Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles
673 F.3d 880
9th Cir.2011Background
- NRDC and Santa Monica Baykeeper allege County of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Flood Control District discharge polluted stormwater from MS4s in violation of the Clean Water Act.
- Four Watershed Rivers (Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, Santa Clara River, Malibu Creek) show water-quality exceedances beyond NPDES-permitted limits.
- A California NPDES permit (issued by the Regional Board) governs municipal stormwater discharges and requires monitoring, BMPs, and iterative compliance processes (SQMP).
- Mass-emission monitoring stations are located at or downstream of MS4 outflows; the District controls the LA River and San Gabriel River stations.
- District and County move to summary judgment arguing lack of evidence tying MS4 outflows to observed exceedances; district court granted partial summary judgment to Defendants.
- The Ninth Circuit reverses on liability for the District for LA River and San Gabriel River; affirmes for other Watershed Claims; remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do mass-emission exceedances violate the Permit? | NRDC argues exceedances show permit violations. | District/County contend no link between MS4 and exceedances at rivers. | Yes; exceedances at mass-emission stations can constitute permit violations. |
| Can court assign District liability for LA River exceedances? | Mass-emission stations located in District MS4; District discharged pollutants. | Unable to prove pollutants passed through District outflows near exceedances. | District liable for LA River exceedances (Claim 2). |
| Can court assign District liability for San Gabriel River exceedances? | Same logic as LA River; mass-emission station location in District MS4 shows discharge. | Insufficient linkage between District outflows and exceedances. | District liable for San Gabriel River exceedances (Claim 3). |
| What about Santa Clara River and Malibu Creek exceedances? | MS4s contributed pollutants downstream causing exceedances. | Record lacks clear connection between MS4s and exceedances at stations. | Affirmed district court on these claims; no summary-judgment for plaintiffs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Russian River Watershed Protection Comm. v. City of Santa Rosa, 142 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 1998) (CWA limits on discharges; NPDES permits central to enforcement)
- Northwest Environmental Advocates v. City of Portland, 56 F.3d 979 (9th Cir. 1995) (citizen suits enforce permit conditions; importance of water quality standards)
- Union Oil Co. v. EPA, 813 F.2d 1482 (9th Cir. 1987) (effluent limitations and water-quality standards; enforcement context)
- Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (Supreme Court 1992) (relationship between water-quality standards and effluent limitations)
- Miccosukee Tribe v. EPA, 541 U.S. 95 (Supreme Court 2004) (defining 'discharge of a pollutant' and inclusion of certain point sources)
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 191 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1999) (NPDES permits and municipal stormwater regulation)