Laserfiche WebLink
qB 3 <br />Jan. 27, 2003 <br />The Safewater Coalition <br />164 Monaco Dr. <br />Redwood City, CA 94065 <br />For City Council Meeting Agenda, Feb. 3, 2003 <br />Redwood City Council <br />City of Redwood City <br />1017 Middlefield Rd. <br />P.O.Box 391 <br />Redwood City, CA 94064 -0391 <br />Dear Redwood City Council Members, <br />Today, February 3rd, at our city council meeting you are going to make <br />another decision about recycled wastewater and how this city is going <br />to move forward on the process. In that context, the Safewater <br />Coalition has a few thoughts for you to review and respond. We <br />respectfully request that this letter be place in the City Council <br />meeting agenda. <br />The 2002 State of California Recycled Water Task Force has stated that <br />there is no absolute proof of any health concerns. However, the <br />Chairman of this California State Recycled Water Task Force stated <br />clearly that there is health risks associated with treated wastewater. <br />In the report he states, "recent studies in environmental toxicology <br />and pharmacology have revealed potential long -term health risks <br />associated with chemical compounds such as disinfection byproducts, <br />pharmaceutically active compounds, pesticides, and personal care <br />products at low concentrations." Said another way, our own state <br />leaders cannot guarantee our health concerns when using treated <br />wastewater. How do you respond? <br />Locally, realtors are starting to require a new disclosure form from <br />Redwood City residents, specifically in Redwood Shores. This new <br />disclosure form requires a selling party to disclose that the <br />possibility of recycled wastewater will be used on local properties. <br />Your decision tonight will move the city closer to the possibility of <br />this water being used on private property, thereby risking decreased <br />property values and ultimately lower tax revenues to the city. How do <br />you respond? <br />You have pledged to NOT move the city forward on a recycled wastewater <br />project until all health concerns have been addressed and now you are <br />voting to move forward. How do you respond? <br />Mr. Ingram uses a drought as a ploy to get our city to move forward on <br />this project. Yet, there is no drought. How do you respond? <br />Our vice mayor, Mr. Jeff Ira, sent a letter dated January 25th in which <br />he assured the residents of Redwood Shores that no project would move <br />forward into Redwood Shores with the vote on February 3L on recycled <br />water - pipelines. How do you respond? <br />