The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered a new trial for Corona Clay Company after ruling that the company violated stormwater-permit requirements related to its activities near Temescal Creek in California. This decision affects environmental groups and the company, as it reopens the question of whether the creek is a "water of the United States" under the Clean Water Act. The ruling is significant as it could impact future environmental enforcement actions.
The case, Inland Empire Waterkeeper v. Corona Clay Company (Docket No. 24-6199), began when Inland Empire Waterkeeper and Orange County Coastkeeper filed a lawsuit against Corona Clay Company. The plaintiffs alleged that the company failed to comply with stormwater-permit requirements while conducting clay-recycling activities near Temescal Creek. The dispute escalated through multiple trials and appeals, ultimately leading to the Ninth Circuit's recent decision.
Inland Empire Waterkeeper and Orange County Coastkeeper are environmental organizations that advocate for clean water and environmental protection in California. They accused Corona Clay Company of discharging pollutants into Temescal Creek, which is a tributary of the Santa Ana River. The case reached the Ninth Circuit after a jury initially ruled in favor of Corona, finding that the company did not discharge pollutants into the creek.
The Ninth Circuit's ruling is rooted in changes to the legal interpretation of the Clean Water Act. In a previous decision, the Supreme Court held that indirect discharges could be regulated under the Act if they are the "functional equivalent" of direct discharges. This decision prompted the Ninth Circuit to order a new trial, which resulted in a verdict favoring the plaintiffs. However, following the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA, which narrowed the definition of what constitutes a "water of the United States," Corona sought to dismiss the case based on the new legal standard.
The Ninth Circuit concluded that whether Temescal Creek qualifies as a "water of the United States" is a merits question, not a jurisdictional issue. The court stated, "We conclude that whether a case brought under the Clean Water Act involves a water of the United States is a merits question, not a question of jurisdiction." The judges involved in the ruling were Jacqueline H. Nguyen, Danielle J. Forrest, and Lawrence VanDyke.
This ruling has significant implications for future environmental cases. It emphasizes that changes in the law can warrant a new trial, especially when they affect the core issues of a case. The Ninth Circuit's decision also underscores the ongoing legal debates surrounding the Clean Water Act and what constitutes a "water of the United States." As the legal landscape continues to evolve, this case may set a precedent for how similar cases are handled in the future.
Moving forward, the case will return to the district court for further proceedings. The court will need to determine whether Temescal Creek meets the new standards set forth in Sackett v. EPA. As of now, it is unclear whether Corona Clay Company will appeal the Ninth Circuit's decision or if there are any related cases pending that could influence the outcome.