations and the Pentagon, to pay the costs of cleaning up perchlorate that has contaminated Rialto's wells. But the lawsuits and extended legal battle have cost more than $18 million so far and could go much higher. And while Rialto's city attorney seems content to play David to the suspected polluters' Goliath - albeit, with the help of a cadre of top-level lawyers - it's chiefly customers of the city's water utility that have had to bear the burden, and the brunt of the costs, with no quick end in sight. So far, the city has spent the equivalent of its Police Department's budget on the fight. The city's water agency serves about half of Rialto, with Fontana Water Co. and West Valley Water serving the rest. And so, it is about half of Rialto residents who are footing the bill for the city's legal juggernaut. The surcharge on water bills starts at $6.85 a month and rises from there. If Rialto eventually wins its case in court, resident ratepayers will be reimbursed. But that could be a long time in coming. And the total for actual cleanup of the contaminant could be $300 million. Besides ratepayers' hefty chunk, the City Council also contributed $5 million from general fund reserves to escalate the fight last year. But even the council has become leery, without seeing much in the way of results. Why won't Rialto call in the cavalry and ask the feds for help? We're sure city ratepayers would like to know. Why is it that the city has insisted on going it alone, without bringing the resources of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to bear? Commenting on Rialto's reluctance to do the logical thing, Penny Newman, executive director of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, said, "I think going with EPA and the Superfund program is probably the strongest mechanism a city or community has. I'm always amazed that people - communities - shy away from that." Indeed, Rialto has become almost territorial in pursuing the fight on its own. It's almost as if time and money were no object. Let the ratepayers pay it - that seems to be the city's attitude. But with the pricetag reaching into the millions, it's time to regroup. The city needs to take a more regional approach and spread out the costs. Rialto initially considered going with EPA. But after looking at a variety of Superfund projects, and finding that each took 17 to 27 years to start cleanup, the city felt it would take too long, said City Attorney Bob Owen. So, this is any better? How long does the city expect ratepayers to keep fronting litigation costs? The state Water Resources Control Board, which has taken over from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, plans hearings in August. At that time, it could order three suspected polluters - Goodrich, Pyro Spectaculars and Emhart Industries, parent company of Black and Decker - to remove the contamination. Then again, those companies all have been fighting long and hard to delay any consequences. The San Gabriel Valley Water Co., which owns Fontana Water Co., and the West Valley Water District have urged Rialto go with a regional coalition that works with the EPA. Rialto has been fighting for cleanup of the Rialto-Colton Basin, without regard for pollution of West Valley and Fontana wells. And while a fault separates the West Valley and Fontana wells from the Rialto-Colton Basin, such that the regional agency has said it can't prove the suspected Rialto-area polluters caused contamination of the other wells, it's all the more reason for a regional approach that takes all of the pollution into account. Yet Rialto persists in its one-sided struggle. Better to lean on the EPA - and save residents the aggravation.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BS Ranch Perspective

 

I am wondering why, the County of San Bernardino is not mentioned in this fight for the water rights and the fight for the water, and the monies to pay for the filtration to clean out the Perchlorate from the filters. I did a vast Search across the State and found that there was over 200 Wells in California that was effected by Perchlorate, many wells had to be shut down and  some had to be filtered with the Revers Osmosis Filtration system, Each filter, I am talking about one filter, costs $4 Million Dollars, and they are very expensive. Rialto needed to have many of these Expensive Filteration systems on their system to clean the water and make it safe from Perchlorate!

 

But The question that Remains is What or who paid for the cleaning of those other 190 wells in the State of California tha that I could not find any news on? Who paid for the Filtration systems, and why didn't I find any other City's or Counties taking the Privious Owners of the Businesses to court that was responsible for placing the Perchlorate in the Water Table in the first place? I guess I can tell you that one thing is for sure.

 

Back when they started and found out that they had Perchlorate in contamination in the water table in Rialto, Rialto's Council Immediatly said that he must start a law Suit against the Businesses that were found to be responcible for the contamnation of the Perchlorate in the Water Table. I have Written all along that this was a bad Move since the Companies all have said that they were going to pay for the filters and clean up what they could of the Perchlorate from the Water Table, but Owen said that even with the Company spoksman saying that they were going to pay for their clean up.

 

I beleive that Owens, with all the extra pay that he received from the city should be held responcible for paying for the clean up of the water table, and the Perchlorate! They cannot beleive that Owen's did this law suit for the City of Rialto's Benefit, because Clearly it was not for the City of Rialto's Benefit, since it didn't benefit the City of Rialto!

 

Rialto Lost in this whole thing, Clearly since Owen's Continued his Pursuit of the Law Suit against the Businesses that admitted to being responsible for the Perchlorate Contamination of the Water Table, Dating back to World War One, and Clearly they were not the owners of those businesses then, they were the purchaser's of the businesses, so they got the businesses, and with that they inherited the responciblity of the Wrong Doings of those companies form a long time ago.   When Owen's Representing the City of Rialto Took the Responcible Businesses to Court they decided to pay for only the stuff that they were told topay for, that left a huge amount that was left unpaid and The City of Rialto's Water Department was left with these Bills for the Remaining Clean up.

 

You Clearly Cannot Blame the Businesses, but the Lawyer's that Represented the Law Suit that started it!!

 

THE LAW SUIT IS TO BLAIM FOR THE LIMITED CLEAN UP OF IT!! NOT THE BUSINESSES HERE! THE LAWYERS ARE TO BLAME!

 

When I say lawyer I mean the one that started the whole Law Suit, OWEN!

 

The City of Rialto, and The Rialto City Council should fire their council, Owen, simply has to go, he has been there long enough and has made his milliions off the city, and if left in the City Representation Positon, he will make himself a millionare over and over and over again. With Law Suits, JUST LIKE THE ONE THAT THEY JUST LOST!! 10 FOLD W/PERCHLORATE!!

 

BS Ranch

Audit of Cleanup Costs Set Rialto Efforts to clean water to get a review...

Audit of cleanup costs set
Rialto efforts to clean water to get a review
By Jason Pesick, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 04/23/2007 12:00:00 AM PDT


RIALTO - With the tab climbing to the $20million mark, the City Council has agreed to get an audit of its expenditures to clean up drinking water contaminated with perchlorate.
The city's cleanup strategy has relied heavily on lawsuits against dozens of corporations and government entities it has accused of contributing to the problem, which could cost $200million to $300million to clean up.

"We need to assure the public that it's being spent wisely and properly," said Councilman Ed Scott, who said he called for the audit.

The audit is only intended to make sure no money is being wasted, not to question the city's legal strategy, Scott said.

At a recent council meeting, Councilman Joe Baca Jr. said the warrant resolution the council was supposed to approve showed an identical payment being made twice.

That turned out not to be the case, but Scott said he thinks the audit is important "to make sure billing and invoicing has been done properly." He said he also wants to make sure the attorneys are actually working the hours they say they are and that more than one attorney or consultant are not doing the same work.

Baca has also complained that he doesn't know exactly where

the money is going. The city does not disclose all that the law firms are paid in the warrant resolutions to keep that information from the parties it is suing, said City Attorney Bob Owen.
The audit comes at a critical time during the city's efforts to clean up the chemical, which can be harmful to humans by interfering with the thyroid gland. In July, the city's legal team is scheduled to argue before the State Water Resources Control Board at hearings that could force three corporations to clean up much of the contamination.

"Now is not the time to blink," said Owen.

He said he is confident the audit will show the money is being spent properly.

In addition to the state board hearings, in 2004 the city sued 42 entities, including the Defense Department, San Bernardino County and a number of corporations, to get them to clean up the contamination. Last year, Rialto filed an additional suit against the county in state court.

Although Scott insisted that the majority of the council still supports the lawsuits and that the audit to be conducted by the firm McGladrey & Pullen LLP will have a narrow focus, Baca has used the opportunity to call into question the city's strategy.

"I'm concerned about there being a blank check out there for the attorneys," Baca said.

He said he wants to know exactly where the money is being spent, whether it is the wisest use of city resources and if there are other ways besides the lawsuits to clean up the perchlorate. He said he also wants to find out if city staff can do some of the work the city is paying attorneys and consultants to do.

Mayor Pro Tempore Winnie Hanson agreed with Scott that the audit is narrowly intended to make sure the money is being spent properly.

"It's not about the strategy," she said.

The $20 million number includes the cost of the attorneys, experts to investigate the contamination, treatment systems to remove perchlorate from the drinking water and an informational campaign to keep the community informed. The number reflects the amount the city has spent since 1998, Owen said.

The city's water department charges a perchlorate fee to its customers to provide funds for the effort. If the city wins its suits, it will reimburse the ratepayers for those costs.

A few months ago, the council transferred $5million from the General Fund to speed up the federal lawsuit, but Scott said the lawsuits have not been sped up, and he doesn't want the city to pay an additional $5million every year.

Before the audit begins, Scott and Hanson, the members of the council's perchlorate committee, will meet with the auditors on Monday to discuss the scope of the audit. The cost of the audit should be clearer at that point.

Baca, who was elected to the council in November, has been critical of the city's strategy to clean up the perchlorate. He said the city should consider scaling back the lawsuits.

Other members of the council and Owen have said that the litigation is necessary in order to make sure the polluters - not taxpayers - pay to clean up the perchlorate.

Owen also argues that without the information the city has uncovered through the lawsuits, it would not have the evidence necessary to convince the state water board to order the polluters to clean up the perchlorate.

Owen warned against "playing politics with this important public-health issue."

He said he is also concerned the suspected polluters will think there is dissension on the council over whether to continue pursuing them right before the state board hearings.

"It's very irresponsible for somebody to begin doing that," he said.

Contact writer Jason Pesick at (909) 386-3861 or via e-mail at jason.pesick@sbsun.com.

------------------------------------------------------------------

BS Ranch Perspective:

I Seriously have come to the conclusion that Baca is the only one that is on the City Council that has the brains to protect the assets that the Taxpayers of Rialto has built up. Ed Scot, and his followers have voted out already $20 Million, to the Attorney's (Owen being one that has probably benefited the most) and experts to testify in court against the Businesses, County of San Bernardino, & The Federal Government on top of this whole big mountain that they feel all are responsible in a sort of way for the contamination of Perchlorate in the Water Table, Under the grounds of North Rialto and what used to be the County of San Bernardino some 15 to 20 years ago, before Rialto took that area in through annexation!

Baca, can see that the Court might, & that is one huge might rule, that the people that Rialto is suing is only responsible for the cost of removing the Perchlorate, and not the Lawyer Fees, or Expert Costs, Which is more than likely more then $7 Million since they are paying the Lawyer's alone @ more then an estimated $165.00 an hour to sit, study, prepare, Prepare Witnesses, and find the experts for Court to Testify! Not to for get that the Experts are getting paid an estimated $135 an hour to testify, or test and prepare for court.

None of what they are doing is cheap, The city should have listened to the County of San Bernardino at the beginning, of the whole business, there was a whole payback, and help plan that is and was to be helpful to cities that are in this situation, being as Rialto, and San Bernardino County, is not the only Area to be afflicted with this problem! The other area's that had Perchlorate Ground Water Contamination, there was help, that was given to those cities and Counties to assist with their Filtration systems, through Grants, and the like. It doesn't pay for the whole Amount that is needed to get the filter's on board, but See that is what Rialto is after they want to not try to get any assistance from the Federal Government.

In order to get reimbursement for the filtration systems, you must purchase and install them, and apply for a Grant for reimbursement, similar to that of a Solar Panel System install on a Private Home. The Home Owner must install the Solar System to get the grants and Tax Relief for the Solar System.

Baca is the only one on the City of Rialto's City Council that is working with the people that he is serving. He is wanting to save money in the long run, becuase the way that they are going, the only one that is going to benefit is that of Owen, and his people that he hires to help him fight this in court! This paycheck will go nicely along with the $3/4 Million dollars that he already gets in one year from the Rialto City Taxpayers for siting through City Council Meetings and Closed Sessions Giving Legal Advice. Wow, What a guy, In this I don't know who is worse. Ed Scott for rushing to give the money away to Owen, or the rest of the council that follows Scot like he is the guy that knows the what of it.

Ed Scot was wrong with the Contract with the Sheriff Department for Law Enforcement, and he is wrong here now!!

BS Ranch

Governor Asked to Turn up Pressure on Perchlorate Cleanup in Rialto

Governor asked to turn up pressure on perchlorate cleanup in Rialto




08:01 AM PST on Saturday, February 17, 2007

By MASSIEL LADRÓN DE GUEVARA
The Press-Enterprise

Video: Rialto residents demand cleanup of perchlorate contamination

Survey: Should Gov. Schwarzenegger declare a state of emergency in Rialto because of perchlorate contamination in the groundwater?

RIALTO - A group of residents wants the governor to declare a state of emergency in Rialto because perchlorate contamination in the city's groundwater supply is endangering residents' health.

Officials with the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice and about 40 residents also demanded during a protest Friday that the State Water Resources Control Board force polluters to clean up the contamination and reimburse residents for cleanup costs they have incurred.

A hearing set for March 23 to determine which companies are responsible for a mileslong underground plume of perchlorate was delayed after the hearing officer resigned. The hearing also would have forced cleanup of the plume, believed to have been generated by defense contractors in the 1950s and '60s.

"Enough is enough. We are tired of all the delays," said Sujatha Jahagirdar, clean-water advocate for Environment California. "The state water board must issue a full cleanup order that requires every drop of contamination to be cleaned and to provide safe water to residents until it is done."

Perchlorate, a component of rocket fuel and fireworks, has contaminated six Rialto water wells. It is believed that the chemical interferes with thyroid function and brain development. Human fetuses and newborn children are considered most at risk.

Davin Diaz, of the Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice in San Bernardino, said the goal is to have Gov. Schwarzenegger make Rialto's water a top priority and apply pressure on the state water board to move quickly.

But Rialto officials would have to declare a local state of emergency before the governor could issue a declaration, said Eric Lamoureux, spokesman for the Governor's Office of Emergency Services.

Because there is no request from Rialto officials, it is difficult to assess the situation, Lamoureux said.

Councilman Ed Scott said he will be in Sacramento on Thursday to ask the state water board to hold hearings on Rialto's perchlorate problem.

City officials have no plans to declare a local state of emergency, he said.

Maria Harrada, a five-year Rialto resident, said she wants the contamination cleaned up so she won't have to worry about her children drinking tap water.

"It doesn't seem fair that we are paying to clean a mess we didn't make and that those responsible aren't paying," Harrada said during a protest at one of the first wells where perchlorate was found nearly 10 years ago.

Rialto residents are charged a $6.85 flat fee for perchlorate cleanup on their water bills. An additional charge is assessed based on consumption.

Councilman Joe Baca Jr. said the city plans to reimburse residents once cleanup funding becomes available from the responsible parties.