210 Cal. App. 4th 1255
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- In 2007 the Regional Board issued Order R5-2007-0035 governing existing milk cow dairies in the Central Valley and purporting to prevent groundwater degradation.
- The Order does not prohibit discharges into groundwater but relies on groundwater monitoring to detect degradation, which the court found inadequate for timely detection.
- Approximately 1,600 dairies are subject to the Order, with herd sizes from 30 to 10,000 cows, generating vast daily manure and urine loads.
- The Order imposes requirements for ponds, drainage, land application with a nutrient management plan, and a monitoring program, but relies on supply-well monitoring rather than strategically placed monitoring wells.
- Evidence showed historical groundwater degradation from dairy operations, with monitoring indicating high nitrate/salt impacts even where groundwater is deep or naturally filtered.
- The trial court denied relief, but the court of appeal reversed, holding that the antidegradation policy applies and that the Order fails to satisfy required findings and adequate monitoring.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the antidegradation policy apply to the Order? | Appellants argue policy applies due to existing high-quality groundwater and discharges into it. | Regional Board argued policy not applicable because the Order prohibits degradation. | Yes, antidegradation policy applies. |
| If applicable, does the Order satisfy Step One of Resolution 68-16 (maximum benefit, no unreasonable harm, maintain high quality)? | Findings fail to show consistency with maximum benefit or protection of beneficial uses due to inadequate monitoring. | Order and Information Sheet claim alignment with maximum benefit by preventing degradation. | No; findings are inadequate and circular. |
| Does the Order meet Step Two (best practicable treatment or control) for all major degradation sources? | Best practicable treatment not shown for milk parlors and corrals; only ponds and land application addressed. | Best practicable treatment or control found for ponds and land application; other sources implied by the record. | Not sufficiently addressing all major degradation sources. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bixby v. Pierno, 4 Cal.3d 130 (Cal. 1971) (abuse of discretion standard; weight of evidence governs findings)
- Margolin v. Shemaria, 85 Cal.App.4th 891 (Cal. App. 2000) (independent judgment on questions of law)
- Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization, NE 19 Cal.4th 1 (Cal. 1998) (court reviews agency interpretations of law with deference only for certain issues)
- Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, 11 Cal.3d 506 (Cal. 1974) (necessary to review whether findings support decision)
- Environmental Protection Information Center v. California Dept. of Forestry & Fire Protection, 44 Cal.4th 459 (Cal. 2008) (findings must bridge analytic gap between evidence and decision)