Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, et. al. v. NYC DEP (Esopus Creek)

Summary: In this citizen suit under the Clean Water Act ("CWA") section 505(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), Plaintiffs seek to enforce the provisions of section 301(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), which prohibits the discharge of a pollutant from a point source into a navigable body of water without a permit. Specifically, Defendants are discharging pollutants including turbidity, suspended solids and heat from the Shandaken Tunnel into the Esopus Creek without a permit.

Plaintiffs' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the Complaint For a More Definite Statement

Connecticut Coastal Fisherman's Association v. Remington Arms

Summary: Connecticut Coastal Fishermen's Association appeal from the decision of the US District Court for the District of CT granting, in part the motion of the Fishermen for partial summary judgment and denying defendants, Remington Arms Company, Inc., in part motion for summary judgement and motion to dismiss. In granting defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiff's Clean Water Act claim the Court erred in deciding that it lacked jurisdiction to hear plaintiff's claims because the DEP's order against the defendants' facility constituted "diligent prosecution" under a state statute comparable to the Clean Water Act. Defendants appealed from the District Court's denial of its motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's RCRA claim.

Second Circuit Briefs

Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. The NYC DEP (DEP Hiring)

Summary: Plaintiff, Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. (Riverkeeper), submits this memorandum in opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by Defendants The New York City Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), and Marilyn Gelber, Commissioner of the DEP. In this citizens enforcement suit under Clean Water Act § 505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365, Plaintiff seeks to enforce a federal permit provision requiring Defendants to maintain at least 72 staff members in their Industrial Pretreatment Program.

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's motion for Summary Judgment.

Summary: Plaintiff, Hudson Riverkeeper Fund ("Riverkeeper"), submits this Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment against Defendants, New York City Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP"), and Marilyn Gelber, Commissioner of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection. This action seeks to enjoin DEP's violations of the Clean Water Act ("CWA").

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion For Partial Summary Judgment

Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. Town of Yorktown

Summary:  Plaintiff Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. ("Riverkeeper") submits this Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Defendants operate the Yorktown Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Plant") which discharges into Hallocks Mill Brook, part of the drinking water supply for New York City and Westchester County. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation ("DEC") issued the Town of Yorktown State Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit No. NY-0026743 ("SPDES Permit") pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b). This permit allows the Defendants to discharge limited quantities of pollutants subject to compliance with certain requirements.

Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Summary: Plaintiff, Hudson Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. ("Riverkeeper"), submits this Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion for an Order pursuant to Rule 65(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enjoining the Yorktown Heights Sewer District; Town of Yorktown; Aaron Bock, Town Supervisor; Allen Chadwick, Assistant Town Supervisor; and Daniel Ciarcia, Town Engineer ("Defendants") from allowing any new sewer connections to the Yorktown Heights Wastewater Treatment Plant ("Sewage Plant") until the Sewage Plant complies with its permit. As described in the accompanying affidavits, the Defendants' illegal discharges of improperly treated sewage cause Plaintiff irreparable harm.

Plaintiffs Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Summary: Plaintiff, an environmental organization whose members recreate and fish in, and drink from, the waters into which Defendants' sewage treatment plant discharges, brought this citizen suit under § 505 of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1365. Defendants admit thousands of violations of the effluent parameters in their State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permit. In a desperate attempt to avoid liability for violations they concede, Defendants now contend Plaintiff lacks standing, and have moved for summary judgment dismissing the Complaint.

Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment

Long Island Soundkeeper Fund  v. NYC DEP (Nitrogen Case)

Summary: In this citizen suit under the Clean Water Act ("CWA") § 505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365 (1997), Plaintiffs seek to enforce State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES") permit provisions requiring Defendants to lower their discharge of pollutants, particularly nitrogen, into the East River and Jamaica Bay from eight of their water pollution control plants ("WPCPs").

Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

San Francisco Baykeeper, et al. v. Carol Browner

Summary: Defendant EPA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding Plaintiffs’ Third Claim for Relief should be denied for the reasons set forth in this brief. Defendant EPA’s motion for judgment on the pleadings regarding Plaintiffs’ Fourth Claim for Relief should be moot by the hearing on this motion, because Plaintiffs, concurrent with the filing of this opposition brief, have filed a motion to amend their First Amended Complaint to dismiss, without prejudice, their Fourth Claim for Relief. EPA's motion does not challenge Plaintiffs' first two claims for relief. Conversely, Plaintiffs have concurrently filed their motion for summary judgment on their First, Second, Third and proposed Fifth claims for relief.

Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings on Claim's 3 and 4

 Summary: In this action, plaintiffs San Francisco Baykeeper, et al. (collectively "Baykeeper") seek an order from the Court compelling defendants Carol Browner, et al. (collectively "EPA") to establish total maximum daily loads ("TMDLs") for over 400 waterbodies in the State of California. Baykeeper bases its claim on the contention that California has "constructively submitted" to EPA a determination that the state will submit no TMDLs for its waters. This contention is contrary to the facts and relevant case law. California has submitted over 20 TMDLs to EPA, is currently in the process of developing another 200 TMDLs and has scheduled completion of virtually all required TMDLs by 2011. Thus, there is no basis on which the Court could find that California has made a "constructive submission" of "no TMDLs" triggering a duty by EPA to establish the TMDLs. Nor is there any basis for Baykeeper’s claims under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"). Accordingly, Baykeeper’s motion for summary judgment should be denied.

Brief of Defendants in Opposition to Baykeeper's Motion for Summary Judgment and in Support of Defendants' Cross Motion For Summary Judgment

 Summary: The factual history of California’s and EPA’s failure to establish TMDLs in this state is virtually identical to the factual basis for the decisions by the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that EPA had a nondiscretionary duty to establish TMDLs in Alaska. The State of California, like Alaska, failed to submit any TMDLs to EPA by 1990. ACE I, II, and III held that the state’s 11 year delay triggered EPA’s duty to establish TMDLs for all of Alaska’s impaired waters. ACE III is binding on this court.

Plaintiffs' Reply Brief in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to EPA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment and Opposition to EPA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

Summary: BayKeeper seeks this Court to vacate and remand certain portions of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region ("RWQCB" or "Regional Board") for two cities that discharge municipal wastewater to the northern reaches of San Francisco Bay: the City of Petaluma which discharges effluent into the Petaluma River, and the Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District ("FSSD"), which discharges effluent to Suisun Marsh. San Francisco Bay is impaired with an alarming list of pollutants, including mercury, copper and nickel. The Regional Board, although recognizing that fact, would like to allow dischargers to continue to increase the amount of impairing pollutants, such as mercury, copper and nickel, which they discharge to the Bay. The question for the Court is, where a waterbody already is impaired by certain pollutants, how can the agency charged with cleaning up that waterbody justify increasing the amount of those pollutants discharged into the impaired waters?

Petitioner's Memorandum of Points And Authorities in Support of Peremptory Writ of Mandamus

Summary: This brief is filed in support of plaintiffs’ Motion for Partialds Summary Judgment on Claims 1, 2, 3 and 5 of their Proposed Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs seek a ruling that defendant Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA" or the "Agency") has violated its nondiscretionary duty under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (the "Clean Water Act" or the "Act") to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads ("TMDLs") for polluted waterbodies in California as required by section 303(d) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d). In addition, plaintiffs seek a ruling from the Court that EPA has violated its duty to establish those TMDL’s waste load allocations ("WLAs") as enforceable, water quality-based effluent limitations in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits governing relevant "point sources." Lastly, plaintiffs seek an order finding that EPA violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), 5 U.S.C. § 706, in approving several State submissions as TMDLs. Plaintiffs intend to request an appropriate remedy from the Court at a future date.

Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment