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

Home Browse Search

I the need for an injunction. • 2 36. Information provided by the Defendants as to improvements over the past decade has 3 been considered. 4 37. The pond did not and does not have adequate capacityto contain the dairy's wastewater. 5 38. No catastrophic event occurred that would relieve defendants of liability. 6 39. Regardless of any additional possible contributing causes,Defendants were responsible 7 for the off property discharges of manure laden water. J 8 40. The Dairy needs immediate improvements as outlined below. The Dairyd the 9 Defendants have been on notice of the need for these improvements for over 15 ears. 10 The Defendants have known that the Plaintiff was seekingmandatory orY injunctive relief I I at least since service of the complaint in this action. 12 41. The Court considered all of the pleadings, the site visit, the testimony,the exhibits and 13 the arguments presented in this matter,including but not limited to the specific findings 14 listed above, in determining both injunctive and monetary penalties. • 15 B. Monetary Penalties for Violations of Water Code§ 13385 16 The Court imposes a penalty of$350,000.00 as a civil penalty for at Ieast 14 specific days of 17 violation during the three years preceding the filing of this action. The Court has made findings above 18 that defendants discharged pollutants into the ditches bordering their property on at least 14 specific days 19 and possibly additional days based on direct eyewitness testimony and strong circumstantial evi nce. 20 The Court awards the maximum daily penalty pursuant to Water Code section 13385(a) (5) and ) (1) 21 without imposing the potential additional per gallon penalty on these Defendants. Having coni ered 22 the evidence presented in this matter,the penalty factors set forth in Water Code section 13385(e) and 23 in light of the repeated and long-lasting discharges,this Court finds that the maximum penalty pa 7 day 24 for each the fourteen days listed above is wan-anted." 25 Thus,pursuant to Water Code section 13385(a)(5)and(b)(1),Defendants are liable forapenalty 26 27 " The discharges were repeated over numerous years despite the Defendants knowledge • 28 thereof and despite wammgs and notices being sent to the Defendants. The Dairy's location close to residences and relatively near drains that enter the San Joaquin 'ver increased the environmental harm and potential for harm in this case. 8