SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

James L.L. Barton.'P.G. April 13. 2007 Page 9 of 14 cause or permit any waste to be discharged or deposited where it is, or probably will be, discharged into the waters of the state and creates, or threatens to create, a condition of pollution or nuisance." My client never"caused or permitted"or threatened to 'cause or permit'any contamination from the UST which had been owned by. and which was removed by. interstate Brands to be discharged or deposited where it created or threatened to create a condition of pollution or nuisance. A failure of Interstate five(5)years after my client sold the property is not legally sufficient to charge my client as a `,responsible party" according to the California Water Code. Section 13304(a), et al. My client did not cause or permit or threaten to cause or permit the creation of a condition of pollution or nuisance at no tinte during her ownership—nor call she be charged with doing so f ve (5)years after she lost the title to the property. The gasoline was already in the groundwater and the 1.000 gallon UST had been j removed before my client inherited the property in 1999. She did nothine to make the situation any worse. She had nothing to do with (lie activity that caused the leak. The State Board has named prior owners as responsible parties only where they trere involved in the activity that created the pollution problem See • ht re Petition of Harold&Joyce Logsdon, SWRCB Order No. WQ 84-6 (Harold Logsdon, while individually the site owner. was the president of the company which polluted the site); • In re Petition ofStinnes-1 estern Chemical Corp., SWRCB 86-16 (Predecessor in interest of petitioner was past owner. who actively engaged in chemical packaging at the site, and there was "credible and reasonable evidence that spills did occur while the prior landowner both owned and occupied the.site."Id., at p. 13). • Lr r-ePetition ofBOCGroup, lilt., SWRCB WQ 89-131 (former manufacturing company left UST in ground which was causing pollution). 5. 11"hatever the law pray have been some years ago, it is clear that the courts ►vottld regard my client as a "non-responsible part"who was never directly involved with any "discharge"and whose actions were never a "substantial factor in causing"a discharge. Section 13304(a) of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Calif. Water "...the Porter-Cologne Act,not CERCLA and the I lealth and Safety Code,is the applicable California law. /d.,at p.2.