Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

(Redirected from Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. )

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 568 U.S. 78 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper challenged the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) for violating the terms of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as shown in water quality measurements from monitoring stations within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers .

The Supreme Court, by a unanimous 9-0 vote, reversed and remanded the Ninth Circuit 's ruling on the grounds that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a "discharge of a pollutant" under the Clean Water Act .

Contents

• 1 Parties

  • 1.1 Los Angeles County Flood Control District

  • 1.2 Natural Resources Defense Council

• 2 Background

• 3 Prior cases

  • 3.1 District court opinion

    • 3.1.1 South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians

  • 3.2 Appeals Court opinion

• 4 Supreme Court decision

  • 4.1 Issues

  • 4.2 Granting of certiorari

• 5 Arguments

• 6 Opinion of the court

• 7 Significance of the case

• 8 References

• 9 External links

Parties

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_County_Flood_Control_District_v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.&action=edit&section=1 "Edit section: Parties")

Los Angeles County Flood Control District

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_County_Flood_Control_District_v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.&action=edit&section=2 "Edit section: Los Angeles County Flood Control District")

The Los Angeles County Flood Control District is the petitioner in this particular case. The district was established upon adoption of the Los Angeles County Flood Control Act in 1915, after a disastrous regional flood occurred. The district's primary purpose is to provide flood protection, water conservation, recreation, and aesthetic enhancement within its boundaries. As of 1985, the responsibilities and authority of the district were transferred to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works . The Flood Control District encompasses more than 3,000 square miles and 85 cities in Southern California. It includes approximately 500 miles of open channel, 2,800 miles of underground storm drainage pipelines, and an estimated 120,000 catch basins.

Natural Resources Defense Council

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_County_Flood_Control_District_v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.&action=edit&section=3 "Edit section: Natural Resources Defense Council")

The Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper are the respondent. The Natural Resources Defense Council is a nationwide environmental action group consisting of over 1.3 million members and over 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals. Santa Monica Baykeeper is a non-profit organization that aims to protect and restore the Santa Monica Bay , San Pedro Bay and adjacent waters through enforcement, field work, and community action.

Background

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_County_Flood_Control_District_v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.&action=edit&section=4 "Edit section: Background")

The district operates a "municipal separate storm sewer system" (MS4), which is a conveyance or a system of conveyances that collects and transports stormwater runoff into waters of the U.S. The district's MS4 transports stormwater through rivers and channels flowing to the Pacific Ocean. Because stormwater is often heavily polluted from various non-point sources, the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations require certain MS4s to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit before discharging stormwater into navigable waters. Between 2002 and 2008, monitoring stations in the Los Angeles River, San Gabriel River, Santa Clara River , and Malibu Creek continually detected water pollution levels that exceeded its MS4 permit in its stormwater channel system. Some of the pollution levels exceeded included high levels of aluminum, copper, cyanide, fecal coliform bacteria, and zinc.

Prior cases

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_County_Flood_Control_District_v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.&action=edit&section=5 "Edit section: Prior cases")

District court opinion

(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Los_Angeles_County_Flood_Control_District_v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.&action=edit&section=6 "Edit section: District court opinion")

In 2008, the Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper (collectively NRDC) filed a citizen-enforcement action against the district and county in the Central District of California , and alleged that the district violated the NPDES permit and the Clean Water Act. NRDC sought to impose liability on the district for its permit violations in four rivers: the Los Angeles River , San Gabriel River , Santa Clara River , and Malibu Creek . The district argued that this issue was resolved by the court's earlier decision in the _South Florida Water Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe _ (541 U.S. 95) case, which determined that transferring water within a single water body does not constitute a "discharge." The district court initially denied summary judgment because the evidence did not clearly show whether the standards-exceeding pollutant had been discharged through the district's MS4. Thus, the district court concluded that NRDC failed to show whether there had been a "discharge" from a "point source" within the statutory meanings of those terms. The district court granted summary judgment to the district on these claims and concluded that the record was insufficient to warrant a fin

…