Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kai v. Nakatani

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

July 9, 2019

NA KIA‘I KAI, an unincorporated association, SURFRIDER FOUNDATION, a non-profit corporation, and PESTICIDE ACTION NETWORK NORTH AMERICA, a non-profit corporation, Plaintiffs,
v.
JAMES NAKATANI in his official capacity as Executive Director of the STATE OF HAWAI‘I AGRIBUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant.

          ORDER RE: SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSAL

          DERRICK K. WATSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         INTRODUCTION

         Plaintiffs Na Kia‘i Kai, Surfrider Foundation, and Pesticide Action Network North America (Plaintiffs) seek injunctive and declaratory relief for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. §§1251-1311(a), and breach of public trust under Haw. Const. art. XI §§1, 6, as a result of discharges from the Mānā Plain near Kekaha, Kauai, Hawaii into the Pacific Ocean. Plaintiffs seek summary judgment on both claims, while Defendant Nakatani, as Director of the State of Hawai‘i Agribusiness Development Corporation (ADC or the State), seeks summary judgment on the CWA claim and dismissal of the public trust claim. Plaintiffs also seek to strike an expert report filed by the State as part of its summary judgment briefing.

         For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED IN PART as to the CWA claim but DENIED as to the public trust claim. The State's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to the CWA claim is DENIED, but the Motion to Dismiss the public trust claim is GRANTED. Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike is DENIED as moot.

         FACTUAL BACKGROUND

         The Area

         The Mānā Plain on Kaua‘i's western coast contains naturally-occurring wetland areas that have been drained for agricultural production. Defendant's Concise Statement of Facts in Support of Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Defendant SOF), Dkt. No. 56, ¶1-2; Plaintiffs' Concise Statement in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Plf. Opp. SOF), Dkt. No. 66, ¶2. To drain the area, a system of unlined drainage canals was built below the natural water table to draw water out of the wetlands. To avoid water standing in the drainage canals, pumps were installed to draw water through the canals, lift the water up and over coastal dunes, and pump it into the ocean. Id. This drainage system consists of forty miles of earthen, unlined canals and ditches, two pumping stations at Kawai‘ele and Nohili, and six outfalls where water discharges from the canal system into the Pacific Ocean. Plaintiffs' Concise Statement of Facts in Support of Motion (Plaintiff SOF), Dkt. No. 52, ¶2. In addition, in order to discharge water from some of the outfalls, excavators are used to open sand berms and allow water from the canals to drain into the ocean. Id. ¶¶3, 5.

         This century-old drainage system, originally built for a sugar mill operated by the Kekaha Sugar Company (KSC), has been controlled and managed by ADC since 2001. Defendant SOF ¶5. The 7000-acres of Mānā Plain land controlled and managed by ADC now contains several operations, including the Pacific Missile Range and various commercial facilities. Defendant SOF 3; Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment, Dkt No. 51, (Plf. MSJ), at 14. In addition, the town of Kekaha is located in the Mānā Plain. Id.

         The Mānā Plain borders the Pacific Ocean for approximately nine miles. Plf. MSJ at 8. The adjacent ocean waters are used extensively for recreation, including for fishing and swimming. Id., 14. In 2014 and 2018, the Hawai‘i Department of Health reported to the EPA that the waters in popular beaches in the area were not meeting state water quality standards, threatening the designated uses of the water. Id., Hawai‘i Water Quality Monitoring Report (2014 and 2018), Ex. 37-38.

         The CWA and NPDES permits

         Except where authorized by a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, the CWA bans the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States (“WOTUS”). The NPDES permit system requires regulating, monitoring, and public reporting of pollutants discharged into such waters. 40 C.F.R. §122. The EPA administers the NPDES permit system but authorizes states that meet minimum requirements to stand in its shoes. FAC ¶6 (citing 33 U.S.C. §1342; 40 C.F.R. §23.24). DOH administers the NPDES permitting system in Hawai‘i. Answer, Dkt. No. 18, ¶18.

         In 2008, the EPA promulgated the Water Transfer Rule (WTR), which created a new exemption from NPDES permitting requirements where a water transfer activity (WTA) “conveys or connects waters of the United States without subjecting the transferred water to intervening industrial, municipal, or commercial use” and does not add pollutants to the water. 40 C.F.R. §122.3(i).

         As the operator of the Mānā Plain drainage ditch system (the System), KSC obtained an NPDES permit, which regulated the discharge of pollutants from the System into the Pacific Ocean. Defendant's Concise Statement in Opposition (Def. Opp. SOF), Dkt No. 68, ¶9. ADC assumed ownership of the System and its NPDES permit in 2001, administratively extending the permit until 2011 when it submitted an NPDES renewal application. Defendant SOF ¶6; FAC ¶60.

         In 2015, ADC withdrew its application to renew the System NPDES permit in reliance on the WTR exemption. Id. ¶61. As of August 3, 2015, ADC has been without an NPDES permit for the drainage ditch system, which continues to discharge waters into the Pacific Ocean. FAC ¶16; Answer ¶2.

         The Pollution

         The System collects groundwater and surface waters, including stormwater from ADC's agricultural tenants and stormwater and groundwater containing pollutants from ADC's non-agricultural tenants, and discharges those waters to the nearshore waters of the Pacific Ocean. Plaintiff SOF ¶14. Several of ADC's tenants who sublicense land adjacent to the drainage ditches pollute water that enters the drainage ditch system. Id. 17-20. For example, Shredco permits runoff containing pesticides from its green waste material processing operations to enter the drainage ditch system. Plaintiff SOF ¶18. Another ADC sublicensee, Pohaku, runs a mining and rock crushing operation that emits stormwater runoff, which flows into the System. Plaintiff SOF ¶19.

         The Kawai‘ele Outfall is the most active of the System's six. Alone, it discharges millions of gallons of water every day from the System into the Pacific Ocean. Plaintiff SOF ¶4. Other System outfalls similarly discharge into the nearshore marine waters within three miles of the coast, occasionally requiring the movement of sand berms by excavator before doing so. Id. at ¶¶4, 13. These discharged waters contain sediment and sand from the drainage ditch system, as well as chemicals that seep into the drainage ditch system, including amniomethylphosphonic acid (AMPA), a degradate of glyphosate; dichlorodiphenyldichloroethylene (DDE), a degradate of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT); glyphosate, ametryn, atrazine, bentazon, chlorpyrifos, cispropiconazole, diuron, fipronil, hexazinone, MCPA, metolachlor, prometryn, propoxur, simazine, and trans-propiconazole. Id. ¶¶8-9. These waters also contain phosphorus, metals (arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, zinc), sulfide, phenols, antimony, beryllium, selenium, thallium, and bis-phthalate. Id. ¶11.

         PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         On January 16, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) alleging violations of the CWA and of the public trust by ADC.[1] Dkt. No. 9. On April 3, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (Plf. MSJ). Dkt. Nos. 51-54. On the same day, Defendant filed a Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss (Defendant MSJ). Dkt. Nos. 55-58. These Motions have been fully briefed. Dkt. Nos. 65, 67, 71, 72. On May 5, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike, for which briefing is also complete. Dkt. Nos. 63, 74, 75. On May 22, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the cross-motions for summary judgment, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike. Dkt. No. 77. This disposition follows.

         LEGAL STANDARDS

         Motion for Summary Judgment

         Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a), a party is entitled to summary judgment “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the non-moving party fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim in the case on which the non-moving party has the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). In assessing a motion for summary judgment, all facts are construed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Genzler v. Longanbach, 410 F.3d 630, 636 (9th Cir. 2005).

         Motion to Dismiss

         Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 allows a defendant to move for dismissal of a claim on the grounds of, inter alia, lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1), (6). “Although sovereign immunity is only quasi-jurisdictional in nature, Rule 12(b)(1) is still a proper vehicle for invoking sovereign immunity from suit.” Pistor v. Garcia, 791 F.3d 1104, 1111 (9th Cir. 2015).[2] A defendant may, however, be found to have waived sovereign immunity if it does not invoke its immunity in a timely fashion and takes actions indicating consent to the litigation. See id.; Hill v. Blind Indus. & Servs. of Md., 179 F.3d 754, 760 (9th Cir.), amended on denial of reh'g, 201 F.3d 1186 (9th Cir. 1999).

         DISCUSSION

         I. Motion for Summary Judgment

         Plaintiffs' first count alleges ADC has violated the CWA by discharging pollutants via its drainage ditch system into the waters of the United States without an NPDES permit since August 2015. FAC at 1. Plaintiffs further assert that Nakatani, as director of ADC, ordered ADC to do so. Id. Both sides have filed cross-motions for summary judgment on this claim. Dkt. Nos. 51, 55.

         ADC asserts that despite the System operating pursuant to an NPDES permit for decades, no NPDES permit is needed now because of the Water Transfer Rule. According to the State, the drainage ditches that comprise the System -- like the Pacific Ocean -- are Waters of the United States (WOTUS), the System pumps at Nohili and Kawai‘ele are water transfer activities (WTA), and the WTR exempts WTAs between two WOTUS from NPDES permit requirements. Defendant's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (Def. Opp), Dkt. No. 68, at 19. Plaintiffs do not agree. They respond that (1) the System is not a WOTUS, and the WTR therefore does not apply; (2) the WTR does not apply even if the System transfers water between two WOTUS ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.