United States v. Alisal Water Corporation

Good Law
431 F.3d 643
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitOctober 12, 200502-15907, 04-16210California7,929 words

Opinion

Opinion

Tallman, J.

ORDER

The Opinion filed on October 13, 2005, slip opinion at 14045, is amended by the opinion filed concurrently with this order. With these amendments, the panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing.

The petition for panel rehearing is DENIED. No further petitions for panel rehearing or petitions for rehearing en banc will be entertained.

OPINION

Appellants Robert and Natholyn Adcock and various private water systems they owned and operated in Monterey County, California, violated various public health and safety regulations under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f-300j. They appeal the district court’s orders requiring divestiture of all except the largest water system and imposing financial penalties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 1292(a)(2) and affirm.

I

Prior to this litigation, the Adcock family water system business was organized into four corporations. The largest, Alisal Water Corporation (“Alisal”), owned and operated several public water systems, some of which are named as defendants: Aleo Water Service (“Aleo”), Salinas Division, Blackie Road Water System # 18, Pine Canyon Division of Aleo Water…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.