People v. Buena Vista Mines, Inc.
60 Cal.App.4th 1198, 60 Cal. App. 2d 1198, 71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 101 (1998)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The common law defense of necessity is not available to a defendant who substantially contributed to the emergency that necessitated the illegal act, particularly when reasonable legal alternatives were not pursued.
Facts:
- Buena Vista Mines, Inc., owned an inactive mercury mine from which acid-contaminated water had been draining into Las Tablas Creek for over 20 years.
- The California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) ordered the defendant to stop discharging the water or treat it before release.
- In 1994, the defendant constructed a single earthen holding pond, with a capacity of 1,500,000 gallons, to capture the contaminated water for evaporation.
- In early 1995, San Luis Obispo County experienced heavy rains.
- On March 24, 1995, Harold J. Biaggini, fearing the pond's earthen wall would burst, used a pump to discharge 180,000 gallons of untreated, highly acidic water from the nearly full pond into Las Tablas Creek.
- The defendant claimed he lacked the financial resources to conduct a proper engineering study or install an adequate treatment facility to comply with RWQCB specifications.
Procedural Posture:
- The People filed an amended felony complaint against Buena Vista Mines, Inc., and Harold J. Biaggini in the trial court for violating the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
- At a preliminary hearing, the magistrate dismissed the charge, finding the defendant's conduct was justified by the necessity defense.
- The People filed a motion in the trial court to reinstate the felony complaint.
- The trial court denied the People's motion to reinstate the complaint.
- The People, as appellant, appealed the trial court's order to the Court of Appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the necessity defense legally justify discharging pollutants in violation of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act when the defendant's own conduct, such as storing contaminated water in an inadequately sized pond, substantially contributed to the emergency?
Opinions:
Majority - Yegan, J.
No. The necessity defense does not justify the discharge because the defendant's own actions substantially contributed to the emergency. To claim necessity, a defendant must not have substantially contributed to the emergency and must have exhausted all reasonable legal alternatives. Here, the defendant created the perilous situation by storing a large volume of contaminated water in an inadequately sized open pond without a sufficient treatment system. The court found that the defendant had weeks, if not months, to consider and implement alternatives, such as building a larger or second pond or installing an operational treatment facility before the rainy season. Financial impossibility is not a defense to environmental statutes. Because the defendant's own lack of preparation created the emergency, the defense of necessity fails as a matter of law.
Analysis:
This case significantly limits the application of the necessity defense in environmental law, establishing that defendants cannot create a hazardous situation through negligence or poor planning and then use the resulting 'emergency' to justify violating pollution control statutes. The decision aligns California's interpretation of the Porter-Cologne Act with federal precedent under the Clean Water Act, which rejects economic hardship as a justification for non-compliance. By focusing on the defendant's contribution to the crisis and the failure to pursue prior legal alternatives, the court reinforces a duty of proactive compliance on parties handling hazardous materials, thereby strengthening the enforcement power of environmental regulations.
