Orange County Coastkeeper v. Rancho Sierra Vista

CourtDistrict Court, C.D. California
DecidedJanuary 5, 2021
Docket8:20-cv-01993
StatusUnknown

This text of Orange County Coastkeeper v. Rancho Sierra Vista (Orange County Coastkeeper v. Rancho Sierra Vista) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, C.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Orange County Coastkeeper v. Rancho Sierra Vista, (C.D. Cal. 2021).

Opinion

1 || Sarah Spinuzzi (SBN #305658) ORANGE COUNTY COASTKEEPER 2 |/3151 Airway Avenue, Suite F-110 3 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Tel: 714.850.1965 4 || Email:sarah@coastkeeper.org 5 Attorney for Plaintiff 6 || ORANGE COUNTY COASTKEEPER 7 S. Wayne Rosenbaum (SBN #182456) 8 || ENVIRONMENTAL LAW GROUP LLP g Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101 10 Tel: 619.231.5858 1] || Email:swr@envirolawyer.com 12 || Attorney for Defendants 13 || RANCHO SIERRA VISTA, 4 RANCHO HHO LAND CORPORATION

15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 ORANGE COUNTY COASTKEEPER, a Civil Case No. : 19 || California non-profit corporation, 8:20-cv-01993JVS(KESx) 20 Plaintiff, CONSENT DECREE 21 VS. 22 RANCHO SIERRA VISTA, a California 23 Corporation; RANCHO HHO LAND (Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 24 |} CORPORATION, a California Corporation| 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.) 25 Defendants, 26 27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 CONSENT DECREE 2 The following Consent Decree is entered into by and between Orange County 3 Coastkeeper (“Coastkeeper” or “Plaintiff”) and Rancho Sierra Vista, a California 4 Corporation (“RSV”) and Rancho HHO Land Corporation, a California Corporation 5 (“Financial Guarantor” and, together with RSV, “Defendants”). The entities entering this 6 Consent Decree are each an individual “Settling Party” and collectively the “Settling 7 Parties.” 8 WHEREAS, Coastkeeper is a 501(c)(3) non-profit public benefit corporation 9 organized under the laws of the State of California, with its main office in Costa Mesa, 10 California; 11 WHEREAS, Coastkeeper’s mission is to protect the region’s water resources so 12 they are swimmable, drinkable, and fishable for present and future generations; 13 WHEREAS, RSV operates an equestrian boarding facility (“Facility”) on the 14 property located at 31441 Avenida De La Vista in the City of San Juan Capistrano (the 15 “City”), State of California (the “Property”) where it stables approximately 335 horses 16 year-round; 17 WHEREAS, Financial Guarantor is the owner of the Property where RSV 18 operates its equestrian stabling business; 19 WHEREAS, the City owns and operates a municipal storm drain that transects the 20 Property; 21 WHEREAS, the Property is serviced by two privately owned historic storm water 22 conveyances for which the parties have been unable to identify a functioning surface 23 outfall; 24 WHEREAS, on or about February 10, 2020, Coastkeeper sent a letter to 25 Defendants of Coastkeeper’s intention to file suit after the expiration of sixty (60) days 26 for certain alleged violations of the federal Water Pollution Control Act pursuant to 40 27 C.F.R. § 135.2 (“Notice Letter”) attached hereto as Exhibit A. 1 WHEREAS, Coastkeeper alleges that RSV’s operations at the Facility result in 2 discharges of pollutants to Trabuco Creek, the main tributary to San Juan Creek, which 3 discharges to the San Juan Creek Mouth and the Pacific Ocean (“Receiving Waters”), and 4 further contends those discharges are regulated by the Clean Water Act, Sections 301(a), 5 402, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342; 6 WHEREAS, Financial Guarantor has agreed to act as the financial guarantor for 7 monetary obligations of RSV set forth in this Consent Decree; 8 WHEREAS, on April 10, 2020, Coastkeeper and Defendants executed a 30-day 9 Tolling Agreement to facilitate dry and wet weather inspections of the facility and 10 discuss engineering solutions to evaluate and resolve Coastkeeper’s Clean Water Act 11 allegations; 12 WHEREAS, On April 10, 2020, in a letter attached hereto as Exhibit B, the San 13 Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) identified RSV as a Medium 14 Confined Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) and directed RSV to file a Notice of Intent 15 (NOI) through the State Water Board’s Stormwater Multiple Application & Tracking 16 System (SMARTS) to obtain coverage under the Statewide General Permit for Storm 17 Water Discharges Associated with Industrial Activities, Order No. 2014-0057-DWQ as 18 amended (“Industrial General Permit” or “IGP”) and develop and implement a site- 19 specific Nutrient Management Plan (NMP) pursuant to subdivision 40 C.F.R. § 20 122.42(e), or demonstrate a “No Discharge” condition, and apply for a Notice of Non- 21 Applicability (NONA) under XX.C of the IGP; 22 WHEREAS, on May 8, 2020, Coastkeeper and Defendants executed a 30-day 23 extension of their Tolling Agreement; 24 WHEREAS, on June 16, 2020, Coastkeeper and Defendants executed a second 25 30-day extension of their Tolling Agreement; 26 WHEREAS, on October 16, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendants 27 in the United States District Court, Central District of California (Civil Case No. : 8:20- 1 cv-01993), alleging violations of § 301(a) and § 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 2 1311(a), and violations of the IGP at the Facility (the “Complaint”); 3 WHEREAS, the Settling Parties have agreed that it is in their mutual interest, and 4 therefore choose, to resolve Coastkeeper’s allegations in the Notice Letter through 5 settlement and entry of this Consent Decree to avoid the cost and uncertainties of 6 litigation; 7 WHEREAS, Plaintiff alleges RSV to be in violation of the substantive and 8 procedural requirements of the IGP and the Clean Water Act with respect to the Facility; 9 WHEREAS, RSV denies all allegations in the Notice Letter and Complaint 10 relating to the Facility; 11 WHEREAS, the Settling Parties have agreed that it is in their mutual interest to 12 enter into a Consent Decree setting forth terms and conditions appropriate to resolving 13 the allegations set forth in the Complaint without further proceedings; 14 WHEREAS, all actions taken by RSV pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be 15 made in compliance with all applicable federal and state laws and local rules and 16 regulations. 17 NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED BETWEEN THE 18 SETTLING PARTIES AND ORDERED AND DECREED BY THE COURT AS 19 FOLLOWS: 20 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 21 Section 505(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a); 22 2. Venue is appropriate in the Central District of California pursuant to Section 23 505(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), because the Facility is located 24 within the Central District of California; 25 3. The Complaint states claims upon which relief may be granted pursuant to 26 Section 505(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1); 27 4. Plaintiff has standing to bring this action; 1 5. The Court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of enforcing 2 the terms of this Consent Decree for the life of the Consent Decree, or as long thereafter 3 as is necessary for the Court to resolve any motion to enforce this Consent Decree. 4 I. OBJECTIVES 5 6. It is the express purpose of the Settling Parties entering into this Consent 6 Decree to further the objectives set forth in the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund
590 U.S. 165 (Supreme Court, 2020)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Orange County Coastkeeper v. Rancho Sierra Vista, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/orange-county-coastkeeper-v-rancho-sierra-vista-cacd-2021.