98 F. Supp. 3d 1279
S.D. Ga.2015Background
- Jones Creek Investors alleges upstream sediment from Columbia County and CSXT damages Willow Lake and the adjacent golf course; Savannah Riverkeeper joins to assert additional CWA claims against Columbia County.
- Only CSXT and Columbia County remain as defendants after dismissal of others; motions for summary judgment are ripe.
- Columbia County is alleged to have failed to police its MS4 permit system (CWA claim) and to own land contributing to sedimentation (Counts II–III).
- CSXT’s culvert replacement at the CSXT crossing is alleged to affect hydrology and downstream sedimentation, with potential ICCTA preemption of state-law claims.
- The court addresses Rule 72(a) objections, then evaluates CWA Counts I–III against CSXT and Columbia County, and reserves Counts 10, 11, and 13 for supplemental briefing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| ICCTA preemption of state-law claims against CSXT | JCI asserts preemption does not apply to all state claims | CSXT contends ICCTA preempts state-law claims | ICCTA preempts CSXT state-law claims (Counts 6–9, 10, 12, 13) |
| CSXT’s § 1983 takings claim against CSXT | JCI argues CSXT acted under color of state law | CSXT contends no state-action nexus | CSXT summary judgment granted on Count 11 (no state action) |
| CWA jurisdiction and navigable waters (significant nexus) | Willow Lake/Jones Creek have significant nexus to navigable waters | No proven navigable-water nexus; waters not navigable in fact | Counts II–III fail; no significant nexus established; CWA claims granted summary judgment for Defendants |
| MS4 permit enforcement and implementation standard | County failed to implement/enforce SWMP to reduce pollutants | MEP design standard governs design only; enforcement not guaranteed to achieve reductions | Count I dismissal; no material factual issue on enforcement to violate permit; Columbia County granted summary judgment |
| Damages/admissible evidence for Counts 10,11,13 against Columbia County | Damages analysis41 should be admitted under Rule 26(e) | Previously excluded/magistrate decisions control admissibility | Need supplemental briefing; court retains ability to consider revised analysis consistent with prior orders |
Key Cases Cited
- Tampa Bay Shipbuilding & Repair Co. v. Cedar Shipping Co., Ltd., 320 F.3d 1213 (11th Cir. 2003) (Rule 701 lay witness vs. 702 expert testimony distinction)
- Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. City of West Palm Beach, 266 F.3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2001) (ICCTA preemption scope—regulation vs. incidental effects)
- United States v. Robison, 505 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2007) (Significant nexus test governs navigable waters under CWA)
- Precon Development Corp. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 633 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2011) (Significant nexus requires nexus and significance evidence; not necessarily quantitative tests)
- Emerson v. Kansas City Southern Railway Co., 503 F.3d 1126 (10th Cir. 2007) (Railroad actions and preemption considerations under ICCTA)