You're in the Local section

Calif. high court backs Atwater wastewater plan

Published online on Saturday, Oct. 31, 2009

Bookmark and Share
email this story to a friend E-Mail print story Print
Text Size:

tool name

close
tool goes here
Comments (0)

ATWATER -- A legal challenge that could have stalled construction of Atwater's planned multimillion-dollar wastewater treatment plant was struck down by the California Supreme Court in mid-October, according to court filings.

The case, filed by Robert Friesen, a resident near the planned site on Bert Crane Road, and a group called the Valley Advocates, contended the city failed to fully disclose the plant's impacts and failed to adequately look into alternatives for the project.

"The court has found for the city on all points in contention and rejected this late attempt to stall a project that will have very significant environmental benefits for the city," the city's attorney in the case, Julia Bond, said in a statement.

"The group did not challenge the vast majority of the environmental analysis for this project nor the city's environmental process, but rather sought to block it on a number of technical arguments that the court rejected."

Those technical arguments, according to Richard Harriman, representing the plaintiffs in the case, include several faults in the city's environmental impact study process. The city didn't disclose the effects the plant's storm-water discharge may have on neighboring wetlands, he said. It also failed to look into building a decentralized wastewater treatment system that could be built as the city grows -- instead of one large plant.

However, according to the filings, the court found that the city had adequately looked into the alternatives to a centralized plant and didn't find them feasible. It also said the city's environmental review of the project found there would be no substantial impacts from flooding or drainage problems at the site.

In addition, the ruling said plaintiffs failed to make their objections to the project at the appropriate time in the environmental review process.

Judge Carol Ash made her tentative ruling on the case Oct. 20.

The plaintiffs have until Nov. 4 to appeal the ruling.



A few rules are needed to help foster a feeling of community. We encourage a free and open exchange of ideas in a climate of mutual respect, but any post that violates someone's right to use and enjoy fresnobee.com is prohibited. Before you post, please read the terms of use and obey these simple guidelines.

Here are the ground rules:

  1. Be yourself. A nickname will be used for posts, but if an editor finds a user without a verifiable name, that user will be warned or banned.
  2. Keep it clean. Foul language (defined by prime-time standards) will not be tolerated. Neither will the intentional misspelling of foul language or the use of non-English curse words.
  3. Be truthful. Do not lie or link to sites that may be considered libelous, defamatory or false.
  4. Be nice. Don't harass anyone. Don't threaten anyone. Don't use racial slurs. Don't post anything sexually explicit.
  5. Be an individual. Do not advertise or solicit. Do not harvest any information for business use.
  6. Be original. Do not post copyrighted material.
  7. Follow the law. Don't do anything or post anything considered illegal by city, county, state or federal regulations and laws.

more videos »