SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

James L.L. Barton. P.G. April 13. 2007 Page 10 of 14 Code) prohibits the discharge or threat of discharge of wastes by "responsible parties." And, of course in 1991 (atter the above-referenced decisions) the State Board promulgated Sections 2720 of Title 23 to define"responsible party." And it is true that $2720(3) includes as a "responsible party,""Any owner of property where an unauthorized release of a hazardous substance from an underground storage tank has occurred..." And. it is true that in 2002 the State Board issued its decision in In re Mohammadian. Order WQ02002-0021, in which an oil company owned. but did not operate. a gas station property for two years. The property had suffered a leak from USTs before the oil company purchased the property— a leak which was found during. the oil company's "dormant" ownership but which was never reported. Id. at p. 9. The State Board found that the oil company was a "responsible party'—but primarily because of its unclean hands in not reporting the discovery of the leak. No such unclean hands exist here. The facts in the present case do not support any finding by the Regional Board that my client is in any way a"responsible party" according to Section 13304(a), Water Code. She simply never"caused or permitted" a discharge. She was never"directly involved with a discharge," nor were her actions ever a "substantial factor in causing" a discharge. She did not fail to report a leak—and thus cause a spreading of pollution. She did not even know about a leak: Interstate did and it finally did begin response actions. To the extent that 23 CCR 2720(3) is used as authority to hold my client liable, Section 13304 of the Porter-Cologne Act does not authorize it to be applied on the facts here. On the facts here,my client should not be found liable due to mere ownership of the property. The California court of appeals,in a decision after Mohammnadian explained the foundation of the definition of"responsible party" in the Porter- Cologne Act. As the Court of Appeals explained in City of Modesto Redevelopment Agency v. Superior Court(Dow Chemical Co.) (I" DCA. June 28. 2004) 113 Cal.App.4`h 28. 37. 38: "....the Legislature not only did not intend to depart from the law of nuisance, but also explicitly relied on it in the Porter-Cologne Act.