Term: 2012
Docket: 11-460
Los Angeles County Flood Control District Petitioner v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Et Al.
- Pro
11-460 LOS ANGELES CTY. FLOOD CONTROL V. NATURAL RESOURCES, ET AL. DECISION BELOW: 673 F3d 880 LIMITED TO QUESTION 2 PRESENTED BY THE PETITION. CERT. GRANTED 6/25/2012 QUESTION PRESENTED: The Clean Water Act regulates the addition of pollutants to the navigable waters of the United States, including pollutants stemming from municipal stormwater systems. 33 U.S.C. §1342(p). The questions presented by this petition are: 1. Do "navigable waters of the United States" include only "naturally occurring" bodies of water so that construction of engineered channels or other man-made improvements to a river as part of municipal flood and storm control renders the improved portion no longer a "navigable water" under the Clean Water Act? 2. When water flows from one portion of a river that is navigable water of the United States, through a concrete channel or other engineered improvement in the river constructed for flood and stormwater control as part of a municipal separate storm sewer system, into a lower portion of the same river, can there be a "discharge" from an "outfall" under the Clean Water Act, notwithstanding this Court's holding in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 105 (2004), that transfer of water within a single body of water cannot constitute a "discharge" for purposes of the Act? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 10-56017
The U.S. Supreme Court case Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al., 2012 revolved around the issue of water pollution in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) sued the LA County Flood Control District under the Clean Water Act for exceeding pollutant levels in these rivers as indicated by monitoring stations located within them. However, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of LA County Flood Control District stating that a discharge of pollutants occurs only when it is transferred from an identifiable point source to navigable waters - which was not proven here since both monitoring stations were located on navigable waters controlled by flood control district itself and there was no proof that polluted water came specifically from their outfalls or other point sources they controlled.
In the dissenting opinion for Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that the majority's interpretation of the Clean Water Act was too narrow. She contended that a discharge of pollutants occurs not only when they are first introduced into navigable waters but also when they are transferred between different parts of those same waters. In this case, polluted water flowed from concrete channels within the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers into lower portions that were natural and unprotected by concrete linings. According to Ginsburg, such movement constituted a discharge under federal law because it involved "the addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source." The majority's contrary view would allow polluters to avoid liability simply by locating their discharges upstream from monitoring stations or other points where pollution levels could be measured accurately.
