Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. South Florida Water
Citation | 280 F.3d 1364 |
Decision Date | 01 February 2002 |
Docket Number | No. 00-15703.,00-15703. |
Parties | MICCOSUKEE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF FLORIDA, Sam Poole, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Defendant-Appellant. Friends of the Everglades, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. South Florida Water Management District, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit) |
Samuel Barclay Reiner, II, Dexter W. Lehtinen, Lehtinen, O'Donnell, Vargas & Reiner, Miami, FL, James Edward Nutt, South Florida Water Management Dist., West Palm Beach, FL, for Defendant-Appellant.
John E. Childe, Palmyra, PA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida.
Before EDMONDSON and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and MUSGRAVE*, Judge.
The Miccosukee Tribe of Indians ("the Tribe") and the Friends of the Everglades ("the Friends") (together "Plaintiffs") brought a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act ("CWA") against the South Florida Water Management District ("the Water District"). The suit alleges that the Water District was violating the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from the S-9 pump station into Water Conservation Area 3A without a national pollution discharge elimination system ("NPDES") permit.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court denied the Water District's motion, granted Plaintiffs', and enjoined the Water District from operating the S-9 pump station without an NPDES permit. The Water District appeals from the district court's order declaring unlawful the Water District's operation of the S-9 pump station without an NPDES permit and from the injunction prohibiting the same.1
The South Florida Water Management District manages the Central & Southern Florida Flood Control Project. This management is through the operation of many levees, canals and water impoundment areas. The areas now called the C-11 Basin and the Water Conservation Area-3A ("WCA-3A") were historically part of the Everglades. But, in the early 1900's, the Army Corps of Engineers began digging the C-11 Canal to facilitate the draining of the western portion of Broward County which is part of the C-11 Basin. Then, in the 1950's, the Corps constructed the L-37 and L-33 levees to create WCA-3A to the west of the C-11 Basin and completed construction of the S-9 pump station.
The C-11 Canal runs through the C-11 Basin and collects water run-off from the Basin and seepage through the levees from WCA-3A. The S-9 pump station then pumps this water through three pipes from the C-11 Canal through the L-37 and L-33 levees into WCA-3A at a rate of 960 cubic feet per second per pipe. Without the operation of the S-9 pump station, the populated western portion of Broward County would flood within days.2
The water which the C-11 Canal collects and which the S-9 pump station conveys into the WCA-3A contains pollutants. In particular, this water contains higher levels of phosphorus than that naturally occurring in WCA-3A. The S-9 pump station, however, adds no pollutants to the water which it conveys.
The district court concluded that, because the waters collected by the C-11 Canal contained pollutants and this water would not flow into WCA-3A without the operation of the S-9 pump station, S-9 added pollutants to the WCA-3A in violation of the CWA. On appeal, the Water District contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in concluding that S-9's conveyance of water from the C-11 Canal into the WCA-3A constituted a discharge of pollutants.
We review the district court's grant of summary judgment to Plaintiffs de novo, applying the same legal standard as the district court. Hendrickson v. Ga. Power Co., 240 F.3d 966, 969 (11th Cir.2001). For summary judgment to be proper, no genuine issue can exist on a material fact; and the moving party must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(c). In reviewing the evidence, we must draw all reasonable, factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party. Carriers Container Council, Inc. v. Mobile S.S. Ass'n, 896 F.2d 1330, 1337 (11th Cir. 1990).
The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source into navigable waters without an NPDES permit. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1342. The "discharge of a pollutant" is defined as "any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source." See 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12). No party disputes that the S-9 pump station and, in particular, the pipes from which water is released constitute a point source3 or that the water released by the station contains pollutants. Also, both parties agree that the C-11 Canal and the WCA-3A constitute navigable waters. The parties mainly dispute one legal issue: whether the pumping of the already polluted water constitutes an addition of pollutants to navigable waters from a point source.
Relying on a line of hydroelectric-dam cases, the Water District argues that no addition of pollutants from a point source can occur unless a point source adds pollutants to navigable waters from the outside world. See Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Gorsuch, 693 F.2d 156, 175 (D.C.Cir.1982) ( ); Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d 580, 584 (6th Cir.1988) (same).4 Under the Water District's interpretation when a point source conveys one navigable water into another, no addition of pollutants will occur unless the point source itself is the source of the pollutants which it releases. And, because S-9 does not itself introduce pollutants from the outside into the water which it conveys, the Water District contends no addition of pollutants occurs.
First, we conclude that, in determining whether pollutants are added to navigable waters for purposes of the CWA, the receiving body of water is the relevant body of navigable water. Thus, we must determine whether pollutants are being added to WCA-3A. They are.5 Nevertheless, for an addition of a pollutants to navigable waters to require an NPDES permit, that addition of pollutants must be from a point source. And, for an addition of pollutants to be from a point source, the relevant inquiry is whether — but for the point source — the pollutants would have been added to the receiving body of water.6 We, therefore, conclude that an addition from a point source occurs if a point source is the cause-in-fact of the release of pollutants into navigable waters.
When a point source changes the natural flow of a body of water which contains pollutants and causes that water to flow into another distinct body of navigable water into which it would not have otherwise flowed, that point source is the cause-in-fact of the discharge of pollutants.7 And, because the pollutants would not have entered the second body of water but for the change in flow caused by the point source, an addition of pollutants from a point source occurs. Neither party disputes that, without the operation of the S-9 pump station, the polluted waters from the C-11 Canal would not normally flow east into the WCA-3A.8 The S-9 pump station, therefore, is the cause-in-fact of the addition of pollutants to the WCA-3A. We, therefore, conclude that the release of water caused by the S-9 pump station's operation constitutes an addition of pollutants from a point source.
Next, the Water District contends that the district court abused its discretion by enjoining the Water District from operating the S-9 pump station without an NPDES permit. The Water District argues that the court erred by not applying traditional equitable standards in its grant of the injunction. See Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 320, 102 S.Ct. 1798, 1807, 72 L.Ed.2d 91 (1982) ( ). And, according to the Water District, had the district court balanced the potential harm caused by enjoining the operation of S-9 against the harm prevented,9 the court would have concluded that S-9 should not be enjoined from operating without an NPDES permit.
We review for an abuse of discretion the district court's decision to grant an injunction under the CWA. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. at 320, 102 S.Ct. at 1807. In determining whether an injunction is proper, not only should a district court "balance[] the conveniences of the parties and possible injuries to them according as they may be affected by the granting or withholding of the injunction[,]" but the court "should [also] pay particular regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction." Id. at 312, 102 S.Ct. at 1803 (citation omitted); see also Million Youth March, Inc. v. Safir, 155 F.3d 124, 125 (2d Cir.1998) (); Okaw Drainage Dist. v. Nat'l Distillers & Chem. Corp., 882 F.2d 1241, 1248 (7th Cir.1989) (). Because the cessation of the S-9 pump would cause substantial flooding in western Broward County which, in turn, would cause damage to and displacement of a significant number of people,10 we conclude that the people of Broward County have a very significant interest in whether the S-9 pump station's operation should be enjoined.
The district court's injunction prohibits the Water District from operating S-9 without an NPDES permit. If this injunction were enforced, the Water District...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sierra Club v. Strock
...A New Judicial Remedy for Defective Agency Rulemaking," 80 N.Y.U. L.Rev. 278, 290 — 91 (2005). 70. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 280 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir.2002) (vacating injunction prohibiting operation of a pump station without a permit, since without the pumping......
-
Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co.
...(sluice box, a "confined channel" that released discharge water from a mine). 5. See, e.g., Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 280 F.3d 1364, 1367 (11th Cir. 2002), rev'd on other grounds, 541 U.S. 95 (2004) ("No party disputes that . . . pump station and, in ......
-
Friends of Everglades v. South Florida Water
...the unitary waters theory. We did at one time decide to reject it, but that decision was vacated. See Miccosukee Tribe v. S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 280 F.3d 1364, 1368 (11th Cir.2002) (concluding that "addition . . . to navigable waters" includes pumping polluted water from one navigable w......
-
National Cotton Council of America v. U.S. E.P.A., 06-4630.
...been added to the receiving body of water." Miccosukee, 541 U.S. at 103, 124 S.Ct. 1537 (quoting Miccosukee Tribe of Indians v. Florida Water Mgmt. Dist., 280 F.3d 1364, 1368 (11th Cir.2002)). It is clear that but for the application of the pesticide, the pesticide residue and excess pestic......
-
Can Wetland Property Be Developed? Regulated Activities and Statutory Exemptions
...193. Los Angeles Cnty. Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 568 U.S. ___, No. 11-460, slip op. (Jan. 8, 2013). 194. 280 F.3d 1364, 32 ELR 20475 (11th Cir. 2002), rev’d , 541 U.S. 95 (2004). 195. Id. at 1366. 196. Id. 197. Id. 198. Id. at 1368. 199. Id. at 1369. 200. 541 U......
-
Table A: Decisions Interpreting the Elements of the Water Pollution Offense
...Inlets v. Taylor Res., Inc., 299 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) 61. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 280 F.3d 1364, 32 ELR 20475 (11th Cir. 2002) 3 3 40. Fairhurst v. Hagener, 422 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2005) 2 41. Sierra Club v. El Paso Gold Mines, Inc., 421 F.3......
-
List of Case Citations
...Miccosukee Tribe v. South Florida Water Mgmt. District, 280 F.3d 1364 (11th Cir. 2002), rev’d , 124 S. Ct. 1537 (2004) .................................................... 66-67 Michigan Peat v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 175 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 1999) .............................184 Middlese......
-
Plain Meaning, Precedent, and Metaphysics: Lessons in Statutory Interpretation From Analyzing the Elements of the Clean Water Act Offense
...Inlets v. Taylor Res., Inc., 299 F.3d 1007 (9th Cir. 2002) 2, 4 61. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Fla. v. South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist., 280 F.3d 1364, 32 ELR 20475 (11th Cir. 2002) 62. Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. City of New York, 273 F.3d 481 (2d Cir. 2001) 1, 3......