LASN is a photographically oriented, professional journal featuring topics of concern and state-of-the-art projects designed or influenced by registered Landscape Architects.
Issue link: https://landscapearchitect.epubxp.com/i/320919
Let's start from the beginning…back in 2008, when most everyone's attention was focused on the U.S. financial crisis, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which cites "1.4 million members and online activists with the courtroom clout and expertise of more than 350 lawyers, scientists and other professionals," and Los Angeles Waterkeeper (formerly Santa Monica Baykeeper) initiated a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County's Flood Control District county for allowing a toxic mix of mercury, arsenic, cyanide, lead and fecal bacteria to flow into the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers via stormwater runoff, then into Pacific coastal waters. The suit was brought under the Clean Water Act. The L.A. County Flood Control District countered they could not be responsible for stormwater originated from thousands of sources all over the Los Angeles basin. On Jan. 8, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling based on a narrow legal issue. The court ruled that under the Clean Water Act, polluted water flowing from one portion of the river to another "cannot be considered a discharge," and remanding the case back to the lower court. On Aug. 8, 2013, however, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that L.A. County violated a Clean Water Act permit when excessive pollution was detected. The Ninth Circuit held that "data collected at the monitoring stations was intended to determine whether permittees were in compliance with the permit," and in this case the defendants "were liable for permit violations." L.A. County appealed that decision back to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, on May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the long-standing battle, which leaves the matter in the hands of the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles for further adjudications. Environmentalists are calling this a victory, although the counsel for the plaintiffs notes there has been no finding that the county and flood control district are responsible for the contamination, and that the lawsuit involves a 2001 storm water permit that was updated in 2012. The 2012 permit, which applies to most cities in the county and the flood control district, set limits on 33 contaminants, including coliform bacteria, hydrocarbons and lead. 86 Landscape Architect and Specifier News On Aug. 8, 2013 the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles held L.A. County and the County Flood Control District responsible for millions of gallons of polluted stormwater discharged into the L.A. River (pictured) and San Gabriel River every year. On May 5, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the long-standing battle. t PhOtO: LAwAteRkeePeR.ORG Supreme Court Declines to Rule on L.A. Stormwater Pollution Case I n f o r m a t i o n R e q u e s t # 5 3 3 86-87.indd 86 5/21/14 1:05 PM