Laserfiche WebLink
1 neighbors, and City of Tracy engineers all show that the area drains toward the San. <br /> 2 Joaquin River through various ditches and irrigation district drains. <br /> 3 3• The ditches, drains, and river are all included in the broad interpretation given to the <br /> 4 phrase`waters of the state." <br /> 5 4• Biologist Michael Rugg testified that the wastewater was deleterious to fish. <br /> 6 B. Monetary Penalties for Violations of Fish and Game Code § 5650.1 <br /> 7 The Court imposes a penalty of$350,000.00 as a civil penalty based on at least 14 days of <br /> %3 <br /> 8 violation during the three years preceding the filing of this action under.section 5650.1. The Cot rt has <br /> 9 made findings above that defendants discharged pollutants into the ditches bordering their pmpe on <br /> 10 at least the 14 days specific days listed above in the discussion regarding Water Code section 11385 <br /> 11 penalties and possibly additional days based on direct eyewitness testimony and strong circumstantial <br /> 12 evidence. The Court finds that the maximum daily penalty pursuant to Fish and Game Code s tion <br /> 13 5650.1 is warranted based in combination with all evidence presented in this matter,the findings 'sled <br /> 14above, and in light of the repeated and long-lasting discharges. <br /> 15 This Court specifically considered the penalty factors in section 5650.1 (c)ofthe Fish and Game <br /> 16 Code. <br /> 17 C. Mandatory and Permanent Injunctive Relief is Ordered for the Third Cause of Actio <br /> 18 Pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 5650.1, the Court orders injunctive relief parall 1 in <br /> 19 every way to the mandatory and prohibitory injunctive provisions outlined above in the Second Cause <br /> 20 of Action. <br /> 21 V <br /> 22 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION <br /> 23 A. Further Findings of Fact <br /> 24 1. Defendants caused the disposal of wastewater on at least sixteen occasions during the <br /> 25 five years preceding the complaint. <br /> 26 2. The waste in this case was tested in the laboratory. The laboratory results were admitted <br /> 27 by stipulation. Exhibit 15. <br /> • 28 3. An expert testified that such concentrations are toxic to aquatic life, and harmful to the <br /> 11 <br />