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

Home Browse Search

1 4. Grade the corrals to eliminate standing water and capture the drainage there m, by 2 December 31, 2000. • 3 1 Construction ofroofs over the corrals will not be required as the evidence did not show j1is was 4 1 necessary to prevent run off and the injunction is drawn narrowly in this aspect. 5 This Court finds that Defendants, attitude toward their violations demonstrates the ne d for a 6detailed injunction,15 With guidance from a professional engineer familiar with animal waste h mdhng 7 systems,the Defendants should determine the proper location to build the new pond or series o ponds 8 now ordered." 9 Additionally, this Court orders pursuant to Water Code section 13386 a permanent prohibitory 10 injunction enjoining all four defendants from(1)allowing manure-containing waste waterto escape the 11 wastepond,pastures,and corrals onto adjacent roadways and ditches; and,(2)allowing standing water 12 in corrals or any manured areas. 13 TV. 14 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION • 15 A. Further Findings of Fact 16 1. The Defendants collected manure in a pond and corrals,but through a seriesofo"sions 17 and mismanagement, allowed the manure-containing runoff to leave the corrals and 18 waste pond on numerous occasions. 19 2• The topographic map [Exhibit 1 and 1A], and testimony of Louis Pratt, several 20 21 IS The Defendants have failed to address known problems at the Dairy duringtwee 22 When ordered to take action, their responses were low budgetanddiltory. Finally, Defendants testified that they have done all that is possible,except Joe J.Machado,who 23 adamantly declared that he has done nothing to improve the Dairy. 24 Louis Pratt, who is familiar with hundreds of dairy waste-handling systems, testified convincingly regarding what changes are needed. 25 'b There were conflicting calculations as to the appropriate pond volume. In several 26 documents Defendants claimed to have apond exceeding 2 million cubic feet in volume. [Exhibits 4, 32, and 33; Attachment 2, to Plaintiff's Post-Trial Brief summarizes that 27 evidence.]Application of the University of California Guidelines would require a pond of between 2.1 million and 3.2 million cubic feet (depending on whether a rainy • 28 season/holding period of 120 or 180 days is assumed). Given the history of dischaaii�ges and the possibility of a 180 day rain season,the Court orders that thepond be consirudted near the larger end of the recommended range, 10