Garland v. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, 210 Cal. App. 4th 557

Act prohibits discharging pollutants into navigable waters from a point source without a permit; definition includes ‘waters of the United States.’
Garland challenged a $250,000 ACL order (2007) by the Board for permit violations tied to storm water runoff from a residential subdivision site.
Discharge flowed into ephemeral drainages that connected to Feather River and Thermalito Afterbay during high rainfall; waterways include some wetlands.
Trial court (2009) held ephemeral drainages were waters of the United States and rejected limitations on timeliness but remanded on laches.
2010 appellate rulings upheld the Board’s findings and rejected Garland’s laches defense; Garland appealed.
Board also relied on an alternative rationale under Rapanos that pollutants could violate the Act even if not entering waters of the United States directly, via discharge through intermediate conduits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether ephemeral drainages are waters of the United States under Rapanos.	Garland: none of the drainages meet Scalia’s or Kennedy’s tests.	Board rejected narrow WOTUS view; alternative rationale supports liability.	Jurisdiction upheld via alternative rationale; not necessary to treat drainages as WOTUS.

Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc. v. United States, 474 U.S. 121 (1985) (upheld Corps. interpretation extending to wetlands abutting navigable waters)
Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) (rejected broader WOTUS scope for isolated ponds)
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) (three opinions; plurality narrows WOTUS; Kennedy concurrence adopts significant nexus concept)
United States v. Velsicol Chemical Corp., 438 F. Supp. 945 (1976) (discusses discharge via intervening conveyances as violation of §1311)
Sierra Club v. El Paso Gold Mines, Inc., 421 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2005) (upholds upstream conduit liability under CWA concepts)