Cengage Advantage Books: Business Law Today, The Essentials 10th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller

تمرين 11

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles
FACTS Two environmental organizations-the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and the Santa Monica Baykeeper- brought a lawsuit against the county of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, which includes eighty-four cities and some unincorporated areas. The NRDC and Santa Monica alleged that the county and the district were discharging urban storm water runoff into navigable waters in violation of the Clean Water Act. The levels of pollutants detected in four rivers- the Santa Clara River, the Los Angeles River, the San Gabriel River, and Malibu Creek-exceeded the limits allowed in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that governs municipal storm water discharges in Los Angeles County.
All parties agreed that the rivers did not meet water-quality standards. The issue was whether the NRDC and Santa Monica had proved that the county and the district were responsible. The defendants claimed that there was no evidence establishing their responsibility for discharging storm water carrying pollutants into the rivers. The federal district court held in favor of the defendants (the county and district agencies), and the NRDC and Santa Monica appealed.
ISSUE Were Los Angeles County and its Flood Control District responsible for discharging pollutants into navigable rivers?
DECISION Yes. The federal appellate court held that the agencies were liable for discharging polluted storm water into two of the four waterways. The court reversed the district court's decision regarding the Los Angeles River and the San Gabriel River and affirmed it with regard to the other two waterways.
REASON The court noted that in Los Angeles County, storm water runoff is collected by thousands of storm drains and channeled to a main storm-sewer system, or MS4. The Los Angeles River and San Gabriel River Monitoring Stations are located in a channelized portion of the MS4 that is owned and operated by the district. Storm water known to contain standardsexceeding pollutants passes through these monitoring stations and is discharged into the two rivers. Because the monitoring makes the district aware of the pollution levels in the water, the court found that there was sufficient evidence to establish liability. The district (along with the county) was responsible for exceeding the amount of pollutants it was permitted to discharge from the storm-sewer systems into the Los Angeles River and the San Gabriel River. Evidence did not establish that the district was responsible for excess pollution in the Santa Clara River and Malibu Creek, because those monitoring stations were not located within the channelized portion of the MS4, and thus they were not under the district's control.
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT? Suppose that Los Angeles County had moved all of its monitoring stations outside the "channelized portion of the MS4." If none of the stations that monitored pollution in the four waterways was located within the district's MS4 system, how might the outcome have been changed?