Two political newcomers, EMS paramedic Damon Fogley in District 5 and homemaker Daphne Tenorio in Place 6, cruised to victories Saturday in the runoff election for Kyle City Council.
Fogley captured almost 59 percent of the votes cast in a victory over former city council member Jaime Sanchez and Ms. Tenorio collected 55 percent of the vote against Place 6 incumbent Tammy Swaton, who was just elected for the first time a little more than a year ago to fill a council vacancy..
"I want to thank every singe person who turned out to vote, every single voter who participated in the electoral process and every single person who cares about the city of Kyle," a jubilant Ms. Tenorio said after she learned of her victory this evening. "I can’t wait to represent them on the city council and give them the voice they’ve never had."
Calls placed to Fogley were not returned.
It will be interesting to see how these two new faces will fit on the council. Something tells me Ms. Tenorio is going to be someone who is going to raise interesting questions, especially when it comes to action items in which it appears the city is unfairly burdening future homeowners just so new subdivisions can get off the ground. I also get the feeling she is going to be someone who will try to make city government, especially its budgeting process, far more transparent and easier for the public to understand and measure whether the city is fulfilling its promises.
Fogley, on the other hand, seems to be someone who will be willing to speak out to support the majority opinion.
Only time will tell.
The Kyle Report
Saturday, May 30, 2015
Friday, May 29, 2015
Don't be alarmed but it seems a rabid bat was found in Kyle shopping center
It seems a tad late to be telling us this now – five days after the fact – but the city is just today informing the public a rabid bat was found Sunday on the ground outside the Kohl’s department store on Kyle Parkway. Maybe it took all this time to test the bat to confirm it had rabies. I dunno. Plus, I’m also hoping that anyone who came in close physical contact with this mammal headed straight for the family physician immediately afterward. I know when it comes to untrained animals of any variety, my inherent cowardice is going to immediately propel me as fast as possible in another direction. I don’t know how many of you saw the movie Wild, but, if you did, you might remember a scene in which the Reese Witherspoon character encounters a rattlesnake and she cautiously creeps around the dang thing. And I’m silently screaming at the screen "You’re still too close! You’re still too close! Go to the other side of the mountain!"
Now I’m guessing there are a lot braver souls than I when it comes to dealing with creatures such as this. And for all of you, the city passes along the following advice:
"As soon as a grounded bat is found, it should be isolated to prevent further contact with people and animals. If you can isolate the bat, wear leather gloves cover it with a pail, coffee can or similar container and place a heavy object such as a brick or rock on top of the container to secure it. If a human exposure has occurred the bat will need to be tested for rabies."
So, in an effort to not be completely useless in situations such as this, if you need someone to find a coffee can or a brick, I’m your man. If you’re talking about the isolating part, not so much.
Thank goodness there’s someone at the city who thinks along the same lines. This wise person is Kyle Animal Control officer Briana Brecher. Read what she says on the subject:
"Bats can be really cool to watch when they're flying around in large groups, but you should never try to get close to a bat. If you see a bat, alive or dead, please stay away from it and don’t touch it. If the bat is in an enclosed area like your home, please call Kyle Animal Control at 512-268-3232."
Amen to that.
Now the city is asking me and anyone else within shouting citizen to say if you or anyone you know did come in contact with this web-winged monster, you should immediately contact Kyle Animal Control at the above mentioned telephone number.
"As soon as a grounded bat is found, it should be isolated to prevent further contact with people and animals. If you can isolate the bat, wear leather gloves cover it with a pail, coffee can or similar container and place a heavy object such as a brick or rock on top of the container to secure it. If a human exposure has occurred the bat will need to be tested for rabies."
So, in an effort to not be completely useless in situations such as this, if you need someone to find a coffee can or a brick, I’m your man. If you’re talking about the isolating part, not so much.
Thank goodness there’s someone at the city who thinks along the same lines. This wise person is Kyle Animal Control officer Briana Brecher. Read what she says on the subject:
"Bats can be really cool to watch when they're flying around in large groups, but you should never try to get close to a bat. If you see a bat, alive or dead, please stay away from it and don’t touch it. If the bat is in an enclosed area like your home, please call Kyle Animal Control at 512-268-3232."
Amen to that.
Now the city is asking me and anyone else within shouting citizen to say if you or anyone you know did come in contact with this web-winged monster, you should immediately contact Kyle Animal Control at the above mentioned telephone number.
Thursday, May 28, 2015
He's baaaack!!!
Just received the following from the city which I am reprinting here with no additional comment (at least, not for now):
“I’d like to thank Chief Edge for the professional manner in which he handled the very important personnel matter,” said Sellers.
The result of the adjudication process was that Kyle Police Officer Jessie Espinosa was suspended indefinitely. The City of Kyle will have no further comment at this time in order to protect the integrity of Mr. Espinoza’s appeal of this suspension.
KYLE, TX – Kyle City Manager Scott Sellers has returned Police Chief Jeff Barnett to duty effective Thursday, May 28th. Chief Barnett had been placed on paid administrative leave on May 6th for the purposes of adjudicating a civil service matter. Charles Edge, a former police chief with the Waxahachie Police Department, was appointed Acting Police Chief and has concluded his role in the adjudication of the matter. Under the Texas civil service statute, all personnel decisions must be completed by the department head. In order to ensure full and complete impartiality, the city manager placed Barnett on leave due to his involvement in the matter. Barnett was not the subject of the investigation.
“I’d like to thank Chief Edge for the professional manner in which he handled the very important personnel matter,” said Sellers.
The result of the adjudication process was that Kyle Police Officer Jessie Espinosa was suspended indefinitely. The City of Kyle will have no further comment at this time in order to protect the integrity of Mr. Espinoza’s appeal of this suspension.
Wednesday, May 27, 2015
Negative campaigning in the city council election
Update at 6:21 p.m.: Dex Ellison did get back to me and said "I never asked a voter to vote for anyone other than me and I definitely never told anyone not to vote for anyone else."
Original story: Unfortunately, "negative campaigning" has become a part of the our country’s political process so I guess I shouldn’t be that surprised that negative campaigning has become a part of the Kyle City Council election. What does surprise me, however, is (1) the form this campaigning has taken and (2) it’s not even being directed at a campaign opponent.
Ever since all six of the candidates filed for the two seats up for election in this campaign, I have heard undercurrents of opposition directed toward Place 5 candidate Jaime Sanchez. Nothing overt, mind you, with the possible exception of one elected official hinting to me that Sanchez was "a crook." There was also an e-mail that Mayor Todd Webster sent to five of the six candidates saying he was willing to donate $100 to all the campaigns except for Sanchez's. There has been this subtle message floating around that Sanchez "is not one of us," which is strange since he is the only candidate running who has lived in Kyle since his birth. I couldn’t help but feel that much of the campaign for District 5 involved more "Vote against Sanchez" than vote for one of the other candidates and that many of the city’s "establishment" rallied behind one of Sanchez’s opponents, not because that person was a particularly viable candidate, but because they would do anything to keep Sanchez from being elected.
Then yesterday I spoke to a woman, Rayma Stone, who told me the strangest thing: two city council candidates, Tammy Swaton and Dex Ellisson, neither of whom were running against Sanchez, both came to her house located north of Goforth in Kyle and told her and other voters gathered in her home that, no matter what else they did, they should not vote for Sanchez. (I have left messages for both Swaton and Ellison to respond, but so far neither has chosen to do so.) Stone told me Swaton was particularly "very harsh and mean" when it came to Sanchez, saying the voters there should not cast their ballots for him because, among other things, he once sued the city.
And that’s certainly true. He did sue the city. And you know what else? He won that suit. The court determined Sanchez was right and the city acted illegally when it tried to take from him land for which he had legal title. But just because he sued the city doesn’t make him anti-Kyle. It means he fought the attempts of some city officials to, as the court determined, illegally take from him property he owned. To me, at least, that makes him very much pro-Kyle: He is going to do whatever he can to make sure the citizens of this city are treated fairly and legally.
Stone also told me Swaton said this about Sanchez to a group of voters gathered in her home: "We don’t want him in office. He has his own agenda."
Now, if Stone has accurately reported to me what Swaton said, I find her use of the word "We" extremely compelling. For all practical purposes it confirms my notion there is an organized effort among the city’s establishment to conspire to keep Sanchez from winning the election. I am also struck by her allegedly saying "He has his own agenda."
As if that’s a bad thing. From my vantage point, I think it’s high time there was someone on the council with his/her own agenda. Let me explain. Except for possibly the vote on the recently passed revised wrecker ordinance (which, I have been told, is a farce because it is not being enforced), just about every single item that comes before the city council is either approved or disapproved by a 7-0 vote. There is no dissension, thus there is no discussion.
I, for one, would love to see someone with his/her own agenda on the council. That’s not to say I would agree with that person’s opinion. In fact, I might disagree 100 percent of the time. But the important thing is that dissenter is going to promote additional, hopefully intellectual discussion of the items on the weekly agenda. And without that extra discussion, we the citizens live in ignorance because all we hear is one side. If we, as the voters who are supposed to control the ultimate destiny of the city we call home, are denied all sides of a particular issue, we are denied that basic freedom of choice and become nothing more than marionettes dancing to the tune of those pulling our strings.
And what’s the worst thing that could happen? Well, instead of having all these 7-0 votes, we now have 6-1 votes. And the winner is us, because we become much more informed on at least two sides of many issues, not just the one we are force fed.
Original story: Unfortunately, "negative campaigning" has become a part of the our country’s political process so I guess I shouldn’t be that surprised that negative campaigning has become a part of the Kyle City Council election. What does surprise me, however, is (1) the form this campaigning has taken and (2) it’s not even being directed at a campaign opponent.
Ever since all six of the candidates filed for the two seats up for election in this campaign, I have heard undercurrents of opposition directed toward Place 5 candidate Jaime Sanchez. Nothing overt, mind you, with the possible exception of one elected official hinting to me that Sanchez was "a crook." There was also an e-mail that Mayor Todd Webster sent to five of the six candidates saying he was willing to donate $100 to all the campaigns except for Sanchez's. There has been this subtle message floating around that Sanchez "is not one of us," which is strange since he is the only candidate running who has lived in Kyle since his birth. I couldn’t help but feel that much of the campaign for District 5 involved more "Vote against Sanchez" than vote for one of the other candidates and that many of the city’s "establishment" rallied behind one of Sanchez’s opponents, not because that person was a particularly viable candidate, but because they would do anything to keep Sanchez from being elected.
Then yesterday I spoke to a woman, Rayma Stone, who told me the strangest thing: two city council candidates, Tammy Swaton and Dex Ellisson, neither of whom were running against Sanchez, both came to her house located north of Goforth in Kyle and told her and other voters gathered in her home that, no matter what else they did, they should not vote for Sanchez. (I have left messages for both Swaton and Ellison to respond, but so far neither has chosen to do so.) Stone told me Swaton was particularly "very harsh and mean" when it came to Sanchez, saying the voters there should not cast their ballots for him because, among other things, he once sued the city.
And that’s certainly true. He did sue the city. And you know what else? He won that suit. The court determined Sanchez was right and the city acted illegally when it tried to take from him land for which he had legal title. But just because he sued the city doesn’t make him anti-Kyle. It means he fought the attempts of some city officials to, as the court determined, illegally take from him property he owned. To me, at least, that makes him very much pro-Kyle: He is going to do whatever he can to make sure the citizens of this city are treated fairly and legally.
Stone also told me Swaton said this about Sanchez to a group of voters gathered in her home: "We don’t want him in office. He has his own agenda."
Now, if Stone has accurately reported to me what Swaton said, I find her use of the word "We" extremely compelling. For all practical purposes it confirms my notion there is an organized effort among the city’s establishment to conspire to keep Sanchez from winning the election. I am also struck by her allegedly saying "He has his own agenda."
As if that’s a bad thing. From my vantage point, I think it’s high time there was someone on the council with his/her own agenda. Let me explain. Except for possibly the vote on the recently passed revised wrecker ordinance (which, I have been told, is a farce because it is not being enforced), just about every single item that comes before the city council is either approved or disapproved by a 7-0 vote. There is no dissension, thus there is no discussion.
I, for one, would love to see someone with his/her own agenda on the council. That’s not to say I would agree with that person’s opinion. In fact, I might disagree 100 percent of the time. But the important thing is that dissenter is going to promote additional, hopefully intellectual discussion of the items on the weekly agenda. And without that extra discussion, we the citizens live in ignorance because all we hear is one side. If we, as the voters who are supposed to control the ultimate destiny of the city we call home, are denied all sides of a particular issue, we are denied that basic freedom of choice and become nothing more than marionettes dancing to the tune of those pulling our strings.
And what’s the worst thing that could happen? Well, instead of having all these 7-0 votes, we now have 6-1 votes. And the winner is us, because we become much more informed on at least two sides of many issues, not just the one we are force fed.
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
The Kyle Knight Rises
The first two words in a recent Austin Chronicle story about Electro Purification and its attempt to pump water in Hays County were "Lila Knight." The Kyle resident has been working tirelessly to protect the county’s water supply and to bring a reasonable solution to a controversy that I am not going to detail right now.
For reasons not necessary to explain and are too painful to discuss even if they were necessary, I could not attend tonight’s Planning & Zoning Commission (or the Charter Review Commission that followed it). But I have attended enough P&Z meetings to know how they operate and tonight’s gathering promised to be a real "wham-bam" affair. The entire meeting, if it had gone as the city had planned, would have ended in less time than it will take me to describe how short the meeting should have been.
The first three items on the agenda are always the same: Call to order, roll call of the seven commission members, and citizen comments. When it comes to that third item, chair Michael Rubsam usually gazes for a second at all the empty chairs in the city council chambers and closes the public comments section the meeting five seconds after he opens it. Then if the staff has taken the time to prepare minutes of past meetings, they are routinely approved. Then comes the consent agenda.
For the uninitiated, the consent agenda can be a tricky deal. Theoretically, it is supposed to contain only those items that need not be debated or discussed. They are supposed to be routine, non-controversial items, not requiring individual consideration. By grouping them all together they can be passed by one motion, one second and one vote. There’s no limit to the number of items that can be placed on the consent agenda. I have attended city council meetings (not in Kyle, by the way) where it is routine to have as many as 85 or more items grouped into the consent agenda.
At tonight’s P&Z meeting, the consent agenda consisted of just three items, two of them consisting of approving the final plat of a new 22-acre subdivision located on the northern side of Windy Hill road, about a mile off I-35 in northeast Kyle. Now it did not say so on the agenda itself, but in the materials accompanying the agenda it said the city of Kyle would provide wastewater service for the subdivision but that its water would be "provided by Goforth Water Supply."
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Goforth is one of the three entities – the other two being the City of Buda and the Anthem subdivision located in Mountain City – to contract with Electro Purification for water. But because of the efforts of the aforementioned Lila Knight, a grassroots organization called Save Our Wells, state Rep. Jason Isaac and other watchdogs, that effort seems to have been nipped in the bud. Thus, the Goforth Special Utility District, which was contracted to receive three million gallons of water per day (more than the other two entities combined) from Electro Purification may indeed need to be scrounging elsewhere for its water supply.
But even if EP gets to pump water to Goforth, it is estimated that it will take about a year and a half to construct the pipeline from the wells near Wimberley. Now the way I understand it, there can be absolutely no doubt of the existence of a water supply for the final plat of a subdivision to be approved.
That’s why, at tonight’s P&Z meeting, the opening of the citizens comments section of the agenda was not met with stone cold silence. Ms. Knight stood up, strode to the podium and quite gently and politely, I’m sure, let the commissioners know there might be some question about the availability of water to this subdivision. And it was absolutely certain said water supply could in no way be "certified."
Thus, when it came to the consent agenda, these two items were pulled for individual consideration during which commissioners tried to question staff about whether any of this about :certified water" was true.
The flummoxed staff, however, couldn’t summon up an adequate answer, so the commissioners tabled the items. Which means they will rear their ugly heads at least one more time at a future P&Z meeting.
Watch this space.
For reasons not necessary to explain and are too painful to discuss even if they were necessary, I could not attend tonight’s Planning & Zoning Commission (or the Charter Review Commission that followed it). But I have attended enough P&Z meetings to know how they operate and tonight’s gathering promised to be a real "wham-bam" affair. The entire meeting, if it had gone as the city had planned, would have ended in less time than it will take me to describe how short the meeting should have been.
The first three items on the agenda are always the same: Call to order, roll call of the seven commission members, and citizen comments. When it comes to that third item, chair Michael Rubsam usually gazes for a second at all the empty chairs in the city council chambers and closes the public comments section the meeting five seconds after he opens it. Then if the staff has taken the time to prepare minutes of past meetings, they are routinely approved. Then comes the consent agenda.
For the uninitiated, the consent agenda can be a tricky deal. Theoretically, it is supposed to contain only those items that need not be debated or discussed. They are supposed to be routine, non-controversial items, not requiring individual consideration. By grouping them all together they can be passed by one motion, one second and one vote. There’s no limit to the number of items that can be placed on the consent agenda. I have attended city council meetings (not in Kyle, by the way) where it is routine to have as many as 85 or more items grouped into the consent agenda.
At tonight’s P&Z meeting, the consent agenda consisted of just three items, two of them consisting of approving the final plat of a new 22-acre subdivision located on the northern side of Windy Hill road, about a mile off I-35 in northeast Kyle. Now it did not say so on the agenda itself, but in the materials accompanying the agenda it said the city of Kyle would provide wastewater service for the subdivision but that its water would be "provided by Goforth Water Supply."
Ding! Ding! Ding!
Goforth is one of the three entities – the other two being the City of Buda and the Anthem subdivision located in Mountain City – to contract with Electro Purification for water. But because of the efforts of the aforementioned Lila Knight, a grassroots organization called Save Our Wells, state Rep. Jason Isaac and other watchdogs, that effort seems to have been nipped in the bud. Thus, the Goforth Special Utility District, which was contracted to receive three million gallons of water per day (more than the other two entities combined) from Electro Purification may indeed need to be scrounging elsewhere for its water supply.
But even if EP gets to pump water to Goforth, it is estimated that it will take about a year and a half to construct the pipeline from the wells near Wimberley. Now the way I understand it, there can be absolutely no doubt of the existence of a water supply for the final plat of a subdivision to be approved.
That’s why, at tonight’s P&Z meeting, the opening of the citizens comments section of the agenda was not met with stone cold silence. Ms. Knight stood up, strode to the podium and quite gently and politely, I’m sure, let the commissioners know there might be some question about the availability of water to this subdivision. And it was absolutely certain said water supply could in no way be "certified."
Thus, when it came to the consent agenda, these two items were pulled for individual consideration during which commissioners tried to question staff about whether any of this about :certified water" was true.
The flummoxed staff, however, couldn’t summon up an adequate answer, so the commissioners tabled the items. Which means they will rear their ugly heads at least one more time at a future P&Z meeting.
Watch this space.
Wednesday, May 20, 2015
If we build it, will they come?
According to Assistant City Manager James Earp, the economic development cadre at the City of Kyle would consider the landing of a nice hotel somewhere within the city limits a huge feather in their cap. Not another La Quinta or a Best Western like we already have (both of which, incidentally, are doing quite well, Julie Snyder of the Kyle Chamber of Commerce told the city council last night). But a real hotel, one with an in-house restaurant as well as meeting and banquet rooms which could become the sites of small conventions. A hotel that possibly even provides shuttle service to the Austin airport, the Circuit of the Americas or to UT and Texas State football games.
Problem is, every time the city approaches representatives of these types of hotels, the representatives come back and say "Sorry, the numbers just aren’t there to support that level of an investment in Kyle." Not willing to take "no" for an answer, Earp said the city went first to the company that is consulting them on all things retail and that company said it really didn’t have the expertise to advise the city on the subject of hotels, But, it knew someone who did, Dr. Jeremy Stone, who runs a company called Stone Hospitality and Real Estate. Stone has a bachelor’s degree in environmental design, a master’s in land development and a doctorate urban and regional science. Granted, all three degrees are from Texas A&M, but I am willing to let that slide for the time being. His bonafides appear to be in order.
Last night, the Kyle City Council authorized dipping into the Hotel Occupancy Tax Funds to the tune of $15,000 to $20,000 to pay Stone to, in Stone’s own words:
Or, to put it more succinctly, to determine if what all these other hoteliers have been telling Kyle economic development people is true and, if not, exactly what hotel brand(s) would be the best fit for Kyle.
I asked Earp after the meeting what happens if Stone comes back and says "Yep, everything you’ve heard is true. Kyle is not a good prospect for a hotel of this type." Doesn’t that mean you spent $15,000 to $20,000 for nothing?
Earp, ever the optimist, replied, "Well, at least we will learn what we have to do to attract such a hotel."
Stone promised to deliver his analysis "within four to six weeks after receipt of your written authorization (signed proposal), retainer and the required information." That means we could know something by the end of June or mid-July at the latest.
Watch this space.
Problem is, every time the city approaches representatives of these types of hotels, the representatives come back and say "Sorry, the numbers just aren’t there to support that level of an investment in Kyle." Not willing to take "no" for an answer, Earp said the city went first to the company that is consulting them on all things retail and that company said it really didn’t have the expertise to advise the city on the subject of hotels, But, it knew someone who did, Dr. Jeremy Stone, who runs a company called Stone Hospitality and Real Estate. Stone has a bachelor’s degree in environmental design, a master’s in land development and a doctorate urban and regional science. Granted, all three degrees are from Texas A&M, but I am willing to let that slide for the time being. His bonafides appear to be in order.
Last night, the Kyle City Council authorized dipping into the Hotel Occupancy Tax Funds to the tune of $15,000 to $20,000 to pay Stone to, in Stone’s own words:
- "Perform an in-depth evaluation of the market for operation of a hotel facility.
- "Investigate potential and existing demand on a local and regional scale to determine market sources of demand including transient, weekday/weekend meeting demand characteristics and other trends pertinent to the project.
- "Develop recommendations pertaining to the nature and extent of facilities and services that would be the most effective in attracting and accommodating the identified and existing market sources of demand, and evaluate the proposed facilities’ ability to meet future needs."
Or, to put it more succinctly, to determine if what all these other hoteliers have been telling Kyle economic development people is true and, if not, exactly what hotel brand(s) would be the best fit for Kyle.
I asked Earp after the meeting what happens if Stone comes back and says "Yep, everything you’ve heard is true. Kyle is not a good prospect for a hotel of this type." Doesn’t that mean you spent $15,000 to $20,000 for nothing?
Earp, ever the optimist, replied, "Well, at least we will learn what we have to do to attract such a hotel."
Stone promised to deliver his analysis "within four to six weeks after receipt of your written authorization (signed proposal), retainer and the required information." That means we could know something by the end of June or mid-July at the latest.
Watch this space.
City decides to purchase wastewater facility
 |
| Kyle's wastewater facility |
The relationship between the City of Kyle and Aqua Operations, the company that maintains and operates its one wastewater treatment plant, is about as sweet as the sewage flowing into the plant on a daily basis. It has resulted in a lawsuit that was filed April 25, 2013, by Aqua in the 428th District Court of Hays County that is scheduled for a jury trial beginning Aug. 24. Between the original filing date and now, the two sides have been going back and forth over such matters as evidence, summary judgments and all the other matters attorneys haggle over in cases such as this. My personal favorite came last Oct. 30 when Kyle filed its "reply to Aqua's response to Kyle's objections and motion to strike Aqua's summary judgment evidence." The attorneys for both sides are earning their keep with this one.
Speaking of the attorneys, the Kyle City Council decided it wanted to huddle with their attorney Tuesday night and thus went into executive session to discuss the status of the suit. When they emerged Mayor Pro Tem Diane Hervol announced no action was taken while they were in executive session but now that they were back in public view "I’d like to move to purchase the wastewater treatment plant based on the terms discussed in executive session and bring back the final agreement to council to be approved and executed by July 1, 2015." Council member David Wilson seconded the motion, and the council approved it 6-0 (outgoing council member Samantha Bellows excused herself about an hour earlier to handle some lane closings in I-35).
Whether this brings an end to the acrimonious relationship between the city and Aqua remains to be seen. I guess we’ll know the answer to that by July 1, which falls on a Wednesday, not your typical council meeting day. In fact, the last regularly scheduled council meeting before July 1 would fall on June 16, more than two weeks before the deadline date.
The city first asked Aqua to build and operate a wastewater treatment plant near the end of the last century. Things appeared to be OK for about a dozen years but then in November 2012 more than 100,000 gallons of partially treated sewage spilled into Plum Creek. That spill occurred the day after former Kyle City Manager Lanny Lambert sent Aqua Operations a letter claiming the company had breached their contract. He offered three examples, the first being that more than half of the water quality tests over the past four years showed E. coli levels "seriously above the acceptable levels," proving that Aqua wasn’t maintaining the minimum amount of chlorine in the water required by law." Lambert further alleged in the letter that solids that should be removed during the wastewater treatment process were not, and that if not for filters created by the Plum Creek Golf Course, the solids would be illegally discharged.
Aqua’s lawsuit countered that E. coli levels in a stream have many causes, such as feces from livestock and wildlife, and that the tests don’t accurately represent how much chlorine is in the water that’s discharged from the plant.
And it’s gone round and round from there.
From the limited amount of research I’ve been able to do, the California-based Aqua Operations appears to have a fairly reputable reputation. And since its clients include the City of Los Angeles, IBM, and the U.S. Army, I’m thinking they’re not going to lose much sleep over having to shed themselves of their responsibilities here, especially if this deal means an end to all the litigation. I’m also hoping the city isn’t biting off more than it can chew by trying to purchase and operate the plant itself. We’ll find out soon enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)