CORRESPONDENCE_2008 (1/08 TO 6/08)

Home Browse Search

1• a Mr. Del Frate March 28, 2008 Page 2 In light of this minimal association with the site, and the demonstrated willingness to cooperate in site remediation (short of financial contribution), Caltrans is troubled by the two letters referenced above. These letters appear to be in support of the County's effort to require Caltrans to contribute financially to site remediation. I have read the two cases cited by your counsel to support the principle that a landowner can be a responsible party, along with a previous owner that actually placed the waste at the site. I understand that principle, but do not consider it to be the primary focus of this discussion. What I found more pertinent in those cases was another principle employed by the regulatory agencies responsible for addressing the public health issue at the site. That principle seems to reflect a certain hierarchy among responsible parties, in terms of enforcement priorities. I believe it is a fair statement that enforcement should be directed first at the party who actually placed the waste; a subsequent owner who did nothing to place additional waste, and who did nothing to exacerbate the contamination, should not expect enforcement action unless the original discharger is unable or unwilling to take corrective action. With respect to this site, that original discharger(the County) is currently taking such corrective actions. With this fact situation in mind, Caltrans is puzzled by the two letters referenced above. What is it that the regulatory agencies want that Caltrans has not already offered? Why would the regulatory agencies be threatening a sister state agency when remedial activities have already been initiated by the party who placed the waste? It is possible to read these letters as an improper attempt to allocate financial responsibility for site cleanup. Caltrans believes that formal enforcement action against it in these circumstances would be unnecessary and counter-productive. I personally suspect that any such action would meet with resistance from this Department. Having discussed the legal issue raised by these letters, I wish now to turn to more practical matters related to this site and its remediation. The County and the regulatory agencies will have Caltrans' full cooperation, as has been the case in the past. Our District 10 staff have facilitated full access to that sliver of the site that is within the state right of way. That cooperation and facilitation will continue. We are'prepared to negotiate long-term access to that tiny portion of the site within the state right of way. This access could be provided by right of entry, easement, or however the parties agree would be simplest. Caltrans would even consider relinquishing this small fraction of an acre at no cost to the County, thereby consolidating the entire site under the ownership and control of the party that is primarily responsible for site remediation. "Caltrans improves mobility across California"