ELR Citation: ELR 20688
No(s). C 95-2066 CW (N.D. Cal. Sep 27, 1995)

The court holds that a Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) 60-day notice of intent to sue that a fishing group sent to a company provided the company with sufficient information to identify the locations and dates of the alleged violations. 40 C.F.R. §135.3(a) requires only that the notice letter provide "sufficient information to permit the recipient to identify" the locations and dates is required. The company can easily identify the specific locations and general time frames of the alleged violations by reference to the self-monitoring reports that the company filed with the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, on which the group based the notice letter, and definitions contained in an order that the Regional Board sent the company. The company's self-monitoring report indicates the locations from which the samples that identified pH violations were taken. Although the notice did not provide the specific dates on which the samples were taken, this appears to be only because the company chose not to include those dates in its self-monitoring reports. Also, that the notice letter reports two more pH violations than the self-monitoring reports contain does not introduce sufficient ambiguity for the court to conclude reasonably that the company could not determine the locations and dates of the pH violations. Nor does this ambiguity limit the company's ability to resolve its conflict with the group within the notice period. The court denies the company's motion to dismiss.

Counsel for Plaintiff
Alan A. Beaven
Stamell, Tabacco & Schager
235 Montgomery St., Ste. 2510, San Francisco CA 94104
(415) 433-3200

Counsel for Defendant
David E. Moser
McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen
Three Embarcadero Ctr., San Francisco CA 94111
(415) 393-2000