DES MOINES – Penalties totaling tens of thousands of dollars will stand against a North Iowa junk yard owner with a history of environmental violations dating back to 2003, an Iowa appeals court ruled Thursday.
A 2010 lawsuit against Jerry Passehl, owner of “The Junkyard,” a salvage yard in Latimer, Iowa, accused Passehl of numerous solid waste, storm water discharge and hazardous condition violations, and the failure to comply with state administrative orders. Specifically, the lawsuit claimed that Passehl violated Iowa storm water discharge regulations and previous administrative orders. The violations include failing to properly drain or remove fluids from vehicles entering the scrap yard prior to crushing, failing to properly store batteries, and failing to immediately clean up spills and notify the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) of the spills. He was also accused of other environmental violations.
“These are serious infractions we have alleged,” Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller said. “My office will pursue cases where someone is accused of putting the environment at risk, especially our groundwater.”
In October of 2012, Franklin County judge Judge DeDra Schroeder ruled Passehl committed solid waste, storm water discharge, and hazardous condition violations and assessed him more than $40,000 in civil and administrative penalties. The judge also ordered Passehl to bring his facility into compliance.
Passehl appealed the finding.
On Thursday, December 5th, 2013, an Iowa appeals court ruled that the district court did not err in entering partial summary judgment based upon Passehl’s admissions of violations of the administrative consent order. the court found no abuse of discretion in the assessment of penalties, and no error in the entry of injunctive relief.
Specifically, the court said “Passehl entered into a consent order after five years of asserted violations of laws intended to protect the environment. He then failed to comply with the provisions of that consent order. The district court considered the costs saved by Passehl, the gravity of the various violations, the maximum penalty that could be imposed, the ability to deter future violations, the lack of deterrent effect of the consent order, as well as Passehl’s asserted inability to pay. We conclude the district court considered relevant factors and provided tenable reasons for imposing civil penalties of $40,260.17. The penalties were within those authorized by statute. We find no abuse of discretion. We therefore affirm.”
