213 F. Supp. 3d 1249
C.D. Cal.2016Background
- Government and California agencies sued HVI Cat Canyon, Inc. for multiple oil and produced-water spills (2005–2010), asserting CWA § 311 violations and state law claims under the California Water Code and Fish & Game Code. The operative pleading is the First Amended Complaint.
- HVI moved for partial summary judgment challenging liability for specified spills (seven under the CWA § 311 claim and six under Cal. Water Code § 13350), arguing dry creek beds and no evidence of harmful quantities reaching "navigable waters" or "adjoining shorelines.”
- Procedural history includes earlier denied motions to dismiss, a Magistrate Judge R&R and court order excluding certain State witnesses for spoliation (but not excluding Government witnesses), and a temporary stay for related sanctions and financial issues.
- The disputed factual record includes incident reports and agency investigation records (public records) documenting volumes spilled and observations of oil/soils/sheens on creek banks and dry creek beds that are seasonally intermittent tributaries to navigable waters.
- HVI contested admissibility of various declarations and reports; the court overruled boilerplate objections and admitted or considered the reports under the public-records exception or as evidence that could be cured at trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether seven specified spills constitute discharges "in such quantities as may be harmful" under CWA § 311/40 C.F.R. § 110.3 | The Government: spills deposited oil/produced water on adjoining shorelines or produced sheens/discoloration; intermittent/dry creeks are covered and residuals later reach flowing waters. | HVI: creeks were dry at spill times, so no film/sheens on water surface; §110.3(b) requires impact on water surface; therefore no harmful quantities. | Denied for HVI: presence of oil on adjoining shorelines (banks/dry beds) and evidence of sheens/discoloration satisfies §110.3; the "or" in the regulation covers adjoining shorelines. |
| Scope of "adjoining shorelines" under §311 and 40 C.F.R. §110.3 | Plaintiffs: the term includes banks/edges of streams and tributaries; CWA's breadth supports protection of intermittent tributaries and their shorelines. | HVI: term limited to borders of large bodies (lakes, seas, navigable rivers); should not cover ephemeral unnamed tributaries. | Court: "adjoining shorelines" includes edges of streams/tributaries; narrow reading would thwart CWA purpose and be incoherent with broad definition of "navigable waters." |
| Whether "waters of the state" under Cal. Water Code §13350 includes intermittent/seasonal streams where six spills occurred | Regional Board: California law and Porter‑Cologne Act support inclusion of intermittent streams; historical CA cases treat seasonal watercourses as streams/waters. | HVI: "waters of the state" limited to continuous liquid bodies; dry sites/cleanups preclude liability. | Denied for HVI: CA precedent and statutory purpose treat intermittent streams as "waters of the state;" spills into dry streambeds can violate §13350. |
| Whether Regional Board's volume‑based penalty claims under Cal. Water Code §13385(b)(1)(B) and one specific spill should be adjudicated | Plaintiffs (Regional Board) did not oppose dismissal of volume‑based penalties and the March 3, 2008 U‑Cal spill. | HVI sought dismissal of those claims. | Granted for HVI as to volume‑based penalty claims under §13385(b)(1)(B) and the March 3, 2008 U‑Cal spill; all other HVI summary judgment requests denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (summary judgment standard)
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burdens)
- Healy Tibbitts Const. Co. v. United States, 713 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir.) (history and interpretation of §311/§1321 harmful‑quantity standard)
- United States v. Moses, 496 F.3d 984 (9th Cir.) (intermittent/dry creek can be water of the United States)
- United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (scope of "waters" under the CWA is broad)
- Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (navigable waters and intermittent streams)
- San Francisco Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary Dist., 791 F.2d 719 (N.D. Cal.) (public‑records evidence and scope of CWA protections)