No Result
View All Result
SUBSCRIBE | NO FEES, NO PAYWALLS
MANAGE MY SUBSCRIPTION
NEWSLETTER
Corporate Compliance Insights
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe
No Result
View All Result
Corporate Compliance Insights
Home Compliance

Appeals Court Reinstates Clean Water Act Lawsuit Against County of Los Angeles

by Peter McGrath
December 5, 2016
in Compliance
EPA compliance issues in California

The Clean Water Act[1] allows privates citizens to bring actions in federal court against firms alleged to be in violation of the Act or of a permit issued pursuant to the Act. However, the Act requires any citizen wishing to bring such an action first to provide notice of the citizen’s intent to sue the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and the proper regulatory authority in the state in which the violation is alleged to have occurred, to allow the regulators to take action to investigate the allegations and to take their own actions to bring the alleged violator into compliance.

The Act creates this notice requirement because Congress, when it passed the Act, intended for the regulatory authorities to have primary enforcement authority and desired to avoid circumstances wherein a Court might order some compliance activity that conflicts with the intentions of the regulators.  If the regulatory authorities do take action to enforce the Act against the alleged violator, the private citizen is precluded from bringing any action.

If a private citizen prevails in such a citizen suit, the court may impose a substantial penalty on the violator, and the penalty is paid to the government, not to the private citizen.  A prevailing private citizen is, however, also entitled to injunctive relief – that is, a court order prohibiting future violations (the order would likewise be enforceable by imposition of significant penalties if those violations recur).  To prevail in such a citizen suit, the defending party must show that it has remedied the problem underlying the violations in such a way that it is “absolutely clear” those violations will not occur in the future.  The nature of enforcement action a regulatory authority must take before a private citizen is precluded from bringing an action has been the subject of several difficult-to-interpret and difficult-to-harmonize court decisions over the past 30 years. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently attempted to add some clarity to the picture.[2] 

In 2008, the National Resources Defense Counsel (NRDC) filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the County of Los Angeles alleging the County was discharging polluted stormwater in violation of the terms of their national pollutant discharge elimination system permit, issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act in 2001.  After an appeal of that original action, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the county had violated its permit because its monitoring stations recorded exceedances of its permit limits in the 2001 permit.  The Court of Appeals sent the case back to the District Court to determine an appropriate remedy.  While the initial appeal was ongoing, the county applied for and in 2012 received a new stormwater permit.  The new permit has substantially the same baseline receiving water limitations.

The 2012 permit was more complex, however. The 2001 permit provided simply that if the contaminant limitations were exceeded as detected by monitoring, the county was in violation of the permit.  The 2012 permit established a total maximum daily load (TMDL) of contaminants the County could discharge in stormwater into certain water bodies.  The permit also contained interim requirements to ensure that the county was making progress toward achieving the water quality standards in those water bodies as well as final deadlines to actually meet the TMDL limits.  The permit provided that a failure to meet an interim or final TMDL limit was a violation of the permit.  The permit also provided that if the county met the TMDL standards, it was deemed to be in compliance with the limitations.

The 2012 permit also created a safe harbor program for the county to implement a voluntary water shed management program or an enhanced water shed management program.  If the county successfully completed the enhanced watershed monitoring management program, it would be exempt from all limitations and TMDL requirements, including the final deadlines.  The county developed its enhanced management programs, but it is unclear whether they had actually taken any steps to implement those requirements.  The county admitted that compliance with the requirements would be voluntary and that the compliance and implementation require substantial new resources and time.

The county then moved to dismiss the entire lawsuit was precluded, arguing that the 2012 permit supplanted the 2001 permit and therefore relief was not available to the NRDC.  The District Court denied the Motion with regard to civil penalties for past violations, but granted the motion with regard to injunctive relief on the basis that the county was currently in compliance with the 2012 permit and that there was no evidence that the county would not continue to comply.

The Appeals Court held that the NRDC’s claims were not precluded because the county remained subject to receiving water limitations, which are substantially the same as the limits in the 2001 permit.  Although the county is significantly less likely to violate those limitations under the 2012 permit, because of the delay and partial exemption afforded by the safe harbor, it was not “absolutely clear” to the Court of Appeals that the violations would not occur.  The Court of Appeals held that a claim under the Clean Water Act could be dismissed only if it were “absolutely clear” that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to occur.  Mere cessation of illegal activity in response to pending litigation does not moot a case.

[1] 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251, et seq.

[2] NRDC v. County of Los Angeles, No. 15-55562 (9th Cir., Oct. 31, 2016)


Previous Post

5 Ways Global Organizations Can Remain FCPA Compliant

Next Post

Bank Regulators Issue Proposed Rules on Cybersecurity Controls

Peter McGrath

Peter McGrath

September 17 - Peter McGrath headshotA frequent lecturer and author on diverse environmental issues, Peter McGrath, a member at Moore & Van Allen, brings to his wide-ranging clients extensive counseling and litigation experience with environmental issues arising in business and real estate transactions.

Related Posts

Fox_DOJ Speeches_f

Analysis of Recent DOJ Statements

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 23, 2023

DOJ leaders provide insight into agency's plans. Analysis of Recent Statements DOJ Shaping the Future of Corporate Criminal Enforcement What’s...

Fox_2023 ECCP Update_f

2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 23, 2023

Keeping up with 2023 changes to DOJ guidelines. Additions, Deletions & Changes From 2020 2023 Evaluation of Corporate Compliance Programs...

encompass update

Encompass Launches pKYC Maturity Model

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 22, 2023

KYC automation platform Encompass has unveiled a new perpetual Know Your Customer (pKYC) maturity model designed to help banks improve...

consilio onna partnership

Consilio, Onna Seek to Streamline eDiscovery for Cloud Apps

by Corporate Compliance Insights
March 22, 2023

Legal technology provider Consilio has launched a new platform, Sightline Collect, powered by data management supplier Onna. The platform is...

Next Post
Regulators have proposed new regulations around cybersecurity

Bank Regulators Issue Proposed Rules on Cybersecurity Controls

Compliance Job Interview Q&A

Jump to a Topic

AML Anti-Bribery Anti-Corruption Artificial Intelligence (AI) Automation Banking Board of Directors Board Risk Oversight Business Continuity Planning California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) Code of Conduct Communications Management Corporate Culture COVID-19 Cryptocurrency Culture of Ethics Cybercrime Cyber Risk Data Analytics Data Breach Data Governance DOJ Download Due Diligence Enterprise Risk Management (ERM) ESG FCPA Enforcement Actions Financial Crime Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) GDPR HIPAA Know Your Customer (KYC) Machine Learning Monitoring RegTech Reputation Risk Risk Assessment SEC Social Media Risk Supply Chain Technology Third Party Risk Management Tone at the Top Training Whistleblowing
No Result
View All Result

Privacy Policy

Founded in 2010, CCI is the web’s premier global independent news source for compliance, ethics, risk and information security. 

Got a news tip? Get in touch. Want a weekly round-up in your inbox? Sign up for free. No subscription fees, no paywalls. 

Follow Us

Browse Topics:

  • CCI Press
  • Compliance
  • Compliance Podcasts
  • Cybersecurity
  • Data Privacy
  • eBooks Published by CCI
  • Ethics
  • FCPA
  • Featured
  • Financial Services
  • Fraud
  • Governance
  • GRC Vendor News
  • HR Compliance
  • Internal Audit
  • Leadership and Career
  • On Demand Webinars
  • Opinion
  • Resource Library
  • Risk
  • Uncategorized
  • Videos
  • Webinars
  • Well-Being
  • Whitepapers

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • About
    • About CCI
    • Writing for CCI
    • NEW: CCI Press – Book Publishing
    • Advertise With Us
  • Explore Topics
    • See All Articles
    • Compliance
    • Ethics
    • Risk
    • FCPA
    • Governance
    • Fraud
    • Internal Audit
    • HR Compliance
    • Cybersecurity
    • Data Privacy
    • Financial Services
    • Well-Being at Work
    • Leadership and Career
    • Opinion
  • Vendor News
  • Career Connection
  • Events
    • Calendar
    • Submit an Event
  • Library
    • Whitepapers & Reports
    • eBooks
    • CCI Press & Compliance Bookshelf
  • Podcasts
  • Videos
  • Subscribe

© 2022 Corporate Compliance Insights

Welcome to CCI. This site uses cookies. Please click OK to accept. Privacy Policy
Cookie settingsACCEPT
Manage consent

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. These cookies ensure basic functionalities and security features of the website, anonymously.
CookieDurationDescription
cookielawinfo-checbox-analytics11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checbox-functional11 monthsThe cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checbox-others11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance11 monthsThis cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy11 monthsThe cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.
Functional
Functional cookies help to perform certain functionalities like sharing the content of the website on social media platforms, collect feedbacks, and other third-party features.
Performance
Performance cookies are used to understand and analyze the key performance indexes of the website which helps in delivering a better user experience for the visitors.
Analytics
Analytical cookies are used to understand how visitors interact with the website. These cookies help provide information on metrics the number of visitors, bounce rate, traffic source, etc.
Advertisement
Advertisement cookies are used to provide visitors with relevant ads and marketing campaigns. These cookies track visitors across websites and collect information to provide customized ads.
Others
Other uncategorized cookies are those that are being analyzed and have not been classified into a category as yet.
SAVE & ACCEPT