Drakes Bay Oyster Company Sued by California River Watch for Violations of Clean Water Act

Drakes Bay Oyster Company's refusal to cease operations in the wilderness area which Drakes Estero is part of has resulted in another lawsuit being added to those it has already caused. Added to their legally flawed request for consideration of an appeal before the Supreme Court, and their logically fractured suit against the California Coastal Commission, DBOC now finds itself being sued by the California River Watch for their ongoing violations of the Clean Water Act (see below for press release).

 

Structures of pressure treated wood

should not be allowed in a wilderness area.

 

 

Despite a well polished public relations campaign to support one family's continued commercial operation in a wilderness area, the fact is the Lunny family purchased an operation with a lease they knew would end in 2012 and which, under the Wilderness Act, they clearly knew would not be renewed. Pressure treated wood structures, plastic grow-out bags and the use of motor boats are not compatible with the Philip Burton Wilderness Act, created in 1976 by Congress under the Wilderness Act. No matter how hard you wave your arms the legal arguments to support the commercial operation will not fly.

 

Peter Prows, PR Attorney for DBOC

"The plan is for the ranchers to be next."

Pacific Legal Foundation Video

 

Attempts to claim this is the first step in part of a "grand plan" to eliminate ranching on Point Reyes, then Marin County, followed by Sonoma County only show how desperate the DBOC legal team is to gain traction. Peter Prows, public relations attorney for DBOC, continues to repeat the unfounded belief that this is part of some "plan" to remove cattle ranching from Point Reyes. Unlike the industrial shellfish operation in the marine wilderness, Congress specifically wrote into law cattle ranching as an exemption. Attempts to re-write the law are made with an pen lacking ink.

 

It is time for Drakes Bay Oyster Company to cease operating and allow for completion of the only marine wilderness area on the west coast.

 

Press release:

 

Drakes Bay Oyster Co. Sued by California River Watch for Violations of Clean Water Act

California River Watch, a Sebastopol-based organization devoted to protecting Northern California's water quality, filed a lawsuit against the Drakes Bay Oyster Company on February 7^th, saying the commercial shellfish business operating in the Point Reyes National Seashore is polluting the national park waters and ocean with waste water, plastic, and invasive species and has failed to obtain the required pollution discharge permits for over seven years.  "Drakes Bay Oyster Company, which has been repeatedly cited by state agencies for its pollution, failure to obtain permits, and violations of environmental protection laws, is at it again," said Larry Hanson of California River Watch. "The Drakes Bay Oyster Company’s lack of respect for the federal Clean Water Act fouls our national park waters and degrades one of the most ecologically important wilderness areas established in the United States."  Read the River Watch lawsuit.

California River Watch Notice to Drakes Bay Oyster

Press release from California River Watch on Clean Water Act violations and intent to sue.

 

For Immediate Release                                                          July 15, 2013
Contact: Sarah Danley, Esq.,  RiverWatch.press@gmail.com
Drakes Bay Oyster Company Facing New Lawsuit for Clean Water Act violations in Pt. Reyes

Point Reyes, Ca. - California River Watch, a Sebastopol-based organization devoted to protecting Northern California's water quality, today announced it is preparing a lawsuit against the Drakes Bay Oyster Company, saying the industrial operation operating in the Point Reyes National Seashore is polluting the ocean with waste water and other pollutants and has failed to obtain necessary permits for its operations.

In the 60-day notice to the oyster company that it intends to sue (attached below), which is required by the federal law, California River Watch alleges that the oyster company has been unlawfully discharging waste water from its shellfish operations into Drakes Estero in violation of the Clean Water Act. The 60-day notice demands immediate cessation of all unlawful discharges, and that Drakes Bay Oyster Company apply for the proper permit, something it has failed to do for over seven years.

"Drakes Bay Oyster Company, which has been repeatedly cited by state agencies for its pollution and violation of permits, is at it again," said Sarah Danley of California River Watch. "It contributes discharge waste water into the ocean, fouling our waters and degrading one of the most pristine wilderness areas established in the United States."

Drakes Bay Oyster Company was cited by the California Coastal Commission earlier this year for a host of violations of the California Coastal Act, and for failing to obtain the required coastal development permit.  Rather than complying, the oyster company sued the Commission. The Commission counter-sued the oyster company for ongoing violations of the Coastal Act and Cease and Desist Orders which could carry fines and penalties totaling tens of thousands of dollars.

California River Watch Sends Notice of Violations Under the Clean Water Act And Intent to File Suit to Drakes Bay Oyster Company

[Update: Read Lunny Grading and Paving "Notice of Violations" here.]

The California River Watch has sent Drakes Bay Oyster Company a notice of Clean Water Act violations noting their intent to file suit within 60 days. Unlike the shellfish processing plants operated by Taylor Shellfish in Washington, DBOC is not in possession of a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. As such there is no control over what DBOC may  discharge into Drakes Estero, the only shoreline wilderness on the west coast. (See one of Taylor Shellfish's NPDES permit here.)

Drakes Bay Oyster Company

Is this really compatible with wilderness?

 

"I'm an environmentalist." By whose definition?

This is not the first "notice of intent to sue" which Mr. Lunny has received. Earlier this year his "Lunny Grading and Paving" also received a "notice" from the California River Watch for alleged Clean Water Act violations. In that "notice" a variety of violations were described which were related to its operation of the Nicasio rock quarry. These are on top of violations which the California Coastal Commission described as "egregious."

 

Nicasio quarry operated by

Mr. Lunny's "Lunny Grading and Paving."

5400 Nicasio Valley Road, Nicasio, CA

Specific to the Nicasio quarry operation, the California River Watch alleges:

The General Permit requires storm water dischargers to comply with its terms, including adequate monitoring, reporting and implementation of BMPs [Best Management Practices]. From January 5, 2008 to January 5, 2013, Nicasio has been in violation of the Clean Water Act for its failure to: 1) comply with the General Permit; 2) make and record the required observations concerning stormwater discharges; and 3) implement BMPs using BAT [Best Available Technology] and/or BCT [Best Conventional Technology] to eliminate pollution in stormwater discharges from the site.  

River Watch alleges that Nicasio has not implemented BMP by not using BAT or BCT to control or eliminate its non-stormwater discharges. Nicasio is violating the General Permit by: (1) allowing materials other than storm water (non-storm water discharges) that discharge either directly or indirectly to waters of the U.S.; (2) causing or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance; exceeding the specified effluent limitations identified above; (3) discharging storm water containing a hazardous substance equal to or in excess of a reportable quantity listed in 40 CFR Part 117 and/or 40 CFR Part 302; (4) failing to reduce or prevent pollutants associated with industrial activity in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water discharges through implementation of BAT for toxic and non-conventional pollutants and BCT for conventional pollutants; (5) failing to development and implementation of an  SWPPP that complies with the requirements in Section A of the General Permit and that includes BMPs that achieve BAT/BCT constitutes compliance with this requirement; and (6) discharging storm water and non-storm water to surface or ground water which adversely impact human health or the environment. 

Corporate Environmentalism
Through the eyes of some the environmental impacts of the sort detailed by California River Watch in their Clean Water Act notifications sent to Mr. Lunny may not be "adverse." They are just "part of doing business." In part it is why Drakes Bay Oyster Company found the likes of Cause of Action, Senator Vitter and Representative "Doc" Hastings rushing to its support when their special use permit was not renewed. Allowing the only commercial operation within the designated wilderness area to continue operation would open the door for other extraction industries (energy/mining) to operate within wilderness areas. Mr. Lunny's quarry operation only helped tie the knot tighter.

If environmental regulations are able to be weakened to the point where Mr. Lunny's alleged violations are acceptable it will open broaden the definition of a new "Corporate Environmentalism" where impacts to the environment are less important than corporate profitability. It is a clear and simple strategy which with minimal effort is easily exposed.

Attempts by well paid Public Relations firms and lobbyists to portray what Mr. Lunny is dealing with as "government overreach" or "eco-McCarthyism" may find traction with some and most certainly helps in billing hours. It should not find traction with those who put future clean waters ahead of short-term profits.

Ending Operations is a One Time Event
Drakes Bay Oyster Company's attorneys may complain that ending ongoing commercial operations and removing the artificial structures is a significant event which must be avoided. What they do not point out is that removal of these structures and the ceasing of its commercial operations will be a one time event and then be over, resulting in a wilderness for everyone, instead of a profit center for one.

You can help support the California River Watch here.