Laserfiche WebLink
e5-04--1995 09:29AM FRO{M�+�ALAMO <br /> • c <br /> �. ) ` <br /> There are several responsible parties who are <br /> p openly named in the order. <br /> • The cleanup is proceeding. <br /> .3. Susan mase <br /> As we indicated above, the current landowner, <br /> h wever blameless for the existence of the problem, should be <br /> i cl.uded as a responsible party in a cleanup order. we have <br /> taken that position many times .in the past and have never ruled <br /> t the contrary. Thus, we find that the RWQCB was correct in <br /> naming Susaxi Rose in its order. <br /> . The •i.ssue, of secondary liability remains. This <br /> concept is one which we have discussed in a relative few of our <br /> orders. We first used it, without that label, in our order <br /> concerning the development of solar power plants in the Southern <br /> C li.fornia desert, (See petition of Southern California Edison, <br /> Order No. WQ -11 . ) Later we applied the principle to a mining <br /> o )eration on federal land. (See Petition of U.S. Department of <br /> Agriculture, order No. WQ 87-5. ) in both cases, the Regipnal <br /> W ter Board had decided to place the petitioner in a position sof <br /> secondary responsibility and we concurred. <br /> We first applied this principle ager the wishes of the <br /> Regional Water Board in another 1987 order." (See Petition sof <br /> F udential Insurance Company of America, order No. WQ 87-6. ) <br /> There we found that the Unique facts of that case (a Xorg-herrn <br /> -lease with little actual access along with a cleanup that was <br /> X11 under way) justified putting the landowner in a position <br /> here it would have no obligations under the order unless and <br /> 7 . <br /> I <br />