.
.
http://www.kasdansimonds.com/about/news_article01.php
Anthem Homeowners pursue class action lawsuit against Pulte, Arizona American Water Company, alleging they hid $100 million of water infrastructure costs, now forced to be paid by homeowners
ANTHEM, AZ – Homeowners in the Anthem community in Maricopa County, north of Phoenix, upset over a substantial increase in their water bills that they claim was hidden from them when they purchased their homes, have brought a class action lawsuit against Del Webb/Pulte, and Arizona American Water Company.
The lawsuit, filed under Arizona’s Consumer Fraud statutes, alleges that the defendants failed to disclose that the cost of the water and wastewater infrastructure developed to serve the community was excluded from each home’s price in order to keep prices low.
The homeowner plaintiffs, represented by Kasdan Simonds Riley & Vaughan, LLP, allege in the lawsuit recently filed in Maricopa County Superior Court that Arizona American is now requesting substantial rate hikes to repay hidden infrastructure obligations that it owes to Del Webb/Pulte; the homeowners are seeking damages equal to the repayment costs, or approximately $100 million.
“Del Webb/Pulte and Arizona American agreed to artificially set the initial water rates at Anthem at approximately $70 per home so as not to shock potential purchasers with the true cost of supplying water to the homes,” explained Sr. Partner Ken Kasdan of the Kasdan Simonds Riley & Vaughan law firm. He said the total infrastructure costs exceeded $150 million.
Specifically, the lawsuit alleges that “ . . . Defendants failed to properly disclose to Anthem home purchasers the existence of the Agreement and the fact that home purchasers would bear the cost of the loan repayment to Del Webb/Pulte through future rate hikes instead of having the infrastructure costs of the Water Facilities be included within the cost of homes.” Kasdan noted, “The bottom line is, Del Webb/Pulte concealed the true cost of the homes from the homeowners.”
Arizona American recently applied for and obtained the first of several anticipated rate increases, Kasdan said. The rate increase applies primarily to the “base rate” and not to the gallons used by the individual homeowners. Arizona American sought an annual increase of $18,720,193 in their 2007-08 rate increase application.
According to the lawsuit, Del Webb/Pulte and Arizona American entered into a private agreement on September 29, 1997, under which Del Webb/Pulte and Arizona American would construct water and wastewater infrastructure for the Anthem project. Under the agreement, which was never disclosed to the Anthem homeowners, Del Webb/Pulte advanced the costs of the infrastructure to Arizona American, with the monies being repaid after the build out of homes at Anthem. The undisclosed plan called for the homeowners to fund the repayments through increased water rates.
The lawsuit alleges that the Arizona Subdivision and Public Reporting statutes require a developer to disclose to potential homebuyers whether the cost of water infrastructure needed to provide water to the home is included in the price of the home. Kasdan said that in its Public Report, Del Webb/Pulte falsely disclosed to some early purchasers at Anthem that the cost of the water infrastructure was included in the purchase price of the home. For later purchasers, Del Webb/Pulte made no disclosure at all.
Kasdan said the build out at Anthem is now approaching completion with about 10,500 homes, and Arizona American must now repay its debt to Del Webb/Pulte. “The exact amount of the obligation is unknown to the homeowners at this time, but is believed to exceed $100 million,” he said. Del Webb/Pulte has maintained and continues to maintain that the disclosures or lack thereof of the cost of the infrastructure has nothing to do with the current Arizona American utility rate case. Del Webb/Pulte has stated to Anthem homeowners: “Please be assured that the developer of Anthem followed Arizona Department of Real Estate (DRE) disclosure requirements regarding water and services.”
However, Arizona American cites the cost of the infrastructure and the repayment obligation to Del Webb/Pulte in its rate increase application. The application also reports that Del Webb/Pulte and Arizona American “developed a methodology that provided for reasonable, but high initial rates, followed by a series of rate increases as the number of homes sold increased.”
At the June 4, 2008, Special Open Meeting before the Arizona Corporation Commission regarding the requested rate increase, Commissioner Kristin Mayes stated:“This rate increase is patently unfair. It asks current customers to pay a bill they didn’t know was coming, didn’t have a chance to protest and didn’t have an opportunity to prepare for . . . . I would add that there is no evidence that any utility in the State of Arizona has ever been financed in such a patently unfair way to consumers.
“And I think it is important to note that by leaving the [repayments] in the rate base, we are subjecting, we are forever allowing them to be in the rate base and subjecting all future ratepayers to paying for those unfair costs. . . . . This is an extraordinary case. Never before has this commission approved such a large rate increase on such flawed circumstances.”
Also see http://www.hadd.com/respond.php, http://www.poorlybuiltbypulte.info/, http://www.suncityblufftonhomedefectclaims.com/index.asp, and http://peretired.blogspot.com/.
.
.
these are actual quotes from SCHH homeowners:
.
.
"Thank you for your vigilance! I’m still trying to get the lagoon surround maintained behind my home. It has never been done in over 2 years. Our neighborhood rep says that PULTE/CAM does not return any of his telephone calls. Also, I’m getting conflicting reports from the subcontractors who want to dredge & clear the pipe from the lagoon to the storm water system and Pulte's employee who has deemed it clear and closed the file – contrary to the advice of several contractors who have actually been chest high in the lagoon and reported the problem to Pulte."
.
.
"Thanks for responding.Perhaps, I wasn't explicit enough. I am trying to find out if it's the developers responsibility beyond the year for the foundation/slab/settling. I can't find anything in our documentation about the slab. Last week we heard a very loud crack. It sounded like the house was struck. The pictures on the living room walls were crooked and the next day we noticed that a whole course of tiles split across the living room. This is the same area that the foundation split before, resulting in the cracked tiles. Pulte didn't fix the foundation crack the first time. The tile people filled it and replaced the tiles. Is this going to continue? Our house was slightly over a year when the first jolt happened and now, a year later, it's happened again. We have not been here full time and don't know anyone who has a similar problem in our neighborhood. Also, where are the 4 houses that sank and had to be bought back by Pulte?"
.
.
"We have had two wood floors put in; they keep getting mold under the wood which surfaces as black spots all over the floor. Pulte came out and could not find the problem after the first floor started going bad. They never found the real problem, but they had their subcontractor put another floor down, blaming it on the glue. This summer it happend again and we are going thru all kinds of testing once again. I think it's a foundation problem but they will not do anything, does anyone know of a lawyer we can contact? "
.
.
"Pulte's subcontractor supposedly put down water-proof moisture glue in before he laid the second floor. The second floor showed signs of water in nine months I just met another person who has the same problem on a Del Webb home. Pulte would not do anything for them, blaming it on the patio that was laid before they moved in! I think we all built on a swamp land,and God knows what will happen in a few years. My husband just burys his head in the sand. Pulte will not put a wood floor in again. They want to put tile down. I am so upset I don't know what to do."
.
.
"My family was here for a visit this weekend and for something to do I took them to see the model homes as my son-in-law, who is the first green home builder in the Dayton, Ohio area, wanted to look at the quality of work. Of course what he saw surprised him in what should be was show case homes.
What I noticed was that the retaining walls around one of the lagoons were starting to lean. It was looking out the back window of the last house on the souteast corner side. The worst was on the side next to 278. I was not really surprise, but if you have not visited the models, thought that I would pass is on to you. Also was not surprise to see that all models, that the stucco is being removed and being replaced with Harddy Plank."
.
.
Friday, May 23, 2008
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Stucco lawsuits, Sun City Summerlin, Nevada
.
.
729 Del Webb homeowners can sue builder
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Supreme Court ruling goes against large homebuilders
Nevada homeowners don't have to be the original purchasers of their domiciles to be protected under the state's construction defect laws. Supporters are hailing a Nevada Supreme Court ruling in the state's largest construction defect case as reaffirming the rights of buyers of resale homes to sue for construction defects that went undetected by the original owners. The state high court denied the writ of builder Del Webb and subcontractor Anse requesting the removal of more than 700 Sun City Summerlin homeowners from the massive lawsuit.
Supreme Court ruling goes against large homebuilders
'Stucco case' ruling protects resale homebuyers as if they were original owners
BY VALERIE MILLER
Nevada homeowners don't have to be the original purchasers of their domiciles to be protected under the state's construction defect laws.
Supporters are hailing a Nevada Supreme Court ruling in the state's largest construction defect case as reaffirming the rights of buyers of resale homes to sue for construction defects that went undetected by the original owners. The state high court denied the writ of builder Del Webb and subcontractor Anse requesting the removal of more than 700 Sun City Summerlin homeowners from the massive lawsuit.
In a unanimous decision, the court rejected Del Webb and Anse's arguments that the 729 subsequent homeowners should be removed from the lawsuit because their homes wouldn't fit into the legal definition of "new residences." The builder cited the Nevada Supreme Court's 2007 Westpark decision, which held that only the altered parts of condominium conversions would be considered new and thus protected under the state's construction defect law, Chapter 40.
The importance of suing under Chapter 40 rather than common law is that the state statute allows court costs, attorneys fees and negligence awards.
Justices agreed that the Del Webb assertion would go against the intent of the state's defect law to provide "an expansive remedy for homeowners and protection for developers." To rule in favor of removing the 729 homeowners from the lawsuit would result in "disparate treatment among otherwise similarly-situated homeowners."
Attorney Scott Canepa, who argued for the plaintiffs and against the Del Webb writ, praised the decision as good for everyone who owns a home in the state.
"It makes perfect sense because the question was whether the builder can get off the hook (for repairs) because the person is the second or third owner of the house," he said.
Canepa called the court's decision "consistent with state law." He also predicted the district court outcome of the lawsuit, known as the "stucco case," would be appealed. Canepa only worked on the response of the Del Webb writ to the Supreme Court and not the trial itself.
The six-month-long, on-again, off-again trial resulted in a $4 million jury verdict last month for a limited number of homeowners. That award was a far cry from the nearly $90 million plaintiffs attorneys had sought to fix nearly 1,200 homes with alleged defects. The case began more than five years ago.
Both sides will likely appeal at least parts of the case, said Michael Schulman, an attorney for the homeowners.
"We wouldn't be appealing the $4 million for our clients, we would be appealing for our clients that didn't receive anything," he said.
Schulman cited the case's decertification as a class action lawsuit by then-presiding District Court Judge Allen Earl as an obstacle. Class certification would have allowed the case to have 10 to 25 representative plaintiffs who would testify on behalf of the whole group, as opposed to having a number of homeowners tell their stories and be awarded individually.
"It certainly appears that them being able to testify made a difference (to the jury), but if everyone testified, and it took a half a day for each plaintiff, the trial would have taken two to five years.
"The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 900 homeowners and seven subhomeowners associations against Del Webb, Pulte Homes and four subcontractors, including Anse.
"A lot of the appeal grounds will relate to jury instructions, also there were (evidence) issues. We thought there was some evidence that should have been allowed," Schulman said.
He also expects Del Webb to appeal the $4 million award, which while far less than the defense was seeking still breaks down as an unusually high amount per defective home.
"I don't think (Del Webb) will let $40,000 to $50,000 judgments on individual homes sit," he said.Attorneys for Del Webb, and other defendants, were unavailable for comment at press time.
Contact reporter Valerie Miller at vmiller@lvbusinesspress.com or 702-387-5286.
http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2008/10/13/news/iq_24385054.txt
.
.
.
729 Del Webb homeowners can sue builder
Tuesday, 14 October 2008
Supreme Court ruling goes against large homebuilders
Nevada homeowners don't have to be the original purchasers of their domiciles to be protected under the state's construction defect laws. Supporters are hailing a Nevada Supreme Court ruling in the state's largest construction defect case as reaffirming the rights of buyers of resale homes to sue for construction defects that went undetected by the original owners. The state high court denied the writ of builder Del Webb and subcontractor Anse requesting the removal of more than 700 Sun City Summerlin homeowners from the massive lawsuit.
Supreme Court ruling goes against large homebuilders
'Stucco case' ruling protects resale homebuyers as if they were original owners
BY VALERIE MILLER
Nevada homeowners don't have to be the original purchasers of their domiciles to be protected under the state's construction defect laws.
Supporters are hailing a Nevada Supreme Court ruling in the state's largest construction defect case as reaffirming the rights of buyers of resale homes to sue for construction defects that went undetected by the original owners. The state high court denied the writ of builder Del Webb and subcontractor Anse requesting the removal of more than 700 Sun City Summerlin homeowners from the massive lawsuit.
In a unanimous decision, the court rejected Del Webb and Anse's arguments that the 729 subsequent homeowners should be removed from the lawsuit because their homes wouldn't fit into the legal definition of "new residences." The builder cited the Nevada Supreme Court's 2007 Westpark decision, which held that only the altered parts of condominium conversions would be considered new and thus protected under the state's construction defect law, Chapter 40.
The importance of suing under Chapter 40 rather than common law is that the state statute allows court costs, attorneys fees and negligence awards.
Justices agreed that the Del Webb assertion would go against the intent of the state's defect law to provide "an expansive remedy for homeowners and protection for developers." To rule in favor of removing the 729 homeowners from the lawsuit would result in "disparate treatment among otherwise similarly-situated homeowners."
Attorney Scott Canepa, who argued for the plaintiffs and against the Del Webb writ, praised the decision as good for everyone who owns a home in the state.
"It makes perfect sense because the question was whether the builder can get off the hook (for repairs) because the person is the second or third owner of the house," he said.
Canepa called the court's decision "consistent with state law." He also predicted the district court outcome of the lawsuit, known as the "stucco case," would be appealed. Canepa only worked on the response of the Del Webb writ to the Supreme Court and not the trial itself.
The six-month-long, on-again, off-again trial resulted in a $4 million jury verdict last month for a limited number of homeowners. That award was a far cry from the nearly $90 million plaintiffs attorneys had sought to fix nearly 1,200 homes with alleged defects. The case began more than five years ago.
Both sides will likely appeal at least parts of the case, said Michael Schulman, an attorney for the homeowners.
"We wouldn't be appealing the $4 million for our clients, we would be appealing for our clients that didn't receive anything," he said.
Schulman cited the case's decertification as a class action lawsuit by then-presiding District Court Judge Allen Earl as an obstacle. Class certification would have allowed the case to have 10 to 25 representative plaintiffs who would testify on behalf of the whole group, as opposed to having a number of homeowners tell their stories and be awarded individually.
"It certainly appears that them being able to testify made a difference (to the jury), but if everyone testified, and it took a half a day for each plaintiff, the trial would have taken two to five years.
"The lawsuit was filed on behalf of 900 homeowners and seven subhomeowners associations against Del Webb, Pulte Homes and four subcontractors, including Anse.
"A lot of the appeal grounds will relate to jury instructions, also there were (evidence) issues. We thought there was some evidence that should have been allowed," Schulman said.
He also expects Del Webb to appeal the $4 million award, which while far less than the defense was seeking still breaks down as an unusually high amount per defective home.
"I don't think (Del Webb) will let $40,000 to $50,000 judgments on individual homes sit," he said.Attorneys for Del Webb, and other defendants, were unavailable for comment at press time.
Contact reporter Valerie Miller at vmiller@lvbusinesspress.com or 702-387-5286.
http://www.lvbusinesspress.com/articles/2008/10/13/news/iq_24385054.txt
.
.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Stucco lawsuits, Sun City Hilton Head, SC
.
.
.
September 3, 2008
On September 3, 2008, Pulte, Del Webb Communities, and South Carolina State Plastering, LLC, were named in 87 separate law suits filed in Beaufort County, SC by attorneys representing homeowners in Sun City Hilton Head. This is the first round of individual law suits brought against the developer and builder of Sun City Hilton Head after the Court ruled that the stucco case against the Developer cannot be handled as a class action lawsuit. It is expected that more individual lawsuits will be filed.
Estimates for removing and reapplying the stucco average $40,000 per house. For more information see http://www.suncityblufftonhomedefectclaims.com/index.asp
Following is from "Homeowner Stucco Defects Power Point Presentation", which can be found in the “Important Documents” folder:
QUOTE
Plaintiff’s Attorney
Q. …pursuant to South Carolina law, how long is the case going to be stayed?
Attorney for Pulte
A. Most likely indefinitely. These are all homeowners that have to be over 55 to live there. By the time all 4,000 comply, which they probably never will, half of them will already be dead.
Pulte has acknowledged, in sworn testimony, that:
• It did not employ the services of a design professional for the design of the stucco systems at issue.
• It has no knowledge of how to install a proper stucco control joint.
• There was no supervision of the stucco subcontractor with regard to proper stucco application.
• Following this lawsuit, Pulte began in July 2007 utilizing stucco control joints at the corners of windows and doors in its new construction across U.S. Hwy 278.
Sisnroy Engineering Report
Cracking in Stucco
“Eventually 100% of the homes will exhibit cracking due to excessive stress from improper stucco installation.”
.
.
.
.
.
September 3, 2008
On September 3, 2008, Pulte, Del Webb Communities, and South Carolina State Plastering, LLC, were named in 87 separate law suits filed in Beaufort County, SC by attorneys representing homeowners in Sun City Hilton Head. This is the first round of individual law suits brought against the developer and builder of Sun City Hilton Head after the Court ruled that the stucco case against the Developer cannot be handled as a class action lawsuit. It is expected that more individual lawsuits will be filed.
Estimates for removing and reapplying the stucco average $40,000 per house. For more information see http://www.suncityblufftonhomedefectclaims.com/index.asp
Following is from "Homeowner Stucco Defects Power Point Presentation", which can be found in the “Important Documents” folder:
QUOTE
Plaintiff’s Attorney
Q. …pursuant to South Carolina law, how long is the case going to be stayed?
Attorney for Pulte
A. Most likely indefinitely. These are all homeowners that have to be over 55 to live there. By the time all 4,000 comply, which they probably never will, half of them will already be dead.
Pulte has acknowledged, in sworn testimony, that:
• It did not employ the services of a design professional for the design of the stucco systems at issue.
• It has no knowledge of how to install a proper stucco control joint.
• There was no supervision of the stucco subcontractor with regard to proper stucco application.
• Following this lawsuit, Pulte began in July 2007 utilizing stucco control joints at the corners of windows and doors in its new construction across U.S. Hwy 278.
Sisnroy Engineering Report
Cracking in Stucco
“Eventually 100% of the homes will exhibit cracking due to excessive stress from improper stucco installation.”
.
.
.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
senior citizens, veterans. it doesn't make any difference to Pulte
.
.
How to Prevent New Home Defects
Buyers should take care that they're not purchasing an inferior-quality house
June Fletcher, The Wall Street Journal
Oct.2, 2008
As the downturn deepens, many would-be homeowners are taking advantage of down payment and closing cost assistance, free finished basements and other incentives offered by builders eager to move their merchandise.
But buyers should take care that they're not purchasing an inferior-quality house.
For the month of August, the producer price index for construction materials rose 13% over the same period a year earlier, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As costs rise, some builders cut corners. The Consumer Federation of America says construction tops its list of the five fastest-growing complaint categories.
Bruce Barker, a Phoenix home inspector, says almost all the new houses he sees have minimum-quality windows, and about three-quarters have inadequate loose fill or fiberglass insulation; other houses he's inspected have brand-name condensers on the exterior of the home, where buyers can see them, connected to generic furnaces hidden in the attic. Steve Showalter, a Graysonville, Md. inspector, says builders have stopped using plywood sheathing and instead use oriented strand board, which can swell with moisture unless it's installed correctly—and it rarely is, he says. Rob Ringen, a Sonora, Calif. home inspector, estimates that 80% of the repair work that new home owners have to do today can be traced directly to poor-quality materials like twisted and split framing, and short-cuts on installation, like missing flashing over windows that allows rain to leak in. And since building code inspectors are being laid off in the downturn, and remaining ones overworked, such problems often slip by. "Homeowners get it right in the neck," says Mr. Ringen.
Since new home contracts often have binding arbitration clauses, many disgruntled buyers can't sue—although some have taken creative steps to embarrass builders they think have cheated them. Cynthia and John Daugherty posed as orange-jumpsuited "prisoners" on the Web site they made about their Pulte-built Kansas home, listing complaints about bad foundation walls and bouncy floors. Crapconstruction.com, with a logo of a home swirling down the toilet, was created for Beazer Home buyers complaining about buckling hardwood floors, chipped tiles and cracked caulk.
Although builders have been known to sue or buy out people who start complaint sites, it's far less stressful to prevent such problems in the first place. While visiting the house often during the construction period can uncover some problems, most homeowners don't have the expertise to check for every defect in construction and materials. That's why it's essential to turn to professionals to look after your interests. Before you sign a contract, have your attorney read it to make sure your rights to legal redress for defects are protected. Before you close, make sure to hire a home inspector, preferably one with an engineering background, to ensure that no one took any shortcuts.
Also, take time to read and understand whatever warranties the builder offers. The warranty will likely exclude certain items like appliances and cracks from normal settling of the house, and may limit the amount of time you have to file a claim for damages or defects. This time period may be shorter than the time state law provides for filing a lawsuit under the principle of "implied warranty," so the builder may demand that you sign a paper waiving these rights. This is in the builder's interest, but not yours. Don't do it.
Write to June Fletcher at june.fletcher@wsj.com
.
.
.
How to Prevent New Home Defects
Buyers should take care that they're not purchasing an inferior-quality house
June Fletcher, The Wall Street Journal
Oct.2, 2008
As the downturn deepens, many would-be homeowners are taking advantage of down payment and closing cost assistance, free finished basements and other incentives offered by builders eager to move their merchandise.
But buyers should take care that they're not purchasing an inferior-quality house.
For the month of August, the producer price index for construction materials rose 13% over the same period a year earlier, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. As costs rise, some builders cut corners. The Consumer Federation of America says construction tops its list of the five fastest-growing complaint categories.
Bruce Barker, a Phoenix home inspector, says almost all the new houses he sees have minimum-quality windows, and about three-quarters have inadequate loose fill or fiberglass insulation; other houses he's inspected have brand-name condensers on the exterior of the home, where buyers can see them, connected to generic furnaces hidden in the attic. Steve Showalter, a Graysonville, Md. inspector, says builders have stopped using plywood sheathing and instead use oriented strand board, which can swell with moisture unless it's installed correctly—and it rarely is, he says. Rob Ringen, a Sonora, Calif. home inspector, estimates that 80% of the repair work that new home owners have to do today can be traced directly to poor-quality materials like twisted and split framing, and short-cuts on installation, like missing flashing over windows that allows rain to leak in. And since building code inspectors are being laid off in the downturn, and remaining ones overworked, such problems often slip by. "Homeowners get it right in the neck," says Mr. Ringen.
Since new home contracts often have binding arbitration clauses, many disgruntled buyers can't sue—although some have taken creative steps to embarrass builders they think have cheated them. Cynthia and John Daugherty posed as orange-jumpsuited "prisoners" on the Web site they made about their Pulte-built Kansas home, listing complaints about bad foundation walls and bouncy floors. Crapconstruction.com, with a logo of a home swirling down the toilet, was created for Beazer Home buyers complaining about buckling hardwood floors, chipped tiles and cracked caulk.
Although builders have been known to sue or buy out people who start complaint sites, it's far less stressful to prevent such problems in the first place. While visiting the house often during the construction period can uncover some problems, most homeowners don't have the expertise to check for every defect in construction and materials. That's why it's essential to turn to professionals to look after your interests. Before you sign a contract, have your attorney read it to make sure your rights to legal redress for defects are protected. Before you close, make sure to hire a home inspector, preferably one with an engineering background, to ensure that no one took any shortcuts.
Also, take time to read and understand whatever warranties the builder offers. The warranty will likely exclude certain items like appliances and cracks from normal settling of the house, and may limit the amount of time you have to file a claim for damages or defects. This time period may be shorter than the time state law provides for filing a lawsuit under the principle of "implied warranty," so the builder may demand that you sign a paper waiving these rights. This is in the builder's interest, but not yours. Don't do it.
Write to June Fletcher at june.fletcher@wsj.com
.
.
Saturday, May 3, 2008
Thursday, May 1, 2008
US EPA and Pulte Homes
.
.
http://epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/cwa/pultehomes-infosht.html
On June 11, 2008, the United States lodged a settlement between the United States, Pulte Homes, and the States of Maryland, Tennessee, Colorado, and Nevada, and the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Pulte Homes was ranked the third largest home builder in the country in 2006 and the fourth largest builder in 2007 in terms of home closings and revenues.
EPA conducted inspections and gathered information for Pulte Homes construction sites located throughout the country.
The types and severity of alleged violations vary for each site but generally include:
- discharge of polluted storm water to storm sewers or waterways without obtaining an NPDES permit;
- failure to install or implement appropriate storm water controls or best management practices (BMPs) required by the SWPPP (for example: silt fences were not installed in all required areas; BMPs to prevent sediment from entering storm drains were not installed; no BMPs were installed at construction entrances to prevent offsite trackout of dirt; concrete washout basins were not installed to prevent concrete from flowing into storm drains; portable toilets were located directly on top of storm drain inlets without BMPs to prevent spills from entering the storm drain);
- incorrect installation of BMPs (for example: silt fences were not properly trenched in; sediment ponds were not completed prior to commencing site grading);
- failure to keep BMPs in effective operating condition (for example: silt fences and storm drain inlet protections were full of sediment and no longer effective; silt fences had fallen down or had holes; construction entrances needed additional rock);
- failure to adequately or routinely inspect BMPs to ensure proper operation and maintenance.
Pulte Homes has agreed to a settlement with the United States and the States of Maryland, Tennessee, Colorado, and Nevada, and the Commonwealth of Virginia to resolve these alleged violations.
Specific measures include:
- establishment of three management tiers that will be responsible for storm water compliance within the company, including the designation of trained, qualified staff at every construction site;
a requirement to follow specified criteria for guidance in developing site-specific SWPPPs for every site;
- a requirement to conduct pre-construction inspections and quarterly oversight inspections and reviews at all sites in addition to the routine inspections required by NPDES permits;
a requirement to use EPA-approved forms for pre-construction inspections, routine inspections, and quarterly inspections and reviews; and, - a requirement to implement storm water training programs for storm water managers and builder employees, and storm water orientation programs for storm water consultants and contractors.
The Supplemental Environmental Project is designed to reduce sediment in storm water runoff in a northern California watershed in Mendocino County.
- Virginia: $12,000
- Maryland: $21,000
- Tennessee: $ 7,000
- Colorado: $14,000
- Nevada: $47,000
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)