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

Home Browse Search

I stream of complaints received by the County Health Department[Exhibits 39,40 42]. • 2 11. Complaints in January and March, 1996 correspond to testimony of San Joaquin C ounty 3 Dairy Inspector Bill Marchese, who saw frothy, brownish water leaving the dairy that 4 winter. 5 12. Neighbor Janet Stapleton testified that most winters since she moved to Grant Line Road 6 in 1993 wastewater flooded the Grant Line/Mountain House Parkway intersection. As 7 a result her car needed frequent cleaning, the smell was sickening, and she and (others 8 often detoured to avoid the intersection. When she could not avoid it, on occasion it 9 destroyed her appetite. 10 13. The Regional Board's Louis Pratt responded to a complaint on January 29, 1997. At that 11 time he photographed and sampled an overflow around the pond's north berm he 12 estimated at 30 gallons per minute? 13 14. Two days later Pratt testified that he saw the same overflow,unabated. Rainfall rc cords 14 showing rains for the 45 preceding days,indicate that the overflow may have lasted for • 15 several weeks? 16 15. The testimony and videotape offered byneighborRichard Huettisshowedthatsignificant 17 water was already in the area,probably from Patterson Run creek,on January 23, 997. 18 [Exhibit 103] It is more likely than not that the Defendants discharged hundreds of 19 thousands of gallons over several days in January, 1997. 2016. An expert in aquatic biology,Michael Rugg, California Department of Fish and ame zl I The complaints were admitted for the limited purpose of proving the fact and date of 22 - their receipt. At a minimum they demonstrate that the community was sufficiently 23 offended by the"overflows,""boil,"and "leaks" as to complain to the county. z Purely as a reference, the Court notes that 30 gallons per minute translates to 24 approximately 43,200 gallons per day. 42,200 gallons/day(43,200 gallons minus 1000 gallons) multiplied by $25.00 per gallon plus $25,000.00 per day yields a potential 25 penalty under Water Code section 13385 of$1,080,000.00 for that single day. 26 3 The Court received in evidence official rainfall data,Exhibit 50. The pattern of rainfall 27 preceding the January 29-31, 1997 discharge observed by Pratt strongly suggests that the discharge began weeks previous to January 29, 1997. Nonetheless, the Court imposes 28 no separate penalty for dates prior to January 23, 1997,when videotape evidence shows significant surface flows in the area of the dairy. Defendants presented no evidence that they abated discharges during this period. 4