alerts & publications
Supreme Court Overrules Ninth Circuit in Storm Water CaseJanuary 9, 2013
The U.S. Supreme Court on January 8, 2013, held that the discharge of impacted water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the same navigable waterway does not constitute a “discharge of a pollutant” as defined in the Clean Water Act. Los Angeles Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., U.S., No. 11-460 (“LA Flood Control”).
The Los Angeles County Flood Control District operates a drainage system known as a “municipal separate storm sewer system” or “MS4,” which collects, transports, and discharges storm water. Under the Clean Water Act and its related regulations, certain MS4 operators are required to obtain a permit before discharging a pollutant into a navigable water. At issue in LA Flood Control was whether a discharge of a pollutant within the meaning of the Clean Water Act occurred when polluted water flowed from the concrete-lined portions of the Los Angeles and San Gabriel rivers into unlined portions of the same rivers. Interpreting the text of the Clean Water Act and, in particular, the definition of “discharge of a pollutant,” the Supreme Court held that such discharges do not require a permit. More specifically, the Clean Water Act defines the term “discharge of a pollutant” as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source.” The Supreme Court reasoned that “no pollutants are ‘added’ to a water body when water is merely transferred between different portions of that water body.”
The decision, which overturns the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in the case (Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles, 673 F.3d 880, 886 (CA9 2011) was generally anticipated, and affirmed the Supreme Court’s prior holding in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 109-112 (2004).
This memorandum is a summary for general information and discussion only and may be considered an advertisement for certain purposes. It is not a full analysis of the matters presented, may not be relied upon as legal advice, and does not purport to represent the views of our clients or the Firm. Kelly McTigue, an O'Melveny partner licensed to practice law in California, and Aleas Koos, an O'Melveny associate licensed to practice law in California, contributed to the content of this newsletter. The views expressed in this newsletter are the views of the authors except as otherwise noted.
Portions of this communication may contain attorney advertising. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please direct all inquiries regarding New York's Rules of Professional Conduct to O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Times Square Tower, 7 Times Square, New York, NY, 10036, Phone:+1-212-326-2000. © 2013 O'Melveny & Myers LLP. All Rights Reserved.
Thank you for your interest. Before you communicate with one of our attorneys, please note: Any comments our attorneys share with you are general information and not legal advice. No attorney-client relationship will exist between you or your business and O’Melveny or any of its attorneys unless conflicts have been cleared, our management has given its approval, and an engagement letter has been signed. Meanwhile, you agree: we have no duty to advise you or provide you with legal assistance; you will not divulge any confidences or send any confidential or sensitive information to our attorneys (we are not in a position to keep it confidential and might be required to convey it to our clients); and, you may not use this contact to attempt to disqualify O’Melveny from representing other clients adverse to you or your business. By clicking "accept" you acknowledge receipt and agree to all of the terms of this paragraph and our Disclaimer.