Laserfiche WebLink
818 F.Supp. 292 <br /> (Cite as:818 F.Supp.292, k296) Page 9 <br /> authorized to implement these provisions. Both <br /> and its inappIicaliiiity to refined petroleum spills. <br /> Congress and the California Legislature,therefore,have I <br /> shown a preference that spilled petroleum and *297 III.DISPOSITION <br /> hazardous substances be treated separately. See also <br /> Wilshire Westwood Assoc. v. Atlantic Richfield, 881 <br /> F.2d 801, 805-08r.1989 Ci <br /> 9th In light of the it plain meaning of section 25317's <br /> ( )(examining legislative <br /> history of Superfund's petroleum exclusion clause in language 1� excluding refined petroleum and its <br /> light of later amendments to the statute and concluding constituents from the Act,the EPA's and Ninth Circuit's ! <br /> that Congress intended to address spilled petroleum broad interpretation of the nearly identically-worded <br /> from underground tanks separately from spilled "petroleum exclusion" in federal CERCLA, and the <br /> hazardous wastes). apparent intent of the Legislature to leave refined <br /> petroleum'out of the Act, defendant's motion to dismiss <br /> [4] Finally, Amicus argues that the funding of the the causes'of action rooted in the Act must be granted. <br /> Underground Storage Tank Program was derived from } <br /> the California Superfund Act. Amicus contends that,in i} <br /> appropriating these funds from the Act's Bond Fund(§ The court realizes the concerns this ruling may raise. <br /> 25385.6), the Legislature knew that the expenditure Without clarifying action by the California Legislature, 1 <br /> was governed b 25310's"well established"principletoday's holding could impede future efforts by the <br /> g y§ yover <br /> o Department to enforce clean-ups under the Act <br /> that all the limitations contained in the Act carry over to involving refined ;petroleum spills. Nevertheless, the <br /> the new program. This assertion is unfounded for two I <br /> reasons: (1) Section 25310 contains the Act's plain meaning of the Act's petroleum exclusion is <br /> "Definitions,"and nowhere does that section limit Bond inescapable. In the absence of controlling authority, <br /> Fund expenditures to the terms of the Act, and(2) the this court is compelled to reach this conclusion. It is <br /> provisions of the Bond Fund authorize several possible <br /> for the California Legislature, not the courts, to clarify <br /> expenditures from the Fund (for example, to provide the Act if the Legislature wants to include refined <br /> the state share of remedialaction costs under the petroleum;; Accordingly, plaintiffs third and fourth <br /> federal Superfund), but the terms of the Fund nowhere causes of action under the Act are <br /> prohibit the Legislature from using the Fund for other <br /> purposes. Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that DISMISSED. <br /> the Legislature designed the Underground Tank 1� <br /> Program as a response to the shortcomings of the Act END OF DOCUMENT <br /> i` <br /> I� <br /> Il <br /> !t <br /> itpp T <br /> I} r <br /> � E <br /> li <br /> 3 iE <br /> t <br /> } <br /> i� <br /> i} <br /> SII <br /> Copr. ©West 1998 No Claim to Orig.U.S Govt.Works <br /> � f <br /> 1} <br />