San Francisco Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Division
| Decision Date | 30 August 2001 |
| Docket Number | DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,00-15617,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES,No. 99-16032,DEFENDANTS-APPELLANT,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,99-16105,A,99-16032 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2001) SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER; CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE THE REFUGE; MICHAEL R. LOZEAU,, v. CARGILL SALT DIVISION; CARGILL, INCORPORATED,nd MORTON SALT, DEFENDANT. SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER; CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE THE REFUGE,, and MICHAEL R. LOZEAU, PLAINTIFF, v. CARGILL SALT DIVISION; CARGILL, INCORPORATED,, and MORTON SALT, DEFENDANT. SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER; CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE THE REFUGE; MICHAEL R. LOZEAU,, v. CARGILL SALT DIVISION; CARGILL, INCORPORATED,nd MORTON SALT, DEFENDANT. SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER; CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO COMPLETE THE REFUGE,, and MICHAEL R. LOZEAU, PLAINTIFF, v. CARGILL SALT DIVISION; CARGILL, INCORPORATED; MORTON SALT,. , and 00-15738 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Leslie G. Landau, McCutchen, Doyle, Brown & Enersen, Llp, San Francisco, California, for the defendants-appellants/appellees.
Joseph A. Hearst, Berkeley, California; Michael R. Lozeau, Stanford, California, for the plaintiffs-appellees/appellants.
David C. Shilton, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, Washington, D.C.; David B. Glazer, U.S. Department of Justice, Environment and Natural Resources Division, San Francisco, California; Peter L. Gray, McKenna & Cuneo, Llp, Washington, D.C.; Gary J. Kushner, Hogan & Hartson, Llp, Washington, D.C.; James N. Christman, David O. Ledbetter, Hunton & Williams, Richmond, Virginia; Paul B. Campos, San Ramon, California; Jeffrey R. Chanin, Keker & Van Nest, Llp, San Francisco, California; Jocelyn D. Larkin, Berkeley, California, for the amici curiae.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Charles A. Legge, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-96-02161-CAL
Before: William C. Canby, Jr., Michael Daly Hawkins, and Ronald M. Gould, Circuit Judges.
Two major developments, in the form of United States Supreme Court decisions, have occurred since the district court rendered its decision in this action brought under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§§§ 1251-1376, and they require that we vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings.
First, the Supreme Court decided Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), in which it invalidated the Corps' "Migratory Bird Rule," 51 Fed. Reg. 41206, 41217, as a basis of jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Without benefit of this decision, the district court relied on the Environmental Protection Agency's identical "Migratory Bird Rule," 53 Fed. Reg. 20,764, 20,765, to find jurisdiction in this case.
Second, the Supreme Court decided Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc. , 528 U.S. 167 (2000), in which it made clear that a private plaintiff seeking relief from present or future violations of the Clean Water Act may seek civil penalties. Without benefit of this decision, the district court determined that plaintiffs in this case had no standing to seek civil penalties.1
The first of these decisions has made us uncertain whether the Clean Water Act confers jurisdiction in this case. Alternative grounds for finding jurisdiction have been urged by plaintiffs, but we conclude that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
San Francisco Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Div., 04-17554.
...summary judgment and remanded for consideration of whether alternative grounds exist for CWA jurisdiction. San Francisco Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Div., 263 F.3d 963 (9th Cir.2001). On remand, Baykeeper again moved for summary judgment, this time advancing the theory that the Pond is a "wat......
-
What Wetlands Are Regulated? Jurisdiction of the §404 Program
...covered because “navigable” means only navigable waters and areas adjacent to such waters. San Francisco Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Div., 263 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2001) Overturned a district court decision that had, prior to SWANCC, relied upon the migratory bird rule as the basis for jurisdic......
-
What Wetlands Are Regulated? Jurisdiction of the §404 Program
...covered because “navigable” means only navigable waters and areas adjacent to such waters. San Francisco Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Div., 263 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2001) Overturned a district court decision that had, prior to SWANCC, relied upon the migratory bird rule as the basis for jurisdic......
-
List of Case Citations
...47, 108 San Francisco Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Div., 263 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2001) .......................................... 25 San Francisco Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Div., 481 F.3d 700, 37 ELR 20061 (9th Cir. 2007) ................. 30 Sasser v. Administrator, 990 F.2d 127, 23 ELR 21022 ......
-
What Wetlands Are Regulated? Jurisdiction of the §404 Program
...covered because “navigable” means only navigable waters and areas adjacent to such waters. San Francisco Baykeeper v. Cargill Salt Div. , 263 F.3d 963 (9th Cir. 2001) Overturned a district court decision that had, prior to SWANCC , relied upon the Migratory Bird Rule as the basis for jurisd......