Construction industry officials say they are pleased with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Jan. 8 ruling in the first of two water-related cases argued before the court in December.
The court unanimously ruled in Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council and L.A. Waterkeeper that the flood-control district did not violate its State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit when it simply transferred already polluted water from one portion of its river system to another.
The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and L.A. Waterkeeper filed a lawsuit in 2008 when water monitors within the Los Angeles County Flood Control District’s river system showed that stormwater runoff that flowed into the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers caused water-quality standards to be degraded hundreds of times. The environmental groups said they found evidence of mercury, arsenic, cyanide, lead and fecal bacteria that exceeded health limits.
The L.A. County Flood Control District had argued that there was no way to pinpoint who was responsible for the pollution because several sources discharged into the river system.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that the flood district had violated its permit. But the Supreme Court disagreed and reversed the appellate court ruling. “We hold … that the flow of water from an improved portion of the very same waterway does not qualify as a discharge of pollutants under the Clean Water Act,” wrote Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.