20090605Application.pdf

Mornng View Water Company
P.O. Box 598
Rigby, ID 83442
IDAHO. pusqc ~morningviewhomes(igwestoffice.netUTll.ITIES COMMI8,.ION
208-745-0029
RECEIVED
2Ø' JU -5Pl1 1159
Idaho Public Utilities
Jean Jewell, Secreta to the Commission
472 W. Washington Street
P.O. Box 83720
Boise, ID 83720-0074
Mail Certified:
7004 1350 0005 7734 0404
f11C V ~w--ò9 -Or
Jean,Subject: Request for Rate Increase.
Enclosed please find a drafted sumons from the Attorney General's offce.
On April 24th 2009, the main pump motor on our large well bured up. Fortunately the
contingency fud covered these expenses which were approximately, $5,500.00 for labor
and the new motor. This fud has been depleted except for around $300.00
At this time D.E.Q. has required that we have an additional well to bring Morning View
Water into compliance. They are also asking that we have a variable speed drve motor
installed on the existing well to be used as a back up well. We are diligently trying to find
financing, and expect this to set Morning View Water Company back at least $30,000.00
in order to have completed.
We have noted that last year Rocky Mountain Power was given a rate increase of
around 10%. We will be experiencing a very high electric bil this sumer from our own
well house. Our electric bil rus us about $2,000.00 each month from May to September.
We have l06 services using the water to irrigate their yards along with domestic use. The
10% increase does not reflect on our customer's curent rate structure.
However, we regret that we wil not be able to make our own Rocky Mountain electric
payments, and are in dire need of relief. If we do not receive a suffencent rate increase to
help cover cost and recoup our losses from abiding to D.E.Q.'s demands, we fear that
Morning View Water Company will be out of business by August 2009.
Please advise us as what should be done to alleviate our sitution. It is imperative that we
hear from you. We desperately need to have at least a 25% rate increase to financially
surive. Thans again.
ccl Bob Smith, I.P.U.C.
ccl Rob Hars, Holden, Kidwell,
Crapo, & Hah
..
II Holden Kidwell
Hahn & Crapo P.L.L.C.LAW OFFICES RECEiVED
2019 JUH -5 PH II 59
IDAHO PUBL.iC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
May 22, 2009
1000 Riverwalk Drive, Suite 200
PO Box 50130
Idaho Falls, Idaho 83405
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone] i 8
ww.holdenlegal.com
E-mail: rharrìs§holdenlegal.com
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Morning View Water Company
clo Nolan Gneiting
P.O. Box 598
Rigby, ID 83442
RE: Summary of Meeting with IDEQ Officials, Morning View Engineer Ryan
Loftus, and Deputy Attorney General Courtney Beebe.
Dear Nolan:
This letter is intended to summarize a meeting held at the offices of IDEQ in Idaho
Falls, Idaho, on May 21,2009. Officials from both the Boise office and Idaho Falls office
ofIDEQ were in attendance, along with Deputy Attorney General Courtney Beebe, and Ryan
Loftus from Aspen Engineering, Morning View's engineer. The intent of the meeting was
to discuss the status of your disapproved water system, and ways to potentially deflect a
potential complaint to be fied by the State of Idaho. When we initially arrived at the
meeting, there were some good discussions, and eventually we were presented with a draft
complaint that the State ofIdaho is contemplating fiing against you. A copy of that dratt
Complaint is attached. Based on this draft complaint, and on the comments made during the
conference, the State of Idaho is very serious about issues surrounding your water system.
and ready to move forward with the lawsuit.
When you initially visited with me approximately a month ago regarding this issue,
and requested our representation, you indicated that you were seeking our services to help
you resolve your issues with IDEQ. Our approach has therefore been to work collaboratively
with the State, and to try to find ways to resolve matters relating to your water system to
avoid the filing of a lawsuit. In our view, the costs and expense of defending a lawsuit could
be better used in purchasing infrastructure and other materials that IDEQ has suggested. It
is in that spirit that we make the following recommendations.
The template of our discussion yesterday was based on an April 29, 2009 letter from
IDEQ outlining a number of issues stil relating to the water system. Some of those items
Established in 1896
L
Morning View Water Company
c/o Nolan Gneiting
May 22, 2009
Page 2 of6
simply sought clarifications of issues in the report prepared by Mr. Loftus, which were of
minor consequence. However, there were items that were significantly discussed, and in my
opinion, if Morning View follows the recommendations set forth below, it chars a path that
would avoid a lawsuit from the State ofIdaho, and bring your water system into compliance.
We therefore strongly recommend that Morning View follow the below recommendations
with exactness. Otherwise, the State wil move forward with the filing of the complaint.
Recommendation No.1: The State indícated it had not received copies of the
quarerly notices prepared by Morning View, even though the notice itself indicates that a
copy went to IDEQ. Effectively immediately, please ensure that copies of any notices are
mailed to the IDEQ office in Idaho Falls, to the attention of Greg Eager and Rochelle Mason.
Recommendation No. 2: While not required under any rule or regulation, IDEQ
realizes there are a number of individuals living within your development who only speak
Spanish. They felt that because of the intent of the notice was to put individuals on notice
relating to the water system, it would be beneficial to have those notices translated into
Spansh. We are told that there are websites where English can be typed, and they wil be
translated into Spanish. Having briefly dealt with your office assistants, it seems they would
be very capable oflearing how to use this information. Additionally, you could arange to
have a bi-lingual person provide this information to those who speak Spanish. We
recommend that you either (1) prepare notices in Spanish, or (2) have an individual translate
the notice to those that do not speak English.
Recommendation No.3: The report prepared by Mr. Loftus recommends that you
have pressure settings between 50 and 75 psi. Yesterday, Mr. Lofts confined that the
, lower pressure setting was at 50, but the upper was only at 75. Mr. Eager repeated several
times that he believed the recommendations contained in the engineering report should be
followed by Morning View. Therefore, we strongly recommend you increase the upper
pressure settings to 75 psi.
Recommendation No.4: IDEQ has indicated that they have not received any pressure
data from you. You have previously provided us pressure information that was obtained
though IDEQ's equipment, but to date, no pressure data logger has been purchased by the
company, and used thoughout the system. As this issue was discussed, it appeared to Mr.
Lofts and I that the information from the ..pressurelogg~J1whi1e helpful to IDEQ, would
seemingly be more important to Morning View. If there are truly pressure problems with
Morning View Water Company
c/o Nolan Gneiting
May 22, 2009
Page 3 of6
individual residences, a data logger could protect the company from any of those claims. Itis estimated that a continuous data logger would cost between $500.00 and $700.00. We
recommend that one is purchased immediately, and used thoughout the system at various
periods of time so that Morning View gets a clear pictue of what its system's strengts and
weakesses are. We would further note that you previously indicated there had been no
pressure problems because of pressure measured at the pump. However, the pressure
guidelines and rules followed by IDEQ require that a certain pressure be maintained
throughout the system. This means that pressure needs to be measured at individual
residences, not simply at the point at which water is diverted. A mobile continuous data
logger would protect the company, and at the mere cost of $500.00 to $700.00, we
recommend you purchase one within the next fourteen (14) days and begin collecting
information.
Recommendation No.5: There were significant discussion regarding use of the old
well curently located on your propert. Mr. Loftus discussed how the well was constructed,
and in doing so, asked for an exemption for the required 58 foot liner for public water
system, as retrofitting the well would be quite expensive. As an indication that IDEQ is
interested in resolving these issues with you, Mr. Eager said he would be wiling to waive
that requirement, and leave the seal at its curent 18 feet, if perhaps there are other cautionar
measures implemented. However, before determining what other cautionar meaSures could
be implemellted, such as chloriation, the paries concluded it would be in everyone's best
interests to have the well pump tested. A pump test of the well would allow Morning View
to determine if it is stil a viable place to have a backup well, or to feed additional water
pressure into the system. It estimated that a pump test could cost anywhere between
$10,000.00 and $20,000.00. While this might appear to be a significant cost, ifthe pump test
proves the well is stil a viable, it would be much less expensive to have the pump test instead
of driling a new well at another location within the development. We therefore strongly
recommend that you immediately begin the process of having a pump test performed within
the next thir (30) days.
Recommendation No.6: One of Mr. Loftus' recommendation in his report was the
installation of varable speed drives in your pumps. You have previously provided me
information on equipment that is commonly called a "soft star". In discussing this with
IDEQ, the soft star does provide some benefits, but in their view, does not provide
infrastrctue that would help solve the pressure problem. In discussing the benefits of the
variable frequency drives, it was concluded that installation of this equipment would assist
with pressure problems, which is the largest concern held by IDEQ, and would have the
Morng View Water Company
c/o Nolan Gneitin
May 22, 2009
Page 4 of6
incidental benefit of saving power costs. Mr. Lofts estimates that installation of these
would cost approximately $10,000.00. We strongly recommend they be implemented and
installed within the next thirt (30) days.
Recommendation No.7: Towards the end of the discussion with IDEQ, it was
evident that they are receiving a number of complaints from individuals within the system.
Much favor would be gained with IDEQ if there was a vast improvement in your public
relations with those serviced by the Company. While not recommended by IDEQ, but
strongly recommended by myself, within the next three weeks, we would strongly
recommend you hold a public meeting for patrons of your water system, to provide them an
update, and a forum to discuss the issues curently facing the system, and your plan of action
in moving forward. In the context of that meeting, we would request that the homeowners
cease providing complaints to IDEQ and instead we would ask for their patience as we seek
to improve the system. Additionally, we would strongly recommend you obtain an email list,
where any notices could be emailedandreceivedbythepariesimmediately.This tye of
an approach would certinly give the impression that Morning View is much more interested
in providing information to patrons of the business, rather than moving on as they have
previously. It would fuer please those that regulate your water system and would certainly
ear you favor with those regulators.
Reco~mendation No.8: As stated above, you have sought our services to help you
resolve your outstanding issues with IDEQ, and to have your system brought online to where
it is no longer a disapproved system. Currently, Jefferson County wil not approve the
constrction of any new buildings within your development under a disapproved system.
This is a motivating factor in how we move forward. In our opinion, IDEQ has given us a
clear path forward on how we resolve these issues. If they are not followed with exactness,
they are ready, wiling, and able to file their complaint. IfMoming View decides to follow
our recommendations as discussed above, IDEQ wil furter insist that we sign what is
commonly called a "Tolling Agreement". In the State of Idaho, there is a two year statute
of limitations on enforcing the provisions of a consent order. A tolling agreement is an
agreement between the State ofIdaho and the regulated individual which contractually binds
the paries not to raise the statute oflimitations defense in the event a complaint is filed more
than two years after the date of non-compliance. We would strongly recommend that you
sign the tolling agreement, which would give you additional time to deal with the
infrastrcture issues facing the water system.
Morning View Water Company
c/o Nolan Gneiting
May 22, 2009
Page 5 of6
In sum, we recommend the following items be undertaken or completed within the
next 30 to 60 days.
1. Immediately begin copyig IDEQ with all correspondence and quarerly notices:
2. Translate the quarerly notices and other notices into Spanish:
3. Increase your upper pressure settings to 75 psi immediately;
4. Within the next foureen (14) dàys, purchase a continuous data logger, and begin
logging data at varous points in the system:
5. Within the next thirt (30) days, have a pump test performed on the well located on
your propert to determine its feasibilty as a source of public water for this system.
6. Install varable speed drives on the Morning View pumps within the next 30 days:
7. Within thee to four weeks, hold a public meeting with patrons of your company to
discuss the path forward and our recommendations, and to request they not fie any
complaints with IDEQ while these issues are further investigated and implemented:
8. Obtain an email list for patrons of your water system:
9. Sign a tolling agreement so the State of Idaho wil not file its complaint in either
September or October:
While the above recommendations wil certainly assist with IDEQ, we are aware that
the above recommendations ,would require money to implement them. The topic of fuding
was discussed at our meeting, in both the context of long term planing, such as obtaining
watermeters~ and short term such as, in performg the pump test and installng the variable
speed drives. We believe you would be able to obtain private financing for the immediate
installation of the varable speed drves, the pump test, and purchasing of the pressure data
logger. We estimate these costs to total between $20,000.00 and $25,000.00. Additionally,
we have some information that could be followed up on relative to obtaining loans or grants
for the purchase of the water meters to be installed throughout the system. We can discuss
these in more detail at your convenience.
In previous meetings with you, you indicated that it appears IDEQ is singling you out,
and that you have complied with all of their regulations. I am not clear at this point as to
where there appears to have been a break down in communication between IDEQ and
Morning View. In meeting with IDEQ officials, in my view, they are not singling you out.
The impression I have from Mr. Greg Eager is that he is eminently patient, and stil wiling
to work these issues out. This is evidenced' by the fact that he would be wiling to allow the
well located on your propert to be used as par of the public water system without requiring
'" .
Morning View Water Company
c/o Nolan Gneitig
May 22, 2009
Page 6 of6
an expensive retrofit for the upper seaL. This could save you approximately $100,000.00 to
$150,000.00, which would be the cost of driling a new welL.
As stated in the opening of this letter, you have requested our services in an attempt
to bring your water system into compliance. As we have reviewed the complaint, and have
fuer understood the regulations, the likelihood of you successfully defending the enclosed
draft complaint is not very good. Our advice is to avoid the fiing of the complaint at allcosts, avoid incuring significant attorney fees and costs in defending the lawsuit, and instead
direct funds you would pay in attorneys fees and costs to the purchase of equipment that
would better improve your system. Attorneys are hired to provide the best advice to their
clients, and our advice to you is to follow to exactness the above recommendations. To the
extent you do not, then the purose for which you have hired us, providing legal advice, is
of no value. Therefore, if the above recommendations are not followed, we wil withdraw
from representing you any fuer in this matter. In our view, now is not the time to argue any
fuer with IDEQ, as they have simply lost their patience. We trust we can have an open
and fran discussion about how we move forward, and whether or not you intend to follow
the above recommendations with exactness. In our view, this is the only way we can protect
you from expensive litigation with the State.
If you have any questjons or concerns, we wil be happy to discuss them with you
additionally.
Best Regards,~L.~
Robert L. Haris
HOLDEN, KIDWELL, HA & CRAO, P.L.L.C.
Enclosures
c: Ryan Lofts - Hand Delivery
G:\WPDATA\I GaII GalÌlt OS22.wp:çd
,.
LAWRENCE G. WASDEN.
Attorney General
CLIVE J. STRONG
Deputy Attorney General
Chief, Natural Resources Division
ltl9 Jt -5 PH2tClO
IDAHO PU ie .....UTILITiES C. lSSfON
COURTNEY E. BEEBE, ISB # 6755
Deputy Attorney General .
.1410 N. Hilton, 2nd Floor
Boise, Idaho 83706
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Plaintiff
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE
THE STATE OF IDAHO, IN AND FOR
F
STATE OF IDAHO, DEPARTME
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY,
v.
Nolan Gneiting,
Company,'Filng Fee: Exempt (CategoryAl
Idaho Code § 31-3212
partment of Environmental Quality ("Departmenl), by and
torney General, makes this. complaint and claim for relief
, d/b/a Morningview Water Company ("Defendant"), alleging as'
follows:
IDEQ v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Morningview Water Company COMPLAINT - i
t
'~ ,,
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. This is a civil action initiated pursuant to the Idaho Environmental
Protection and Health Act (EPHA), Idaho Code § 39-101 et seq., specifically, I.C. § 39-
108, and the terms and conditions of a consent order dated October 25, 2007, between
the Department and Defendant ("Consent Order," attached h 0 as Appendix I). The
Department seeks specific performance of the unperform s of the Consent Order
and seeks a permanent mandatory injunction requir
IDAPA 58.01.08 as alleged below.
2. The Department seeks penal
per violation or one thousand ($1,000) for each
is greater, pursuant to Idaho Code
3.
the EPHA,
($10,000)
ontinuing violation, whichever
ing this action to enforce
lor the Consent Order, as
4.able attorneys' fees, witness fees, and
d by Idaho Code § 12-117 and I.R.C.P.54.
leTION AND VENUE
urisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to .
and Idaho Code § 1-705.
6. rt has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant pursuant to Idaho
Code § 5-514(a-c) for the reason that the Defendant has committed acts within the
State of Idaho out of which this cause of action' arises and which violate the laws of the
State of I.daho. Additionally, the Defendant owns real property within the State of Idaho,
IDEO v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Morningview Water Company COMPLAINT - 2
..
which is related to the subject matter involved in this action.
7. Venue is proper in the Court, pursuant to Idaho Code§ 39-108(3)(b) and
Idaho Code § 5-404, because the violations and. acts and omissions alleged herein
occurred and the action arose in Rigby, Jefferson County, Idaho.
PARTIES
8. The Department is a duly authorized gO\l
pursuant to Idaho Code § 39-104 and charged by t
enforce the Rules of the Department of Environ
9. Nolan Gneiting is a person
103(11).
10. Morningview Water within the meaning of Idaho
Code § 39-103(11).
11 . tes that if the recipient of a notice of
Director of the Department "agree on a
pia alleged violation and to assure future
r into a consent order formalizing their agreement. The
provision providing for payment of any agreed civil penalty.
9-1 08 (3)(a)(v) provides that "a consent order shall be effective
immediately upon signing by both parties and shall preclude any civil enforcement
action for the same alleged violation. If a party does not comply with the terms of the
consent order, the director may seek and obtain, in any appropriate district court,
IDEO v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Morningview Water Company COMPLAINT - 3
specific performance of the consent order and such other relief as authorized in this
. chapter."
13. Idaho Code § 39-1Q8(b) allows the Department to commence a civU
enforcement action "in the district court in and for the county in which. the alleged, '.
violation occurred, and may be brought against any person 0 is alleged to have
violated any provision of this act or any rule, pérmit or ord
pursuant to this act. Such action may be brought
provision of this act or with any rule, permit or
relief or remedies authorized in this act. T initiate or
14.s. 58.01.08.003.87 defines a
public drinking water system as a "s o the public of water for
1998, other constructed
conveyances, if (15) service connections, regardless .of
of the distribution system, or regularly
wenty-five (25)' individuals daily at least, sixty (6Q) days
n Gneiting is the president and sole share holder of the
Morningview any. according to the 2009 Annual Report on file with the
Idaho Secretary of
16. Defendant owns' and operates a public drinking water system ("System")
IDEO v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Morningview Water Company COMPLAINT - 4
Idaho.
17. Idaho Rule for Public Drinking Water Systems 58.01.08.552.01.b.i
requires that "(a)ny public water system shall be capable of providing sufficient water
during maximum day demand conditions, including fire flow to maintain a minimum
,
pressure of twenty (20) psi throughout the distribution syst ,at ground level, as
measured at the service connection or along the p.
consumer's premises."
18. Idaho Rule for Public Drinking .ii requires that
"(a)ny public water system constructed or 985, shall
maintain a minimum pressure of forty (40) psi tlì
peak hourly demand conditions,e
he distribution system, during'
or along the property line adjacent to
19.. 1.08.552.01.b.v requires that
"(w)hen pressure to have fallen below twenty (20) psi, the
nfect the system."
the Department investigated and verified a consumer
he System regarding inadequate pressure and
the system fell below twenty pounds per square inch (20
21.2007, the Department notified Defendant of the System's
inadequate pressure by letter and required Defendant to remedy the inadequate
pressure within ten (10) days.
22. On July 23,2007, the Department conducted additional pressure testing at
IDEO v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Morningview Water Company COMPLAINT - 5
five (5) connections to the System, and discovered the average pressure in the System, . .
during a twenty-four hour period was twenty-two pounds per square inch (22 psi).
23. On July 25, 2007, the Department nQtified the Defendant of the results of
the July 23, 2007, pressure testing by letter and required the Defendant to diagnose and
correct pressure deficiencies by August 6, 2007. The letter i
Defendant of IDAPA 58.01.08.552.01.b.v, and required t
notification of pressure loss to each connection to the
24. By letter of August 8, 2007, the
Defendant$ failure to notify the Departm Systems
pressure deficiencies or corrective àctions ta solve the System's pressure'
deficiencies by August 6,2007.
25.tified the Defendant that
the Department e to diagnose and resolve
pressure deficie
partment issued a Notice of Violation
08(a)(i) and notified the Defendant of multiple violations
ing Water Systems (IDAPA 58.01.08). The NOV
portunity for a compliance conference and the Department
ce with the Defendant on September 26, 2007.
27.I.C. § 39-1 08 (a)(iv) and (v), the Department and the
Defendant, entered into a Consent Order on October 25,2007.
28. Paragraph 9.b of the Consent Order requires the Defendant to provide
quarterly public notices to each connection to the System by mail or hand delivery,
IDEa v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Momingview Water Company COMPLAINT - 6
onsent Order requires the Defendant to submit to
y (90) days, "a written plan detailng how (the Defendant)
shall be made capable of maintaining a. minimum pr~ssure
of forty pounds per uare inch (40psi) throughout the distribution system during peak
hourly demand conditions, measured at the service connection or along the property
line adjacent to the consumets premises as required by IDAPA 58.01.08.552.01.b.ii."
The plan must include a local pressure monitoring study and assurance that the
informing the consumers of the Department's disapproval of the System and shall
identiy the violations in the September 12, 2007,. NOV, as required by IDAPA
58.01.08.150. Paragraph 9.b. of the Consent Order also. required the Defendant to
"continue to provide quarterly public notices until such time as the Department notifies
(the Defendant) in writing that quarterly notices are.not longer r ired." Additionally, the
Defendant agreed to "provide the Department with proo
via the Department's supplied notification form and a
within ten days of completion."
29. The Defendant failed to ed to the
System a Second Quarter of 2008 Public Notic
June 30, 2008, or provide a c Notice to the
30. The connected to the
r the period of January 1,2009, through
e First Quarter Public Notice to theMarch
IDEQ v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Morningview Water Company COMPLAINT - 7
facilty plan and listed the reasons for disapproval of the facilty plan.
. 36. On January 13, 2009, the Department received a complaint regarding
pressure loss at the System from one of the connections to the System.
37. Defendant has failed provide public notice of pressure loss that occurred
in the System on January 13, 2009, as per IDAPA 58.01.08.55
38. On April 22, 2009, the Department regarding
pressure loss at the System from one of the connecti
39. Defendant has failed to provide p.
consumers that occurred in the
58.01.08.552.01.b.v.
40. Idaho Rule for Publ
incorporates 40 C.F.R. 141.26(1), w
monitor quarterly for
rinking water systems to
41.ent notified the Defendant by letter that it ...
Hy throughout 2008.
. ed to monitor the System for Radium 226 as per IDAPA
F.R.141.26, for the period of April 1, 2008, through
to submit the results to the Department. Sample was
IDEO v. Nolan Gneiting, d//a Momingview Water Company COMPLAINT - 9
58.01.08.100.03, incorporating 40 C.F.R. 141.23(d), during the year of 2008 and failed
to submit the results to the Department.
45. The Department notified the Defendant that it had not received
documentation of nitrate sampling by letter of January 15, 2009. Department received a
nitrate sample on January 21,2009.
COUNT I
Violation of Consent Order Par
-46. Plaintiff realleges each and every al paragraphs 1-45
herein.
47. Defendant has failed to perfo required
Consent Order.
48.by virtue of his failure to.
c. nnected to the System a
. period of April 1,2008, through .June
r Public Notice to the Department as
Ie to the Department for penalties, costs, expenses,
ees p rsuant to Idaho Code § 39-108(5) and Idaho Code §
12-117.
COUNT II
iolation of Consent Order Paragraph 9.b
50. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
herein.
51. Defendant has failed to perform the actions required pursuant to the
IDEO v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Morningview Water Company COMPLAINT _ 10
- Consent Order.
52. Defendant is in. breach of the Consent Order by virtue of his failure to
~ubmit to the Department or each residence connected to the System a First Quarter of
2009 Public Notice for the penod of January 1, 2009, through March 31, 2009, and
provide a copy of the First Quarter Public Notice to the De ment as required by
paragraph 9.b of the Consent Order.
53. The Defendant is liable to the Departm
witness fees and attorney's fees pursuant to Id
12-117.
Consent Order by virtue of his failure to
su w the Defendant wil ensure that its System wil be
inimum pressure of forty (40) psi throughout the
eak hourly demand,excluding fire flow, measured at the
ong the property line adjacent to the consumer's premises, in
accordance with IDAPA 58.01.08.552.01.b.ii. as required by paragraph 9.c of the
Consent Order.
57. Plaintiff is entitled to an order of specific performance of the terms. and
conditions of the Consent Order.
54.
herein.
ntained in paragraphs 1-53
55.
Consent Order.
required pursuant to the
IDEQ v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Morningview Water Company COMPLAINT - 11
58. The Plaintiff is entitled to a permanent mandatory injunction requinng that
the Defendant maintain forty pounds per square inch (40 psi) of pressure in the System
as required by IDAPA 58.01.552.01.b.ii.
59. The Defendant is liable to the Department for penalties, costs, expenses,
witness fees and attorney's fees pursuant to Idaho Code § 39- (5) and Idaho Code §
12-117.
COUNT IV
Violation of Consent Orde
60. Plaintiff realleges each and ev
herein.
61 . Defendant has faile required pursuant to the
Consent Order.
62.r . by virtue of his failure to
ent within ninety (90) days as required
epartment for penalties, costs, expenses,
wit ursuant to Idaho Code § 39-108(5) and Idaho Code §
64.
COUNT V
PA 58.01.08.100.06, Failure to Monitor Radium'
ealleges each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-63
herein.
65. Defendant has failed to monitor the System for Radium 226 as per IDAPA
58.01.02.100.06, incorporating 40 C.F. R. 141.26, for the period of April 1, 2008, through
IDEO v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Morningview Water Company COMPLAINT - 12 .
..
June 30, 2008, and failed to submit the results to the Department.
66. The Defendant is liable to the' Department for penalties, costs, expenses,
witness fees and attomey's fees pursuant to Idaho Code § 39-108(5) and Idaho Code §
12-117.
COUNT Vi
Violation of IDAPA 58.01.08.100.03, Failure to or Nitrate
67. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegati
herein.
68.' Defendant failed to monitor
58.01.08.100.03, incorporating 40 C.F.R. 14
to submit the results to the Depart
and failed
69.nalties, costs, expenses,
-108(5) and Idaho Code §
12-117. .
and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-69
herein.
69.s failed provide public notice of pressure loss that occurred
ary 13, 2009, as per IDAPA 58.01.08.552.01.b..v.
72. The Department is entitled to a permanent mandatory injunction requiring.
that the Defendant comply with IDAPA 58.01.08.552.01.b.v.
73. The Defendant is liable to the Department for penalties, costs, expenses,
IDEQ v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Momingview Water Company COMPLAINT - 13
..
June 30, 2008, and failed to submit the results to the Department.
66. The Defendant is liable to the Department for penalties, costs, expenses,
witness fees and attorney's fees pursuant to Idaho Code § 39-108(5) and Idaho Code §
12-117.
herein.
COUNT Vi
Violation of IDAPA 58.01.08.100.03, Failure to
67. Plaintiff realleges each al1d every allegati
68.' Defendant failed to monitor
58.01.08.100.03, incorporating 40 C.F.R. 14
to submit the results to the Depart
and failed
69.
-108(5) and Idaho Code §
12-117.
and every allegation contained in' paragraphs 1-69
herein.
69.s failed provide public notice of pressure loss that occurred
ary 13, 2009, as per IDAPA 58.01.08.552.01.b.v.
72. The Department is entitled to a permanent mandatory injunction requiring
that the Defendant comply with IDAPA 58.01.08.552.01.b.v.
73. The Defendant is liable to the Department for penalties, costs, expenses,
IDEQ v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Momingview Water Company CQMPLAINT- 13
,
witness fees and attomey's fees pursuant to Idaho Code § 39.108(5) and Idaho Code §
12.117.
COUNT VII
Violation of IDAPA 58.01.08.552.01.b.v, Failure to Provide Public Notice of
. Pressure Loss
t the Defendant, as authorized by Idaho Code § 39~108,
n thousand dollars ($10,000) for each separate violation and
one thousand dollars ($1,000) for each day of continuing violation.
74. Plaintiff realleges each and every allegation c
herein.
75. Defendant has failed to provide
. occurred in the System on April 22, 2009
Defendant failed to submit a copy of the publi
76. The Department is e
that the Defendant comply with IDA
77.naltes, 'costs, expenses,
witness fees and aho Code § 39.108(5) and Idaho Code §
Department of Environmental Quality,
12.117.
A.
B. Issue a permanent mandatory injunction, as authorized by Idaho Code §
39.108, requiring the Defendant to perform the terms and conditions of the
Order and IDAPA 58.01.08 as specified above.
IDEQ v. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Momingview Water Company CÇ)MPLAINT. 14
o
C. Provide other such injunctive relief as the Court deems
according to proof.
D. Assess against Defendantall costs, expenses, witness fees and attorney's
fees incurred by Plaintiff pursuant to Idaho Code § 39~108 and Idaho Code § 12~117, in
an amount according to proof.
E. Grant such other relief as the Court deems
DATED this _ day of May, 2009.
IDEQv. Nolan Gneiting, d/b/a Momingview Water Company COMPLAINT ~ 15