1 of 100 DOCUMENTS
As of: Apr 12, 2008
ROBERT A. MACHADO et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE WATER RE-
SOURCES CONTROL BOARD et al., Defendants and Respondents.
COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA, THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
90 Cal. App. 4th 720
109 Cal. Rptr. 2d 116
2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 538
Journal DAR 7281
June 15, 2001, Decided
Opinion certified for partial publication.
Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rules
976(b) and 976.1, this opinion is certified for
publication with the exception of part II.
The Publication Status
of this Document has been Changed by the Court from
Unpublished to Published July 12, 2001.
As Modified July 12, 2001 No Change in Judgment.
Appeal from a judgment of the
Superior Court of San Joaquin County. Super. Ct. No.
CV005802. Carter P. Holly, Judge.
Curtis & Arata, Edgar H. Hayden, Jr., and
Matthew R. Berrien for Plaintiffs and Appellants
Manuel Borges, Jeanette Borges, Frank V. Borba and
Damrell, Nelson, Schrimp, Pallios & Ladine, Fred A.
Silva and Lisa W. Chao for Plaintiffs and Appellants
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Richard M. Frank,
Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary E. Hacken-
bracht, Assistant Attorney General, and Tracy L. Win-
sor, Deputy Attorney General, for Defendants and Re-
Opinion by Hull, J., with Sims, Acting P. J.,
and Raye, J., concurring.
In this appeal, plaintiffs Robert A.
ively referred to as the Dairy) challenge the issuance of
a cleanup and abatement order. The Regional
(RWQCB) issued this order be-
cause the Dairy was discharging manure and wastewater
into a ditch that flowed into a drainage system and then
into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.
The Dairy asserts (1) due process required a hear-
ing before the cleanup and abatement order could be is-
sued, (2) the order was vague and included remedies
that exceeded the authority of the
RWQCB, and (3) the
reports required as part of the cleanup and abatement
order threatened the Dairy's right against self-incrimina-
The trial court rejected each of these claims and
denied the Dairy's petition for writ of mandate. We af-
This case initially involved similar cleanup
and abatement orders directed to two other dair-
ies and their owners. However, those dairies
have since dismissed their appeals, and this case
involves only "Cleanup and Abatement Order
No. 98-719," issued to the
Dairy and its owners/operators.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY