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

Home Browse Search

1 daily penalty for 1461 days, yielding a total penalty of$146,100 pursuant to the Business & 2 Professions Code. 3 E. Circumstances Pertaining To Penalty 4 As previously briefed in the People's Trial Brief,the statutory maximum is the presumed 5 to be the appropriate penalty amount under the Water Code. Moreover,on the facts of this case, 6 justice requires the maximum penalty. Although penalties can be imposed simply on a strict 7 liability basis,these Defendants were negligent, in light of long awareness of the violations. In 8 fact, the longstanding, repetitive similar violations suggests a deliberate course of conduct by the 9 Defendants_ 10 The People believe that the failure to improve the property cannot be explained as mer 11 accident on Defendants' part. The Defendants testified that they were aware of the legal 12 requirements and the series of discharges.2' A strange pattern of delays and temporary low-cost 13 repairs is difficult to understand in light of the environmental consequences and effects upon • 14 their neighbors. Moreover, defendants were apparently aware that some improvements, such 15 roofs over their cows,would actually save them money, as Bruce Minbrough explained to Louis 16 Pratt and Robert Matteoli during summer, 1998. Curiously, the most expensive single 17 improvement to the dairy, a$21,000 pump, is portable personal property. 18 The stubborn refusal to make capital improvements is consistent with a plan to leave the 19 property in the near future. As Bruce Kimbrough told Mr. Atwal,he plans to move the dairy' 20 when Mountain House community is built. Thus the dairy,.which Joe.Machado allows his 21 daughter and son-in-law to operate, is merely a place holding strategy as real estate values rise_ 22 Improving the waste system by making permanent improvements at the dairy would benefit oily 23 24 24 . Defendants' combined experience in the dairy industry exceeds 97 years. Mr. 25 Pratt gave the regulations to the Kimbroughs. Joe J. Machado testified that he was aware of d e 26 governing laws, and in fact had been in litigation under those very laws. Bruce Kimbrough testified at his deposition that he has always "definitely" understood, including at the time of tie 27 1982 discharge, that wastewater cannot leave the dairy. [Exh. 19,p. 2201 The evidence showed that the Kimbroughs lived very close to the intersection where s 28 many witnessed discharges. In a telling conversation when Mr. Atwal confronted Mr. Kimbrough, Mr. Kimbrough told Atwal to "file a complaint, everybody else has"