Sludge Watch ==> La Paz County Prepares to Appeal Yakima Award

[Maureen Reilly]

Sludgewatch Admin:

Note that Yakima Compost was also in violation of California state 
Waterboard requirements.
Here is the notice that they had to pay a $50,000 fine plus all the 
outstanding fees less than 2 years ago.

http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/board_meetings/0511m.pdf

This is one non-compliant operator.
Oh...he doesn't make sludge 'compost' either...didn't meet the time and 
temperature requriements in Arizona.

...................................................................


La Paz County prepares to appeal Yakima award


By JOAN TRAVIS
and JOHN GUTEKUNST
PARKER PIONEER
Monday, October 8, 2007 11:11 PM MST


La Paz County supervisors will huddle with attorneys today to discuss an 
appeal of the $9.2 million jury award to Yakima Co. Inc. in the county’s 
unsuccessful lawsuit against the composting company.

The Board of Supervisors voted to authorize an appeal Oct.1.

The county filed suit against Yakima Compost Co. Inc., Yakima Co. Inc. and 
Lincoln General Insurance Co. in 2004 concerning a contract dispute.

After a 10-day trial, a jury handed down its verdict Sept. 4, awarding 
damages to Yakima.

The Phoenix law firm of Jones, Skelton & Hochuli represented the county in 
the suit and will handle the appeal.

Yakima had a contract with La Paz County to operate a drying facility for 
treated sewage sludge next to the county landfill on land the county 
obtained from the Bureau of Land Management. The drying process would kill 
pathogens in the sludge, and the finished product could be shipped out and 
used as fertilizer. The contract was signed in September 2002.

There have been numerous disputes between the county and Yakima over such 
matters as Yakima’s operations and a contractually mandated $1 million 
performance bond.

At trial, the county’s attorney, Georgia Staton, argued the Yakima facility 
had been mismanaged. She produced evidence and witnesses who said Yakima did 
not provide adequate training for its employees, failed to follow mandated 
procedures for sampling and testing the sludge and did not follow other 
conditions of the contract.

Particular attention was paid to Yakima’s failure to secure and post a $1 
million performance bond. The bond was not posted until June 2004.

In response, Yakima’s attorney, Glenn Hallman, said the county made it 
impossible for Yakima to post the bond because it would not approve a 
closure plan for the facility. Hallman noted that, once a closure plan was 
approved, Yakima produced a bond proposal. Once that was approved, the 
company posted the bond.

Hallman said many of the operational problems at the Yakima facility were 
quickly resolved. He said the county could not demonstrate any harm was done 
by Yakima. However, Yakima was harmed by the county.

The facility closed early in 2006 under a provision in the contract that 
allowed the county to close it if a suitable alternative site had not been 
found after three years. Hallman argued the county did not diligently pursue 
such a site and misrepresented Yakima to BLM.

Interim County Administrator Donna Hale said the county had spent more than 
$680,000 on legal bills from dealings with Yakima from fiscal year 2002-03 
through September 2007. She said that did not include the cost of the trial.