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

Home Browse Search

1 2 VI • FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 3 A. Further Findings of Fact 4 1` The same evidence regarding the dischargeste establishes the existence of a public 5 nuisance. This nuisance has been ongoing for a period of several years 6 2. The Severson testified regarding 7 o inundation of their yard and well with Defendants 8 3• ' wastewater, rendering their.water unfit for drinking or bathing for months at a_ e. Janet Stapleton described the inconvenience 9 and offeree she, and presumably hundreds of others, experienced by driving through a public intersection flooded 10 Defendants' discharwithges. 11 4' The number of Huggins Bill complaints to San Joa 12 Marchq�County Public Health, as attested by 13 e ese, and Larry Godhino, demonstrate that the discharges wer nuisancesome to many. 14 S. Mandatory and Permanent Injunctive Relief is Ordered for the Fifth Cause of Action 15 The maintenance of a dairy without adequate holding capacity orstructural inte 16 contain its sewage inevitably results in the discharge of manure into grity to 17 threatening aquatic life human health, and the enjoyment surface waters of the state, of the natural resources by the citiz 19 3479 and 3480 of the 18 California, and constitutes a continuing nuisance to the surrounding environs pursuant to ens of California Civil Code. Section 20 The Court finds that a nuisance has existed and does exist as an alternative basis for ordering 21 injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Court orders in'unctive reliefParallel in eve wa 22 mandato J P ry and prohibitory injunctive provisions outlined above ' every Y to the 23 m the Second Cause of Action. 24 VII SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 A. Further Findings of Fact 26 1. This Dai P y Dairy has Operated in a nuisance condition nuousl for the four years 27 conti •28 sIt is the discharges of wastewater, not the lawful operation of a d nuisance. �, P mrY, which constitutes a 13