My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
ARCHIVED REPORTS_LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SUMMARY OF PROJECT TO DATE
EnvironmentalHealth
>
EHD Program Facility Records by Street Name
>
M
>
MOUNTAIN HOUSE
>
22261
>
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
>
PR0524586
>
ARCHIVED REPORTS_LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SUMMARY OF PROJECT TO DATE
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/14/2020 5:26:04 AM
Creation date
3/19/2020 2:40:11 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
EHD - Public
ProgramCode
2900 - Site Mitigation Program
File Section
ARCHIVED REPORTS
FileName_PostFix
LIMITED PHASE II ENVIRONMENTAL SITE ASSESSMENT AND SUMMARY OF PROJECT TO DATE
RECORD_ID
PR0524586
PE
2950
FACILITY_ID
FA0016498
FACILITY_NAME
LUCKY J DAIRY
STREET_NUMBER
22261
Direction
S
STREET_NAME
MOUNTAIN HOUSE
STREET_TYPE
PKWY
City
TRACY
Zip
95391
APN
20906008
CURRENT_STATUS
02
SITE_LOCATION
22261 S MOUNTAIN HOUSE PKWY
P_LOCATION
99
P_DISTRICT
005
QC Status
Approved
Scanner
SJGOV\sballwahn
Tags
EHD - Public
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
118
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I B. Evidence Supporting Injunctive Relief <br /> 2 The Regional Board formally found that the Defendants violated the regulations and <br /> 3 "caused or permitted and threatens to cause or permit waste to be discharged into the waters of <br /> 4 the state and had created, or threatens to create, a condition of pollution or nuisance." (Exhibit <br /> 5 11, finding 14.) Those issues are res judicata. <br /> 6 The longstanding violations alone suggest the likelihood of future violations. Defendants <br /> 7 offered no evidence of a dramatic climate change that will make future winter discharges <br /> 8 unlikely. To the contrary, they strenuously press the point that upstreamchanges make their <br /> 9 situation ever more precarious. <br /> 10 Defendants' attitude toward their violations also demonstrates the need for a detailed <br /> 11 injunction. They failed to address known problems at the dairy during twenty years. When <br /> 12 ordered to take action,their responses were low budget and dilatory. Finally,defendants <br /> 13 testified that they have done all that is possible, except Joe J. Machado, who adamantly declared <br /> • 14 that he has done nothing to improve the dairy. <br /> 15 Louis Pratt, who is familiar with hundreds of dairy waste-handling systems, testified <br /> 16 regarding what changes are needed_ He recommends that the defendants should, at a minimum: <br /> 17 (1) build high,compacted berms around the facility to divert clean stormwater from <br /> 18 manured areas; <br /> 19 (2) increase the capacity of the pond through construction and annual cleaning; <br /> 20 (3) install two valves between the pasture and the pond,-.one.which could,-be opened to <br /> 21 allow contaminated runoff to drain into the pond, the second which could be opened to direct <br /> 22 clean stormwater off of the property; <br /> 23 (4) construct roofs over the corrals, as most dairies do, to keep the animals and those <br /> 24 manure-covered areas dry; <br /> 25 (5) grade the corrals to eliminate standing water, and capture the drainage therefrom. <br /> 26 With guidance from a professional engineer familiar with animal waste handling systems, <br /> • 27 the Defendants should determine the proper location to build a new pond. No one knows the <br /> 28 actual volume of the existing pond. Kleinfelder's Mr. Nephew explained that he had no way to <br /> Plaintiff's Post-Trim A,;-c I <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.