Lee N. Smith of Coleman & Horowitt to Participate in Water Quality/Water Law Conference in Sacramento

Lee N. Smith of our office will be participating in a Water Law and
Regulations Conference in Sacramento on January 16, 2019. Mr. Smith will be discussing Water Quality issues in California. His talk will encompass the origins of water quality regulation, the relevant agencies, liability under the Water Code, and touch upon several of the emerging issues including the recent Basin Plan Amendment proposals, the Irrigated Lands Program, and C.V. Salts.

Third Appellate District’s “narrow” opinion could have far reaching impacts on SGMA, groundwater rights, and groundwater extractions.

In Environmental Law Foundation et al., v. State Water Resources Control Board (“Environmental Law Foundation”) the Third Appellate District of the State of California (the “Court”) held (1) the Public Trust Doctrine applies to the extraction of groundwater that adversely impacts a navigable waterway; and (2) the State Legislature did not intend to occupy the field of groundwater management by enacting the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (“SGMA”) in 2014.

In determining that the Public Trust Doctrine applies to the extraction of navigable waterways the Court relied heavily on National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419 (“Audubon”). Finding Audubon to be precedent, the Court found the extraction of groundwater was akin to the appropriation of water from tributaries of navigable waterways, as was at issue in Audubon in that:

·         the diversion of the water caused the level of the lake to drop, thereby imperiling its scenic beauty and ecological value, such as groundwater extraction can cause the level of the Scott River to drop and cause the same harm;

·         the values underlying the Legislative mandate regarding the water rights system at issue in Audubon (appropriative water rights) collided with the Public Trust Doctrine, but both systems of legal thought could be implemented together, just as SGMA can be implemented together with the Public Trust Doctrine;

·         whether or not groundwater is navigable is not the issue; tributaries in Audubon were not navigable water ways, the issue is whether the conduct at issue, diversion or extraction, will adversely impact a public trust resource such as a navigable waterway.

In determining that SGMA does not occupy the filed of groundwater management such that the County and Board do not have fiduciary duties under the Public Trust Doctrine with respect to the extraction of groundwater, the Court, again relying heavily on Audubon, found:

·         just as there was no incongruity between the appropriative water rights system and the Public Trust Doctrine in Audubon, there is no incongruity between SGMA and the Public Trust Doctrine;

·         SGMA, like the appropriative water rights system, can be harmonized with the Public Trust Doctrine.

Moreover, the Court found no evidence of legislative intent that SGMA was to replace the Public Trust Doctrine. Instead the Court found that the provisions of SGMA:

·         reflect a legislative desire not to interfere with existing law (such as the common law Public Trust Doctrine);

·         SGMA is not as comprehensive as the appropriative water rights system in place, which Audubon found did not eradicate Public Trust Doctrine considerations;

·         do not subject all groundwater basins to its regulation, such as adjudicated basins;

·         many requirements of SGMA do not take effect for several years.

Although the Court considers its decision narrow because it addresses a navigable stream system which includes interconnected groundwater basins, the decision lays the foundation for additional litigation. A person who feels that a Groundwater Sustainability Agency ("GSA") is not adequately taking the environment into account in its Groundwater Sustainability Plans ("GSP") can rely on this case to initiate costly litigation and argue the groundwater extractions to be managed impact a public trust resource: a bird sanctuary, wildlife preserve, or the surface levels of a navigable waterway; and attempt to have a Court order more stringent restrictions on groundwater extraction than would have otherwise been set forth in the GSP.

Actions for TCP Contamination May be Affected by A Recent Jury Verdict Concerning Sodium Nitrate.

By Craig A. Tristao and Lee N. Smith

Lawsuits brought by municipalities against the manufacturers of chemicals, including 1,2,3, Trichloropropane, whom the municipalities contend contaminate drinking water could be for naught as a federal jury awards no damages after finding liability for sodium nitrate contamination of groundwater.

A recent federal jury decision in an action brought by the City of Pomona against a North American subsidiary of SQM, a worldwide chemical manufacturer based out of Chile, may affect whether cities can recover the costs of remediating chemicals used in past agricultural operations from groundwater, due to changing regulatory requirements.

The City of Pomona brought its suit to help offset the cost of treating drinking water supplies contaminated with sodium nitrate, a chemical used as an agricultural fertilizer in citrus orchards in the 1930’s and 1940’s, to meet the State’s drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/L). The City of Pomona sought $30 million dollars in damages to offset the cost of remediating sodium nitrate in its drinking water sources. The matter went to the jury, and although the jury found SQM liable for sodium nitrate levels in drinking water in excess of the State MCL, the Jury did not award the City of Pomona any damages. Likely because, as SQM’s defense counsel argued in closing: “at the time SQM was manufacturing its product in the 1930s and 1940s, they could not have been aware of future regulations in California.”

The same outcome could hold true for municipalities who are considering suing chemical manufacturers to obtain funds to aid in the remediation of contaminated groundwater.

For example, 1,2,3,-Trichloropropane (1,2,3 -TCP), a manmade chlorinated hydrocarbon with high chemical stability, has been used as a cleaning and degreasing solvent and in the Central Valley was used as a fumigant and a pesticide additive. State regulation of 1,2,3 -TCP began in 1992 when it was added to the list of chemicals known to the state to cause cancer, pursuant to California's Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act (Proposition 65). Subsequently, in 1999 the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) established a .005-micrograms per liter (μg/L), or five parts per million (PPM),drinking water notification level based on cancer risks derived from laboratory animals studies conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) in 1997. Thereafter, in 2001, following concerns 1,2,3-TCP may be contaminating California drinking water sources, the SWRCB included 1,2,3-TCP as an unregulated contaminant for which for which monitoring is required (UCMR). Eight years later, in 2009, the California Office of Environmental Health Assessment (OEHHA) within the California Environmental Protection (CALEPA) set a public health goal (PHG) for 1,2,3-TCP in drinking water of  .0007-micrograms per liter (μg/L)or seven parts per billion (PPB).In 2017the SWRCB adopted a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.000005 mg/L (ppm) which is equal to .005 parts per billion or 5 parts per trillion) as the MCL for 1,2,3-TCP. 

In addition, the proposed  regulations will set the detection limit for purposes of reporting (DLR) at 0.000005 mg/L, and in July 2017, apprisedpublic water systems they would have to monitor for 1,2,3-TCP beginning in January 2018, and if the water suppliers are out of compliance with the new standard after an average of four sampling quarters, they will have to notify their consumers and take measures to come into compliance.

To date 110 drinking water sources in Kern County, 64 drinking water sources in Fresno County, and 51 drinking sources in Los Angeles County are not in compliance and will have to come into compliance. This has led to several municipalities suing manufacturers of products which contained 1,2,3-TCP, and which were used decades ago before any environmental standards were set. Their goal, like the City of Pomona, is to obtain funds from the manufacturers to offset the high cost associated with the treatment of water to hopefully bring concentrations of 1,2,3-TCP into compliance with the State’s MCL. The jury outcome the City of Pomona faced could hold true for municipal suits against the manufacturers of agricultural products which contain chemicals such as 1,2,3-TCP. Just as was the case with SQM and sodium nitrate, at the time companies manufactured and sold their products with 1,2,3-TCP, California did not regulate 1,2,3-TCP. Therefore, municipalities which sue to obtain money to aid in the remediation of 1,2,3-TCP could likewise win with respect to liability, but not be awarded any damages.

The City of Pomona is likely to appeal the Jury’s verdict (there have been previous appeals in this case), as it considers the matter of damages to be subject to strict liability, and therefore the Jury’s failure to award damages to be in error. However, in the interim, this case shows that public water supplies  seeking reimbursement for the remediation of chemicals such as 1,2,3-TCP from fertilizer manufacturers may face juries sympathetic to companies who were acting in accordance with the law in the past, and therefore should not bear the cost of regulatory changes.

The attorneys at Coleman & Horowitt, LLP have experience representing clients in all aspects of environmental regulation, from working with Regional Water Quality Control Boards on Waste Discharge Requirements (“WDRs”) and Underground Storage Tank Sites, to working with the Environmental Protection Agency regarding Superfund Sites and chemical releases, and representing clients in Civil Litigation brought by Regulatory Agencies and Private Citizens.

References:

SWRCB, 1,2,3-Trichloropropane, https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/123TCP.html

ATSDR, 2011. Addendum to the Toxicity Profile for 1,2,3-Trichloropane (PDF), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, Centers for Disease Control, August 2011. Other information on 1,2,3-TCP from ATSDR is here.

IARC, 1995. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (PDF), IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans, Volume 63, Dry Cleaning, Some Chlorinated Solvents, and Other Industrial Chemicals, International Agency for Research on Cancer.

NTP, 2014. 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (PDF), in Report on Carcinogens, 13th Edition; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, National Toxicology Program, October.

OEHHA, 2009. Public Health Goal for 1,2,3-Trichloropropane in Drinking Water (PDF), August 2009.

US EPA, 1997. Health Effects Advisory Summary Tables (HEAST), FY 1997 Update, US Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response, 9200.6-303 (97-1), EPA-540-R-97-036, July 1997.

US EPA, 2009. Toxicological Review of 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (PDF) in Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), US EPA. September 2009. IRIS summary is here.

US EPA, 2014. Technical Fact Sheet – 1,2,3-Trichloropropane (TCP), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA-505-F-14-007. January 2014.

SWRCB, 2017, Groundwater Information Sheet (PDF), https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/gama/docs/coc_salinity.pdf

Courthouse News Service, 2017, City Wins Pollution Case, Jury Awards No Damages, https://www.courthousenews.com/city-wins-pollution-case-jury-awards-no-damages/

SBDDW-17-001 1,2,3-Trichloropropane MCL

Information and Documentation Pertaining to This Regulatory Proposal

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/SBDDW-17-001_123TCP_MCL.html

Prop 65: Legislature Considers Bill Revising Certificates of Merit

Prop 65: Legislature  Considers Bill Revising Certificates of Merit

The legislature is considering a bill (AB 1583) that would revise the rules governing certificates of merit. Currently anyone alleging a violation of Prop. 65 must complete a certificate of merit showing they have consulted with an appropriate expert who agrees that there is a reasonable and meritorious basis for the action. The party providing the notice  must provide information backing up the certificate of merit to the state Attorney General's office as part of the 60-day notice of violation they must lodge before filing a lawsuit. 

The current law limits the alleged violator's access to information in the certificate of merit to material that "is relevant to the subject matter of the action and not subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, or any other legal privilege." An alleged violator may currently only pursue discovery of the basis of the certificate of merit during litigation if the court has undertaken its own review of the certificate

The new Bill would:

1) Require the California Attorney General (AG) to serve a letter to the noticing party and the alleged violator stating that the Attorney General believes there is not merit to the action, if, after reviewing the factual information alleged to establish the basis for the certificate of merit, and meeting and conferring with the noticing party regarding the basis for the certificate of merit, the Attorney General determines there is not merit to the action; and specifies that the Attorney General’s decision not to serve a letter shall not be construed as an endorsement of the action.

 2) Provides that the basis for the certificate of merit is discoverable to  the extent that the information is relevant to the subject matter of the action and not subject to the attorney-client privilege, the attorney work product privilege, or any other legal privilege.

 3) Requires the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development to post, in a conspicuous location on its Internet Web site, any informational materials provided to businesses relating to a business’s obligation under state law, as well as a specified disclaimer.

 4) Finds and declares that this bill furthers the purposes of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986. .

The latest version of the bill also adds a requirement that the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development provide businesses information regarding their obligation to comply with Prop. 65. Hearings are scheduled  in the senate for early July 2017.

Amended Notice Regulations for Prop 65

OEHHA,  the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, has released yet another iteration of the “fair and reasonable” standard for Prop 65 warnings. This March draft contains numerous changes mostly minor changes to try to increase the clarity of the language. Originally in March of 2014, OEHHA i

ssued a “pre-regulatory draft” of the regulations, and after several iterations OEHHA issued a revised formal proposal in January of 2016. These changes are a result of comments on that version. The Website called for in the original revision of the regulations to clarify warnings is already online see:

Among the more substantive changes are the following:

• The last version allowed supplemental language in the warning as long as it does not contradict the language in the warning. However, with these changes the Supplemental information can be used as part of a warning only to the extent that it explains the source of the exposure or provides information on how to avoid or reduce the exposure.

• The new draft eliminates the option that was previously provided that would allow a manufacturer to meet its labeling requirements by providing labeling materials and/or signs to downstream suppliers, now however the responsible party (manufacturer, importer, supplier, etc.) must actually provide those materials unless there is an agreement otherwise.

• Retail seller is responsible for internet warnings.

• The November draft imposed the warning obligation on the retailer where it has “actual knowledge” of the potential consumer product exposure and where there is no manufacturer or other responsible party available to provide the warning. The draft defined “actual knowledge” as occurring within two days after the retailer receives a Prop. 65 notice intent-to-sue notice, this period has been extended to five days. A retailer may label during that period and avoid liability.

• A business may satisfy its warning obligation by including by name only one of the chemicals for which the business has determined that a warning is required.

• Where there are chemicals in the product with different warning requirements (i.e., a carcinogen and a reproductive toxicant) then the warning must include one chemical from each group. OEHHA has also dropped language requiring that the named chemical actually be present in levels above the safe harbor level for that chemical.

• A warning provided before the two year effective date will be deemed to be clear and reasonable.

• OEHHA has also added new sections defining “consumer product exposure” and “environmental exposure” and the requisite warnings that must be displayed. They also eliminated any requirement for type size beyond requiring the warnings to be “conspicuous” in relation to other product label or sign language.

PME Speakers at Cal. League of Food Processor’s Food Safety, Nutrition and Labeling Committee

   PME lawyers Lee Smith and Craig Tristao spoke at the CLFP’s Food Safety Nutrition and Labeling Committee, on May 16, 2016. They covered the topics of the State Water Board’s Proposed General Order for Recycled Water and on the use of Production Water on Agricultural. If you are interested in the PowerPoints or having a repeat performance of the presentation please contact us.