Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00837/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00837-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 33:1365 Environmental Matters

---

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

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DELTAKEEPER CHAPTER OF

BAYKEEPER, a California nonprofit corporation, MOTHER LODE

CHAPTER OF SIERRA CLUB, a

California non-profit

corporation, and WATERKEEPER

ALLIANCE, INC., a New York notfor-profit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

S & H DAIRY, a California

general partnership, RONALD

HILARIDES, an individual, PETER

SCHAAFSMA, an individual,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv-0837 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

Discovery Cut-Off: 8/1/07

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 8/15/07

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 8/30/07

Settlement Conference Date:

11/28/06 Ctrm. 9 1:30

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 11/19/07 11:00 Ctrm.

3

Trial Date: 12/11/07 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (CT-10 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

November 2, 2006.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Layne Friedrich, Esq., appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Eric Bronson, Esq., appeared on behalf of Defendants. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. S & H Dairy, Peter Schaafsma, and Ronald Hilarides,

(collectively referred to as “Defendants”), are owners and/or

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 1 of 23
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

28

 See Confined Animal Feeding Facilities in California,

1

November 2004.

2

operators of a concentrated animal feeding operation (“CAFO”)

located at 3945-4125 Bentley Road, Oakdale, CA 95361 (referred to

as the “S & H CAFO”). The S & H CAFO currently houses

approximately 2,400 dairy cattle. The S & H CAFO produces many

types of waste material, such as liquid and solid manure,

bedding, spilled or spoiled feed, animal hair, wastewater runoff

from corrals and other areas, wash water, cleaning compounds, and

contaminated sediment and dirt (collectively referred to as “CAFO

Waste”). The operations at the S & H CAFO, such as flushing the

concrete alleys in freestall barns which house the cows with

water and washing the cows prior to milking, generates at least

34 million gallons of wastewater each year (up to 189,000 gallons

per day). Wastewater is also generated at the S & H CAFO when

rainfall contacts manured areas, such as the corrals and other

areas where the cows are kept, manure storage areas, spoiled

feed, and other pollutant source areas at the S & H CAFO. This

wastewater contains manure and other solids, pathogens, ammonia,

total dissolved solids, total suspended solids, toxic metals, and

other pollutants associated with dairy farming. Manure may

contain “arsenic, copper, selenium, zinc, cadmium, molybdenum,

nickel, lead, iron, manganese, aluminum and boron” as well as

antibiotics and growth hormones. The Defendants store and/or 1

dispose of wastewater in lagoons or other surface impoundments at

the S & H CAFO. Wastewater in lagoons is discharged when the

lagoon breaks, spills over top, or otherwise fails to contain the

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 2 of 23
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

28

3

waste. Wastewater is also discharged when the wastewater

collection and/or return systems fails to contain the waste.

2. The Defendants dispose of their CAFO waste by spraying

and/or flooding the waste on croplands or other open fields owned

or operated by the Defendants. When CAFO waste is over applied

or misapplied to the land application fields, or during the wet

season when storm water contacts the S & H CAFO land application

fields, pollutants can be discharged into local waterways. For

example, on February 28, 2005, the Defendants discharged

approximately 285,000 gallons of wastewater from the S & H CAFO

to local waterways. Among other environmental impacts caused by

CAFOs, the EPA recognizes CAFOs as significant sources of

phosphorus, especially due to the runoff from land application

areas. Wastewater, CAFO waste, and/or polluted storm water,

generated at the S & H CAFO discharges to drains and laterals,

including the Cleveland Drain, the Kuhn Drain, Stowell Lateral,

Thompson Lateral, the Modesto Irrigation District Main Canal

(“MID Main Canal”), and ultimately the Stanislaus River and the

San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta.

3. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C.

§ 1251 et seq. (“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”) prohibits the

discharge of pollutants to waters of the United States unless the

discharger applies for, obtains, and operates in compliance with

a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”)

permit. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1342. The Clean Water Act

defines “pollutant” to include solid waste, biological materials,

heat, rock, sand, industrial waste, and agricultural waste, among

others. 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6). Section 502 of the CWA defines a

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 3 of 23
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

28

4

“point source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete

conveyance, including ... any ... concentrated animal feeding

operation.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). Under the Clean Water Act,

all point sources that discharge pollutants to a water of the

United States must obtain a NPDES permit for their discharge. 33

U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342(a). 40 C.F.R. § 122.21(a) provides that

“[a]ny person who discharges pollutants ... and does not have an

effective permit ... must submit a complete application” for an

NPDES permit. This duty to apply for an NPDES permit applies to

CAFOs. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(d)(1) (2003); 40 C.F.R.

§ 122.21(a) (2002). An animal feeding operation that has more

than 700 mature dairy cows is a CAFO. 40 C.F.R. §

123.23(b)(4)(i) (2003); 40 C.F.R. Part 122 Appendix B (2002). 

The CAFO as a whole is a point source and the owner and operator

are required to obtain NPDES permit coverage for discharges from

the CAFO to waters of the United States. 40 C.F.R. § 123.23(a)

(2003); 40 C.F.R. Part 122 Appendix B (2002). On February 12,

2003, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”)

promulgated regulations requiring all then-existing CAFOs to

obtain an NPDES permit and comply with the new regulations by

April 14, 2003. 40 C.F.R. § 122.23(g)(1) (2003). All owners and

operators of dairy CAFOs are required to comply with regulations

set forth at Sections 122.23, 122.42(e) and Part 412 of Title 40

of the Code of Federal Regulations. 40 C.F.R. § 123.25 (2003).

Prior to April 14, 2003, CAFO owners/operators were required to

comply with regulations set forth at 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.23, 122

Appendix B, and Part 412 (2002). 40 C.F.R. § 123.25 (2002). 40

C.F.R. §§ 412.31(a)(1), 412.32(a)(1), and 412.33(a)(1) (2003)

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 4 of 23
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

28

5

prohibit the discharge of manure, litter, or process wastewater

into waters of the United States from the production area unless

the discharge is caused by runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rain

event, the production area is designed, maintained, and

constructed to contain all manure, litter, and process wastewater

including runoff from a 25-year, 24-hour rainfall event, and the

production area is operated in compliance with 40 C.F.R.

§§ 412.37(a) and 412.37(b) (2003). Further, the CAFO must attain

the limitations set forth above as of the date of permit

coverage. 40 C.F.R. § 412.31(a)(3) (2003). Failure to comply

with these requirements is a violation of Section 301(a) of the

CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). Although some of the 2003 federal CAFO

regulations were challenged and are being modified, the

requirements to apply for and obtain an NPDES permit to regulate

discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States has not

changed. Defendants have not applied for or obtained the

required NPDES permit for their operations at the S & H CAFO. 

The failure to apply for and obtain the required permit

regulating the S & H CAFO is a violation of the Clean Water Act. 

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief to require

Defendants to comply with the substantive and procedural

requirements of the Clean Water Act. Plaintiffs also seek the

imposition of civil penalties, which are mandatory for violations

of the Clean Water Act, as well as the reimbursement of

reasonable litigation costs.

4. Defendants applied for and obtained coverage under the

State of California’s State Water Resources Control Board (State

Water Board) Water Quality Order No. 97-03-DWQ National Pollution

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 5 of 23
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

28

6

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for

Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Industrial Activities

Excluding Construction Activities (“Storm Water Permit”). While

Defendants’ coverage under the Storm Water Permit signals their

knowledge of the regulations requiring NPDES coverage for

discharges of pollutants, the Storm Water Permit does not contain

the federal regulations or requirements applicable to CAFOs and

thus does not adequately or completely regulate operations at the

S & H CAFO. Therefore, while Defendants have obtained a permit

for their discharges of storm water, they are still in violation

of the Clean Water Act because they have not applied for or

obtained a permit to regulate the discharge of wastewater from

the S & H CAFO. Additionally, Plaintiffs contend that Defendants

are in violation of the Storm Water Permit for discharging

pollutants in violation of the terms of the Storm Water Permit,

for failing to develop and/or implement a storm water pollution

prevention plan which meets the requirements of the Storm Water

Permit, and for failing to develop and/or implement a monitoring

and reporting program that meets the requirements of the Storm

Water Permit. Violations of the Storm Water Permit are

violations of the Clean Water Act. Plaintiffs’ complaint seeks

declaratory and injunctive relief to require Defendants

compliance with the Storm Water Permit. Plaintiffs also seek

civil penalties and the reimbursement of its reasonable

litigation costs.

Defendants’ Summary

5. Defendants S & H Dairy, Peter Schaafsma, and Ronald

Hilarides (“Defendants”), are owners and/or operators of a

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 6 of 23
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

28

7

concentrated animal feeding operation (“CAFO”) located at 3943-

4125 Bentley Road, Oakdale, CA 95361 (referred to as the “S & H

CAFO”). The S & H CAFO currently houses approximately 2,400

dairy cattle and is designed to fully contain all wastewater

produced by its dairy operations. Initially, this wastewater is

temporarily held in a large lagoon, but it is ultimately pumped

to land application areas where crops are grown. These crops

need and uptake the nutrients provided by the wastewater -

without it, commercial fertilizers would have to be provided to

achieve optimal growth.

6. There are a number of laws and regulations that are

meant to minimize pollution to the environment, both as to water

and air, that are applicable or potentially applicable to CAFOs,

including the S & H CAFO. Plaintiffs have specifically alleged

violations of the Federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 et

seq.), although there are numerous California laws and

regulations that also apply with regard to potential water

pollution (the subject matter of this lawsuit). The agency

tasked with implementation and enforcement of all of these

federal and state water pollution laws is California’s State

Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) and its nine

Regional Water Quality Control Boards (“Regional Water Boards”). 

These state agencies have primary responsibility for the

coordination and control of water quality. The Regional Water

Board with jurisdiction over CAFOs located in California’s

Central Valley Region is known as Region 5 (“Region 5").

7. With regard to federal water pollution laws, the State

Water Board (and the Regional Water Boards under it) derives this

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 7 of 23
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

28

 This draft modified CAFO Rule specifically addresses one 2

of the issues in this case, whether a CAFO has a “duty to apply”

for a permit simply because it has had a discharge in the past. 

In its “Revised National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

Permit Regulation and Effluent Limitation Guidelines for

Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations in Response to Waterkeeper

Decision [Waterkeeper Alliance, et al. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2d

Cir. 2005)],” released on June 30, 2006 (70 FR 75771), the EPA

made it clear that it does not believe that a past discharge, in

and of itself, triggers a duty to apply: “In order to guide CAFOs

in making a decision on whether or not to seek permit coverage,

EPA suggests that Large CAFOs falling into one or more of these

categories should consider seeking permit coverage (this list is

not intended to be exhaustive): .... 4. Where the CAFO has had a

discharge in the past and has not corrected the factors that

caused the discharge to occur.” (Emphasis added.) (71 FR 37751) 

Defendants believe the meaning of this language could not be more

clear - if a CAFO has “corrected the factors that cause the

discharge to occur,” then the EPA is not even suggesting that a

CAFO NPDES permit be sought, let alone requiring it.

8

power as the implementing agency designated by the Federal

Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”). The EPA is in the

process of developing a “CAFO rule” to assist implementing

agencies and CAFO operators in understanding their legal

obligations under the Clean Water Act and in assisting operators

in choosing whether or not to apply for a permit under the

National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”). 

Although a CAFO Rule was promulgated in 2003, it was immediately

challenged by both environmental groups (including some of the

Plaintiffs in this action) and agricultural groups. Many

portions of the 2003 CAFO rule were overturned by the Second

Circuit Court of Appeals and the EPA has recently released a

draft revised CAFO Rule, which will likely be finalized, in some

form, sometime in 2007.2

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 8 of 23
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

28

9

8. With regard to state water pollution laws, the State

Board is granted this power by statute under the Porter-Cologne

Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne), in which the

California Legislature declared that the “state must be prepared

to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the

quality of the waters in the state from degradation ...” 

(California Water Code Section 13000). The State Board and

Regional Boards also work cooperatively with other state

agencies, including the Department of Fish and Game and state and

local prosecutors, as well as federal EPA agents and attorneys

from the Department of Justice, to enforce all of the laws under

their jurisdiction.

9. As set forth on the State Board’s website

(http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/npdes/cafo.html), “California has

approximately 2,200 dairies with an average size of about 700

milk cows. There are also several hundred feedlots, poultry

operations, and other animal feeding operations (AFOs) in the

state. California regulations refer to these operations,

including concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), as

“confined animal facilities” (CAFs). The exact number of

facilities that are CAFOs based on animal populations is unknown

but is estimated at between 1,000 and 1,200 ...

10. Each Regional Water Board develops the regulatory

program it uses for CAFs. Most of the commercial CAFs are in the

Central Valley Region, including over 80 percent of the dairies. 

There are about 150 dairies and feedlots in the Santa Ana Region

and about 200 dairies (mostly smaller facilities with less than

300 milk cows) in the North Coast and San Francisco Bay Regions. 

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 9 of 23
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

28

10

There are also some CAFs in other regions, including a few CAFOs. 

Dairies and feedlots in the Santa Ana region operate under a

General NPDES permit that requires preparation of an engineered

waste management plan. Most of the CAFs in the Santa Ana Region

do not apply manure to cropland.

11. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control

Board was developing a general NPDES permit for dairies, but

stopped when the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that only

facilities discharging to a water of the United States need a

permit. Such discharges are prohibited at CAFs in California,

and as a result of a strong enforcement program, few of these

discharges occur. The Central Valley Water Board is now

developing a general Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order to

regulate the dairies. The WDR Order is essentially a state

permit, and a tentative version of the order is expected in mid2006.

12. The WDR Order will require the dairies to develop and

implement nutrient management plans and to submit annual reports.

The permitted facilities will pay an annual fee that is based on

animal population and ranges from $200 to $4,000 plus a surcharge

to support the Surface Water Ambient Monitoring Program (SWAMP). 

Since impact to groundwater is the major concern at these CAFs,

the WDR Order is expected to require groundwater monitoring at

some facilities.

13. As part of the WDR Order implementation process, in

October 2005 dairies in the Central Valley Region were required

to submit a Report Of Waste Discharge (ROWD) and pay a filing fee

equivalent to the first annual fee. Approximately 99% of the

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 10 of 23
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

28

11

1,650 dairies did so.

14. As a CAFO and a CAF, the S & H CAFO operates according

to the orders issued by Region 5, including an individual Waste

Discharge Requirement (“WDR”), which prohibit CAFOs and CAFs from

having any non-agricultural storm water discharges of wastewater

produced by the CAFO/CAF. (Under applicable regulations,

agricultural storm water discharges are exempt under the Clean

Water Act.) Despite this prohibition, on February 28, 2005,

after a heavy rain had caused run-off from the production areas

of the dairy to fill the lagoon to the point that defendant

Hilarides was concerned that it might overflow, he pumped

wastewater for about two hours onto the land application areas of

the S & H CAFO, without checking to confirm that the valve that

allowed agricultural storm water to drain off the land

application areas was closed. Unfortunately, the valve was open

and the land application areas were saturated from the heavy

rainfall, so some of the wastewater, along with excess rainfall,

discharged off of the S & H CAFO into the Cleveland Drain, where

it mixed with agricultural storm water from both the S & H CAFO

and other farms adjacent to the drain.

15. Defendants received a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) from

Region 5 regarding the February 28, 2005 discharge. The NOV

specifically stated that the discharge was in violation of, among

other statutes and regulations, the Clean Water Act, and that the

violation was “subject to enforcement action.” The NOV requested

that Defendants submit a written report outlining the management

practices to be implemented “to prevent further discharges of

wastewater.” Defendant Hilarides submitted the requested report,

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 11 of 23
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

28

12

apologizing for the lapse in judgment that led to the discharge

and taking full responsibility for it. Defendant Hilarides also

set forth the actions he would take “to eliminate the possibility

of future wastewater discharges to the Cleveland Drain and

ultimately into the Modesto Irrigation District.” These actions

included a commitment to dredge the lagoons more frequently to

create more holding capacity for wastewater, as well as the

expenditure of over $200,000 to install a manure “solids

separator.” This solids separator would remove the manure solids

from the wastewater, which would not only create more holding

capacity but also lower the nutrient content of the wastewater

applied to the land application areas. The solids themselves

would be composted into useable fertilizer.

16. However, despite these corrective measures, Region 5

also followed through with “enforcement action” by coordinating

with the Stanislaus County District Attorney’s Office. A

“Complaint for Injunction, Civil Penalties and Other Relief” was

filed on September 13, 2005 and a “Stipulated Judgment for

Injunction, Civil Penalties and Other Relief” was filed on

September 16, 2005. This judgment permanently enjoined

Defendants from “[v]iolating any environmental offenses” and

imposed civil penalties totaling $13,419.70 (of which $6,000 was

stayed if no other violations occurred for three years) and

$580.30 for filing fees.

17. Defendants have complied with the terms of the

Stipulated Judgment and there have been no discharges of

wastewater from the S & H CAFO since the discharge that was the

subject of Region 5's enforcement action. In addition,

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 12 of 23
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

28

 Pursuant to the Clean Water Act’s federal implementing 3

regulations, 60 days notice of a person’s intent to file a

complaint asserting CWA violations must be sent to the

responsible parties. Pursuant to RCRA, 90 days notice prior to

filing suit must be given. Plaintiffs sent the notice on April

21, 2006 and filed the complaint for violations of the CWA on

June 30, 2006. The parties have been conducting settlement

talks, and Plaintiffs believe that the parties can settle the CWA

13

Defendants have installed the solids separator (at a total cost

of over $200,000) and have hired a consultant to develop a more

formalized and technical Nutrient Management Plan (“NMP”), even

though Region 5 does not yet require it. (Region 5 is presently

developing a general WDR that it intends to require all CAFOs and

CAFs to follow, and it is anticipated that this general WDR will

require the development and implementation of a more formalized

and technical NMP than is currently required. Defendants

anticipate that their new NMP will be developed by November 2006

and they intend to implement it as soon as possible thereafter. 

In addition, Defendants remain ready, willing and able to

promptly abide by whatever future directives they receive either

from Region 5 or the Court, whether that be participation under a

general WDR (as currently proposed by Region 5), a general CAFO

NPDES permit (if Region 5 changes direction) or an individual

CAFO NPDES permit (as Plaintiffs insist is required).)

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties have been conducting settlement talks since

June 2006 in an effort to resolve the action without protracted

litigation. Plaintiffs believe that settlement is in the

parties’ best interest and thus have not sought to amend their

complaint to add RCRA claims. The parties are currently 3

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 13 of 23
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

28

claims; thus Plaintiffs have not sought to amend the complaint at

this time.

14

discussing scheduling a settlement meeting with all parties,

including client representatives, and thus would like to continue

to focus on settlement for the next couple months. Plaintiffs

therefore propose February 1, 2007, as the last day to join

parties or amend pleadings. Defendants propose December 5, 2006,

as the last day to join parties or amend pleadings.

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. The S & H Dairy is a general partnership organized

under the laws of the State of California. The partners in the S

& H Dairy are Peter Schaafsma and Ronald Hilarides. The S & H

Dairy, along with Peter Schaafsma and Ronald Hilarides, own and

operate a CAFO at 3943-4125 Bentley Road, Oakdale, CA 95361. The

Defendants are also the owners of the property located at 3943-

4125 Bentley Road in Oakdale, CA. The Defendants are “persons”

under the Clean Water Act.

2. In 2002 there were approximately 2,000 milking

cows and 400 dry cows at the S & H CAFO, while the S & H CAFO

currently houses approximately 2,000 milking cows and 400 dry

cows. The S & H CAFO generates at least 34 million gallons of

wastewater each year (up to 189,000 gallons of wastewater

everyday). On February 28, 2005, the Defendants discharged

wastewater from the S & H CAFO land application crop fields to

waters of the United States.

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 14 of 23
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

28

15

3. The existing beneficial uses of local water bodies

include agricultural (irrigation and stock watering) and

industrial uses, contact recreation such as bathing, non-contact

recreation such as boating, freshwater habitat for warm and cold

water species, fish migration, fish spawning, and wildlife

habitat. See The Water Quality Control Plan for the California

Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Sacramento River Basin

and the San Joaquin River Basin, California Regional Water

Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, II-2.00 and II-8.00

(Fourth Edition, Revised 2004 (with Approved Amendments)) (“Basin

Plan”).

B. Contested Facts.

1. Although Defendants’ time to file their responsive

pleading has not run, and thus Plaintiffs do not know the extent

of facts in dispute, Plaintiffs believe the following categories

of facts are in dispute:

2. Whether Defendants have developed and implemented

pollution control measures at the S & H CAFO to prevent

wastewater and/or storm water from discharging from the S & H

CAFO and/or to area drains and laterals, including the Thompson

Lateral, the Cleveland Drain, the Kuhn Drain, the Stowell

Lateral, the MID Main Canal, and eventually the Stanislaus River

and San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta.

3. Whether the Defendants apply wastewater and solid

waste, including solid manure and other CAFO waste, at rates

above agronomic rates to the approximately 270 acres of disposal

fields at the S & H CAFO.

4. The extent of environmental harm, if any, caused

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 15 of 23
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

28

16

by the Defendants’ failure to comply with the Clean Water Act and

federal implementing regulations.

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

the parties and this action pursuant to Section 505(a)(1) of the

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), and pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331 (an action for declaratory and injunctive relief

arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States). 

Venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to

Section 505(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1),

because the source of the violations is located within this

judicial district.

2. The parties agree that the regulations issued by

the EPA and found in 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.23, 122.42 and 412 et seq.,

apply to owners and operators of concentrated animal feeding

operations, that the State Water Board has been designated by the

EPA to implement those regulations in California. The CWA

federal implementing regulations and the Storm Water Permit

require that a CAFO with more than 700 milking cows comply with

the terms of the Storm Water Permit. The CWA federal

implementing regulations, as revised in 2003 and currently being

revised again, impose requirements that CAFOs must comply with

above and beyond the requirements imposed by the Storm Water

Permit. These include, among other things, the requirement to

implement specific best management practices in the production

area of the CAFO, as well as develop and implement a nutrient

management plan for application of CAFO waste to land application

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 16 of 23
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

28

17

crop fields. Because the regulations are being modified, the

deadline for all CAFOs to submit NMPs to the implementing

authority has been extended to July 31, 2007.

B. Contested. 

1. Although Defendants’ time to file their responsive

pleading has not run, and thus Plaintiffs do not know the extent

of issues in dispute, Plaintiffs believe the following issues are

in dispute:

2. Whether the Clean Water Act and its Federal

implementing regulations require the S & H CAFO to apply for and

obtain an NPDES permit, rather than be covered under Region 5's

WDR.

3. The amount of civil penalties, if any, warranted

for Defendants alleged failure to comply with the Clean Water

Act.

4. The amount of reasonable litigation costs, if any,

to which the prevailing or substantially prevailing party is

entitled to.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 17 of 23
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

28

18

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before August 1, 2007.

2. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before May 1, 2007. Any

supplemental expert disclosures will be made on or before June 1,

2007. The parties will comply with the provisions of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding their expert

designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the written

designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R. Civ. P.

Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all information

required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in compliance

with this order may result in the Court excluding the testimony

or other evidence offered through such experts that are not

disclosed pursuant to this order.

3. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before August 15, 2007,

and heard on September 21, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 18 of 23
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

28

19

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than August 30, 2007, and will be heard on October

1, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In

scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. November 19, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. December 11, 2007, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge. 

2. This is a non-jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 8 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 19 of 23
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

28

20

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for November 28,

2006, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L.

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 20 of 23
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

28

21

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are two related matters currently pending in the

Eastern District of California. They are Deltakeeper, et al. v.

Brasil and Sons Dairy, et al., Civil Case No. CV 06-01464 DFL

(GGH), and Deltakeeper, et al. v. Silva Brothers Dairy, et al.,

Civil Case No. CV 06-01452 DLF (DAD). Plaintiffs filed a Notice

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 21 of 23
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

28

22

of Related Case in each of those cases, as well as this case, on

July 6, 2006 (“Notice”). Defendants have not filed a response to

Plaintiffs’ Notice. 

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

///

///

///

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 22 of 23
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

28

23

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

Dated: 11/14/2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:06-cv-00837-DLB Document 14 Filed 11/14/06 Page 23 of 23