Laserfiche WebLink
1 19063 Cal.St.Wat.Res.Bd.) (A landowner who permits degradation to occur may not escape <br /> 2 responsibility by hiding behind its tenant); In the Matter of the Petition of John Stuart.Dbin¢ <br /> 3 Business as Stuart Petroleum, Order No. WQ 86-15 (1986 WL 25522 Cal.St.Wat.ReS.Bd.). <br /> 4 In this matter, Turnpike Associates, had a fee simple ownership interest in the <br /> 5 Property during the period that the UST was being operated, and when the discharge in all <br /> 6 likelihood occurred. Further, Turnpike Associates had to know that the UST was being operated <br /> 7 as its partners were in control of its alleged lessee,R. Goold & Son. Finally, as owners of the <br /> 8 property, Turnpike Associates had the legal ability to prevent the discharge. Thus, Turnpike <br /> 9 Associates should be held liable for the contamination whether it was caused by its lessee or by <br /> 10 the partnership itself. <br /> 11 C. It Was Improper to Remove Turnpike Associates as a Responsible <br /> Party. <br /> 12 <br /> The records of the SJCEHD evidence the fact that in 1994, when it was determined <br /> 13 <br /> that further investigation of the site was necessary, the SJCEHD considered Turnpike Associates <br /> 14 <br /> a responsible party. Turnpike Associates was named as a responsible party and participated in <br /> 15 <br /> the process required by the SJCEHD. The facts have not changed since 1994. Thus, it was <br /> 16 <br /> improper to remove Turnpike Associates as a responsible party. <br /> 17 <br /> In the Matter of the Petition of Mehdi Mohammadian, Order No. WQO 2002-0021 <br /> 18 <br /> (2002 WL 31694368 CaI.St.Wat.Res.Bd.), the Board held as follows: <br /> 19 <br /> [I]t is not appropriate for an LOP agency to remove a person who has been <br /> 20 properly named as a responsible party for cleanup of an unauthorized <br /> release unless it finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that <br /> 21 constituents from that party's release, when taken in conjunction with <br /> commingled constituents from another release(s)that have similar effects <br /> 22 on beneficial uses, do not contribute to the need for cleanup at the site. <br /> Imposing a more stringent standard for removing an otherwise properly <br /> 23 named responsible party than for naming responsible parties in the first <br /> instance is consistent with our well-established policy of ensuring that, <br /> 24 when there is reasonable evidence of responsibility,multiple parties be <br /> named in order to promote cleanup of a demonstrated water quality <br /> 25 problem. (See Ibid. See also SWRCB Order WQ 86-16, In the Matter of <br /> the Petition of Stinnes-Western Chemical Corporation.)Moreover, a <br /> 26 balancing of the equities dictates that, whenever possible, a responsible <br /> party should not be left to clean up constituents attributable to a different <br /> 27 release for which that party is not responsible. The burden of producing <br /> evidence to support removal as a responsible party rests with the <br /> 28 discharger. <br /> DAMRELL,NELSON <br /> SCHRIMP,PALLIOS <br /> PACHER&SILVA <br /> A Professional 6 <br /> Corpomtion <br />