Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary Dist.
Decision Date | 23 May 2011 |
Docket Number | Case No. C–09–5676 EMC. |
Citation | 791 F.Supp.2d 719 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Parties | SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, Plaintiff,v.WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT, Defendant. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Daniel Cooper, Samantha Sue Williams, Lawyers for Clean Water, Christopher Alan Sproul, Environmental Advocates, Drevet J. Hunt, Attorney at Law, Jason Robert Flanders, San Francisco Baykeeper, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.Anthony P. Condotti, Atchison, Barisone, Condotti & Kovacevich, Santa Cruz, CA, Melissa Anne Thorme, Downey Brand LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S AND DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT; GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
(Docket Nos. 71, 82, 103, 104, 118, 120)
Before the Court is Plaintiff San Francisco Baykeeper's (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Pl.'s Mot. for Partial Summ. J. (“Pl.'s Mot.”), Dkt. No. 71. In its motion, Plaintiff seeks judgment against Defendant West Bay Sanitary District (“Defendant”) on the grounds that Defendant discharged pollutants into Waters of the United States in violation of the Clean Water Act. Pl.'s Mot. 1, Dkt. No. 71. Also before the Court are the parties' Requests for Judicial Notice, (Dkt. Nos. 82, 103), and Defendant's Objections to Evidence Submitted in Support of Plaintiff's Motion, (Dkt. No. 104).1 After considering the parties' briefs, the arguments raised at the March 9, 2011 hearing, and the entire record of this case, the Court GRANTS each party's Motion for Judicial Notice, GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's Objections to Evidence, and GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment for the reasons set forth herein.
Plaintiff is a nonprofit corporation dedicated to protecting and enhancing the water quality of the San Francisco Bay–Delta Estuary and its tributaries for the benefit of its ecosystems and the surrounding communities. Self Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4, Dkt. No. 96. Defendant is the political entity that owns and operates the sewage collection system (the “Collection System”) serving some 55,000 people in the City of Menlo Park and parts of East Palo Alto, Redwood City, Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley, and unincorporated San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Compl. & Answer ¶¶ 21–24, Dkt. Nos. 1, 11. The Collection System, which is made up of 210 miles of sewer line, conveys sewage to the Menlo Park Pumping Station and from there to the South Bayside System Authority (“SBSA”) Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is jointly owned and operated by Defendant and three municipalities—Belmont, San Carlos, and Redwood City. Compl. & Answer ¶¶ 24–25, 28–29, Dkt. Nos. 1, 11.
The Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251–1376, is intended to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). In pursuit of this goal, section 301(a) of the Act prohibits the “discharge of any pollutant” into navigable waters from any “point source” without a permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) ( ). “Discharge of a pollutant” is defined broadly to include “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” Id. § 1362(12)(A); Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 723, 126 S.Ct. 2208, 165 L.Ed.2d 159 (2006). And “navigable waters” means “Waters of the United States.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). “The phrase ‘the waters of the United States' includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographic features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.” Rapanos, 547 U.S. at 739, 126 S.Ct. 2208. EPA regulations further define “waters of the United States,” but include an exception: “Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons ... are not waters of the United States.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.2.
The EPA is also required to regulate stormwater discharges “to protect water quality.” 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(6). The EPA's stormwater discharge regulations, 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, define a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cal. Sportfishing Prot. Alliance v. River City Waste Recyclers, LLC
...Cal. Nov. 28, 2012), report and recommendation adopted , 2013 WL 875961 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 7, 2013) ; S.F. Baykeeper v. W. Bay Sanitary Dist. , 791 F.Supp.2d 719, 770 n.13 (N.D. Cal. 2011).III. STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND The Clean Water Act prohibits "the discharge of any pollutant by......
-
De La Torre v. CashCall, Inc.
...in his [or her] discipline rather than on subjective believe or unsupported speculation.” San Francisco Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary Dist., 791 F.Supp.2d 719, 740 (N.D.Cal.2011) (citations omitted). As discussed below, the Court finds that the expert opinions of Dr. Wood, Margot Saunders,......
-
United States v. HVI Cat Canyon, Inc., Case No. CV 11–5097 FMO (SSx)
...not show that the source of information or circumstances indicate a lack of trustworthiness."); San Francisco Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary Dist. , 791 F.Supp.2d 719, 743 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (The public records exception "is designed to allow admission of official records and reports prepared......
-
PennEnvironment v. PPG Indus., Inc.
...U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 650 F.3d 652, 658 (7th Cir.2011) ; see also San Francisco Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary Dist., 791 F.Supp.2d 719, 749 (N.D.Cal.2011) (diminished use and enjoyment of waterways downstream from where defendant discharged sanitary sewer overflows into river witho......
-
Plain Meaning, Precedent, and Metaphysics: Lessons in Statutory Interpretation From Analyzing the Elements of the Clean Water Act Offense
...3 130. United States v. Brink, 795 F. Supp. 2d 565 (S.D. Tex. 2011) 2, 3 131. San Francisco Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary Dist., 791 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Cal. 2011) 3 132. United States v. Freedman Farms, Inc., 786 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D.N.C. 2011) 3 133. Gouger v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’r......
-
Plain Meaning, Precedent, and Metaphysics: Interpreting the 'Navigble Waters' Element of the Clean Water Act Offense
...(D.S.C. 2011) 67. United States v. Brink, 2011 WL 2412577 (S.D. Tex. 2011) 68. San Francisco Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary District, 791 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Cal. 2011) 69. United States v. Freedman Farms, Inc., 786 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D.N.C. 2011) 70. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition,......
-
Table A: Decisions Interpreting the Elements of the Water Pollution Offense
...2011) 130. United States v. Brink, 795 F. Supp. 2d 565 (S.D. Tex. 2011) 2, 3 131. San Francisco Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary Dist., 791 F. Supp. 2d 719 (N.D. Cal. 2011) 132. United States v. Freedman Farms, Inc., 786 F. Supp. 2d 1016 (E.D.N.C. 2011) 133. Gouger v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’r......