SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

James L.L. Barton,P.G. April 13. 2007 Page 8 of 14 enclosed as Exhibit 5. Accordingly. my client leased the property to Rainbo Baking Company of the Sacramento Valley as of July 1, 1991. A copy of that lease is enclosed as Exhibit 6. As indicated in the indemnity which our client signed with Rainbo Baking, the latter was to be indemnified as to any liabilities involving underground storage tanks. The reason for my client's indemnification of Rainbo is that she knew that Interstate was responsible for any liabilities involving underground tanks, as well as any other liabilities under the 1954 lease. It was not until five (5) years later that Interstate Brands began its response actions(in 1996), and my client sold the property in 1999. 3. .11y client took due care during all times during her ownership with regard to any contamination of which she knew Bright have been on the property during her ownership. It is abundantly clear that my client at all times took due care with regard to any contamination of which she knew that might have been on or under the property. Interstate Brands began its response action in 1996 as a result of its 42 plus years of ownership of the lease, with the maintenance, repairs and rebuilding of the property, and payment of all taxes and insurance. (As the assignments and other documentation show. Interstate stepped into the shoes of American Bakeries and the other bakery companies that owned and operated their businesses on the property.) My client always reasonably assn ned that Interstate would proceed expeditiously and appropriately to complete the necessary response actions. 4. .4 y client is not a responsible part under the Porter-Cologne Act because she never caused or permitted, or threatened to cause or permit waste to be discharged where it threatened to create pollution or a nuisance. Nor did she create or assist in creating any nuisance on the property. On the specific facts of this matter, my client should not be considered a `.responsible party" under any definition in any statute enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board. Of course. we are aware that the State Board has used broad definitions in several older reported decisions. But. today my client is clearly a "passive landowner'who did not "maintain" a"nuisance.•' She did not ignore any contamination problem, because she knew that Interstate Brands had committed itself to making any necessary repairs and had promised that it would not allow any conditions of nuisance to remain on the property. As you know. Section 13304(a) of the Water Code defines "responsible party" as "[a]ny person who ... has caused or permitted, causes or permits, or threatens to