Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary Dist.

• Decision Date: 23 May 2011
• Docket Number: Docket Case No. 71 Case No. 82 Case No. 103 Case No. 104 Case No. 118 Case No. 120,Case No. C-09-5676 EMC
• Parties: SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, Plaintiff, v. WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of California

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, Plaintiff,

v.WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT, Defendant.

Case No. C-09-5676 EMC

Docket Nos. 71, 82, 103, 104, 118, 120

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dated: May 23, 2011

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. BACKGROUND ............................................................ 6

A. Statutory Background ................................................ 7

B. Plaintiff's Allegations ................................................ 8

C. SSO Discharge Reporting System....................................... 9

D. Procedural Background.............................................. 10

II. LEGAL STANDARD....................................................... 11

III. DISCUSSION ............................................................ 12

A. Requests for Judicial Notice .......................................... 12

B. Evidentiary Objections .............................................. 14

1. Declarations of Anna Fairbank, Terry Blanchard, Dudley Kenworthy, and Andrea Kopecky ............................................. 14

2. Corrected Declaration of Deborah Self............................ 18

3. Declaration of Bruce Bell ...................................... 19

a. Whether the Bell Declaration is Inadmissible as Expert Opinion Testimony ............................................ 19

i. Whether Dr. Bell's Testimony is Reliable.............. 20

ii. Whether Dr. Bell's Testimony is Relevant ............. 25

b. Whether the Bell Declaration is Inadmissible as Fact Witness Testimony

..................................................... 26

4. Hearsay Objections ........................................... 27

a. Hunt Declaration ....................................... 27

b. Lucke Declaration ...................................... 28

5. Conclusion.................................................. 31

C. Threshold Issues: Standing and Notice.................................. 31

1. Whether the Baykeeper Members Have Suffered an Injury in Fact ...... 32

2. Whether the Injury is Fairly Traceable to the Challenged Action of Defendant ...........................................................37

3. Whether it is Likely that Plaintiff's Injury Will be Redressed by a Favorable Decision.................................................... 39

a. Injunctive Relief ....................................... 39

b. Civil Penalties ......................................... 40

4. Whether Plaintiff has Standing as an Organization................... 42

5. Whether Plaintiff Provided Adequate Notice ....................... 43

6. Conclusion.................................................. 44

D. Whether There is No Genuine Dispute that Defendant's 68 SSOs Discharged Pollutants to Surface Waters................................................... 44

1. Discharge................................................... 46

a. SSOs that Plaintiff Alleges Discharged Directly to Surface Waters .....................................................46

i. Spills 41, 51, 52, 61, 64, and 65...................... 47

ii. Spill 63......................................... 48

iii. Spills 5, 7, 19, 31, 38, 48, 54, and 59.................. 49

iv. Spills 43, 44, and 47............................... 49

v. Spills 6 and 32................................... 50

vi. Spill 9.......................................... 50

vii. Spill 33......................................... 50

viii. Spill 13......................................... 50

ix. Spill 1.......................................... 51

x. Conclusion...................................... 51

b. SSOs that Plaintiff Alleges Reached the MS4 and Discharged to Surface Waters ............................................... 51

i. Whether Plaintiffs Evidence Establishes the SSOs Discharged From the MS4 to Surface Waters..................... 52

ii. SSOs That Spilled to the MS4 During or Immediately After a Significant Rain Event............................. 54

iii. SSOs That Spilled to the MS4 Without a Significant Rain Event ............................................... 56

iv. Conclusion...................................... 57

c. Multiple Spill Days ..................................... 57

d. Conclusion............................................ 58

2. Waters of the United States..................................... 59

a. San Francisquito Creek .................................. 60

b. West Point Slough...................................... 62

c. Atherton Channel....................................... 63

d. Los Trancos Creek...................................... 64

e. Corte Madera Creek..................................... 64

f. Ravenswood Slough..................................... 65

g. Bayfront Canal......................................... 66

h. Redwood Creek........................................ 66

i. Bovet Creek........................................... 67

j. Conclusion............................................ 68

3. NPDES Permit............................................... 68

a. MS4 Permit ........................................... 69

b. Waste Treatment System Exemption........................ 73

IV. CONCLUSION........................................................... 74

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.

I. BACKGROUND

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 ¶¶ 2124, 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.

A. Statutory Background

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) (except as otherwise provided in the Act, the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall by unlawful). "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 (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. 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 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer ("MS4") as a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm drains) owned or operated by a public body (created by or pursuant to State law) having jurisdiction over disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, storm water, or other wastes, used for collecting or conveying storm water. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26. Unlike a sanitary sewer system, which transports municipal sewage for treatment at a wastewater facility, or a combined sewer system, which transports sewage and stormwater for treatment, MS4s contain and convey only untreated stormwater. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(a)(7), (b)(8).

CWA § 402 provides for the issuance of a permit under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"). 33 U.S.C § 1342(a). A NPDES permit allow the holder to discharge pollutants notwithstanding the general prohibition imposed by § 301(a). Id. The NPDES permitting program is the "centerpiece" of the CWA and the primary method for enforcing theeffluent and water-quality standards established by the EPA and state...