State High Court Backs Clean Water Standards

L.A. and Burbank had fought sewage treatment compliance as too costly. Justices say the limits must be met if they don't exceed federal rules.

By Miguel Bustillo, LA Times Staff Writer

Cities must comply with strict state regulations to reduce water pollution regardless of the costs, as long as the rules are necessary to comply with the federal Clean Water Act, the California Supreme Court ruled Monday.

The unanimous decision is the latest development in a seven-year legal battle between state regulators and the cities of Los Angeles and Burbank over cleanup standards for sewer plants. It is also the third major court victory in a month for California's nine regional water boards, which have passed tough rules in recent years to clean up rivers and beaches tainted by pollution.

Lower court rulings have upheld storm water pollution rules in San Diego and Los Angeles that had been challenged by the local governments and the building industry.

The rules contested by Burbank and Los Angeles limit the amount of polluted wastewater that can be discharged into the Los Angeles River, a largely concrete-covered channel that flows into the Pacific Ocean.

Such rules have tightened considerably over the last decade in California and have come under attack from cities and development interests throughout the state, which contend the regulations are draconian and do not take economic realities into account.

"The Supreme Court's decision speaks loudly in support of our actions to protect and enhance water quality, public health and the Southern California economy," said Susan Cloke, chairwoman of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. "Los Angeles and Burbank are legally obligated to prevent pesticides, heavy metals and other toxic pollutants from entering the Los Angeles River and threatening the health of our residents."

Cities that run sewer plants and industries that release water into streams have argued that state regulators were legally bound to consider the financial burden the pollution rules present and to soften them if too costly.

The state Supreme Court largely rejected those arguments, ruling that if stiff measures are necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act, state regulators cannot weaken them on account of cost.

"A regional board, when issuing a wastewater discharge permit, may not consider economic factors to justify imposing pollutant restrictions that are less stringent than the applicable federal standards require," the court concluded.

However, the ruling also said that state regulators do have to consider economics when their rules go beyond federal requirements.

The court did not decide whether the water permits contested by Los Angeles and Burbank — which involve three sewer plants in Burbank, Glendale and the San Fernando Valley — exceeded federal requirements, referring that issue to a lower court.

Melissa Thorme, a Sacramento water attorney who represented Los Angeles and Burbank in the case, said she remained confident that the cities could ultimately prevail in the case, if they choose to continue fighting.

"The cities all want clean water," Thorme said. "The question is, how clean is clean enough, and at what cost?"

State water board officials were equally confident that they would prevail, noting that they used U.S. Environmental Protection Agency guidelines when writing their pollution limits.

"The broad principles of how much power the water boards have were upheld by the Supreme Court," said Michael Lauffer, an attorney for the Los Angeles water board. "But there will still be skirmishes on the outer wings [to determine] whether the specific permits are as stringent as required by federal law or more."

Lauffer chastised Los Angeles for continuing to pursue the lawsuit even after city voters approved a ballot measure to help pay for the city's water pollution requirements.

"The city of Los Angeles has been singing a great environmental tune, which made me wonder why they were still in this case, which essentially sought to gut the Clean Water Act in California," he said.

In the suit, Los Angeles argued that complying with the permits for the Donald C. Tillman Water Reclamation Plant and the Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant would cost the city more than $50 million a year, or more than 40% of the city's budget for its entire sewer system.

Burbank officials argued the city would have to spend $9 million more annually at the Burbank Water Reclamation Plant, doubling the city's wastewater budget. (Though it co-owns one of the plants in dispute, Glendale did not take part in the lawsuit.)

State water board officials argued that those estimates were exaggerated, saying they were based on having to build additional sewer treatment systems, which they said would not be necessary.