Laserfiche WebLink
1 measure the depth. Nevertheless,Defendants' expert Steve Deis testified that he calculated the <br /> 2 capacity as 860,000 cubic feet. In any event, the only fair conclusion to be drawn from the <br /> 3 evidence at trial is that the existing pond is far from adequate in terms of both capacity and the <br /> 4 integrity of its construction. <br /> 5 In closing arguments, defense counsel argued rhetorically "how big a pond do you hav <br /> 6 to build?" in light of the fact that storms could occur on multiple days after a pond designed for <br /> 7 a single 24-hour storm was full. The argument concedes the obvious: one must plan for both <br /> 8 winter precipitation and a single 25-year,24-hour storm. There was no.conflict in the eviden ie <br /> 9 on this point. Defendants, their engineers, and the guidance document.all make calculations <br /> 10 based on an entire rain season.17 <br /> 11 There were conflicting calculations as to the appropriate pond volume. In several <br /> 12 documents Defendants claimed to have a pond exceeding 2 million cubic feet in volume. <br /> 13 [Exhibits 4, 32, and 33; Attachment 2, hereto summarizes that evidence] Application of the <br /> • 14 University of California Guidelines would require a pond of between 2.1 million and 3.2 millon <br /> 15 cubic feet (depending on whether a rainy season/holding period of 120 or 180 days is assume'). <br /> 16 It would seem fair to require construction of at least the pond Defendants claimed to have <br /> 17 had. To be conservative,in light of the environmental dangers posed by the waste generated at <br /> 18 the dairy, the court should order construction of a pond or series of ponds with at least 3 million <br /> 19 cubic feet of available capacity by October 1,2000. <br /> 20 <br /> 21 <br /> 22 <br /> 23 <br /> 24 17 . Defendants tendered to the Regional Board their calculation for a pond, wing <br /> annual rainfall of 13.5 inches, and referring to wash water used over a 120 day period bit <br /> 25 33, pp. 10, 11.1 Defendants submitted an earlier calculation assuming a storage period o150 <br /> 26 days_ [Exh. 32] Defendants' engineers believed it appropriate to calculate based on 120 ys of <br /> . precipitation plus a 25-year, 24-hour storm. [Exhibit 34.] The University of California <br /> 27 recommends designing to hold "average rainfall" plus wash water for 90 to 180 days, plus the, <br /> 25-year, 24-hour storm. The UC Extension guidance gives an example calculation for h ]ding <br /> 28 pond "storage needed to contain the dairy wastes and runoff for 120 days." [Exhibit 36, . 21 , 5, <br /> 6] <br /> Plaintiff's Pn-- ;� ' <br />