ARCHIVED REPORTS_LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SUMMARY OF PROJECT TO DATE

Home Browse Search

sem. ..::... :: +.ate:(ra.•i.; � .. a 1 the State's inability to obtain compliance from Defendants. Richard Yanez recalled pond 2 overflows "a few times" during the 1980's. 3 The Regional Board next inspected the dairy in November, 1988,in response to an 4 overflow. No rain preceded the overflow [Exhibit 50 and summary thereof in attachment 1]. 5 Accordingly, the only fair inference is that the daily washing of cows and bam floors 6 overwhelmed the pond's capacity at that time. The Kimbroughs explained at the time that the 7 pump had failed again; the Regional Board appeared to accept the explanation in that it did not 8 take further steps at the time against the dairy. 9 B. The Second Decade Of Discharges 10 In March of 1993,Louis Pratt saw that the wastewater pond had overflowed into the 11 roadside ditch and onto adjacent property. Pratt also saw stormwater ponded in and around the 12 corrals. 13 After the 1993 discharge,the Regional Board required Defendants to complete a detailed 14 questionnaire regarding their operation. In their response [Exhibit 4],Defendants conceded that 15 they did not know whether they had the capacity to divert or retain stormwater which came i 16 contact with manured areas. The response also established that as of 1993 Defendants were 17 aware of the run-on from the BBID and were aware that they Dairy was subject to the influe,ice 18 of Patterson Run Creek. 19 According to the Defendants' testimony, they took no steps to develop answers to the 20 questionnaire's critical questions regarding ability to comply with the law by controlling 21 stormwater. Instead, defendants claim they simply waited—apparently for years —to hear more 22 from the Regional Board. During the following years a series of further discharges during u.-i- 23 -23 exceptional rain events provided further confirmation that the facility was not capable of 24 diverting or containing stormwater. The evidence supports an inference that the Defendants 25 who were in the best position to know the extent.of pond overflows, were aware of its 26 deficiencies throughout the 1990's. 27 The dairy continued to offend neighbors during the mid-1990's, as evidenced by a steady 28