Shell vs.The Environment & The Public Trust

Tam Doduc is the Chair of the State Water Resources Control Board. I fault her on not being honest enough to answer my letters herself without having the Water Board attorneys set up a defensive stance rather than a proactive considerate response, as anyone bringing an issue to the Water Board's attention would expect. Most importantly, I sent Tam Doduc exceedingly clear requests that the Water Board ask Shell Oil Company to do a GPR test in Corona. Shell did a failed test and the Water Board remained absolutely silent on that fact. If this "lie by omission" wasn't at the request of Shell Oil what was it? It is clearly: 1) Dishonest given my numerous and forceful requests, 2) Violates the public's right to know, and most importantly 3) Collusive with Shell's efforts to not have to clean up some number of 13,000 Texaco stations by not cleaning up Corona (see Problem Defined). It protected no one other than Shell Oil Company and Satish Chopra by not disclosing that information. I verified that fact with the Investigator for the District Attorney's Office. At the very least, this is an egregious example of "bureaucratic drift." Working together for so long, it would appear the Water Board protects the interest of big oil before the interest of the public good, at least in this instance. What good could it possibly do to frustrate a citizen in reporting an environmental crime by not being upfront and honest if it wasn't to protect Shell Oil or your own agency's shortcomings in allowing the problem to begin with? I am not the only one to experience the ineptitude of the Water Boards. California State Senator, Dean Florez, is as frustrated as I am (see Voluntary Compliance). The Correspondence File with the Water Board is Part One here and Part Two here.

Contact Info: Tam M. Doduc, Board Chair, P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812, PH (916) 341-0100, FX (916) 341-5621, Email: tdoduc@waterboards.ca.gov

(This and every page is subject to The Disclaimer)

Michael Lauffer is the Chief Counsel for the State Water Resources Control Board. His first response was to discount everything and say its OK. He completely ignored the issue of contamination left under the slab of Satish Chopra's station. As I tried to get him to realize this was a new issue that involved leaving toxic garage sumps, hydraulic lifts and hydraulic fluids in place under concrete slabs at former Texaco stations, it never became clear whether Lauffer is 1) protecting Shell Oil, 2) somehow trying to protect the State Water Board or 3) just plain "incompetent." I hate using that word, but Michael Lauffer never clearly addressed any issue I raised. He went so far as to say in his last letter, "there has not been any evidence of a release of hydraulic fluid. That objective monitoring data would typically be enough to put the matter to rest." I come to them alleging a toxic waste sump, hydraulic lifts and hydraulic fluid maliciously buried under a specific Shell station that Shell is selling to the person who maliciously covered it with concrete, who will never clean it up as it is a felony to have done it less than a 1,000 feet from a clean water aquifer. I used to work for Texaco and Satish Chopra and the Water Board doesn't care because "it isn't leaking now?"  

This is just insane. As the Chief Counsel for the State Water Board, I don't believe he is incapable of understanding my correspondence. So what is it? I believe Lauffer purposefully misdirected the attention to the gasoline cleanup at the Corona locations as a means to avoid the under-slab contamination problem I was raising. Why? Also, Lauffer's comment in a letter that "he is aware Shell is selling a few stations" is either "contrived ignorance" (Shell is selling all of their service stations, at the time of my letter, Shell had already soldd 51 out of 73 in Riverside County alone and are actively selling the remaining 22) in order to protect Shell or he is asleep at his job. What else could it be. The selling off of all of the #2 oil company in the world's gas stations, should not go unnoticed. This point alone argues that the Governor's Office and the State Water Board are protecting Shell. What else could it be? Ignorance or willful protection have the same effect either way. Can "bureaucratic drift" ever be this bad? (see Voluntary Compliance)

Contact Info:  Michael A.M. Lauffer, Office of Chief Counsel, P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812, PH: (916) 341-5161, FX: (916) 341-5199, Email: MLauffer@waterboards.ca.gov  

In his May 24, 2006 letter to me, Jorge Leon finally acknowledged the problem of the buried garage sumps, hydraulic lifts and hydraulic fluid. However, he went to great length to say how powerless the Water Board is and that the Board needs "objective evidence" and that what I brought to them was "hearsay." This is a defensive stategy that a 1st year law student would use. Most importantly, it isn't true. I worked for Texaco, Inc. and Satish Chopra regarding the same service station at 230 S. Lincoln Avenue, Corona, California. Far from being "hearsay" what I brought to the State Water Board is insider information they were mandated to act upon.

It wasn't until June 14, 2006, that the Riverside District Attorney by way of Joe Asbury, Investigator Bureau of Investigative Environmental Crimes, showed up that this issue was finally taken seriously (in spite of the Water Board).

The way it was left that day was that the Riverside District Attorney's Office was going to get Shell to do an under the slab GPR test. Joe Asbury was the only "player" to be upfront, transparent and honest. He laughed at Jorge Leon calling it "hearsay." At first, Asbury was convinced Shell had done an adequate GPR test. When he left, he was on to the fact that Shell's failed GPR test was self-serving, not definitive and that a better test could be performed. Joe Asbury asked for the information for IST Laboratories and its owner, Rich Soto, who could do a definitive test (see The Solution).

Here's the problem, in Leon's May 24, 2006 letter to me, Jorge Leon states the Water Board "is powerless to act without objective evidence to do the GPR test." Yet, the District Attorney told me Shell had already doen the failed GPR test a month prior to Leon's letter. This appears to be a blatatnt attempt to hide the facts by the attorneys for the State Water Resources Control Board for the express benefit of Shell Oil Company. Someone of consequence needs to ask them why? What purpose does it serve the Water Board to call my information to them "herasay" while at the same time lying about Shell's failed GPR test in a clear attempt to hide it?

Contact Info:  Jorge Leon, Office of Chief Counsel, P.O. Box 100, Sacramento, CA 95812, PH: (916) 341-5161, FX: (916) 341-5199, Email: JLeon@waterboards.ca.gov