In a legal setback to the cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale, a federal court judge recently denied a request this month to dismiss a water pollution lawsuit that could potentially cost the cities tens of millions in fines.
In 2020, San Francisco Baykeeper, a nonprofit environmental organization, filed lawsuits against Mountain View and Sunnyvale alleging that they violated the federal Clean Water Act by discharging high volumes of raw sewage into creeks that flowed into the San Francisco Bay.
The suit alleged that the discharges occurred in Stevens Creek, Calabazas Creek, the Sunnyvale East Channel and the Guadalupe Slough.
Since then, both cities have filed motions stating that they should not be held accountable to the alleged violations. A judge denied the motions in 2020 and also issued a summary judgement in favor of Baykeeper in 2022. But a recent Supreme Court ruling, Sackett v. EPA, had the potential to change the legal status of the lawsuit.
In Sackett v. EPA, the Supreme Court narrowed the criteria of what is considered a “water of the United States,” or WOTUS. The cities of Mountain View and Sunnyvale used this ruling to argue that their creeks and streams were not WOTUS and therefore not subject to the Clean Water Act.
Last week, a U.S. District judge rejected this argument, stating that the creeks and streams were still WOTUS, and that Sackett v. EPA did not alter this determination, according to the court order on Dec. 11.
A Mountain View spokesperson said the city did not comment on active litigation.
In a press statement, Baykeeper praised the court’s decision to continue viewing the creeks as waters of the United States despite the Sackett ruling, meaning they will still be subject to the federal jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act.
“Decisions like this will help strengthen the law and allow it to continue to play an important role in protecting our local creeks, sloughs, rivers, and the Bay itself,” said Baykeeper Attorney Eric Buescher.
The lawsuit is expected to go to trial in August 2024.
Comments
Registered user
St. Francis Acres
on Dec 18, 2023 at 3:54 pm
Registered user
on Dec 18, 2023 at 3:54 pm
Glad the court tossed the City's argument that our creeks are not US waters and not covered by the Clean Water Act.
Wish the City had instead spent money on a settlement and a plan to prevent further leakage.
Registered user
Shoreline West
on Dec 18, 2023 at 10:54 pm
Registered user
on Dec 18, 2023 at 10:54 pm
I am saddened by the woeful lack of regard that the City of Mountain View has shown to it's citizens in this matter. Not WOTUS? What a ridiculous statement. Wishing the Baykeepers well in this endeavor.
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 22, 2023 at 6:27 am
Registered user
on Dec 22, 2023 at 6:27 am
The case was already lost. Baykeepers won the case.
The court already ruled that Mountain View is liable.
Mountain View is trying to delay the civil damages.
Thats all.
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 22, 2023 at 6:29 am
Registered user
on Dec 22, 2023 at 6:29 am
I think I read the case was already decided, that the court ruled that Mountain View was liable.
That also the court was considering reimbursment of legal fees, and damages at this time.
And that the city has tried to delay that action.
Registered user
Old Mountain View
on Dec 22, 2023 at 8:28 pm
Registered user
on Dec 22, 2023 at 8:28 pm
IN 2022 Baykeeper won a summary judgement
Case 5:20-cv-00824-EJD Document 139 Filed 09/12/22 Page 35 of 35
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion for leave to file a supplemental brief is DENIED. Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment is GRANTED: testing results from 2019 support a reasonable inference that Defendants violated Receiving Water Limitation B.2 on January 17, 2019, February 4, 2019, and February 13, 2019. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The Court will conduct a status conference on October 13, 2022 at 11:00 a.m. The parties shall file a joint status conference statement no later than October 3, 2022. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: September 12, 2022
So the case is actually closed. The city is accountable