Cases Related to Water Quality
29 Years of Experience
Friends of Santa Fe County, et al. v. Lac Minerals Inc., et al., No. CIV 94-0569 JB/DSJ (D.N.M. 1994) (plaintiffs alleged violations of the Clean Water Act for unpermitted discharges of toxic acid mine drainage from a gold mine to the Dolores Arroyo, a water of the United States)
San Francisco Baykeeper v. G&K Services Inc., No. C 93-3585 CAL (N.D. Cal. 1994) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharges of pollutants to the sanitary sewer from an industrial linen facility; secured an agreement mandating compliance with the Clean Water Act and payment of $100,000.00 in mitigation for environmental projects in the area; Court awarded attorneys’ fees of $105,885.37 following motion for fees)
San Francisco Baykeeper, et al. v. Department of the Navy, et al., No. C 94- 03521 VRW (N.D. Cal. 1995) (asserting over 50,000 individual violations of the Clean Water Act for discharges of toxic pollutants from the storm water system at Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco; secured agreement mandating compliance with the Clean Water Act, and attorneys’ fees and costs)
San Francisco Baykeeper, et al. v. Department of the Navy, et al., No. C 95-03033 MHP (N.D. Cal. 1996) (asserting over 200,000 individual violations of the Clean Water Act for discharges of toxic pollutants from the sewage treatment works and the storm water system at Treasure Island Naval Facility in San Francisco; secured agreement mandating compliance with the Clean Water Act, and attorneys’ fees and costs)
San Francisco Baykeeper v. Vallejo Flood Control and Sanitary District, No. 96-1554 DFL (E.D. Cal. 1996) (asserting thousands of violations for spills and discharges of raw sewage in neighborhoods and the Napa River; rulings on standing and liability in Baykeeper’s favor; settlement including $650,000.00 in mitigation, commitment for compliance by 2003, and fees and costs; second settlement agreement entered into in 2009 as a result of non-compliance, payment of mitigation funds and attorneys’ fees and costs)
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Ecology Auto Wrecking, No. CV 97- 3577RSWL(RNBx) (C.D. Cal. 1997); San Diego Baykeeper v. Ecology Auto Wrecking, No. 97 CV 0886H(JFS) (S.D. Cal. 1997) (asserting thousands of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with 14 auto dismantling and shredding operations throughout California; parties entered consent decree requiring compliance, $162,300.00 in mitigation for local restoration projects, and attorneys’ fees and costs);
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Amana J&S Metals, No. 97-3576R(SHx) (C.D. Cal. 1997) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with metal recycling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, mitigation payment, and attorneys’ fees and costs)
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Southern Cal Auto Wrecking, No. 97-3284RSWL(RNBx) (C.D. Cal. 1997) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with auto dismantling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $9,000.00 in mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs)
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Samson’s Auto Dismantling, No. 97- 3283DT(SHx) (C.D. Cal. 1997) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with auto dismantling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $50,000.00 in mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs);
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. General Auto Wrecking, No. 97-3285 RWL (C.D. Cal. 1997) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with auto dismantling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $3,000.00 in mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs)
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Benson’s Auto Wrecking, No. 97-3281 RWL (C.D. Cal. 1997) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with auto dismantling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $3,000.00 in mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs)
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Amana J&S Metals, No. 97-3576 R(SHx) (C.D. Cal. 1997) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with scrap metal recycling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $5,000.00 in mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs)
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. El Ahorro Auto Parts, No. 98-5479 (WDK) (C.D. Cal. 1998) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with auto dismantling facility; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $3,000.00 in mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs)
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Alameda Tank Co., No. 98-9014 MMM (C.D. Cal. 1998) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with tank manufacturing facility; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of in mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs)
San Diego Baykeeper v. David Rowland, et al.; No. 98 CV 1133 J(POR) (S.D. Cal. 1998) (asserting thousands of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharges of contaminated storm water from 20 auto wrecking facilities on 18 acres);
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. City of Los Angeles, No. 98-9039 HP (C.D. Cal. 1998) (asserting thousands of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging raw sewage from the collection system into area neighborhoods and receiving waters, case joined by US EPA and California in 2000; settled in 2004 with over $1 billion committed to collection system repair, replacement, upgrades, and maintenance, mitigation projects, and fees and costs);
Deltakeeper v. Pitt Des Moines Inc., No. 98-2230 WBS (E.D. Cal. 1999) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharges of polluted storm water from a pipe manufacturing and sales facility; secured agreement mandating compliance with the Clean Water Act, $23,000.00 in mitigation for local environmental projects, and attorneys’ fees and costs);
Deltakeeper v. Tiechert, Inc., No. 98-2234 FCD (E.D. Cal. 1999) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Act for discharges of polluted storm water from a concrete pipe and sales facility; secured agreement mandating compliance with the Clean Water Act, $10,000.00 in mitigation for local environmental projects, and attorneys fees and costs);
Orange County Coastkeeper v. The Irvine Company, SACV 00-417 DOC (EEx) (C.D. Cal. 2000) (asserting thousands of violations of the Act for discharges of turbid storm water from construction sites into Crystal Cove; consent decree entered implementing state of the art pollution control measures, education and outreach to the building industry, third party mitigation projects, and fees and costs);
San Diego Baykeeper v. City of San Diego, No. 01-CV–0050-B (S.D. Cal. 2001) (asserting thousands of violations of the Act for discharging raw sewage from the collection system into area neighborhoods and receiving waters; partially resolved by EPA approved stipulated Settlement Agreement requiring over $80 million in current collection system projects, with final settlement expected to commit the City to $150 to $200 million per year through 2013, mitigation projects, fees and costs);
San Francisco Baykeeper v. City of Richmond, No. 05-03829 MMC (N.D. Cal. 2005) (asserting thousands of violations of the Clean Water Act for spills and discharges of raw sewage to San Francisco Bay; settlement including $3.6M in mitigation, $100,000 in compliance monitoring funds and $538,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs);
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. Kramer Metals, No. 07-03849-DDP (FMOx) (C.D. Cal. 2007) (asserted hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with scrap metal recycling; successfully obtained rulings on liability on Motion for Summary Judgment; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs);
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. International Metals Ekco, Ltd., No. 07-03856 DDP (C.D. Cal. 2007) (asserted hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with scrap metal recycling; successfully obtained rulings on liability on Motion for Summary Judgment; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs);
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. ViCal Metals, No. 07-0853 DDP (FMOx) (C.D. Cal. 2007); 08-0739 DDP (FMOx) (2008) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with scrap metal recycling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs);
Orange County Coastkeeper v. Vista Metals, No. 07-00932 -DDP (FMOx) (C.D. Cal. 2009) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with scrap metal recycling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs);
Orange County Coastkeeper v. Tri-Metals, No. 07-00717 -DDP (FMOx) (C.D. Cal. 2009) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with scrap metal recycling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of mitigation, and attorneys’ fees and costs);
Edwards et al. v. City of Colfax, No. 07-CV-02153 GEB EFB (E.D. Cal. 2007) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for unpermitted spills and discharges of raw sewage to Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta; settlement agreement entered; defendant held in contempt for non-compliance resulting in award of $433,023.53 in attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in securing compliance;
San Francisco Baykeeper v. City of Burlingame, No. 08-0895 CW (N.D. Cal. 2008) (asserting thousands of violations of the Clean Water Act for spills and discharges of raw sewage to San Francisco Bay; settlement including $250,000 in mitigation, $50,000 in compliance monitoring funds and $175,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs);
San Francisco Baykeeper v. San Mateo County, Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District, No. 08-03951 BZ (N.D. Cal. 2008) (asserting thousands of violations of the Clean Water Act for spills and discharges of raw sewage to San Francisco Bay; settlement including $15,000 in mitigation, and payment of compliance monitoring funds and attorneys’ fees and costs);
San Francisco Baykeeper v. Hillsborough, No. 08-03760 BZ (N.D. Cal. 2008) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for unpermitted spills and discharges of raw sewage to San Francisco Bay; successfully defeated motion to dismiss for insufficient notice; settlement including $50,000.00 in mitigation, $15,000 in compliance monitoring funds, and $200,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs);
San Francisco Baykeeper v. City of Stockton, No. 08-02184-LKK-KLM (E.D. Cal. 2008) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for spills and discharges of raw sewage to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta; settlement including $300,000 in mitigation for local environmental projects, $15,000 in compliance monitoring funds, and $250,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs);
Santa Monica Baykeeper v. County of Los Angeles, No. 08-01467 BRO (PLAx) (C.D. Cal. 2008) (asserting thousands of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging pollutants into the municipal separate storm sewer system in violation of NPDES permit; case argued before US Supreme Court, on remand 9th Circuit affirmed liability; settlement including $4M for mitigation for local green infrastructure projects, $3.3M in fees and costs);
San Francisco Baykeeper v. San Carlos, No. 09-05677 SBA (N.D. Cal. 2009) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for unpermitted spills and discharges of raw sewage to San Francisco Bay; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $200,000 in mitigation, and $95,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs);
San Francisco Baykeeper v. City of Millbrae, No. 09-05675 SBA (N.D. Cal. 2009) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for spills and discharges of raw sewage to San Francisco Bay in violation of NPDES permit, exceedances of NPDES permit limitations, and violations of monitoring and reporting requirements; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $300,000 in mitigation, $200,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and $25,000 in compliance monitoring);
Orange County Coastkeeper et al. v. American Metals, No. 09-6147 GAF (RZx) (C.D. Cal. 2009) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with scrap metal recycling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $20,000 in mitigation, $110,112 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and $10,000 in compliance monitoring);
Orange County Coastkeeper v. J. Lee’s Metals, Inc., No. 09-01549-VAP (OP) (C.D. Cal. 2009) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with scrap metal recycling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $4,000 in mitigation, $56,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and $2,000 in compliance monitoring);
Orange County Coastkeeper v. DBW & Associates, Inc., No. 09-01063- DOC (MLG) (C.D. Cal. 2009) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging polluted storm water associated with scrap metal recycling; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $15,000 in mitigation, $51,500 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and $5,000 in compliance monitoring);
San Francisco Baykeeper v. City of South San Francisco, No. 10-00921-SBA (N.D. Cal. 2010) (asserting hundreds of violations of the Clean Water Act for spills and discharges of raw sewage to San Francisco Bay in violation of NPDES permit; consent decree entered requiring compliance, payment of $450,000 in mitigation, $186,000 in attorneys’ fees and costs, and $60,000 in compliance monitoring);
Karuk Tribe v. Montague Water Conservation District, No. 01330-AC (C.D. Cal. 2013) (asserting violations of the Endangered Species Act for water diversions causing take of coho salmon; settlement agreement providing for water release regime based on modeling, other mitigation measures, application for ESA permitting, $550,000.00 in fees and costs).
Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. AAA Plating, No. 2:18-cv-05916-PA-GJS (C.D. Cal. 2018) (asserting violations of Clean Water Act and Industrial Permit; settlement agreement providing for 85th percentile rain event capture, $583,000 in fees and costs.
Santa Barbara Channelkeeper v. State Water Resources Control Board; City of Ventura, No. 19STCP01176 (Los Angeles Superior Court, Complex Litigation)(Asserting unreasonable use and method of use of water resulting in Steelhead death by City; failure to prevent unreasonable use by State. Converted to Adjudication by City, settlement negotiations for stipulated judgement proceeding.)
San Luis Obispo Coastkeeper v. Santa Maria Valley Water Conservation District, No. 19-16655 (9th Circuit 2019); No. 2:19-cv-08696 AB(JPRx)(C.D. Cal. 2019); No. 17CV1852 (San Jose Superior Court 2017) (series of cases alleging violation of State and Federal Law in management of Twitchell Dam in manner that harms endangered Southern California Steelhead.)
Los Angeles Waterkeeper v. State Water Resources Control Board, Lead Case No. BS171009 (Los Angeles Superior Court 2017)(asserting discharge of hundreds of millions of gallons of wastewater per date from LA area sewage plants waste of that water in violation of the California Constitution and statutory duties; trial in July 2020)
Earthlaw Center v. State Water Resources Control Board, No. 34-2017-80002726 (Sacramento Superior Court 2017)(asserting violations of State and Federal Law in California’s development of Section 303(d) list of impaired waters; judgment and writ issued in favor of petitions, appeal and settlement negotiations pending).