Fears of building on a toxic superfund site. Not that Aerojet has caused most of the well water in Rancho Cordova to be capped and marked as toxic. Or the fact that Aerojets polution has seeped under the American River and polluted the wells of Carmichael. And the plumes have been proven to cause cancer.
I don't know about "most" of the groundwater beneath Rancho being affected by the Aerojet plume, but you are right in that the subsurface plume has crossed the American River in places. A most unfortunate scenario, but thankfully it is now being addressed.
But hey, what does this have to do with the Railyard project, which also has its own groundwater situation?
Nothing.
Are all the residents in Rancho and as far west as the fringes of Carmichael having an impact from contaminated water hundreds of feet beneath them? Have they evacuated most of Rancho?
Of course not.
Why? There is no risk to residents at the ground surface.
Yes, the Aerojet groundwater contamination has gotten into the aquifers that some utility wells withdraw water from. These have been identified years and years ago and have been idled or had carbon treatment systems installed at the wellheads to remove the trace level organic contaminants. Additional wells have been installed within the plume and beyond its leading edge, and active measures have been taken and are ongoing to halt the progress of the plume as well as shrink its size.
All this has NOTHING to do with the Railyard project or trying to draw some far-fetched parallel that a problem will still reside there at the surface when construction begins.
Wait there is more. Remember the other AFB in sacramento McClellan? It will only be a few thousand years before that superfund site is clean. And to top it off the government is trying to skirt it's responsiblities on cleaning up the water for the residents of Rio Linda.
McClellan is a worse problem because the AF used much more solvents there than at Mather. McClellan was an aircraft maintenance facility for most of its life, and Mather was a training school for the majority of its life. McClellan's contamination is amongst the worst found at any active or closed AF base, and it will indeed take along time to clean up completely.
But guess what? Mather Field thrives. McClellan Park thrives.
There is no more contamination anywhere at Mather at the surface that creates a risk to human health or the environment. The same is true, for the most part, at McClellan, and so development has proceeded there, thankfully for the sake of the region's economy. Where any residual concerns might exist at or near the surface at McClellan, those areas are fenced, posted, and off limits to public access until they are finally addressed.
I have no idea what the status of negotiations is with Rio Linda and the need to replace a portion of their water supply. I was involved with one utility who lost a well to service near Mather, and I can tell you that they unreasonably asked for so, so much it dragged the negotiations to a halt for long time before a middle ground was reached.
Again, what does all this have to do with the Railyard project?
Nothing.
So you have to ask why I question the authorities when they make stupid remarks that a superfund site has actually been cleaned up. BS the ammount of money needed to clean these site would be off the charts. It's like placing a band aid over a bullet wound. They say the railyard is clean, but if you believe it then buy a house on the property and drink the tap water.
Big distinction here between cleaning up the surface of a former contaminated site to allow development and cleaning up groundwwater, which is always a very long-term proposition. GW cleanup almost always has no bearing on surface development in the area.
Many Superfund sites have already been cleaned up and taken off the books. Most of those did not have major groundwater problems as the contamination stayed in the near-surface soils. The cost of dealing with a surface and/or near-surface problem is often not that expensive, so please don't spout out random unsubstantiated statements that these sites really don't get cleaned up because it's too expensive.
You are acting out of fear and mistrust which has no basis in reality and, most pertinent to this thread, has no basis in the Railyard development.
If the Railyard GW problem is substantial, the cleanup of that water will go on for a long time. But so what? The surface is clean for development, the near-surface is or will soon be clean for development, and the GW there is not used.
