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

Home Browse Search

I rainfall totals. Johnson testified that no 25-year,24-hour storms took place during the period of • 2 the 1998 discharge, or indeed, since 1949. 3 Neighbor Wayne Severson testified that for 25 years he has lived on Grant Line Road 4 east of the dairy. Including children and grandchildren,the household ranges from eight to 5 fourteen people. He has seen numerous discharges from the pond; at least five times those 6 discharges flooded his yard with wastewater. 1n January, 1998 there were breaks in the ponds . 7 berm which dairy employees tried to fix with shovels. Mr.Wayne Severson took a number of 8 photographs along Grant Line Road and in his backyard [Exhibits 14A through P1. Onephtito 9 shows that the flow in the ditch began at the dairy,not further west on Grant Line Road. 10 [Exhibit 14 G], Mr.Severson saw Bruce Kimbrough cleaning the ditch on Grant Line Road to 11 facilitate the escape of the wastewater to the east. When they spoke, Mr. Kimbrough joked 12 about the smell endured by passing drivers once they reached home. 13 Mrs. Severson and son Randy Severson also recalled discharges, "more than five" an • 14 "dozens," respectively. Mrs. Severson pinpointed one incident on January 25, 1998,the date 15 they celebrated a granddaughter's birthday. The wastewater entered the residence's water pump, 16 septic system, and all internal plumbing—including the showerhead,toilet tank, and washing 17 machine --for a period of three months during which white clothes would not come clean. 18 In addition to the trial testimony, the Defendants are bound by the Regional Board's 19 findings set out in Exhibit 11,including the 1997 and 1998 discharges. Those findings were 20 never challenged, and are final and unreviewable under the exhaustion doctrine and by stati te.8 21 22 23 January through March, "to see what was going on in that time frame," despite being apprised 24 that the case involved a February 18 incident. 25 7 . The Kimbroughs petitioned for a writ of mandate vacating the order based asserted 26 constitutional defects. After remand and an evidentiary hearing, the Regional Board re-affirmed • the Cleanup and Abatement Order. See Exhibit 66. 27 8 . See, generally, Abelliera v. Dist. Ct. (1941) 17 Cal-2d 280, 292 (exhaustion 28 doctrine); Water Code §13330(c) (unchallenged findings "shall not be subject to review by y court").