Opinion
NO. CY-98-3021-EFS, NO. CY-98-3022, NO. CY-98-3003
September 24, 2001
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
BEFORE THE COURT is Plaintiff C.A.R.E.'s Motion to Expedite Motion to Show Cause (Ct. Rec. 39) and it's Motion for an Order requiring Heritage College to Show Cause (Ct. Rec. 35) why funds received pursuant to the Consent Decrees in the above three matters should not be forfeited and returned for redesignation. These motions were served on all of the defendants. Only CARE and Heritage College filed materials in support of and in response to that motion. A telephonic hearing was held on Monday, September 17, 2001. Appearing at that hearing were: Charles Tebbutt, attorney for C.A.R.E., Mrs. Helen Reddout for C.A.R.E.; John Nelson, attorney for DeRuyter Brothers Dairy and Jake DeRuyter; and Don Schussler, attorney for Heritage College. Neither of the other two Defendants appeared either in person or through an attorney. Having read the materials submitted by C.A.R.E. and Heritage College and having listened to the arguments of counsel, the Court holds that:
1. These Consent Decrees were the products of mediations of citizen suits pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365, the Clean Water Act citizen suit provision.
2. The parties to the three Consent Decrees agreed that each of the Defendants would contribute a different sum of money to fund studies of water and water-related issues in the Yakima Valley by designees acceptable to the parties or in the event of a dispute, chosen by the Magistrate Judge Suko who mediated settlement of these three cases. The parties could not agree on a designee to receive the monies called for in the Consent Decrees and submitted the dispute to Magistrate Judge Suko who chose the proposal of Heritage College. Accordingly, both CARE and each of the Defendants have an interest in the monies paid by Defendants to fund such studies and therefore, an interest in the performance of the designee, Heritage College, which permits any of them to ask the Court to review the performance of the designee to assure that it is carrying out the study which was agreed to or was chosen and,
3. The Court has inherent power to enforce Consent Decrees which includes the power to compel performance by Heritage College of its court-accepted proposal for use of the monies allocated by the Consent Decree to studies as well as other remedial powers and,
4. There has been a sufficient showing to require Heritage College to show cause why funds received pursuant to the Consent Decrees in the above three matters should not be forfeited and returned for redesignation. Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Heritage College shall appear on October 12, 2001, Yakima, and show cause why funds received pursuant to the Consent Decrees in the above three matters should not be forfeited and returned for redesignation. The hearing is set for three hours beginning at 1:00 p.m. and,
2. That no later than September 24, 2001, Heritage College shall provide to the parties in writing a list of the college students and employees who have participated in the study to date.IT IS SO ORDERED. The District Court Executive is directed to enter this order and to provide copies to counsel.