Laserfiche WebLink
1 could do in light of the heavy rains and drainage onto the property. No expertise is required to <br /> • 2 understand that a pond surrounded by proper levees on four sides could be built to exclude <br /> 3 unwanted stormwater. It is not relevant how much area drains in the direction of the pond: 12 <br /> 4 acres, as Defendants told the Board when it was to their advantage [Exhibits 32, 34]; 148 acres, <br /> 5 as they conceded at trial; or thousands of acres in the Patterson Run Creek watershed, as they <br /> 6 implied at trial. <br /> 7 What is relevant is that the defendant waited until the summer of 1997 to surround their <br /> 8 pond, and even so installed a pipe to defeat the purpose of the surrounding berms. Defendants <br /> 9 did not regularly remove accumulated solids from the pond. To.this.day the design and location <br /> 10 of the pond does not allow complete cleaning even with a 50-foot reach excavator. <br /> 11 Storm activity does not explain the frequent leaks, boils, and overflows from the waste <br /> 12 pond, as evidence by comparison of rainfall data [Exhibit 501 to known discharge dates. <br /> 13 Defendants' repeated emphasis on 1998 rainfall highlights the absence of any similar <br /> • 14 explanations for the years between 1982 and 1997. <br /> 15 <br /> 16 II. EQUITABLE REMEDIES <br /> 17 A. Standard For Injunctive Relief <br /> 18 Water Code section 13386 expressly provides for injunctive relief "[u)pon any <br /> 19 threatened or continuing violation". Health &Safety Code section 25181 allows for injunctins <br /> 20 when "any person has engaged in,is engaged in, oris about.to.engage.in" any violation. The <br /> 21 Legislature has determined(1) that significant public harm will result from the violations an (2) <br /> 22 that injunctive relief may be the most appropriate way to protect against that harm.,,16 As <br /> 23 discussed in the People's Trial brief, these statutes delete some of the traditional equitable <br /> 24 prerequisites for injunctive relief. <br /> 25 <br /> 26 16 . IT Corp. v. County of Imperial(1983) 35 Ca1.3d 63,70. The IT Corp. case <br /> • 27 involved the somewhat higher burden for obtaining a preliminary injunction. The California <br /> Supreme Court concluded that the usual balancing of harms from the grant or denial of <br /> 28 preliminary relief was generally not needed in enforcement cases if(1) the statute provided fof <br /> injunctive relief, and (2) the government was likely to prevail on the merits. <br /> Plainti ff'c <br />