Indexes
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- Students 'protest' the eating of turkeys on Thanksgiving (78)
- Does citing the facts on immigration mean I am a hate-monger? (76)
- Minister takes to the streets to recruit new members (38)
- Bring Trader Joe's store to Lodi (35)
- Huber upsets Sieglock in 10th Assembly race (31)
- Is the U.S. Constitution obsolete? (30)
- Major cuts loom (29)
- First the banks, now the automakers (27)
- Former gang member hopes to make a difference in Lodi (25)
- Lodi Cricket Club delighted with Beckman Park field (22)
Lodi contamination settlement near end; cleanup moves ahead
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
As litigation from Lodi's groundwater contamination case comes to a close, cleanup has already begun.
News-Sentinel reporter Matt Brown recently discussed the status of the remaining litigation and the cleanup with City Attorney Stephen Schwabauer.
In 1989, officials discovered that the groundwater in some areas of Downtown was contaminated with the chemicals PCE and TCE, which are used as industrial solvents and in dry cleaning. The chemicals spread out to five different plumes in the city's groundwater.
In the mid-1990s, the city's outside attorney, Michael Donovan, crafted a plan to sue insurance companies of local businesses, including the News-Sentinel, for their role in the contamination. After a number of negative court rulings, the City Council in 2004 fired Donovan and City Attorney Randy Hays.
The city has since sued Donovan for fraud and malpractice, and Donovan has countersued, claiming the city owes him millions in legal fees.
The city has sought to settle out of court with the parties responsible for the contamination.
Q: How many parties have settled in the case so far?
A: Everybody but United Dry Cleaners, which is a group of eight parties, Connie Dewalt Scott and Harmon Investors. They are all part of the south central western plume, one of five distinct contaminated plumes. All the other plumes are settled.
Q: So how many have settled, then?
A: Many of the settlements encompass more than just one person, so it's hard to put a number on it. The case has been resolved with regard to something close to 100 parties.
Q: How much has the city collected in settlements?
A: The easiest way to do that is to go plume by plume. In the central plume, we recovered $7.4 million. In the northern plume, we recovered around $5 million. In the Busy Bee plume, we didn't recover cash. They funded 100 percent of the cost to pay a contractor to clean up the plume to the satisfaction of the (state) Regional (Water Quality Control) Board. The southern plume was $1.5 million. That leaves the south central western, which is roughly $700,000. (Five plume total: $14.6 million)
Q: How much longer do you expect the mediation to last?
A: If they're going to settle, they are going to settle in the next four to six weeks or they are just not going to settle. They'd be fools not to.
Q: What is the total cost of the cleanup?
A: Roughly $48 million. That is our part of the cleanup.
Q: What is the estimated time frame of the cleanup?
A: It's still 30 years.
Q: What work has been done on the cleanup so far?
A: The cleanup is already moving forward in the central plume. We have a soil vapor extraction system running right now in the central plume. We also have a dual phase extraction system running on a pilot basis. There is cleanup over at Busy Bee under that contract. The other settlements, we don't get paid until a court signs off on them, which we expect to happen in the next couple of months. The (cleanup in those plumes) will begin when we get the money.
Q: What is the status of the Donovan case?
A: The case is going to trial. The only way Mr. Donovan is going to get paid is if we lose the trial, we lose on appeal ... and the sheriff comes to execute the judgment. That's the only way. It's going to be at the point of a sheriff's gun that the check is going to be written, after every last option for appeal has been exhausted.
Contact reporter Matt Brown at mattb@lodinews.com.

Reader Feedback
S & W 500 wrote on Jun 28, 2007 5:44 PM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 28, 2007 8:52 AM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 28, 2007 7:45 AM:
Taxpayer & Citizen wrote on Jun 27, 2007 7:53 PM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 27, 2007 9:06 AM:
Taxpayer & Citizen wrote on Jun 26, 2007 6:44 PM:
Taxpayer & Citizen wrote on Jun 26, 2007 6:42 PM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 26, 2007 4:13 PM:
Taxpayer & Citizen wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:10 PM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 26, 2007 10:07 AM:
OTH wrote on Jun 26, 2007 8:09 AM:
well wrote on Jun 25, 2007 1:48 PM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 25, 2007 12:55 PM:
OTH wrote on Jun 25, 2007 9:17 AM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 25, 2007 7:55 AM:
Taxpayer & Citizen wrote on Jun 24, 2007 9:56 PM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 24, 2007 7:41 AM:
Taxpayer & Citizen wrote on Jun 23, 2007 1:07 PM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 22, 2007 4:22 PM:
Taxpayer & Citizen wrote on Jun 22, 2007 2:12 PM:
Taxpayer & Citizen wrote on Jun 22, 2007 2:10 PM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 22, 2007 8:17 AM:
OMG wrote on Jun 21, 2007 9:21 PM:
OMG wrote on Jun 21, 2007 8:25 PM:
Aunt Bernice wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:16 PM:
Aunt Bernice wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:10 PM:
Taxpayer & Citizen wrote on Jun 21, 2007 5:43 PM:
OMG wrote on Jun 21, 2007 3:22 PM:
OMG wrote on Jun 21, 2007 3:19 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jun 21, 2007 11:22 AM:
Oh, Oh wrote on Jun 21, 2007 9:46 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jun 21, 2007 8:30 AM:
To: Aunt Bernice wrote on Jun 21, 2007 7:21 AM:
hmmm wrote on Jun 20, 2007 10:49 PM:
Aunt Bernice wrote on Jun 20, 2007 7:27 PM:
T & C wrote on Jun 20, 2007 1:07 PM:
Psychologist 2 wrote on Jun 20, 2007 8:18 AM:
Hey Pssychologist wrote on Jun 19, 2007 6:49 PM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 19, 2007 5:30 PM:
to Psychologist wrote on Jun 19, 2007 4:34 PM:
Psychologist wrote on Jun 19, 2007 9:10 AM:
T & C wrote on Jun 19, 2007 7:22 AM:
YEAH wrote on Jun 18, 2007 11:50 PM:
to Psychologist wrote on Jun 18, 2007 11:50 PM:
hmmm wrote on Jun 18, 2007 9:19 PM:
Aunt Bernice wrote on Jun 18, 2007 7:22 PM:
Aunt Bernice wrote on Jun 18, 2007 7:16 PM:
Aunt Bernice wrote on Jun 18, 2007 7:12 PM:
Psychologist wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:45 PM:
Psychologist wrote on Jun 18, 2007 4:41 PM:
S.R. Peel wrote on Jun 17, 2007 8:51 PM:
really T & C wrote on Jun 17, 2007 7:45 AM:
Bam wrote on Jun 17, 2007 7:01 AM:
to School Mate wrote on Jun 17, 2007 12:01 AM:
to Lodian @ 8:18 PM wrote on Jun 16, 2007 11:57 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jun 16, 2007 8:18 PM:
T & C wrote on Jun 16, 2007 5:24 PM:
T & C wrote on Jun 16, 2007 5:14 PM:
T & C wrote on Jun 16, 2007 12:54 PM:
T & C wrote on Jun 16, 2007 12:49 PM:
to Lodian@5:33 PM wrote on Jun 15, 2007 11:59 PM:
School Mate wrote on Jun 15, 2007 9:08 PM:
S.R. Peel wrote on Jun 15, 2007 6:56 PM:
Oscar wrote on Jun 15, 2007 6:18 PM:
Lodian wrote on Jun 15, 2007 5:33 PM:
get the facts-T & C wrote on Jun 15, 2007 5:10 PM:
T & C wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:43 PM:
T & C wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:25 PM:
T & C wrote on Jun 15, 2007 4:14 PM:
Weezer wrote on Jun 15, 2007 3:28 PM:
Responsible? wrote on Jun 15, 2007 2:44 PM:
T & C wrote on Jun 15, 2007 1:55 PM:
T & C wrote on Jun 15, 2007 1:49 PM:
black and white wrote on Jun 15, 2007 12:31 PM:
black and white wrote on Jun 15, 2007 12:26 PM:
black and white wrote on Jun 15, 2007 12:25 PM:
black and white wrote on Jun 15, 2007 12:14 PM:
blackandwhite wrote on Jun 15, 2007 12:13 PM:
black and white wrote on Jun 15, 2007 12:12 PM:
OTH wrote on Jun 15, 2007 9:18 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jun 15, 2007 8:16 AM:
T & C wrote on Jun 15, 2007 7:56 AM:
T & C wrote on Jun 15, 2007 7:49 AM:
Lodian wrote on Jun 15, 2007 7:35 AM:
T & C wrote on Jun 15, 2007 7:30 AM:
Comments on this story are now closed.