Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council

Pending petition

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
11-460	9th Cir.	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD	TBD

Issue: (1) Whether “navigable waters of the United States” include only “naturally occurring” bodies of water so that construction of engineered channels or other man-made improvements to a river as part of municipal flood and storm control renders the improved portion no longer a “navigable water” under the Clean Water Act? (2) When water flows from one portion of a river that is navigable water of the United States, through a concrete channel or other engineered improvement in the river constructed for flood and stormwater control as part of a municipal separate storm sewer system, into a lower portion of the same river, can there be a “discharge” from an “outfall” under the Clean Water Act, notwithstanding this Court’s holding in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 105 (2004), that transfer of water within a single body of water cannot constitute a “discharge” for purposes of the Act?

CVSG Information

Invited: January 17, 2012

Filed: May 23, 2012 (Deny)

Briefs and Documents

Certiorari-stage documents

• Opinion below (9th Cir.)
• Petition for certiorari
• Brief in opposition
• Amicus brief of League of California Cities (forthcoming)
• Amicus brief of California Stormwater Quality Association (forthcoming)
• Amicus brief of National Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies (forthcoming)
• Amicus brief of Florida Stormwater Association (forthcoming)
• Petitioner's reply