
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- District Court Rejects “Anticipatory” Pre-Suit Notice Letter in Dismissing Clean Water Act Claim
- Sixth Circuit Holds Forced Pooling Is Not A Taking
- California District Court Decision on Statute of Limitations in Contribution Actions Further Complicates Issue for Practitioners
- New Jersey Appellate Division Holds Judicial Estoppel as Available Defense to Spill Act Claims for Contribution
- Fourth Circuit Finds Forest Service Did Not Speak For The Trees
Topics
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Minimg
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Ninth Circuit
- Arizona
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- CISWI
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Procedure
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Class Actions
- Nuisance
- Odors
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- ISRA
- Administrative Hearing
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- Emissions
- Railroad
- Air
- RCRA
- Waste
- Cancer
- Combustion
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Statute of Limitations
- Clean Air Act
- Title V
- Permits
- Cost Recovery
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Deeds
- Clean Water Act
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Cases to Watch
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Decisions of Note
- Real Estate
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Three public-water-system-operating California cities brought suit in the Northern District of California against Monsanto alleging that Monsanto’s manufacture and sale of PCB-containing products from the 1930s through the 1970s caused pollution that increased the cities’ cost and ability to comply with federal stormwater discharge regulations for discharge into the San Francisco Bay. Monsanto sought to dismiss the claims and in City of San Jose v. Monsanto Company, Nos. 15-3178, 15-5152, & 16-0071 (N.D.CA. Aug. 22, 2016), the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted the motion, but allowed the municipalities to amend their complaints as to their nuisance causes of action.
The cities alleged public nuisance claims framed around an allegation that Monsanto’s historic manufacture of PCB-containing products created a nuisance that “injuriously affected” the cities’ property rights. Interpreting California water regulations, the court determined that stormwater is the “property” of the state and that “the Cities do not take ownership of stormwater merely because it flows through municipal pipes on its way to the Bay.” Because the cities do not have a traditional property right that is affected by the alleged nuisance, the court granted Monsanto’s motions to dismiss, but alluded to at least two ways in which the cities may be able to cure their pleadings.
First, the court noted that two types of nuisance claims were available to the cities: the type that the cities pleaded, which provides a cause of action to any person whose property rights were “injuriously affected,” and a second type which provides a cause of action to “the city attorney of any town or city in which the nuisance exists.” Possibly because only injunctive relief, and not damages, would be available, the cities did not allege this second type of public nuisance claim.
Second, the court suggested that the cities may be able to more accurately articulate in their pleadings the “injurious” effect that they allegedly suffered as a regulatory or usufructuary interest in stormwater or as an interest in their stormwater management systems themselves. (In this context, “usufructuary” means the right of one person or entity to use the property of another.) To that end, the court pointed out in a footnote that “[a]t the hearing on this motion, the Cities clarified for the first time that they claim regulatory and usufructuary interests in stormwater.… In fact, … the Cities’ complaints do not mention stormwater management systems at all and refer only to the Bay itself.”
While this decision appears to offer some interesting academic guidance regarding rights to stormwater, the court’s treatment of the cities’ amended complaints may be more impactful in providing practical guidance for municipalities and historic polluters.