United States of America v. LaPant et al

Filing 105

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/3/19 GRANTING 88 Motion to Approve Consent Judgment. (Coll, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:16-CV-01498-KJM-DB

ORDER

v.
ROGER J. LAPANT, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

The United States’ unopposed motion to enter its consent decree with defendants

18

Goose Pond Ag., Inc. (Goose Pond) and Farmland Management Services (Farmland) is before the

19

court. Mot., ECF No. 88; Prop. C.D., ECF No. 87. The public comment period for the proposed

20

consent decree expired on October 17, 2018 and no public comments were received. ECF No. 90

21

(notice). The court held this motion in abeyance while resolving a challenge to its jurisdiction

22

raised by other defendants. See ECF No. 59. With that challenge resolved, see ECF No. 104, and

23

as explained below, the court GRANTS the motion.

24

I.

BACKGROUND

25

The United States filed this action against defendants Roger J. LaPant, Jr., J&J

26

Farms, Goose Pond, and Farmland, alleging the defendants violated and continue to violate Clean

27

Water Act (CWA) section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). Compl., ECF No. 1. The alleged CWA

28

violations occurred on approximately 1,505 acres of real property in rural Tehama County,
1

1

California, and resulted in the unauthorized discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States.

2

Id. ¶¶ 30−31, 40−93; see Mot. at 2−3.

3

The United States alleges that beginning in November 2012, Goose Pond and

4

Farmland “operated a slip plow, tractor with tillage implements, road-building machinery, land-

5

leveler, trencher, and/or other earthmoving equipment” in uplands and waters of the United States,

6

affecting “potentially 100 or more acres of waters of the United States.” Compl. ¶¶ 109−13. The

7

United States alleges the equipment “constituted a ‘point source’” under 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14) and

8

“resulted in the placement of dredged spoil, biological materials, rock, sand, cellar dirt or other

9

earthen material constituting ‘pollutants’ within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6) into waters of

10

the United States.” Id. ¶¶ 114−15. The operation allegedly impacted hydrophydic plants, changed

11

the bottom elevation of or replaced portions of waters of the United States with dry land, and

12

“resulted in the ‘discharge of any pollutant’ within the meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).” Id.

13

¶¶ 116−19. The discharge of pollutants was not authorized by a CWA section 404 permit, and after

14

operation of the equipment ceased, defendants allowed the discharged pollutants to remain in

15

waters of the United States. Id. ¶¶ 121−23. The United States seeks injunctive relief and civil

16

penalties. Id. at 18 (request for relief).

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Although not an exhaustive survey, the following summarizes provisions of the
proposed consent decree:
- Goose Pond and Farmland will pay a $1,750,000 civil penalty to
the United States. Prop. C.D. ¶ 22.
- Except as necessary to fulfill certain prescribed remedial
requirements and as described in the proposed consent decree, Goose
Pond and Farmland are permanently enjoined from disturbing a
specified portion of the property comprised of approximately 616
acres, termed the “Conservation Reserve.” Id. ¶¶ 10, 25. This
provision runs with the land, binding Goose Pond and Farmland’s
successors and assigns, and will not be extinguished by the consent
decree’s termination. Id. ¶¶ 25, 68.
- Within a specified timeline, Goose Pond and Farmland are required
to take steps necessary to implement the parties’ Corps-approved
remedial plan and thereafter obtain approval of completion from the
Corps. Id. ¶ 26; see App. 3 (Remedial Plan).
- For five years following completion of the remedial plan, Goose
Pond and Farmland must monitor, manage and maintain the work
2

1

required under that plan and submit annual reports and a completion
request to the United States as prescribed in the consent decree.
Prop. C.D. ¶ 27.

2
3

- Goose Pond and Farmland will submit to the Corps a proposed
expenditure of $3,550,000 “to purchase vernal pool establishment,
re-establishment, or rehabilitation credits from one or more Corpapproved mitigation banks that serve the [applicable] area . . . .” Id.
¶ 30.

4
5
6

- Upon the Corps’ approval, Goose Pond and Farmland are required
to complete the $3,550,000 mitigation and provide the United States
with written notice of completion. Id. The United States and its
contractors and consultants may, upon reasonable advance notice and
at reasonable times, access the site to monitor progress and activities
required under the proposed consent decree; verify data and
information submitted by Goose Pond and Farmland to the Corps;
monitor and confirm compliance by obtaining samples; obtain
documentary evidence to monitor compliance; and generally assess
compliance with the consent decree. Id. ¶ 36.

7
8
9
10
11

- Goose Pond and Farmland will pay stipulated penalties of $3,000
per day per violation of consent decree obligations, subject to
exceptions identified in the consent decree. Id. ¶¶ 49-56.

12
13

- The proposed consent decree will terminate eight years after its
effective date, extended by the number of days, if any, Goose Pond
and Farmland were out of compliance with consent decree
requirements. Id. ¶ 67.

14
15
16

- The consent decree does not extinguish obligations under paragraph
25 of the proposed consent decree, described above, or the United
States’ ability to access the site to assess compliance with ¶ 25. Id.
¶ 68.

17
18
19

II.

LEGAL STANDARD

20

“Because of the unique aspects of settlements, a district court should enter a

21

proposed consent judgment if the court decides that it is fair, reasonable and equitable and does not

22

violate the law or public policy.” Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec. Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350,

23

1355 (9th Cir. 1990); S.E.C. v. Randolph, 736 F.2d 525, 529 (9th Cir. 1984) (“Unless a consent

24

decree is unfair, inadequate, or unreasonable, it ought to be approved.”). Further, “courts should

25

pay deference to the judgment of the government agency which has negotiated and submitted the

26

proposed judgment.” Randolph, 736 F.2d at 529. Although it may explain its reasons for

27

withholding approval of a proposed consent decree, the court lacks the authority to modify the

28

/////
3

1

parties’ proposal and therefore must either accept or reject the proposal as submitted. See Officers

2

for Justice v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, 688 F.2d 615, 630 (9th Cir. 1982).

3

III.

DISCUSSION

4

Having carefully considered the consent decree, the court finds it is fair, reasonable

5

and consistent with statutory purposes. The parties reached this settlement after more than two

6

years of litigation. The United States represents that settlement followed arms-length negotiations

7

conducted by experienced counsel aware of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases.

8

Mot. at 6. Further, the proposed consent decree would achieve significant goals of the Clean Water

9

Act, permanently protecting from disturbance “the Conservation Reserve[, which] contains

10

between 75 and 139 acres of waters of the United States,” remediating damage caused by

11

unauthorized discharges, implementing a long tern pre-clearance injunction, requiring off-site

12

compensatory mitigation and recouping a significant civil penalty. Id. at 6-7. The unopposed

13

motion to enter the consent decree is GRANTED.

14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: June 3, 2019.

16
17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4