“Unpermitted” and “Illegal”

Why this page uses the second word

18955 Industry Way · Sonora, Tuolumne County, California

The short answer. California law does not treat a solid waste permit as paperwork. Disposing of solid waste anywhere but a permitted facility is, in the statute’s own words, “an unlawful act.” The state agency that oversees county waste enforcement runs a unit called Closed, Illegal, and Abandoned Sites, and that unit has handled this property since July 2024. In November 2024 it recommended that the County tell the owner the site would be treated as an illegal disposal site. The County’s own letters say “unpermitted.” This page uses the word the statute uses.

1. What the statute says

Public Resources Code section 44000.5 prohibits disposing of solid waste — or arranging for its disposal, causing it, transporting it for that purpose, or accepting it — anywhere other than a facility holding a solid waste facilities permit, or as otherwise authorized under California’s waste management law. Subdivision (b) states the consequence in seven words:

“A violation of this section is an unlawful act.”

Public Resources Code § 44000.5(b)

Section 44002(a)(1) is equally plain:

“No person shall operate a solid waste facility without a solid waste facilities permit.”

Public Resources Code § 44002(a)(1)

And when an enforcement agency determines that someone is doing it, section 44002(b) leaves the agency no discretion. It “shall immediately issue a cease and desist order,” requiring that all activities needing a permit stop until a permit is obtained.

That is the bridge between the two words, and it does not depend on anyone’s opinion. Unpermitted disposal is not a licensing irregularity. The Legislature called it an unlawful act, and told enforcement agencies what to do about it.

2. The state unit that handles this site

CalRecycle administers the Closed, Illegal, and Abandoned Disposal Sites Program. The program sorts sites into three categories, and this is its published definition of the second:

Illegal: “Disposal sites that are currently conducting disposal activities illegally without a solid waste facility permit.”

CalRecycle, Closed, Illegal, and Abandoned Disposal Sites Program

CalRecycle’s internal timeline for this property, obtained through a public records request and posted below, opens:

“July 2024 – The CIA section was brought into the project.”

CalRecycle internal timeline, July 3, 2025

“CIA” is CalRecycle’s abbreviation for Closed, Illegal, and Abandoned. Every entry in that timeline after July 2024 records the work of that unit, and the engineer who has corresponded with the County about this property signs his emails:

Michael Clegg, P.E.
Waste Management Engineer
Closed, Illegal, and Abandoned Sites
CalRecycle

Signature block, CalRecycle correspondence with the Tuolumne County LEA

3. What CalRecycle wrote about this site

On November 21, 2024, under the subject line “Slaton Property IDS (55-AA-0017),” Mr. Clegg wrote to the County’s Local Enforcement Agency director:

“Following up on the call yesterday (11/20) which provided some guidance as we await to hear back from the waterboard. CalRecycle recommends providing a letter to the RP informing that going forward the site would be considered a Close Illegal Disposal Site and as part of the agreement subject to periodic inspections.”

Michael Clegg, CalRecycle, to Debra Larson, November 21, 2024, 3:14 p.m. — “RP” means responsible party. “Close” appears as written.

Forty minutes later he added a qualification, and it belongs here too:

“Please note that the classification of the site is dependent on waterboard’s input. Just wanted to get thoughts down on next step to keep project moving forward.”

Michael Clegg to Debra Larson, November 21, 2024, 3:54 p.m.

So CalRecycle’s recommendation was conditional when it was made. Here is what happened to the condition.

The Water Board’s input arrived on December 17, 2024. Based on a visual field inspection, its land disposal staff reported “no indication in the field that there is anything other than soil and broken up concrete blocks.” That opinion was expressly provisional:

“If new information comes to light regarding what is in the fill area, should operations resume, or if the data or observations indicate there are non-inert materials in the fill, we could reexamine the case.”

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, December 17, 2024

Operations did resume. The County’s own letter of May 11, 2026 includes a photograph taken April 30, 2026 of “crushed asphalt mix which may contain serpentine rock” at the site; CalRecycle had already advised the County in May 2025 that crushing “would fall under volume reduction,” that is, processing; and material was crushed, stockpiled, and hauled off the property during 2026.

And no letter was ever sent. CalRecycle recommended on November 21, 2024 that the County write to the responsible party. So far as the plaintiffs are aware, no such letter exists, no such agreement was made, and the state’s Solid Waste Information System shows zero inspections reported for this site.

4. What the County itself has written

5. The argument on the other side

There is one, and the plaintiffs would rather state it than have it stated for them. Three points.

First, CalRecycle’s November 2024 recommendation was expressly “dependent on waterboard’s input,” and the engineer who wrote it described himself as getting “thoughts down on next step.” It was a recommendation, not a determination, and it is quoted above in full for that reason.

Second, the Water Board’s December 2024 input did not find non-inert material. The plaintiffs’ answer is that the finding rested on a visual look at the surface, was conditional on its face, and named the resumption of operations as a trigger to reexamine — and operations resumed.

Third, CalRecycle’s definition of an “illegal” site speaks of disposal activities “currently” being conducted, and in February 2025 CalRecycle’s own action items described this fill as a “closed (unpermitted, inactive) Solid Waste Disposal Site.” That is the Closed category of the program rather than the Illegal one. Anyone defending this operation will point to that sentence, and they are entitled to.

What the plaintiffs say to all three is the same thing: the statutory point does not depend on how CalRecycle files a site at any given moment, or on what a visual inspection of the surface showed in 2024. Section 44000.5(b) says a violation “is an unlawful act.” It attaches no adverb.

6. So

The County determined in writing that the fill at 18955 Industry Way is an unpermitted solid waste disposal site. The Legislature says disposal without a permit is an unlawful act. The state unit that has handled this property for two years is named Closed, Illegal, and Abandoned Sites, and in November 2024 it recommended that the County tell the owner the site would be treated as an illegal disposal site going forward. That letter was never written.

On that record, the plaintiffs call it an illegal dump. It is a conclusion, not a court finding, and no court has ruled on the merits of this case. The documents it rests on are below. If you think the conclusion is wrong, read them and say so — the address for corrections is at the foot of every page on this site.

Documents on this page

← Back to 18955 Industry Way  ·  The full document index