This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Environmental Law
Water Pollution
Storm Water Permit

San Diego Coastkeeper; Environmental Rights Foundation v. City of San Diego

Published: Mar. 15, 2024 | Result Date: Nov. 6, 2023 | Filing Date: Nov. 20, 2018 |

Case number: 3:18-cv-01757-JM-WVG Settlement –  $135,000

Judge

Jeffrey T. Miller

Court

USDC Southern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Livia B. Beaudin
(Coast Law Group LLP)

Matthew J. O'Malley
(San Diego Coastkeeper)

Patrick J. McDonough
(San Diego Coastkeeper)


Defendant

Nicole E. Granquist
(Downey Brand LLP)


Facts

San Diego Coastkeeper (Coastkeeper) is a non-profit benefit corporation dedicated to the preservation protection, and defense of rivers, creeks, and coastal waters of San Diego County. Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (CERF) is a non-profit organization founded by surfers in North San Diego County to aggressively advocate for the protection and enhancement of coastal natural resource and quality of life for coastal residents. Meanwhile, the City of San Diego (City) is the owner and operator of several facilities including: Metro Biosolids Center, located at 5240 Convoy Street, San Diego; Miramar Landfill, located at 5180 Convoy Street, San Diego; South Bay Water Reclamation Plant, located at 2411 Dairy Mart Road, San Diego; and the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant, located at 1902 Gatchell Road, San Diego (Facilities). Coastkeeper and CERF brought a lawsuit against the City, alleging violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act based on the discharges from the Facilities.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs alleged that the discharges from the facilities owned by defendant were regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. Further, plaintiffs maintained that the discharges from the City Facilities drained into several rivers and creeks used by members of the community, including San Clemente Creek, Rose Creek, Mission Bay, the Pacific Ocean, the Tijuana River, and the Tijuana Estuary. Finally, plaintiffs argued that as a result of the discharges from the Facilities the levels of pollutions in these rivers and creek were above acceptable levels for Oil and Grease, Lead, Zinc, Iron, pH, Aluminum, Fecal Coliform, Cooper, Nitrates, and Ammonia.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant denied all contentions.

Result

The City agreed to submit an Amended Consent Decree to the United States Department of Justice and the Environmental Protection Agency stating that they agree to comply with the provisions of the settlement. The City also agreed to maintain the current structural and non-structural Best Management Practices described in the City Facilities' Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan and comply with the Amended Consent Decree and Storm Water Permit. Under the Amended Consent Decree, the City promised to develop and implement best practices to reduce constituents in storm water discharges at each City Facility to levels at or below agreed levels and regularly assess whether they are below the agreed to levels. Finally, the City agreed to pay $35,000 to fund environmental project activities that will reduce or mitigate the impacts of storm water pollution from industrial activities in the Southern California Bight and its tributaries and $100,000 to reimburse plaintiffs for reasonable attorneys' fees and fees for investigation.


#142406

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390