Laserfiche WebLink
I of$25,000 "for each day in which the violation occurs,"yielding a total penalty of$350,000. 0. <br /> • 2 Defendants failed to establish any defense. Defendants did not establish that the penalty sh uld be <br /> 3 reduced below the maximum due to the absence of environmental harm12 or due to their inabilit to pay <br /> 4 a penalty.13 <br /> 5 C. Mandatory and Permanent Injunctive Relief is Ordered for the Second Cause of Action <br /> 6 This Court finds that permanent injunctive relief and immediate mandatory injunctive relief is <br /> 7 necessary and now orders such relief for the Second Cause of Action.11 The Court also fords pursuant <br /> 8 to section 13360(b) of the Water Code that simply restraining the defendants from dischargingould <br /> 9 be impracticable under the circumstances, and therefore requires the following specific measures <br /> 10 (mandatory injunctive provisions): <br /> 11 1_ Build hi p ty <br /> high, compacted berms around the facility to divert clean storm waterfrom <br /> 12 manured areas, by December 31, 2000; <br /> 13 2. Increase the capacity of the pond to at least three million cubic feet of available cal acity. <br /> 14 and maintain that capacity by annual cleaning, by December 31,2000; <br /> 15 3. Install two valves between the pasture and the pond,one which could be opened to allow <br /> 16 contaminated runoff to drain into the pond, the second which could be opened to direct <br /> 17 clean storm water off theProPrh', Y <br /> e b December 31,2000; <br /> 18 <br /> 19 <br /> 13 Z People ex rel. State,4irResources Bd. v. Wilmshurst(1999)68 Cal.AppAth 1332, 1 51. <br /> 20 <br /> Rich v. Schwab (1998) 63 Ca1.AppAth 803, 817. <br /> 21 14 Water Code section 13386 expresslyprovides for injunctive relief"Upon anythreatened <br /> or continuing violation." The Legislature has determined(1)that significant public harm <br /> 22 will result from the violations and(2)that injunctive relief may be the most appropriate <br /> wayto protect against that harm." As discussed in the People's Trial brief,these statutes <br /> 23 do not require some of the traditional equitable prerequisites for injunctive relief to be <br /> established. <br /> 24 Substantial evidence presented at trial supports the need for injunctive relief in this <br /> 25 matter. Alternatively, the Regional Board:formally found that the Defendants violated <br /> the regulations and "caused or permitted and threatens to cause or permit waste to be <br /> 26 discharged into the waters of the state and had created,or threatens to create,a condition <br /> of pollution or nuisance." [Exhibit 11, finding 14.] Those issues are res judicata. <br /> 27 The longstanding violations alone suggest the likelihood offutureviolations. Defendants <br /> • 28 offered no evidence of a dramatic climate change that will make future winter.discharges <br /> unlikely. To the contrary, the Defendants*strenuously pressed the point that upstre <br /> changes make their situation ever more precarious. <br /> 9 <br />