This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
Clean Water Act
Federal Water Pollution Control

Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. Bell Foundry Co.

Published: Jul. 14, 2017 | Result Date: May 22, 2017 | Filing Date: Oct. 3, 2016 |

Case number: 2:16-cv-07389-JFW-PJW Settlement –  Equitable Settlement

Judge

John F. Walter

Court

U.S. District Courts in California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Gideon Kracov
(ADR Services, Inc.)

Arthur S. Pugsley
(Los Angeles Waterkeeper)

Melissa Lynn Kelly
(Los Angeles Waterkeeper)


Defendant

William W. Funderburk Jr.


Facts

Los Angeles Waterkeeper filed suit against Bell Foundry Co.'s facility, claiming violation of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff claimed that defendant operated Bell Foundry Co., an iron foundry facility in the City of South Gate. Defendant allegedly discharged pollutants in violation of the Clean Water Act stormwater permitting program. The discharges allegedly polluted the Los Angeles River watershed and impaired the use and enjoyment of those waters

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied the allegations.

Result

The parties entered into a consent decree. As part of the agreement, defendant agreed to comply with the Clean Water Act by requiring stormwater best management practices at defendant's facility, designed to meet specified pollutant concentrations for stormwater run-off, and install a stormwater treatment system in the event specified pollutant concentrations for stormwater run-off are not met. Defendant also agreed to submit to various monitoring and reporting requirement overseen by the plaintiff, and payment into an Environmental Project fund. Additionally, defendants agreed to a $5,000 monitoring payment to plaintiffs for annual site-visits to ensure compliance with the consent decree, $20,000 to the Rose Foundation to fund water quality projects pursuant to the EPA's Supplemental Environmental Projects Policy, and $40,000 in attorney fees and costs.


#127792

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390