On Friday, Californians for Alternatives to Toxics (CATs), an environmental advocacy organization “dedicated to the defense of the environment from the effects of toxic chemicals,” sued Eureka Ready Mix LLC, owner of a concrete production facility near the Mad River, on accusations that the facility violated the Clean Water Act by polluting the river in a manner that impaired all use of the river for “cultural, recreational, educational, scientific, conversation, aesthetic and spiritual purposes.”
The complaint, filed in the Northern District of California, alleged that stormwater run-off from the defendant’s facility’s roof and parking lot contained pollutants, including total suspended solids (TSS), iron, and nitrite nitrogen, that entered the Mad River and then the Pacific Ocean via an unknown number of conveyances. This stormwater sledge, asserted the plaintiff, proved harmful to “fish, plant and bird life, and human health” due to the pollutants in the runoff undergoing no adequate filtration prior to entering the river following contamination.
The Clean Water Act bars the discharge of any pollutant into waters of the United States, unless the perpetrator of the pollutants first met requirements laid out in a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). While the EPA ultimately retains final say in all permitting mandates, individual states designate their own requirements for intrastate water sources. CATs argued that the aforementioned actions of the defendant failed to meet multiple requirements in the California NPDES permit, including that a business must have a stormwater prevention plan that identifies all potential locations where stormwater runoff could occur on site, must gather and analyze water samples from all discharge locations, must not exceed allowed pollutant levels in runoff (ranging from 0.15 mg to 1.0 mg per liter per pollutant), shall conduct quarterly inspections of all stormwater outlays for needed repairs or modification, and must prepare an annual report for the EPA.
The plaintiff sought civil penalties of up to $55,800 per day the defendant committed CWA violations, court costs, attorney’s fees, and an injunction requiring the defendant “to take appropriate actions to restore the quality of the navigable waters impaired by their activities,” enjoining the defendant from “discharging pollutants from the Facility and to the surface waters surrounding and downstream from the Facility,” and mandating that the defendant not further violate the “substantive and procedural requirements of the (NPDES) permit.”
The plaintiff is represented by William N. Carlon of the Law Offices of Andrew L. Packard.
