1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MSJ ON COUNTERCLAIM CASE NO. 13-02095 M. REED HOPPER (Bar No. 131291) ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS (Bar No. 184100) Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 419-7111 (p) (916) 419-7747 (f) [email protected][email protected]See next page for additional attorneys for Plaintiffs and Counterclaim-Defendants UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DUARTE NURSERY, INC., a California Corporation; and JOHN DUARTE, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant. No. 2:13−CV−02095−KJM−AC (TEMP) DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. #139) ON ITS COUNTERCLAIM (DKT. #28) Date: November 20, 2015 Time: 10:00am Courtroom: 3 Judge: Hon. Kimberly J. Mueller Accompanying Papers: Declaration of Joel Butterworth Declaration of Tom Skordal Declaration of David Kelley Objections to Evidence Response to Separate Statement UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Counterclaim- Plaintiff, v. DUARTE NURSERY, INC., a California Corporation; and JOHN DUARTE, an individual, Counterclaim- Defendants. Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 150 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 27
27
Embed
1 M. REED HOPPER (Bar No. 131291) ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS …€¦ · DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MSJ ON COUNTERCLAIM CASE NO. 13-02095 (Bar No. 131291) ANTHONY L. FRANÇOIS
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MSJ ON COUNTERCLAIM CASE NO. 13-02095
DUARTE NURSERY, INC., a California Corporation; and JOHN DUARTE, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, Defendant.
No. 2:13−CV−02095−KJM−AC (TEMP)
DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DKT. #139)
ON ITS COUNTERCLAIM (DKT. #28)
Date: November 20, 2015
Time: 10:00am
Courtroom: 3
Judge: Hon. Kimberly J.
Mueller
Accompanying Papers: Declaration of Joel Butterworth
Declaration of Tom Skordal
Declaration of David Kelley
Objections to Evidence
Response to Separate Statement
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Counterclaim- Plaintiff, v. DUARTE NURSERY, INC., a California Corporation; and JOHN DUARTE, an individual, Counterclaim- Defendants.
Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 150 Filed 11/06/15 Page 1 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MSJ ON COUNTERCLAIM CASE NO. 13-02095
Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 150 Filed 11/06/15 Page 2 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MSJ ON COUNTERCLAIM CASE NO. 13-02095
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
II. LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................... 1
A. Plowing Is Broadly Excluded From Clean Water Act Regulation ............................... 1
B. The Farmland At Issue .................................................................................................. 4
C. Duarte Plows This Farmland To Plant Wheat— Without Changing Any Waters To Dry Land ..................................................................................................... 5
III. LEGAL STANDARD ............................................................................................................ 6
IV. DUARTE’S PRIMA FACIE SHOWING ON ITS RETALIATION CLAIM PRECLUDES SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE COUNTERCLAIM ............................. 7
V. THE GOVERNMENT’S ADMISSIONS THAT THE CORE ALLEGATIONS IN ITS COUNTERCLAIM ARE “WRONG” PRECLUDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN ITS FAVOR ...................................................................................................................... 8
VI. A GENUINE DISPUTE EXISTS ABOUT THE FACTS UNDERLYING WHETHER THE CLEAN WATER ACT APPLIES TO THIS FARMLAND AT ALL ........................................................................................................................................ 8
VII. THE PLOWING EXCLUSION PRECLUDES THE CLAIM THAT PLOWING THE PROPERTY INVOLVED A “DISCHARGE” ............................................................ 11
VIII. THERE IS A GENUINE DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACTS UNDERLYING WHETHER THE NORMAL-FARMING-PRACTICES EXEMPTION APPLIES ............ 13
A. Duarte’s 2012 Tillage Was Part Of An Established Farming Or Ranching Operation..................................................................................................................... 14
B. The Recapture Provision Does Not Apply.................................................................. 15
IX. DUARTE DID NOT “ADD A POLLUTANT”, AS SUPREME COURT AUTHORITY MAKES CLEAR .......................................................................................... 15
X. THE PLOW WAS NOT A “POINT SOURCE” CONVEYANCE ..................................... 18
XI. JOHN DUARTE CANNOT BE HELD PERSONALLY LIABLE ..................................... 18
XII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 20
Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 150 Filed 11/06/15 Page 3 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MSJ ON COUNTERCLAIM CASE NO. 13-02095
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (1986) ..................................................................................................................... 6
Borden Ranch P'ship v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 261 F.3d 810 (9th Cir. 2001).......................................................................................... 13, 16, 17
Borden Ranch Pshp. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21389 (E.D. Cal. 1999) ........................................................................ 17
Borden Ranch Pshp. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs, No. CIV-S-97-0858 GEB JFM, (E.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 1998) ........................................................ 17
Borden Ranch v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs., 537 U.S. 99 (2002) .................................................................................................................... 13
Illinois v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 490 F.Supp. 1145 (N.D. Ill. 1980) ............................................................................................. 20
In re Carsten, 211 B.R. 719 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1997) ....................................................................................... 15
Jackson v. Bank of Hawaii, 902 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1990).................................................................................................... 19
L.A. Cty. Flood Control Dist. v. NRDC, Inc., 133 S.Ct. 710 (2013) ............................................................................................................ 16, 17
Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003) ............................................................................................................. 19, 20
Mt. Healthy City Board of Ed. v Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977) ..................................................................................................................... 7
N. Cal. River Watch v. City of Healdsburg, 496 F.3d 993 (9th Cir. 2007)........................................................................................................ 9
National Mining Association v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 145 F.3d 1399 (D.C. Cir. 1998) ................................................................................................. 18
Nat'l Ass'n of Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 2007 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 6366, (D.D.C. 2007) ............................................................................. 17
Northern Cal. River Watch v. Oakland Mar. Support Servs., 2011 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 14551, (N.D. Cal. 2011)......................................................................... 20
Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 150 Filed 11/06/15 Page 4 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MSJ ON COUNTERCLAIM CASE NO. 13-02095
People v. Celotex Corp., 516 F.Supp. 716 (C.D. Ill. 1981) ............................................................................................... 20
Precon Dev. Corp. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 603 F.App’x 149 (4th Cir. 2015) ............................................................................................... 10
Precon Dev. Corp. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 633 F.3d 278 (4th Cir. 2011)...................................................................................................... 10
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006) ............................................................................................................... 9, 10
Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16 (1983) ..................................................................................................................... 20
Schneider v. County of Sacramento, 2014 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 116809, (E.D. Cal. 2014) ........................................................................ 7
Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310 (9th Cir. 1989)...................................................................................................... 7
South Fla. Water Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U.S. 95 (2004) ............................................................................................................... 16, 17
Tri-Realty Co. v. Ursinus Coll., 2015 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 111455, (E.D. Pa. Aug. 24, 2015) .......................................................... 16
United States v. Akers, 785 F.2d 814 (9th Cir. 1986)................................................................................................ 14, 15
United States v. Park, 421 U.S. 658 (1975) ................................................................................................................... 19
United States v. Plaza Health Laboratories, Inc., 3 F.3d 643 (2d Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................................... 18
United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121 (1985) ............................................................................................................... 2, 12
Yates v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 1074 (2015) ................................................................................................................ 12
Corps Issues Interim Rules For Discharges Of Dredged And Fill Materials, 5 ENVT’L.L.REP. 10143 (1975) ................................................................................................................................ 3
Development of New Regulations by the Corps of Engineers, Implementing Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Concerning Permits for Disposal of Dredge or Fill Material: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Water Res. of the Comm. on Pub. Works and Transp., 94th Cong. 74 (1975) (testimony of Alvin L. Alm, EPA) ............................................. 3
Jeffrey Stine, Regulating Wetlands In The 1970s, 27 J. FOREST HIST. 60 (1983) ................................................................................................... 2, 3
Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 150 Filed 11/06/15 Page 6 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MSJ ON COUNTERCLAIM CASE NO. 13-02095
Letter from EPA Adm’r Russel Train to Lt. Gen. William Gribble, Jr., Chief of Engineers (May 16, 1975), reprinted at Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972: Hearing Before the S. Comm. On Pub. Works, 94th Cong. 355 (1976) ............................ 2
The Oxford Encyclopedic English Dictionary 525 (Joyce M. Hawkins & Robert Allen eds., 1991) ........................................................................ 12
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Guidance Letter 86-01, Exemptions to CWA—Plowing, ¶¶ 2-3 (February 11, 1986), available at http://www.usace.army.mil/Portals/2/docs/civilworks/RGLS/rgl86-01.pdf ................................ 4
Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 150 Filed 11/06/15 Page 7 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MSJ ON COUNTERCLAIM CASE NO. 13-02095
I. INTRODUCTION
This case is about plowing. From just reading the Government’s motion for summary
judgment on its counterclaim, though, one might never know it: the Government strains to
characterize the tilling on Duarte’s land using various terms other than “plowing.” Indeed, the
Government all but refuses to accept plowing as a term or concept with any real meaning;
plowing is not plowing, the Government suggests, if it “actually relocated earthen material into
ridges.” (“Corrected” Brief In Support Of United States’s Motion For Summary Judgment [etc.]
(“Br.”) (dkt. #145-1) at 14:26-27.) How one might plow land without actually relocating earthen
material into ridges the Government does not venture to explain.
Nor would one learn from the Government’s motion that the Corps has by regulation
recognized that “plowing” “will never involve a discharge.” (33 C.F.R. § 323.4(a)(1)(iii)(D).)
By mere semantic sleight of hand, it seems, the Government supposes that the law on plowing
can be ignored or avoided.
Beyond that, the Government engages in a detailed discussion of how chisel plowing
(without calling it that) moves particles of previously farmed soil a few inches up, down, or
sideways—all with the aim of persuading that the chisel plow thereby “removes” the soil particles
from a wetland and, in the process, transmogrifies them into a “pollutant,” and simultaneously
assumes the role of a “point source” that effects an “addition” and “discharge” of the former-soil-
particles-now-pollutant back into the wetland. Reading this discussion might well prompt one to
look around for other signs of having fallen into a rabbit hole.
In any event, even in their hyper technicality (and disregarding, for the sake of argument,
that they conflict with the law on plowing), the Government’s arguments do not withstand
scrutiny. Its motion for summary judgment should be denied.
II. LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Plowing Is Broadly Excluded From Clean Water Act Regulation
In 1972, Congress enacted the Clean Water Act. (Pub. L. 92-500, 86 Stat. 816, codified at
33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. (the “Act”).) That Act prohibits “the discharge of any pollutant by any
person”, except as in compliance with certain other provisions. (33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).) One of
Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 150 Filed 11/06/15 Page 8 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MSJ ON COUNTERCLAIM CASE NO. 13-02095
those provisions, Section 404(a) (33 U.S.C. § 1344(a)), authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (“Corps”) to issue permits for the “discharge of dredged or fill material into the
navigable waters”. The Act defines “discharge” as “any addition of any pollutant to navigable
waters from any point source”. (33 U.S.C. § 1362(12).) Read together, “any discharge of
dredged or fill materials into ‘navigable waters’—defined as the ‘waters of the United States’—is
forbidden unless authorized by a permit issued by the [Corps] pursuant to § 404.” (United States
v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 123 (1985).)
In 1975, the Corps issued proposed regulations to govern the Act’s permit program. (40
Fed.Reg. 19766 (May 6, 1975)), and explained in a press release that “federal permits may be
required … to … plow a field”, and “millions of people may be presently violating the law”,
subject to “fines up to $25,000 a day and one year imprisonment.” (Jeffrey Stine, Regulating
Wetlands In The 1970s, 27 J. FOREST HIST. 60, 67-71 (1983) (courtesy copy at dkt. #105-1).)
The Corps’s proposal provoked an exceptional backlash, and dissent from within the
Government. (Id.) The Secretary of Agriculture campaigned against the proposal. (Id.) The
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) lobbied against the “false
impression” that “plowing” could result in a “discharge[]”.1 The EPA (which shares
responsibility with the Corps for the implementation of Section 4042) explained that the Act itself
prohibits the regulation of plowing: “Plowing is not dredging or filling. In our opinion, the
1 Letter from EPA Adm’r Russel Train to Lt. Gen. William Gribble, Jr., Chief of Engineers (May
16, 1975), reprinted at Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972: Hearing Before the S. Comm. On Pub. Works, 94th Cong. 355 (1976) (courtesy copy at
dkt. #105-2). The full paragraph from that letter is worth quoting here:
We are particularly concerned that the false impression that farmers must obtain
permits whenever they plow a field be corrected. Since this was clearly not
contemplated by either the Corps or EPA and is not required by the statute, we
fail to understand how such a statement could appear in this press release. As you
are well aware, the primary concern of section 404 is to address situations where
dredged or fill material is discharged into wetland areas. By no stretch of the
imagination can the simple act of plowing be considered to fall under that
category.
2 See 33 U.S.C. § 1314(f)(1) (giving EPA the authority to “identify[] … nonpoint sources”); 33
U.S.C. § 1344, para. (b)(1) (requiring Corps permits to be based on EPA guidelines) & para. (c)
(giving EPA veto authority over Corps permits).
Case 2:13-cv-02095-KJM-DB Document 150 Filed 11/06/15 Page 9 of 27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
DUARTE’S OPPOSITION TO GOVERNMENT’S MSJ ON COUNTERCLAIM CASE NO. 13-02095
Corps does not have statutory authority to revise its regulations to include plowing.”3 Ultimately,
the Corps apologized (not a small thing for the Army), and committed to “dispel fallacies that the
Corps is proposing to regulate a farmer plowing his field”.4
The Corps’s resulting regulations reversed course from the draft, agreed with EPA, and
prescribed that plowing cannot cause a discharge.5 The Corps’s current regulations continue to
exclude plowing from regulation under the Act, by prescribing that “[p]lowing” (broadly
defined6) “will never involve a discharge”, unless it “changes any area of the waters of the United
States to dry land”. (33 C.F.R. § 323.4(a)(1)(iii)(D), emphasis added.)
Congress, in 1977, added separate statutory exemptions to the Clean Water Act, Section
404(f), for several types of activities, including “normal farming, silviculture, and ranching
activities” (33 U.S.C. § 1344(f)(1)(A)), subject to certain limitations (id. para. (f)(2)). This
exemption of normal farming activities (including particularly “plowing”, per §404(f)(1)(A)),
supplements and supports the existing regulatory exclusion for plowing. This belt-and-
suspenders approach clarifies, as the Corps has long explained, that plowing does not involve a
discharge and thus falls outside the scope of the Act’s regulation, and moreover, to the extent that
any plowing or other normal farming or ranching activity somehow could be associated with a
3 Development of New Regulations by the Corps of Engineers, Implementing Section 404 of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act Concerning Permits for Disposal of Dredge or Fill
Material: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Water Res. of the Comm. on Pub. Works and Transp.,
94th Cong. 74 (1975) (testimony of Alvin L. Alm, EPA); see also id. at 76 (“the difference
between the act of plowing and [the act of] dredging or filling is so apparent”) (courtesy copy at
dkt #105-4).
4 Corps Issues Interim Rules For Discharges Of Dredged And Fill Materials, 5 ENVT’L.L.REP.
10143 (1975) (courtesy copy at dkt. #105-3); Stine, supra, 27 J. Forest Hist. at 68-70.