Baykeeper v. West Bay Sanitary Dist.

791 F.Supp.2d 719

SAN FRANCISCO BAYKEEPER, Plaintiff,

v.WEST BAY SANITARY DISTRICT, Defendant.

Case No. C–09–5676 EMC.

United States District Court, N.D. California.

May 23, 2011.

Daniel Cooper, Samantha Sue Williams, Lawyers for Clean Water, Christopher Alan Sproul, Environmental Advocates, Drevet J. Hunt, Attorney at Law, Jason Robert Flanders, San Francisco Baykeeper, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff.Anthony P. Condotti, Atchison, Barisone, Condotti & Kovacevich, Santa Cruz, CA, Melissa Anne Thorme, Downey Brand LLP, Sacramento, CA, for Defendant.

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

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

EDWARD M. CHEN, District Judge.

+-------------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS  ¦
+-------------------+

I.  BACKGROUND                                                          727

    A.   Statutory Background                                           727
    B.   Plaintiff's Allegations                                        728
    C.   SSO Discharge Reporting System                                 729
    D.   Procedural Background                                          729

II.  LEGAL STANDARD                                                     731
III. DISCUSSION                                                         731

    A.   Requests for Judicial Notice                                   731
    B.   Evidentiary Objections                                         732

 Declarations of Anna Fairbank, Terry Blanchard, DudleyKenworthy, and Andrea Kopecky  
       1.                                                                                        732
       2.  Corrected Declaration of Deborah Self                                                 735
       3.  Declaration of Bruce Bell                                                             736

          a. Whether the Bell Declaration is Inadmissible as Expert Opinion Testimony   736

                 i.  Whether Dr. Bell's Testimony is Reliable           737
                 ii. Whether Dr. Bell's Testimony is Relevant           740

          b. Whether the Bell Declaration is Inadmissible as Fact Witness Testimony   741

         4.  Hearsay Objections                                         741

             a.  Hunt Declaration                                       741
             b.  Lucke Declaration                                      742

         5.  Conclusion                                                 744

    C.   Threshold Issues: Standing and Notice                          744

       1.  Whether the Baykeeper Members Have Suffered an Injury in Fact                            745
       2.  Whether the Injury is Fairly Traceable to the Challenged Action of Defendant             748
       3.  Whether it is Likely that Plaintiff's Injury Will be Redressed by a Favorable Decision   749

             a.  Injunctive Relief                                      750
             b.  Civil Penalties                                        750

         4.  Whether Plaintiff has Standing as an Organization          751
         5.  Whether Plaintiff Provided Adequate Notice                 752
         6.  Conclusion                                                 753

    D.   Whether There is No Genuine Dispute that Defendant's 68 SSOsDischarged Pollutants to Surface Waters   753

         1.  Discharge                                                  754

          a. SSOs that Plaintiff Alleges Discharged Directly to SurfaceWaters   754

                i.    Spills 41, 51, 52, 61, 64, and 65                 755
                ii.   Spill 63                                          756
                iii.  Spills 5, 7, 19, 31, 38, 48, 54, and 59           756
                iv.   Spills 43, 44, and 47                             756
                v.    Spills 6 and 32                                   757
                vi.   Spill 9                                           757
                vii.  Spill 33                                          757
                viii. Spill 13                                          757
                ix.   Spill 1                                           758
                x.    Conclusion                                        758

          b. SSOs that Plaintiff Alleges Reached the MS4 and Discharged to Surface Waters   758

 Whether Plaintiff's Evidence Establishes the SSOs Discharged From the MS4 to Surface Waters  
             i.                                                                                                 758
                  SSOs That Spilled to the MS4 During or Immediately After a Significant Rain Event  
             ii.                                                                                                760
             iii. SSOs That Spilled to the MS4 Without a Significant Rain Event                                 761
             iv.  Conclusion                                                                                    762

             c.  Multiple Spill Days                                    762
             d.  Conclusion                                             762

         2.  Waters of the United States                                763

             a.  San Francisquito Creek                                 764
             b.  West Point Slough                                      765
             c.  Atherton Channel                                       765
             d.  Los Trancos Creek                                      766
             e.  Corte Madera Creek                                     767
             f.  Ravenswood Slough                                      767
             g.  Bayfront Canal                                         767
             h.  Redwood Creek                                          768
             i.  Bovet Creek                                            768
             j.  Conclusion                                             769

         3.  NPDES Permit                                               769

             a.  MS4 Permit                                             770
             b.  Waste Treatment System Exemption                       773

IV. CONCLUSION                                                          773

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 ¶¶ 21–24, 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, 126 S.Ct. 2208, 165 L.Ed.2d 159 (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, 126 S.Ct. 2208. 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...