Sacramento County Is Being Sued by A Nonprofit Over Alleged Dumping of Sewage

Case 2:21-cv-01916-WBS-KJN Document 1 Filed 10/14/21 Page 1 of 24
1 Jason R. Flanders (Bar No. 238007)

Erica A. Maharg (Bar No. 279396)
2 Aqua Terra Aeris (ATA) Law Group
4030 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
3 Oakland, California 94609
Telephone: (510) 473-8793
4 Email: jrf@atalawgroup.com
Email: eam@atalawgroup.com
5
Drevet Hunt (Bar No. 240487)
6 California Coastkeeper Alliance
1100 11th Street, 3rd Floor
7 Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: (415) 606-0864
8 Fax: (415) 520-6125
Email: dhunt@cacoastkeeper.org
9
Daniel Cooper (Bar No. 153576)
10
Sycamore Law
11 1004 O'Reilly Ave
San Francisco CA 94129
12 Phone: (415) 360-2962
Email: daniel@sycamore.law
13
14 Attorneys for Plaintiff

CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE
15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
16
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
17
SACRAMENTO DIVISION
18
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE, a
19 California non-profit corporation,
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
20 AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND
Plaintiff,
CIVIL PENALTIES
21
v. (Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
22 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.)
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, a municipality,
23 SACRAMENTO AREA SEWER DISTRICT, a
California county sanitation district, and
24
SACRAMENTO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
25 WATER RESOURCES,
26 Defendants.
27
28
Complaint 1
California Coastkeeper Alliance (“Alliance” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its counsel, hereby
1
2 alleges:
3 I. INTRODUCTION
4 1. This is a civil action brought under the citizen suit enforcement provisions of the Federal
5
Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”), to address the
6
unlawful point source discharges by the County of Sacramento (“County”) and/or the Sacramento Area
7
Sewer District (“SASD”) to waters of the United States without a permit. This action further addresses
8
the County’s violations of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit and Waste
9
10 Discharge Requirements MS4 Permit for Discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems,
11 NPDES Permit No. CAS0085324, Order No. R5-2016-0040 (“MS4 Permit”). The Alliance seeks a
12 declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, the imposition of civil penalties, and an award of costs, including
13
attorney and expert witness fees, for these violations.
14
II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
15
2. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the parties and this action pursuant to 33
16
17 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1) (the Clean Water Act citizen suit provision), 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (an action arising
18 under the laws of the United States), and 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (declaratory relief).
19 3. On August 13, 2021, the Alliance provided notice of intent to file suit against the County
20 and SASD for their violations of the Clean Water Act (“Notice Letter”) pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b).
21
The Notice Letter is attached hereto as Attachment 1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
22
4. As required by 40 C.F.R. § 135.2(a)(2), the Alliance sent the Notice Letter to the County
23
of Sacramento as owner/operator of the County’s municipal separate storm sewer system MS4 (“MS4”),
24
25 and to the County and the SASD as the owners and/or operators of the SASD sewage collection system
26 (“Collection System”); specifically, the County Executive, the District Engineer, the Board of Directors
27 of the SASD, the Director of Sacramento County Department of Water Resources, and the
28
Administrator of the Sacramento County Sanitation Districts Agency. The Alliance also sent the Notice
Complaint 2
Letter to the Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the
1
2 Administrator of EPA Region IX, the Executive Director of the State Water Resources Control Board
3 (“State Board”), and the Executive Officer of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 5,
4 Central Valley (“Regional Board”) (collectively, “State and Federal agencies”), as required by section
5
505(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A). The Notice Letter is attached as Attachment 1 and is
6
incorporated herein by reference.
7
5. More than sixty (60) days have passed since the Notice Letter was mailed to the County,
8
SASD, and the State and Federal agencies.
9
10 6. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that neither EPA nor the State
11 of California has commenced or is diligently prosecuting an action to redress the violations alleged in
12 the Notice Letter and in this Complaint. See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B). This action is not barred by any
13
prior administrative penalty under section 309(g) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g).
14
7. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of California pursuant to section 505(c)(1) of the
15
CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), because the source of the violations is located within this judicial district.
16
17 III. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
18 8. Pursuant to L.R. 120(d) intradistrict assignment of this matter to the Sacramento Division
19 of the Court is appropriate because the events or omissions which give rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred
20 in Sacramento County. In addition, the Alliance maintains its principal place of business in the County
21
of Sacramento. No event or omission giving rise to the Alliance’s claims occurred within the jurisdiction
22
of any other Division of this Court.
23
IV. PARTIES AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
24
25 A. The Alliance
26 9. Plaintiff the Alliance is an environmental group, organized as a non-profit corporation in
27 accordance with the laws of the State of California, with its main office in Sacramento.
28
10. The mission of the Alliance is to advance statewide policies and programs for healthy
Complaint 3
and clean waters. To this end, the Alliance works with local Waterkeepers to develop, implement, and
1
2 defend policies that meet the needs of California’s distinct communities and ecosystems. The Alliance
3 also seeks federal and state agency implementation of the CWA and, where necessary, initiates
4 enforcement actions on behalf of itself and its members.

5
11. The Alliance’s office is located at 1100 11th Street, 3rd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814.
6
12. The Alliance’s members use and enjoy the waters receiving the illegal discharges
7
identified herein, including but not limited to the Mokelumne River, Dry Creek, Morrison Creek, the
8
American River, the Sacramento River, and the named and unnamed tributaries thereto (“Receiving
9
10 Waters”).
11 13. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the County and SASD
12 discharge raw sewage and associated pollutants to the Receiving Waters. These discharges of raw
13
sewage and associated pollutants degrades water quality and harms aquatic life in these waters.
14
14. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that SASD and the County
15
discharge to area businesses, residents’ yards and basements, and municipal sidewalks, streets, gutters,
16
17 and other paved and unpaved areas, which exposes members of the Alliance and the public to substantial
18 health risks.
19 15. The Alliance has members who use and enjoy the Receiving Waters for various
20 recreational, educational, scientific, conservation, aesthetic, spiritual and other purposes.
21
16. The interests of the Alliance’s members have been, are being, and will continue to be
22
adversely affected by the County’s and/or SASD’s failure to comply with the Clean Water Act and the
23
MS4 Permit.
24
25 17. The Alliance has one or more members who use, explore, and recreate in areas impacted
26 by the pollution herein at issue and could sue in their own right. Some of the Alliance’s members suffer
27 recreational, aesthetic, or other environmental injuries due to Defendants’ pollution. The Alliance’s
28
members use and enjoyment of the Receiving Waters have been reduced and/or changed based on the
Complaint 4
discharges of raw sewage, and would cease should the water quality become too degraded.
1
2 18. The County’s and SASD’s discharges of raw sewage and associated pollutants are
3 ongoing and continuous.
4 19. The Alliance’s injuries-in-fact are fairly traceable to the County’s and/or SASD’s
5
conduct.
6
20. The Alliance’s injuries-in-fact would be redressed by the requested relief.
7
21. Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged herein will irreparably harm the
8
Alliance’s members, for which harm they have no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
9
10 22. Neither the claims brought by the Alliance nor the relief the Alliance requests requires
11 the participation of individual members.

12 B. The Collection System
13
23. The Collection System consists of approximately 4,682 miles of pipeline, including
14
3,074 miles of gravity sewer, 1,527 miles of lateral sewer, and 81 miles of force mains. The system has
15
approximately 299,000 service connections,
16
17 24. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Collection System
18 collects and conveys sewage from residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural sources. Sewage
19 from these sources includes without limitation human and animal waste, household chemicals, wastes
20 from restaurants, wastes from hospitals, and wastes from industrial manufacturing and processing.
21
25. The Collection System serves a population of approximately 1.2 million people in the
22
Sacramento region.
23
26. The Collection System consists of pipes and other manmade conveyances that are point
24
25 sources under the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).
26 27. The Collection System conveys sewage from within Sacramento County and the cities of
27
28
Complaint 5
Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Citrus Heights, and portions of the cities of Sacramento and Folsom,
1
2 to the sewage collection system owned and operated by the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation
3 District, where it is subsequently delivered to the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant.
4 28. The Collection System runs through a number of river watersheds that make up the
5
Receiving Waters.
6
C. The Owners and Operators of the Collection System
7
i. The County of Sacramento
8
29. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the County of
9
10 Sacramento is an owner and/or operator of the Collection System.
11 30. The County of Sacramento is a political subdivision of the State of California.

12 31. Under the Sacramento County Code, section 2.09.710, “there is established within
13
County government a Sanitation Districts Agency.”
14
32. The SASD and Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (“SRCSD”) select, the
15
County Executive Officer appoints, and the County Board of Supervisors confirms, a District Engineer.
16
17 The District Engineer serves as the County Sanitation Districts Agency’s “Agency Administrator.”
18 Sacramento County Code § 2.09.710.
19 33. The Agency Administrator is subject to removal by the County Executive. Sacramento
20 County Code § 2.09.710. The Agency Administrator manages and controls many aspects of the SASD
21
operations. The Agency Administrator is responsible for, among other things, (1) performing duties
22
authorized and directed by the SRCSD and SASD Boards of Directors, (2) overseeing the department
23
with County staff assigned to SRCSD and SASD and acting as liaison to those districts’ governing
24
25 bodies, (3) making recommendations to the SRCSD and SASD Boards of Directors and the County
26 Executive respecting sanitary sewer services and infrastructure. See Sacramento County Code §
27 2.09.710. Staff for the operations of SASD is provided by the County. Sacramento County Code §
28
2.09.700.
Complaint 6
34. There are four departments within the County Sanitation Districts Agency. One of these
1
2 departments is the SASD Operations department. See Sacramento County Code § 2.09.710.
3 The SASD Operations department is responsible for, among other things, (1) performing duties
4 authorized and directed by the SASD Board of Directors, (2) processing all technical matters related to
5
SASD, (3) making recommendations regarding the awarding of contracts for the construction, repair,
6
and maintenance of all facilities under the department supervision, (4) representing the County and
7
SASD in dealing with other agencies, organizations, groups, and individuals, and (5) advising and
8
assisting other county departments and agencies with respect to the sewer district. See Sacramento
9
10 County Code § 2.09.730.
11 ii. Sacramento Area Sewer District

12 35. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that SASD is an owner and/or
13
operator of the Collection System.
14
36. The SASD is a county sanitation district organized under the California Health and
15
Safety Code that serves the cities of Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Citrus Heights, and portions of the
16
17 cities of Sacramento and Folsom.
18 37. The SASD owns thousands of miles of lower laterals and sewer mainline pipes that make
19 up the Collection System. SASD is responsible for the operation and maintenance of the Collection
20 System. These responsibilities include responding to citizen complaints of Sanitary Sewer Overflows
21
(“SSOs”), conducting routine maintenance, cleaning, and inspection of the Collection System, and
22
repairing and replacing the Collection System.
23
38. The SASD is overseen by a Board of Directors composed of the five Sacramento County
24
25 Supervisors and the mayors (or their designees) of the cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom,
26 Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento.
27 D. Sanitary Sewer Overflows from the Collection System

28
39. Since July 14, 2018, the County and SASD have had at least 2,629 SSOs from the
Complaint 7
Collection System, which is equivalent to an average of 14.61 SSOs per 100 miles of sewer pipes per
1
2 year for 2019 and 2020. See Notice Letter, section IV.A, at 9. These SSOs are documented in
3 information reported to the California Integrated Water Quality Systems (“CIWQS”).
4 40. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that these reported SSOs have
5
spilled directly to area surface waters, to the streets, curbs, gutters and other paved surfaces that
6
comprise the MS4, to unpaved areas, and into homes and businesses served by the Collection System.
7
41. The MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances designed or used for collecting and
8
conveying storm water. It and its components are point sources under the Clean Water Act.
9
10 42. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that once raw sewage and its
11 associated pollutants are discharged to the MS4, they will be subsequently discharged to waters of the
12 United States.
13
43. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that of the 2,629 SSOs,
14
at least 759 discharged to waters of the United States.
15
44. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that SASD and/or the County
16
17 has failed to adequately operate, maintain, repair, rehabilitate, and/or replace the Collection System, thus
18 resulting in SSOs.
19 45. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the County and/or
20 SASD’s SSO reports lack the details that would identify the causes and the potential repairs ensuring
21
these violations would not recur.
22
46. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that some of the SSOs
23
reported by the County and/or SASD as partially reaching a surface water did so in greater volume than
24
25 stated.
26 47. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the County and/or SASD
27 lack an adequate monitoring program to detect, report, and address SSOs and their impacts.
28
48. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the County and/or
Complaint 8
SASD has failed to post health warning signs for discharges reaching a surface water for at least 164
1
2 spills. See Notice Letter, section IV.A, at 11.
3 49. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the County and SASD
4 fails to adequately mitigate the impacts of SSOs, including, but not limited to, analyzing the impact of
5
its SSOs or measures needed to restore water bodies from the impacts of SSOs.
6
50. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, the County and/or SASD are
7
not reported SSOs, and that since July 14, 2018, data on CIWQS indicates that of the 759 SSOs reported
8
by the County and/or SASD as having reached a surface water, only 16 were sampled. See Notice Letter,
9
10 section IV.A, at 12.
11 51. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that many of the SSOs from
12 the Collection System are caused by defects in the sewer lines, displaced joints, eroded segments, root
13
intrusion, and blockages due to grease and rags.
14
52. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that many of the SSOs from
15
the Collection System are capacity-related spills caused by the Collection System’s inadequate capacity
16
17 to handle peak wet-weather flows. Flows through the Collection System increase considerably during
18 wet weather due to the infiltration and inflow of rainwater into sewer pipes, which overwhelms the
19 capacity of the Collection System and causes SSOs.

20 53. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that sewage wastewater seeps
21
into groundwater hydrologically connected to surface waters including the Receiving Waters.
22
54. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that at no point has SASD or
23
the County obtained a CWA permit that authorizes the discharge of pollutants from the Collection
24
25 System to waters of the United States.
26 E. The County MS4
27 55. An MS4 is a system of conveyances that includes but is not limited to streets, curbs,
28
gutters, other paved surfaces, catch basins, ditches, man-made channels, catch basins and/or storm drains
Complaint 9
owned or operated by a State, city, or town that is designed or used for collecting or conveying storm
1
2 water and that discharges to waters of the United States. See 40 C.F.R. 122.26(b)(8)(i)-(ii); see also 40
3 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(18).
4 56. The MS4 covers areas also served by the Collection System.
5
57. The County MS4 contains numerous streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, other paved
6
surfaces, and/or storm drain inlets that lead to storm drain pipes and other conveyances, which discharge
7
to the Sacramento River, the American River, and/or their local tributaries.
8
58. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that pollutants in SSOs and
9
10 other materials that reach the County MS4 discharge to local waterways.
11 F. The Owner and Operator of the MS4

12 59. The County owns and/or operates the MS4 in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento
13
County.
14
60. The County is a permittee on the MS4 Permit.
15
61. The County is required to comply with all provisions of the MS4 Permit. General
16
17 Permit, Provisions, D.1.A.
18 62. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that pursuant to the General
19 Permit, the County has had and continues to have jurisdiction over and/or operation and maintenance
20 responsibilities for the MS4.
21
63. The County’s Department of Water Resources is charged with the operation and
22
maintenance of the MS4.
23
G. Discharges of Sewage and Associated Pollutants into the County MS4
24
25 64. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that on at least 749
26 occasions since July 14, 2018, sewage from the Collection System discharged into the County MS4. See
27 Notice Letter, section IV.C, at 13.

28
65. SSOs that enter the County MS4 are not storm water.
Complaint 10
66. The MS4, including the storm drains and accompanying pipes and channels, are designed
1
2 to convey any storm water or sewage effluent that enters the drains to area receiving waters.
3 67. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that SSOs that reach
4 a street, curb, or gutter have entered the MS4.

5
68. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the County and SASD
6
have been underreporting and/or misreporting the number of SSOs that enter the MS4 from the
7
Collection System.
8
69. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the County spills or
9
10 otherwise discharges raw sewage from its collection system into the MS4 in violation of the MS4
11 Permit’s requirement to effectively prohibit SSOs from reaching the MS4.

12 70. The County owns, operates, and retains controls over the Collection System and the MS4,
13
and its failures to effectively reduce SSOs and exfiltration from the Collection System into the MS4 has
14
failed to effectively prohibit non-permitted discharges into the MS4, or to reduce pollutants in
15
stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable. See MS4 Permit at 3, and F-53, citing 40
16
17 CFR 122.26(d)(2)(iv)(B).
18 H. Discharges of Storm Water from the County MS4 Contaminated with Pollutants
Associated with Sanitary Sewer Overflows
19
71. As noted above, SSOs from the Collection System have discharged to the MS4 at least
20
21 749 times since July 14, 2018. See Notice Letter, section IV.B, at 12. The pollutants from these SSOs
22 enter the MS4 and are either immediately discharged from the MS4 to local waterways, or are
23 discharged to local waterways during the next precipitation event that produces a discharge from the
24 MS4.
25
72. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that, since July 14, 2018, on
26
27
28
Complaint 11
at least 164 occasions, SSOs from the Collection System entered the MS4 and immediately discharged
1
2 to waters of the United States with pollutants that had not been reduced to the maximum extent
3 practicable, in violation of the MS4 Permit, III.A. See Notice Letter, section IV.C, at 13.
4 73. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the County has not
5
developed and/or implemented sufficient operational and management practices to reduce to the
6
maximum extent practicable the presence of pollutants associated with SSOs found in its discharges of
7
storm water from the MS4.
8
I. The Waters that Receive the Illegal Discharges and the Environmental Impact of those
9
Discharges
10
74. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the Receiving Waters
11
are waters of the United States and/or have a significant nexus to waters of the United States, and are
12
thus navigable waters as defined by the Clean Water Act and controlling legal authority.
13
14 75. The Delta is navigable.
15 76. The Sacramento River is navigable.

16 77. The American River is navigable.
17
78. The Mokelumne River is navigable and flows into the Delta.
18
79. Dry Creek is a tributary to Steelhead Creek, which then flows into the
19
Sacramento River.
20
21 80. Morrison Creek flows through central Sacramento County from the east to the west
22 toward the Sacramento River. Historically, Morrison Creek flowed to the Sacramento River. Currently,
23 Morrison Creek flows to Stone Lake, where it joins a network of sloughs that connect to the Sacramento
24 River and the Delta.
25
81. The American River supports over forty (40) species of fish in the Lower American River
26
watershed. The watershed is a diverse ecosystem, critical to the freshwater life cycle of the endangered
27
winter-run Chinook salmon, the threatened spring-run Chinook salmon, and the threatened Steelhead
28
Complaint 12
trout. Designated a “Recreational River" under the California Wild and Scenic Rivers Act and the
1
2 National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the lower American River is widely appreciated for a variety of
3 water contact recreational uses including swimming. The Lower American River meanders westerly
4 from Folsom Lake, joining the Sacramento River’s journey south to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
5
about a mile north of Sacramento.
6
82. The Sacramento River is California’s largest river and the largest contributor of fresh
7
water to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Beneficial uses of the Sacramento River include municipal
8
and domestic water supply, agricultural water supply, water contact and non-contact recreation,
9
10 industrial process and industrial service supply, warm and cold freshwater habitat, cold and warm
11 migration of aquatic organisms, warm spawning, reproduction and/or early development, wildlife
12 habitat, and navigation. The Sacramento River is designated critical habitat for the endangered winter-
13
run Chinook salmon as well as the spring-run Chinook salmon, Steelhead trout, Delta smelt, and green
14
sturgeon, all of which are federally-listed threatened species. Many of the Defendant’s SSOs which do
15
not directly spill into the Sacramento River still reach the River via its tributaries. While some areas
16
17 where spills have occurred were dry at the time of spill, the discharged pollutants remain on the surface
18 of the land and enter receiving waters following rainfall or flooding.
19 83. The Delta is the largest Pacific Coast estuary in both North and South America. The
20 Delta is the confluence of five major rivers and numerous creeks and sloughs. This maze of finger-like
21
waterways ebbs and flows through prime California natural habitat and farmland. The Delta is also the
22
primary source of fresh water supply for two-thirds of California’s residents. The preservation of this
23
natural resource is essential. The Delta and its tributaries also provide special aesthetic and recreational
24
25 significance for people living in the surrounding communities. With 700 miles of channels, nearly all
26 navigable, recreation in the Delta is mainly water-oriented. Major recreational activities supported by
27 the Delta include as fishing, water-skiing, sailing, cruising, personal watercraft, canoeing, kayaking,
28
swimming, and windsurfing. These activities depend upon water quality and habitat preservation in the
Complaint 13
Delta. The growing urbanization of the Delta area makes these recreational and aesthetic uses even more
1
2 important to the quality of life of Delta residents. Furthermore, the Delta fosters the commercial fishing
3 industry in California and beyond. Commercial fishers and sport fishers alike continue to suffer from the
4 constant degradation of the Delta through illegal discharges, including SSOs. The Delta’s once-abundant
5
and varied fisheries and species habitat have been drastically diminished by pollution.
6
84. Spills of raw sewage and discharges of sewage-contaminated storm water harm the
7
Receiving Waters, and pose a serious risk to fisheries, wildlife habitat, and human health, including the
8
health of the Alliance’s members.
9
10 85. In addition to human waste and bacteria, sewage contains heavy metals, as well as
11 chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. These metals and chemicals come from solvents,
12 detergents, cleansers, inks, pesticides, paints, pharmaceuticals, and other materials used by households
13
and businesses, and then discarded to sewage collection systems. High concentrations of these pollutants
14
are typically found in discharges of raw sewage. The intensive use of the American River, Sacramento
15
River, and the numerous tributaries to these rivers for sport fishing and water-contact recreation
16
17 increases the likelihood of direct human contact with spilled sewage and the pollutants it contains.
18 86. Sewage pollution also affects people who eat fish caught in the Delta and its tributaries.
19 Toxic chemicals are concentrated in the Delta’s food web, which means that contaminants absorbed by
20 plankton are magnified in fish and birds farther up the food chain and ultimately ingested by human
21
consumers. Contamination of fish is particularly harmful to ethnic and economic minorities, who
22
typically eat an above-average amount of local fish.
23
87. The intensive use of the Delta, the Sacramento River, and the American River for
24
25 commercial, sport fishing, and water-contact recreation increases the likelihood that people, including
26 members of the Alliance, will come into direct contact with spilled sewage and the pollutants it contains.
27 88. Many of the water bodies to which the Defendant’s discharge sewage and associated
28
Complaint 14
pollutants are listed on the State of California’s 2018 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired
1
2 water bodies. (“303(d) List”). An impaired water body cannot support the designated beneficial uses for
3 that water body. The designated uses of the water bodies receiving the County’s and SASD’s discharges
4 include, but are not limited to, municipal and domestic use, warm and cold freshwater habitat, and warm
5
and cold fish migration. See Water Quality Control Plan (“Basin Plan”) for the California Regional
6
Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Fifth Edition, The Sacramento River Basin and
7
San Joaquin River Basin, (May 2018), Table 2-1.
8
89. The Sacramento River (Knights Landing to Delta) is listed on the 303(d) List as impaired
9
10 for Mercury, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), Chlordane, Dieldrin, PCBs (Polychlorinated
11 biphenyls), and Toxicity.

12 90. The American River (Nimbus Dam to confluence with Sacramento River) is listed on the
13
303(d) List as impaired for Mercury, Toxicity, PCBs, Bifenthrin, and Indicator Bacteria.
14
91. The Delta Waterways (northern portion) is listed on the 303(d) List as impaired for
15
PCBs, DDT, Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, Mercury, Toxicity, Group A pesticides, Dieldrin, Chlordane, and
16
17 Electrical Conductivity.
18 92. Delta Waterways (eastern portion) is listed on the 303(d) List as impaired for DDT,
19 Toxicity, Diazinon, Mercury, Chlorpyrifos, Group A Pesticides.

20 93. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, many of the pollutants
21
impairing the waters that receive discharges from SASD and the County are found in SASD’s and the
22
County’s discharges of raw sewage from the Collection System, as well as in the County’s storm water
23
discharges from the MS4, directly harming the Alliance’s members’ use and enjoyment of these waters.
24
25 94. SSOs that do not directly reach Receiving Waters still pose significant health risks to the
26 Alliance’s members and others by depositing raw sewage in public streets, public buildings and grounds,
27 and private yards and homes. SSOs contain large quantities of bacteria, viruses, mold spores, and
28
protozoa. Exposure to raw or partially treated sewage can cause a variety of health problems, including
Complaint 15
gastroenteritis, respiratory illness, ear, nose, and throat problems, and skin rashes. Mold spores can
1
2 establish an ecological niche when they are carried onto a homeowner’s property during a sanitary sewer
3 overflow, creating an ongoing health risk from chronic exposure. Sewage contaminated waters also may
4 provide a breeding ground for mosquitoes. Residential sewage overflows also diminish property values
5
and impose severe nuisance on local residents.
6
V. LEGAL BACKGROUND
7
A. The Clean Water Act
8
95. Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of
9
10 any pollutant into waters of the United States unless the discharge complies with various enumerated
11 sections of the CWA. Specifically, section 301(a) prohibits discharges not authorized by, or in violation
12 of, the terms of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued pursuant
13
to section 402 of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342.
14
96. The “discharge of a pollutant” means, among other things, the addition of a pollutant to
15
“waters of the United States” from any “point source.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12); 40 C.F.R. § 122.2.
16
17 97. The term “pollutant” includes “dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage,
18 garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat,
19 wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste
20 discharged into water.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6); 40 C.F.R. § 122.2.
21
98. “Waters of the United States” are defined as “navigable waters,” and “all waters which
22
are currently used, were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce,
23
including waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7); 40 C.F.R.
24
25 § 122.2.
26 99. The term “point source” means any “discernible, confined and discrete conveyance,
27 including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, container,
28
rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other floating craft, from which
Complaint 16
pollutants are or may be discharged.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14); 40 C.F.R. § 122.2.

1
2 100. An MS4 is defined as “a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with
3 drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, man-made channels, or storm
4 drains)” owned or operated by a State, city, or town that is “designed or used for collecting or conveying
5
storm water” and “that discharges to waters of the United States.” 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(8); see also id.
6
§ 122.26(b)(18).
7
101. Section 402(b) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b), allows each state to administer its own
8
EPA-approved NPDES permit program for regulating the discharge of pollutants, including discharges
9
10 of polluted stormwater.
11 102. In California, the State Board and its nine Regional Boards have approval from EPA to
12 administer its NPDES permit program for the State. Under this authority, the State Board and Regional
13
Boards issue NPDES permits in the State to regulate water pollutant discharges.
14
103. Clean Water Act Section 402(p), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), establishes a framework for
15
regulating municipal storm water discharges under NPDES permits.
16
17 104. Section 402(p) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), requires an NPDES permit in order to
18 discharge stormwater from an MS4 to waters of the United States.
19 105. Under Section 402(p)(3)(B) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B), NPDES permits for
20 discharges from MS4s shall include a requirement to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges into
21
storm sewers and require “controls that reduce the discharge of pollutants [to receiving waters] to the
22
maximum extent practicable, […] and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines
23
appropriate for the control of such pollutants.” 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B).
24
25 106. Section 505(a)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), provides for citizen enforcement
26 actions against any “person” for violations of NPDES permit requirements and for unpermitted
27 discharges of pollutants. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)(i), 1365(f).

28
107. The County and the SASD are each a “person” within the meaning of section 502(5) of
Complaint 17
the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).

1
2 108. An action for injunctive relief is authorized under section 505(a) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C.
3 § 1365(a).
4 109. Each separate violation of the Clean Water Act subjects the violator to a penalty of up to
5
$56,460.00 per day per violation for violations that occurred after November 2, 2015. 33 U.S.C. §
6
1319(d); Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4.
7
110. Section 505(d) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d), permits prevailing or substantially
8
prevailing parties to recover litigation costs, including attorneys’ fees, experts’ fees, and consultants’
9
10 fees.
11 B. The Requirements of the MS4 Permit

12 111. Discharges into and from the MS4 are regulated by the National Pollutant Discharge
13
Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements MS4 Permit for Discharges from
14
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, NPDES Permit No. CAS0085324, Order No. R5-2016-0040
15
(“MS4 Permit”).
16
17 112. The County is among seven municipal entities that together sought coverage for their
18 municipal storm water discharges under the MS4 Permit. Along with the cities of Sacramento, Folsom,
19 Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Galt, and Rancho Cordova, the County submitted a Notice of Intent to be
20 covered under the MS4 Permit in 2016, for which a Notice of Applicability was issued on November 23,
21
2016.
22
113. Any violation of the MS4 Permit requirements is a violation of the Clean Water Act.
23
See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(f).
24
25 114. Discharge Prohibition II.B.1 of the MS4 Permit requires the County to effectively
26 prohibit the discharge of non-storm water into and out of the MS4.
27 115. The MS4 Permit has Technology Based Effluent Limitations that prohibit discharges
28
from the MS4 that contain pollutants not reduced to the maximum extent practicable. MS4 Permit, III.A.
Complaint 18
C. The SSO Waste Discharge Requirements Order

1
2 116. The State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) adopted Statewide
3 General Waste Discharge Requirements (“WDRs”) for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Water Quality Order
4 No. 2006-0003 (“SSO WDR”) on May 2, 2006. The Water Board issued Order No. WQ 2013-0058-
5
Exec Amending Monitoring and Reporting Program for Statewide General Waste Discharge
6
Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems on August 6, 2013. The Sanitary Sewer Systems WDR
7
requires public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement sewer
8
system management plans and report all SSOs to the State Water Board’s online SSO database.
9
10 117. The SASD is enrolled under the SSO WDR.
11 118. The SSO WDR prohibits discharges of SSOs to waters of the United States. See SSO
12 WDR Prohibitions 1. The SSO WDR is not an NPDES permit. See SSO WDR, ¶ 11.
13
VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
14
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
15
Unpermitted Discharges of Pollutants to Waters of the United States in Violation of the Clean
16 Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1365(a), 1365(f)
17
119. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in the above paragraphs as though fully
18
set forth herein.
19
20 120. The County is an owner and/or operator of the Collection System.
21 121. The SASD is an owner and/or operator of the Collection System.
22 122. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that SASD and/or the County
23
has been discharging and continues to discharge SSOs from the Collection System directly to waters of
24
the United States, and/or into the MS4 then to waters of the United States, on at least 759 separate
25
occasions since July 14, 2018. See Notice Letter, section IV.A, at 9.
26
123. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that additional SSOs will
27
28 occur during or will be discovered through this enforcement action. Each additional SSO that discharges
Complaint 19
to waters of the United States, whether directly or through the MS4, will be included in this action and is
1
2 a separate Clean Water Act violation.
3 124. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the waters into which
4 SASD and the County discharges SSOs are waters of the United States.
5
125. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that neither the SASD nor the
6
County has an NPDES Permit that authorizes point source discharges of SSOs to waters of the United
7
States.
8
126. Each SSO from the Collection System to waters of the United States and/or into the
9
10 MS4 then to waters of the United States without an NPDES permit is a separate and distinct violation of
11 the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).

12 127. These discharges and violations are ongoing and it is likely that SASD and/or the County
13
will continue to violate these requirements without judicial intervention.
14
128. By committing the acts and omissions alleged above, SASD and/or the County are
15
subject to an assessment of civil penalties pursuant to Clean Water Act sections 309(d) and 505(a), 33
16
17 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d) and 1365(a).
18 129. An action for declaratory judgment is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
19 130. An action for injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act is authorized by 33 U.S.C.
20 section 1365(a) and (f). Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged above will irreparably
21
harm Plaintiff and the citizens of the State of California, for which harm they have no other plain,
22
speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
23
131. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as hereinafter set forth.
24
25 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

Failure to Effectively Prohibit Discharges of Non-Storm Water to the County MS4 in Violation of
26 the MS4 Permit and the Clean Water Act
27 132. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in the above paragraphs as though fully
28
set forth herein.
Complaint 20
133. The County is an owner and operator of the MS4.

1
2 134. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the County has failed to
3 effectively prohibit the discharge of non-storm water in the form of SSOs to the MS4.
4 135. Information currently available to the Alliance indicates that there have been discharges
5
of non-storm water in the form of SSOs to the MS4 on at least 749 occasions since July 14, 2018. See
6
Notice Letter, section IV.B, at 12.
7
136. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that additional SSOs to the
8
MS4 will occur during or will be discovered through this enforcement action. Each additional SSO that
9
10 enters the MS4 will be included in this action.
11 137. This high number of SSOs that have discharged to the MS4 indicates that the
12 County has failed to effectively prohibit the discharge of non-storm water in the form of SSOs.
13
138. Since July 14, 2018 the County has been liable each day that it failed to effectively
14
prohibit SSOs to the MS4, and these violations continue each day the County fails to effectively prohibit
15
SSOs from entering the MS4.
16
17 139. At a minimum, the County has failed to effectively prohibit the discharge of non-storm
18 water to the MS4 on each and every occasion that non-storm water in the form of SSOs discharged to
19 the MS4.
20 140. Each day since July 14, 2018 that the County failed and continues to fail to
21
effectively prohibit discharges of non-storm water in the form of SSOs to the MS4 is a separate and
22
distinct violation of MS4 Permit Discharge Prohibition, II.B.1 and the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. §
23
1311(a).
24
25 141. The County’s failure to effectively prohibit the discharge of non-storm water in the form
26 of SSOs to the MS4 is ongoing and it is likely that the County will continue to violate these
27 requirements of the MS4 Permit without judicial intervention.

28
142. By committing the acts and omissions alleged above, the County is subject to an
Complaint 21
assessment of civil penalties pursuant to Clean Water Act sections 309(d) and 505(a), 33 U.S.C. §§
1
2 1319(d) and 1365(a).
3 143. An action for declaratory judgment is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
4 144. An action for injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act is authorized by 33 U.S.C.
5
section 1365(a) and (f). Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged above will irreparably
6
harm Plaintiff and the citizens of the State of California, for which harm they have no other plain,
7
speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
8
9
10
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
11 Discharges of Pollutants from the MS4 in Violation of Permit Conditions Established by the MS4
Permit and the Clean Water Act
12
146. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations contained in the above paragraphs as though fully
13
14 set forth herein.
15 147. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that the County has
16 discharged and continues to discharge storm water containing raw sewage from the MS4.
17
148. The County’s SSOs and their discharge via the MS4 are the result of inadequate
18
operation and maintenance of the sewage collection system.
19
149. The County’s continued failure to prevent SSOs, and to prevent SSOs from reaching the
20
21 MS4 and from discharging from the MS4, results in a failure to meet its obligation to reduce the
22 discharge of these pollutants from the MS4 to the maximum extent practicable.
23 150. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that additional discharges of
24 raw sewage associated with SSOs that are not reduced to the maximum extent practicable from the MS4
25
will occur during or will be discovered through this enforcement action. Each additional discharge of
26
raw sewage associated with SSOs in violation of the maximum extent practicable standard will be
27
included in this action.
28
Complaint 22
151. Each day since July 14, 2018 that the County discharged pollutants associated
1
2 with SSOs not reduced to the maximum extent practicable from the MS4 is a separate and distinct
3 violation of MS4 Permit, III.A and the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
4 152. These discharges and violations are ongoing and it is likely that the County will
5
continue to violate MS4 Permit, III.A and the Clean Water Act without judicial intervention.
6
153. The Alliance is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that additional
7
discharges of pollutants not reduced to the maximum extent practicable from the MS4 will occur during
8
or will be discovered through this enforcement action. Each additional discharges of pollutants not
9
10 reduced to the maximum extent practicable from the MS4 will be a separate violation of the MS4 Permit
11 and the Clean Water Act.

12 154. By committing the acts and omissions alleged above, the County is subject to an
13
assessment of civil penalties pursuant to Clean Water Act sections 309(d) and 505(a), 33 U.S.C. §§
14
1319(d) and 1365(a).
15
155. An action for declaratory judgment is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201.
16
17 156. An action for injunctive relief under the Clean Water Act is authorized by 33
18 U.S.C. section 1365(a) and (f). Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged above will
19 irreparably harm Plaintiff and the citizens of the State of California, for which harm they have no other
20 plain, speedy, or adequate remedy at law.
21
22
VII. RELIEF REQUESTED
23
Wherefore, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the following relief:
24
25 a. Issue a Court order declaring SASD and the County to have violated and to be in
26 violation of section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) for their unpermitted discharge
27 of pollutants to waters of the Untied States;

28
b. Issue a Court order enjoining SASD and the County from discharging pollutants to
Complaint 23
waters of the United States without an NPDES permit in violation of section 301(a) of the Clean Water
1
2 Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a);
3 c. Issue a Court order declaring the County to have violated and be in violation of MS4
4 Permit Discharge Prohibition, II.B.1, and thus to have violated and be in violation of section 301(a) of
5
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), for its failure to effectively prohibit the discharge of non-
6
storm water into the MS4;
7
d. Issue a Court order declaring the County to have violated MS4 Permit, III.A and thus to
8
have violated and be in violation of section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), by
9
10 discharging pollutants associated with SSOs from the MS4 that have not been reduced to the maximum
11 extent practicable;
12 e. Issue a Court order enjoining the County from violating the substantive and procedural
13
requirements of the MS4 Permit and the Clean Water Act, including specifically a Court order enjoining
14
the County from violating the specific terms, conditions, and provisions of the MS4 Permit and the
15
Clean Water Act identified in this complaint;
16
17 f. Issue a Court order pursuant to sections 309(d) and 505(a), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d) and
18 1365(a), assessing civil penalties against SASD and/or the County of up to $56,460.00 per day per;
19 g. Award Plaintiff its costs and fees for bringing suit for the City’s violations of the Clean
20 Water Act as provided for under by sections 309(d) and 505(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§
21
1319(d) and 1365(a);
22
h. Grant any such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
23
24
Dated: October 14, 2021 AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP
25
26 /s/ Jason R. Flanders

Jason R. Flanders
27 Attorneys for Plaintiff
CALIFORNIA COASTKEEPER ALLIANCE
28
Complaint 24
Case 2:21-cv-01916-WBS-KJN Document 1-1 Filed 10/14/21 Page 1 of 15
ATTACHMENT 1
JASON R. FLANDERS
T: 916-202-3018
jrf@atalawgroup.com
August 13, 2021
Via Certified U.S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested
Ann Edwards, Michael Peterson

Interim/Acting County Executive Director
County of Sacramento Sacramento County Department of Water
Office of the County Executive Resources
700 H Street, Room 7650 827 7th Street, #301
Sacramento, CA 95814 Sacramento, CA 95814
Prabhakar Somavarapu Sacramento County Sanitation

District Engineer Districts Agency
Sacramento Area Sewer District Agency Administrator
10060 Goethe Road 10060 Goethe Road
Sacramento, CA 95827 Sacramento, CA 95827
Board of Directors
Sacramento Area Sewer District
700 H Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: Notice of Violations and Intent to File Suit Under the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act
To the above-listed notice recipients:
California Coastkeeper Alliance (“Alliance”) hereby provides notice of the Alliance’s

intent to sue for violations of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.
(“Clean Water Act” or “CWA”), committed by the County of Sacramento (“County”) and/or the
Sacramento Area Sewer District (“SASD”). As specifically explained below, this letter notifies
the County and SASD of their violations of section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §
1311(a) for point source discharges of pollutants to waters of the United States without a permit.
This letter further notifies the County of its violations of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit and Waste Discharge Requirements General Permit for Discharges
AQUA TERRA AERIS LAW GROUP ◦ 4030 MLK JR. WAY ◦ OAKLAND, CA 94609 1
from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems, NPDES Permit No. CAS0085324, Order No.
R5-2016-0040 (“General Permit”). 1
Section 505(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b), requires that sixty (60) days
prior to the initiation of a civil action under Section 505(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §
1365(a), a citizen must give notice of his/her intent to file suit. Notice must be given to the head
of the entity responsible for the violations, the Administrator of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Regional Administrator of the EPA for the region in which the
violations occurred, and the head of the water pollution control agency for the state in which the
violations occurred. 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A), see also 40 C.F.R. § 135.2(a)(2).
I. ORGANIZATION GIVING NOTICE OF CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATIONS
California Coastkeeper Alliance is an environmental group, organized as a non-profit

corporation in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Using law, policy, and
science, the Alliance advances statewide policies and programs for healthy and clean waters.
The Alliance works with local Waterkeepers to develop, implement, and defend policies that
meet the needs of California’s distinct communities and ecosystems. Additionally, the Alliance
actively seeks federal and state agency implementation of the CWA and, where necessary,
initiates enforcement actions on behalf of itself and its members. The Alliance’s offices are
located at 1100 11th Street, 3rd Floor, Sacramento, CA 95814. The person providing this Notice
is:
California Coastkeeper Alliance

c/o Drev Hunt, Legal Director
1100 11th Street, 3rd Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
(415) 606-0864
The Alliance has retained legal counsel to represent it in this matter. Please direct all
communications to Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group at the address/number below:
Jason Flanders
Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group
4030 Martin Luther King Jr. Way
Oakland, CA 94609
Email: jrf@atalawgroup.com
(916) 202-3018
The Alliance’s members use and enjoy the waters receiving the illegal discharges
identified herein, including but not limited to the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta (“Delta”),
the Sacramento River, and the American River. Information available to the Alliance indicates
1
Under the General Permit, the Permittee is required to submit a Storm Water Management Plan
for approval by the Central Valley Water Board, and which then becomes an enforceable part of
the General Permit. General Permit, 1.10.
that the County and SASD discharge sewage and associated pollutants to these waters. These
discharges of sewage and associated pollutants degrades water quality and harms aquatic life in
these waters. Further, the County’s and SASD’s discharges of sewage and associated pollutants
are ongoing and continuous. As a result, the Alliance’s members’ use and enjoyment of these
waters has been and continues to be adversely impacted. In addition, SASD and the County
discharge to area businesses, residents’ yards and basements, and municipal sidewalks, streets
and other paved areas, which exposes members of the Alliance (as well as members of the
general public) to substantial health risks.
II. THE COLLECTION SYSTEM, THE MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER

SYSTEM, AND THE ENTITIES RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ALLEGED
VIOLATIONS
A. The Sewage Collection System
The sewage collection system (“Collection System”) from which the discharges
identified in this Notice Letter occur serves a population of approximately 1.2 million people in
the Sacramento region. The Collection System conveys sewage from within Sacramento County
and the cities of Elk Grove, Rancho Cordova, and Citrus Heights, and portions of the cities of
Sacramento and Folsom, to the sewage collection system owned and operated by the Sacramento
Regional County Sanitation District (“SRCSD”), where it is subsequently delivered to the
Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (“WWTP”). The Collection System has
approximately 299,000 service connections, and consists of approximately 4,682 miles of
pipeline, including 3,074 miles of gravity sewer, 1,527 miles of lateral sewer, and 81 miles of
force mains. The Collection System consists of pipes and other manmade conveyances that are
point sources under the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).
B. The County’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System and the MS4 Permits
The County’s municipal separate storm sewer system (“MS4”) covers areas also served
by the Collection System. An MS4 is a system of conveyances that includes but is not limited to
streets, curbs, gutters, other paved surfaces, catch basins, ditches, man-made channels, catch
basins and/or storm drains owned or operated by a State, city, or town that is designed or used
for collecting or conveying storm water and that discharges to waters of the United States. 2 See
40 C.F.R. 122.26(b)(8)(i)-(ii); see also 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(18). The County’s MS4 contains
numerous storm drain inlets that lead to underground storm drain pipes, which discharge to the
Sacramento River, the American River, and/or their local tributaries. Pollutants in Sanitary
Sewer Overflows (“SSOs”) that enter the MS4s discharge to local waterways. Discharges to the
MS4 ultimately make their way to the Sacramento River and/or the Delta.
Clean Water Act Section 402(p), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), establishes a framework for
regulating municipal storm water discharges under NPDES permits. Section 402(p) of the CWA
requires dischargers of municipal storm water to obtain and comply with an NPDES permit. 33
2
An MS4 is further defined as a sewer system that is not a combined sewer and is not part of a
Publicly Owned Treatment Works. See 40 C.F.R. 122.26(b)(8)(iii)-(iv).
U.S.C. § 1342(p)(2). Section 402(p)(3)(B) of the CWA sets forth the requirements that must be
in all MS4 permits. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B). The General Permit regulates discharges into and
from the MS4.
The County is among seven municipal entities that have joined together and sought
coverage for their municipal storm water discharges under the General Permit. Along with the
cities of Sacramento, Folsom, Elk Grove, Citrus Heights, Galt, and Rancho Cordova, the County
submitted a Notice of Intent to be covered under the General Permit in 2016, for which a Notice
of Applicability (“NOA”) was issued on November 23, 2016 approving the NOI and rescinding
Waste Discharge Requirements Order R5-2015-0023 (NPDES Permit No. CAS082597) for the
Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento, and
County of Sacramento except for enforcement of permit violations that occurred prior to the
issuance of the NOA. The General Permit is being violated as alleged in this Notice Letter.
The County of Sacramento and the cities of Sacramento, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove,
Folsom, Galt, and Rancho Cordova implemented a Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan
(SQIP) dated November 2009, adopted by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control
Board on January 29, 2010 (Resolution No. R5-2010-0017), as required by an earlier stormwater
NPDES permit. The General Permit required the continued implementation of the Permittees’
2009 SQIP and the associated annual work plans.
C. The SSO Waste Discharge Requirements Order
The State Water Resources Control Board (“State Water Board”) adopted Statewide
General Waste Discharge Requirements (“WDRs”) for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Water Quality
Order No. 2006-0003 (“SSO WDR”) on May 2, 2006. The Water Board issued
Order No. WQ 2013-0058-Exec Amending Monitoring and Reporting Program for Statewide
General Waste Discharge Requirements for Sanitary Sewer Systems on August 6, 2013. The
Sanitary Sewer Systems WDR requires public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer
systems to develop and implement sewer system management plans and report all SSOs to the
State Water Board’s online SSO database.
The SASD is enrolled under the SSO WDR. The SSO WDR prohibits discharges of
SSOs to waters of the United States. See SSO WDR Prohibitions 1 (“Any SSO that results in a
discharge of untreated or partially treated wastewater to waters of the United States is
prohibited.”) However, the SSO WDR is not an NPDES permit. See SSO WDR, ¶ 11.
D. The Owner and Operator of the Collection System
The County is a political subdivision of the State of California. The County of

Sacramento is an owner and/or operator of the Collection System. Under the Sacramento County
Code, section 2.09.710, “There is established within County government a Sanitation Districts
Agency.” The SASD and SRCSD select, the County Executive Officer appoints, and the County
Board of Supervisors confirms, a District Engineer. County Code, section 2.09.700. “Upon
appointment by the Districts, the District Engineer shall be recommended by the County
Executive to the County Board of Supervisors for confirmation as Agency Administrator.”
Sacramento County Code § 2.09.710. “The Agency shall consist of the following departments:
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District Operations, Sacramento Area Sewer District
Operations, Internal Services, and Policy and Planning.” Id. The Agency Administrator/District
Engineer has a number of responsibilities that include among others, (1) performing duties
authorized and directed by the SRCSD and SASD Boards of Directors, (2) overseeing the
department with County staff assigned to SRCSD and SASD and acting as liaison to those
districts’ governing bodies, (3) making recommendations to the SRCSD and SASD Boards of
Directors and the County Executive respecting sanitary sewer services and infrastructure. See
Sacramento County Code § 2.09.710. 3 Information available to the Alliance indicates that the
head of the Sanitation Districts Agency has an office at 10060 Goethe Road, Sacramento,
California 95827.
Within the County Sanitation Districts Agency there are four departments, including the
SASD Operations department. Sacramento County Code § 2.09.710. The SASD Operations
department is responsible for, among other things, (1) performing duties authorized and directed
by the SASD Board of Directors, (2) processing all technical matters related to SASD, (3)
making recommendations regarding the awarding of contracts for the construction, repair, and
maintenance of all facilities under the department supervision, (4) representing the County and
SASD in dealing with other agencies, organizations, groups, and individuals, and (5) advising
and assisting other county departments and agencies with respect to the sewer district. See
Sacramento County Code § 2.09.730.
The SASD is a county sanitation district that serves parts of the Sacramento region
including the unincorporated areas of the Sacramento County, and has the Waste Discharge
Identification number of 5SSO10912. SASD’s offices are located at 10060 Goethe Road,
Sacramento, California 95827. SASD is an owner and/or operator of the Collection System.
SASD is responsible for the operation and maintenance of its portions of the Collection System.
Specifically, SASD’s operation and maintenance of the Collection System, includes responding
3
Sacramento County Code § 2.09.700 further clarifies the relationship between the County and
SASD: “Pursuant to its Master Interagency Agreement with the Sacramento Regional County
Sanitation District, the County of Sacramento is responsible for administering and staffing said
District. As matter of practice and efficiency, the same administration and staffing arrangement
has been extended to the Sacramento Area Sewer District. While both districts are separately
governed, the County of Sacramento is responsible and accountable to those governing bodies.
The District Engineer for both districts is selected by those governing bodies, but appointed,
pursuant to requirements of the County Charter, by the County Executive Officer and confirmed
by the Board of Supervisors. This staffing arrangement and process, together with current
administrative structure of the County in which the Department of Water Quality is placed within
the Municipal Service Agency of the County has caused confusion as to the reporting
relationships of County staff assigned to the Districts and to the applicability of MSA Agency
and County policy and procedures to such assigned staff. The purpose of this article is to remove
that confusion and to assure that the County of Sacramento is directly responsible for carrying
out its responsibilities to the Districts.”
to citizen complaints of SSOs, and conducting routine maintenance, cleaning, and inspection of
the collection system.
Therefore, both SASD and the County are owners and/or operators of the Collection
System and are responsible for discharges from the Collection System.
E. The Owner and Operator of the MS4
The County owns and/or operates the MS4 in the unincorporated areas of Sacramento
County. The County is a permittee on the General Permit. The County is required to comply with
all provisions of the General Permit. General Permit, Provisions, D.1.A. On information and
belief, pursuant to the General Permit, the County has jurisdiction over and/or operation and
maintenance responsibilities for the MS4 within the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County.
The County’s Department of Water Resources is charged with the operation and maintenance of
the MS4. The County’s Department of Water Resources has offices at 827 7th Street, Suite 301,
Sacramento, California 95814.
III. BACKGROUND AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS FROM THE ILLEGAL

DISCHARGES
A. The Collection System, and MS4, and the Waters Receiving Discharges
The Collection System and the MS4 run through several major watersheds that drain to
the Delta and its tributaries, including but not limited to Arcade Creek, Brooktree Creek,
Chicken Ranch Slough, Elk Grove Creek, Franklin Creek, San Juan Creek, Mokelumne River,
Dry Creek, Buffalo Creek, Morrison Creek, Sierra Creek, Fisherman’s Lake, Lake Natoma,
Laguna Creek, Laguna (North) Creek, Elder Creek, Strawberry Creek, Verde Cruz Creek,
Snodgrass Slough, Beacon Creek (Union House Creek), Sutter Slough, Carmichael Creek, Goat
Creek, Robla Creek, Florin Creek, Whitehouse Creek, Mariposa Creek, Strong Ranch Slough,
Cripple Creek, Magpie Creek, Steelhead Creek, the American River, the Sacramento River, and
unnamed tributaries. Information available to the Alliance indicates that SSOs from the
Collection System, and the pollutants associated with these SSOs, discharge to these waters,
which flow to the Delta.
The American River supports over forty (40) species of fish in the Lower American River
watershed. The watershed is a diverse ecosystem, critical to the freshwater life cycle of the
endangered winter-run Chinook salmon, the threatened spring-run Chinook salmon, and the
threatened Steelhead trout. Designated a “Recreational River" under the California Wild and
Scenic Rivers Act and the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the lower American River is
widely appreciated for a variety of water contact recreational uses including swimming. The
Lower American River meanders westerly from Folsom Lake, joining the Sacramento River’s
journey south to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta about a mile north of Sacramento.
The Sacramento River is California’s largest river and the largest contributor of fresh
water to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Beneficial uses of the Sacramento River include
municipal and domestic water supply, agricultural water supply, water contact and non-contact
recreation, industrial process and industrial service supply, warm and cold freshwater habitat,
cold and warm migration of aquatic organisms, warm spawning, reproduction and/or early
development, wildlife habitat, and navigation. The Sacramento River is designated critical
habitat for the endangered winter-run Chinook salmon as well as the spring-run Chinook salmon,
Steelhead trout, Delta smelt, and green sturgeon, all of which are federally-listed threatened
species. Many of the District’s SSOs which do not directly spill into the Sacramento River still
reach the River via its tributaries. While some areas where spills have occurred were dry at the
time of spill, the discharged pollutants remain on the surface of the land and enter receiving
waters following rainfall or flooding.
The Delta is the largest Pacific Coast estuary in both North and South America. The
Delta is the confluence of five major rivers and numerous creeks and sloughs. This maze of
finger-like waterways ebbs and flows through prime California natural habitat and farmland. The
Delta is also the primary source of fresh water supply for two-thirds of California’s residents.
The preservation of this natural resource is essential. The Delta and its tributaries also provide
special aesthetic and recreational significance for people living in the surrounding communities.
With 700 miles of channels, nearly all navigable, recreation in the Delta is mainly water-
oriented. Major recreational activities supported by the Delta include fishing, water-skiing,
sailing, cruising, personal watercraft, canoeing, kayaking, swimming, and windsurfing. These
activities depend upon water quality and habitat preservation in the Delta. The growing
urbanization of the Delta area makes these recreational and aesthetic uses even more important to
the quality of life of Delta residents. Furthermore, the Delta fosters the commercial fishing
industry in California and beyond. Commercial fishers and sport fishers alike continue to suffer
from the constant degradation of the Delta through illegal discharges, upstream including SSOs.
The Delta’s once-abundant and varied fisheries and species habitat have been drastically
diminished by pollution.
B. Pollutants in Sewage and Their Impacts to the Environment and Human Health
Spills of raw sewage and discharges of sewage-contaminated storm water harm the Delta
and its tributaries and pose a serious risk to fisheries, wildlife habitat, and human health. In
addition to human waste and bacteria, sewage contains heavy metals, as well as chemicals that
cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. These metals and chemicals come from solvents,
detergents, cleansers, inks, pesticides, paints, pharmaceuticals, and other materials used by
households and businesses, and then discarded to sewage collection systems. High
concentrations of these pollutants are typically found in discharges of raw sewage. The intensive
use of the American River, Sacramento River, and the numerous tributaries to these rivers for
sport fishing and water-contact recreation increases the likelihood of direct human contact with
spilled sewage and the pollutants it contains.
Sewage pollution also affects people who eat fish caught in the Delta and its tributaries.
Toxic chemicals are concentrated in the Delta’s food web, which means that contaminants
absorbed by plankton are magnified in fish and birds farther up the food chain and ultimately
ingested by human consumers. Contamination of fish is particularly harmful to ethnic and
economic minorities, who typically eat an above-average amount of local fish.
Many of the water bodies discussed in this Notice Letter are listed on the State of
California’s 2014-2016 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies. A water
body that is listed as impaired cannot support the designated beneficial uses for that water body. 4
The Sacramento and American Rivers are listed as impaired for mercury. Arcade Creek is listed
as impaired for Copper, Diazinon, and Chlorpyrifos, Malathion, Pyrethroids, and unknown
toxicity. The Delta Waterways (northern portion) is listed as impaired for polychlorinated
biphenyls (“PCBs”), dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (“DDT”), Chlorpyrifos, Diazino, Mercury,
Toxicity, Group A pesticides, Dieldrin, and Chlordane. Delta Waterways (eastern portion) is
listed as impaired for DDT, Toxicity, Diazinon, Mercury, Chlorpyrifos, Group A Pesticides.
Many of these pollutants are found in SASD’s and the County’s discharges of raw
sewage. Therefore, by discharging excessive levels of these pollutants that contribute to the
continued impairment of Arcade Creek, Brooktree Creek, Chicken Ranch Slough, Elk Grove
Creek, Franklin Creek, San Juan Creek, Mokelumne River, Dry Creek, Buffalo Creek, Morrison
Creek, Sierra Creek, Fisherman’s Lake, Lake Natoma, Laguna Creek, Laguna (North) Creek,
Elder Creek, Strawberry Creek, Verde Cruz Creek, Snodgrass Slough, Beacon Creek (Union
House Creek), Sutter Slough, Carmichael Creek, Goat Creek, Robla Creek, Florin Creek,
Whitehouse Creek, Mariposa Creek, Strong Ranch Slough, Cripple Creek, Magpie Creek,
Steelhead Creek, the American River, and the Sacramento River, the County’s and SASD’s
violations of the Clean Water Act have directly harmed the Alliance’s members’ use and
enjoyment these waters.
SSOs that do not directly reach surface waters still pose significant health risks by
depositing raw sewage in public streets, public buildings and grounds, and private yards and
homes. SSOs contain large quantities of bacteria, viruses, mold spores, and protozoa. Exposure
to raw sewage can cause a variety of health problems, including gastroenteritis, respiratory
illness, ear, nose, and throat problems, and skin rashes. Mold spores can establish an ecological
niche when they are carried onto a homeowner’s property during an overflow, creating an
ongoing health risk from chronic exposure. Sewage contaminated waters also may provide a
breeding ground for mosquitoes. Residential sewage overflows also diminish property values and
impose severe nuisance on local residents.
The Alliance brings this action to compel the County’s and SASD’s compliance with the
Clean Water Act, including seeking injunctive relief to cease the ongoing violations of the CWA,
to pay penalties for their violations of the Clean Water Act, as well as seek all other applicable
relief authorized by federal law.
4
The designated uses of the water bodies receiving the County’s and SASD’s discharges
include, but are not limited to, municipal and domestic use, warm and cold freshwater habitat,
and warm and cold fish migration. See Water Quality Control Plan (“Basin Plan”) for the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, Fifth Edition, The
Sacramento River Basin and San Joaquin River Basin, (May 2018), Table 2-1.
IV. CLEAN WATER ACT VIOLATIONS
A. Sanitary Sewer Overflows: Unpermitted Sewage Discharges in Violation Clean

Water Act Section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a)
Clean Water Act Section 301(a) provides that “the discharge of any pollutant by any
person shall be unlawful” unless the discharger is in compliance with the terms of an NPDES
permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). The County and SASD discharge sewage, which contains numerous
pollutants. Numerous causes for SSOs include stormwater inflow and/or groundwater infiltration
(I/I), defects in the sewer lines, root intrusion, and blockages due to grease and rags. Currently,
the District’s sewage collection system has insufficient capacity to handle peak wet weather
flows. During heavy storms, the system becomes surcharged and untreated sewage overflows at
various locations, eventually draining to the locations detailed above. At no point has SASD or
the County obtained a CWA permit that authorizes the discharge of pollutants from the
Collection System to waters of the United States. Therefore, each and every time SASD and/or
the County discharges pollutants, including discharges of sewage and the pollutants in SSOs,
from a point source to waters of the United States, is a separate violation of Section 301(a) of the
Clean Water Act.
Information available to the Alliance, including internal SSO reporting and response
documents and spills reported to the California Integrated Water Quality Systems (“CIWQS”),
indicates that the County and SASD have had at least 2,536 SSOs from the Collection System
since July 14, 2018, or an average of 14.61 SSOs per 100 miles of sewer pipes per year for 2019
and 2020. 5 See Exhibit A (table identifying dates and locations of these SSOs). The CIWQS
self-reported data indicates since July 14, 2018, the total spill volume was 960,089 gallons, of
which 104,314 gallons reached land, 624,386 gallons reached surface water, and 351,635 gallons
were recovered. See id.
Of the 2,536 SSOs, information available to the Alliance indicates at least 728 reached
waters of the United States either directly or through the MS4. See Exhibit B (table setting forth
dates and locations of these 728 SSOs). The MS4 is a point source and the system subsequently
discharges to waters of the United States, including but not limited to Arcade Creek, Brooktree
Creek, Chicken Ranch Slough, Elk Grove Creek, Franklin Creek, San Juan Creek, Mokelumne
River, Dry Creek, Buffalo Creek, Morrison Creek, Sierra Creek, Fisherman’s Lake, Lake
Natoma, Laguna Creek, Laguna (North) Creek, Elder Creek, Strawberry Creek, Verde Cruz
Creek, Snodgrass Slough, Beacon Creek (Union House Creek), Sutter Slough, Carmichael
Creek, Goat Creek, Robla Creek, Florin Creek, Whitehouse Creek, Mariposa Creek, Strong
Ranch Slough, Cripple Creek, Magpie Creek, Steelhead Creek, the American River, and the
Sacramento River. SSOs from the Collection System that reach the MS4 ultimately discharge to
waters of the United States. The Alliance hereby puts the County and SASD on notice that all
discharges of pollutants from a point source to waters of the United States, including the
5
Information available to the Alliance indicates that well-run collection systems in California
average between 0-3 SSOs per 100 miles of pipe per year, average systems have between 4-6
SSOs per 100 miles of pipe per year, and poorly run systems exceed 10 SSOs per 100 miles of
pipe per year.
County’s and/or SASD’s SSOs that discharge directly to waters and those SSOs that enter the
MS4 and then discharge to waters, are violations of Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act. Of
significant concern is the volume and duration of spill in a number of these events:
• January 16-18, 2021 (Event ID # 871658) – an SSO estimated at 489,494 gallons

occurred as a result of a “force main repair coupler” having been “dislodged causing
overflow.” The District reported 107,247 gallons being recovered and 10,400 gallons
reaching land, while 379,232 gallons were reported as having impacted an “unnamed
tributary to Mokelumne River.” These amounts totaling 496,879 gallons are inconsistent
with the reported volume of the spill.
• December 9-10, 2019 (Event ID# 863491) – an SSO estimated at 66,190 gallons
occurred. The reported cause of the spill was “vandalism.” Of the 66,190 gallons, 24,559
gallons were reported as reaching land and 22,609 gallons as recovered, while 41,631
gallons were reported as reaching an “unnamed tributary to Arcade Creek.” These
amounts totaling 88,799 gallons are inconsistent with the reported volume of the spill.
• February 26-27, 2019 (Event ID # 856738) – an SSO estimated at 22,845 gallons
occurred. “Heavy storms caused excessive I&O to the sewer system, exceeding the
design capacity of the collection system.” Of the 22,845 gallons, 3 gallons were reported
as both reaching land and recovered while 22,842 gallons were reported as reaching an
“Unnamed Creek tributary to Steelhead Creek (Natomas East Main Drainage Canal).”
These amounts totaling 22,848 gallons are inconsistent with the reported volume of the
spill.
Full and complete reporting of SSOs is essential to gauging their impact on public health
and the environment. The County and/or SASD’s SSO Reports, which should reveal critical
details about each of these SSOs, lack responses to specific questions that would identify the
causes and the potential repairs ensuring these violations would not recur. In addition, the
Alliance believes many of the SSOs reported by the County and/or SASD as partially reaching a
surface water did so in greater volume than stated. Information available to the Alliance also
indicates that the County and/or SASD have been underreporting the number of SSOs that take
place from the collection system and that the County and/or SASD lack an adequate monitoring
program to detect, report, and address SSOs and their impacts. The Alliance believes that a
careful reading of the time when the County and/or SASD received notification of an SSO, the
time of its response, and the time at which the SSO ended, too often appear as unlikely
estimations. For example:
• February 26-27, 2019 (Event ID # 856738) – The estimated spill start time is reported as
2:22 pm on February 26, 2019, while the agency notification is reported as 2:19 pm, 3
minutes before the estimated spill start time. The operator arrival time is reported as 2:53
pm and the spill end time as 4:08 pm on February 27, 2019.
• November 30 through December 12, 2018 (Event ID# 854999) - The estimated spill start
time is reported as 12:00 pm, on November 30, 2018. The agency notification time is
reported as 10:02 pm, while both the operator arrival and estimated spill end time are
reported as 10:27 pm on December 12th. Out of the total estimated volume of 10,873
gallons, it was reported that 895 gallons were recovered, 49 gallons reached land, and
9,973 gallons impacted an unnamed tributary of the Sacramento River.
Given the unlikely accuracy of the times and intervals provided in these reports, it is difficult to
consider the stated volumes as accurate. Without accurately reporting the spill start and end time,
it is likely that the duration and volume of a spill will be underestimated.
The Alliance also contends that the County and/or SASD is understating the significance
of the impacts of its CWA violations by failing to post health warning signs for discharges
reaching a surface water. For example, despite the obvious risk to health, the County and/or
SASD did not post any warning signs to warn the public for 155 spills, and has not provided any
information on CIWQS whether warnings were for posted for 2,371 spills. See Exhibit C (table
identifying SSOs with either no information on warnings or where none were provided.)
It is a well-established fact that exfiltration caused by pipeline cracks and other structural
defects in a collection system result in discharges to adjacent surface waters via the MS4, and
underground hydrological connections. The Alliance contends that untreated sewage is
discharged from cracks, displaced joints, eroded segments, etc., in the County and SASD’s
sewage collection system into groundwater hydrologically connected to surface waters including,
but not limited to, the American River and its tributaries including Chicken Ranch Slough and
Strong Ranch Slough, tributaries of the Sacramento River including Steelhead Creek and Arcade
Creek, and tributaries of Arcade Creek including Brooktree Creek, San Juan Creek, and Cripple
Creek, Mokelumne River, Dry Creek, Buffalo Creek, Morrison Creek, Sierra Creek, Fisherman’s
Lake, Lake Natoma, Laguna Creek, Laguna (North) Creek, Elder Creek, Strawberry Creek,
Verde Cruz Creek, Snodgrass Slough, Beacon Creek (Union House Creek), Sutter Slough,
Carmichael Creek, Goat Creek, Florin Creek, Whitehouse Creek, Mariposa Creek, and Robla
Creek. Surface waters become contaminated with pollutants including human pathogens.
Chronic failures in the collection system pose a substantial threat to public health. Studies tracing
human markers specific to the human digestive system in surface waters adjacent to defective
sewer lines in other systems have verified the contamination of the adjacent waters with
untreated sewage. Evidence of exfiltration can also be supported by reviewing mass balance
data, I/I data, and video inspection, as well as tests of waterways adjacent to sewer lines for
nutrients, human pathogens, and other human markers such as caffeine. Any exfiltration from the
District’s collection system that reaches waters of the United States is a violation of the CWA.
The Alliance contends that the County and SASD fails to adequately mitigate the impacts
of SSOs. As noted above, the County and SASD is subject to WDR Order No. 2006-0003-DWQ
governing the operation of sanitary sewer systems. The EPA’s “Report to Congress on the
Impacts and Control of CSOs and SSOs” (EPA 833-R-04-001) identifies SSOs as a major source
of microbial pathogens and oxygen depleting substances. The Alliance finds no record of the
County and/or SASD performing any analysis of the impact of its SSOs on aquatic or wildlife
habitat, nor any evaluation of the measures needed to restore water bodies designated as habitat
from the impacts of SSOs. Numerous critical habitat areas exist within areas of the County
and/or SASD’s SSOs. Both the American River and Sacramento River flow into the Sacramento
San Joaquin Delta, a sensitive ecosystem which is experiencing serious decline. There is no
record of the County and/or SASD performing any analysis of the impact of SSOs on critical
habitat of protected species under the federal Endangered Species Act (“ESA”), nor any
evaluation of the measures needed to restore water bodies designated as critical habitat from the
impacts of SSOs. The WDR requires the County and SASD to take all feasible steps and perform
necessary remedial actions following the occurrence of an SSO, including limiting the volume of
waste discharged, terminating the discharge, and recovering as much of the wastewater as
possible. Further remedial actions include intercepting and re-routing of wastewater flows,
vacuum truck recovery of the spill, cleanup of debris at the site, and modification of the
collection system to prevent further SSOs at the site. One of the most important remedial
measures is the performance of adequate sampling to determine the nature and impact of the
release. The Alliance contends the Count and/or SASD are not sampling enough of its reported
SSOs. For example, since July 14, 2018 through present, data on CIWQS indicates that of the
728 SSOs reported by the County and/or SASD as having reached a surface water, only 16 were
sampled. See Exhibit B. The rest are listed as have not had any samples taken or data is listed as
“null.” See id.
The Alliance believes more SSOs will be discovered through this enforcement action.
Alliance, therefore, specifically puts the County and/or SASD on notice that all unpermitted
point source discharges of pollutants resulting from SSOs, whether specifically reported or not,
will be included in this litigation. The Alliance will include additional violations including, but
not limited to, SSOs occurring after the date of this Notice Letter when additional information
becomes available.
The County’s and SASD’s unpermitted point source discharges of pollutants resulting
from SSOs from the Collection System in violation of the Clean Water Act are ongoing and
continuous. Every day and/or occasion that the County and SASD have discharged and continues
to discharge pollutants resulting from SSOs from point sources directly to waters of the United
States or to waters of the United States through the MS4 is a separate and distinct violation of the
Clean Water Act. The County’s and SASD’s violations will continue every day and/or occasion
they, or either of them, discharge pollutants resulting from SSOs in violation of Section 301(a) of
the Clean Water Act. The County and/or SASD are subject to penalties for all violations of the
Clean Water Act occurring since July 14, 2018.
B. Discharges of Sewage to the County MS4 in Violation of the General Permit and
the Clean Water Act
Discharge Prohibition II.B.1 of the General Permit requires the County to effectively
prohibit the discharge of non-storm water (material other than storm water) into the MS4. As
explained below, the County has violated and continues to violate this provision by failing to
effectively prohibit the discharge of SSOs from the Collection System into the MS4.
SSOs that enter the County’s MS4 are not storm water but rather raw sewage.
Information currently available to Alliance indicates that there have been discharges of SSOs, or
non-storm water, into the County’s MS4 on at least 718 occasions since July 14, 2018. 6 See
Exhibit D (table setting forth dates and locations of these 718 SSOs). This large number of
6
These 718 SSOs are a subset of the 728 SSOs identified in Exhibit B. Each is a violation of
section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act (as explained in Section IV.A above) and is also a
violation of the General Permit as described in this section (Section IV.B).
SSOs, among other things, indicates that the County is in consistent and chronic violation of the
General Permit requirements to effectively prohibit discharges to the MS4. See General Permit
Discharge Prohibition, II.B.1. Moreover, on information and belief, the Alliance alleges that all
SSOs that reached a street, curb, or gutter have entered the MS4, in violation of the General
Permit. Violations for failing to effectively prohibit SSO discharges to the MS4 have occurred
every day since July 14, 2018 and will continue every day that the County fails to effectively
prohibit SSOs to the MS4. 7 Information available to the Alliance indicates that the County and
SASD have been underreporting and/or misreporting the number of SSOs that enter the MS4
from the Collection System. The Alliance will add additional violations by the County as they
are discovered in the course of this litigation. The Alliance puts the County on notice that each
SSO that all discharges into the County MS4 will be included in this enforcement action.
Every day the County failed and continues to fail to effectively prohibit non-storm water
discharges in the form of SSOs to the MS4 is a separate and distinct violation. 8 See General
Permit Discharge Prohibition, II.B.1. The County’s violations of these permit requirements will
continue every day and/or occasion SSOs enter the County’s MS4 in violation of the
requirements of either the General Permit and the CWA. The County is subject to penalties for
all violations of the Clean Water Act occurring since July 14, 2018.
C. Discharges of Pollutants from SSOs from the County MS4 in Violation of the
General Permit and the Clean Water Act
The General Permit has Technology Based Effluent Limitations that prohibit discharges
from the MS4 that contain pollutants not reduced to the maximum extent practicable. General
Permit, III.A. As explained below, the County has violated and continues to violate its duty
under the General Permit by discharging pollutants associated with SSOs from the MS4 that
have not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable.
The bacteria and other components of raw sewage are pollutants. SSOs from the
Collection System have discharged to the MS4 at least 718 times since July 14, 2018. See
Exhibit D. The pollutants from these SSOs enter the MS4 and are either immediately discharged
from the MS4 to local waterways, or are discharged to local waterways during the next
precipitation event that produces a discharge from the MS4.
The County’s continued failure to prevent SSOs from reaching the MS4 results in a
failure to meet its obligation to reduce the discharge of these pollutants from the MS4 to the
maximum extent practicable. For example, on at least 155 occasions, an SSO from the Collection
System entered the MS4 and immediately discharged from the MS4 to waters of the United
States. See Exhibit E (table of SSOs reported as discharging to the MS4 and waters of the
United States). On information and belief, each of the 155 discharges identified in Exhibit E
7
At a minimum, the County violated Discharge Prohibition II.B.1 every time an SSO from the
Collection System enters the MS4.
8
At a minimum, every time that non-storm water in the form of SSOs enters the County’s MS4
is a separate and distinct violation. See General Permit Discharge Prohibition, II.B.1.
contained pollutants from SSOs not reduced to the maximum extent practicable and are a
violation of General Permit, III.A.
V. REMEDIES
Upon expiration of the 60-day notice period, the Alliance will file a citizen suit
enforcement action pursuant to Section 505(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), for
the above-referenced violations. The Alliance will seek injunctive relief preventing further
violations of the Clean Water Act pursuant to Sections 505(a) and (d), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a) and
(d), declaratory relief, and such other relief as permitted by law. Pursuant to Section 309(d) of
the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d), and the Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for
Inflation, 40 C.F.R. § 19.4, each separate violation of the Clean Water Act subjects the violator
to a penalty for all violations occurring during the period commencing five (5) years prior to the
date of a notice of intent to file suit letter. Pursuant to § 309(d) of the CWA, 33
U.S.C. § 1319(d), and the Adjustment of Civil Monetary Penalties for Inflation, 40
C.F.R. § 19.4, each separate violation of the CWA subjects the violator of a penalty of up to
$56,460 per day per violation for violations that occurred after November 2, 2015. Lastly,
pursuant to Section 505(d) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §1365(d), the Alliance will seek to
recover its costs, including attorneys’ and experts’ fees, associated with this enforcement action.
VI. CONCLUSION
During the 60-day notice period the Alliance is willing to discuss effective remedies for
the violations noted in this letter. If the County and SASD wish to pursue such discussions, we
suggest that they initiate those discussions immediately.
Sincerely,
Jason Flanders
Attorney for California Coastkeeper Alliance
CC via U.S. Mail
Michael S. Regan, Administrator Deborah Jordan, Acting Regional

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator
Office of the Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection
Mail Code: 1101A  Agency Region IX
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 75 Hawthorne Street 
Washington, D.C. 20460 San Francisco, California 94105
Eileen Sobeck, Executive Director Patrick Pulupa, Executive Officer

State Water Resources Control Board Regional Water Quality Control Board
P.O. Box 100 Region 5, Central Valley
Sacramento, California 95812-0100 11020 Sun Center Drive, #200
Rancho Cordova, CA 95670-6114

Sacramento County Is Being Sued by A Nonprofit Over Alleged Dumping of Sewage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sacramento County Is Being Sued by A Nonprofit Over Alleged Dumping of Sewage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:21-cv-01916-WBS-KJN Document 1 Filed 10/14/21 Page 1 of 24

1 Jason R. Flanders (Bar No. 238007)

14 Attorneys for Plaintiff

17 III. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

26 9. Plaintiff the Alliance is an environmental group, organized as a non-profit corporation in

4 enforcement actions on behalf of itself and its members.

3 ongoing and continuous.

11 the participation of individual members.

25 sources under the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).

10 Sacramento is an owner and/or operator of the Collection System.

11 30. The County of Sacramento is a political subdivision of the State of California.

18 Sacramento County Code § 2.09.710.

10 County Code § 2.09.730.

11 ii. Sacramento Area Sewer District

17 cities of Sacramento and Folsom.

26 Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento.

27 D. Sanitary Sewer Overflows from the Collection System

3 information reported to the California Integrated Water Quality Systems (“CIWQS”).

2 spills. See Notice Letter, section IV.A, at 11.

10 section IV.A, at 12.

19 capacity of the Collection System and causes SSOs.

25 System to waters of the United States.

26 E. The County MS4

11 F. The Owner and Operator of the MS4

17 Permit, Provisions, D.1.A.

27 Notice Letter, section IV.C, at 13.

4 a street, curb, or gutter have entered the MS4.

11 Permit’s requirement to effectively prohibit SSOs from reaching the MS4.

14 75. The Delta is navigable.

15 76. The Sacramento River is navigable.

18 of the land and enter receiving waters following rainfall or flooding.

10 for Mercury, DDT (Dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane), Chlordane, Dieldrin, PCBs (Polychlorinated

11 biphenyls), and Toxicity.

19 Toxicity, Diazinon, Mercury, Chlorpyrifos, Group A Pesticides.

pollutants are or may be discharged.” 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14); 40 C.F.R. § 122.2.

2 100. An MS4 is defined as “a conveyance or system of conveyances (including roads with

18 discharge stormwater from an MS4 to waters of the United States.

27 discharges of pollutants. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1365(a)(i), 1365(f).

the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).

11 B. The Requirements of the MS4 Permit

C. The SSO Waste Discharge Requirements Order

10 117. The SASD is enrolled under the SSO WDR.

20 120. The County is an owner and/or operator of the Collection System.

21 121. The SASD is an owner and/or operator of the Collection System.

2 a separate Clean Water Act violation.

11 the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).

17 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d) and 1365(a).

18 129. An action for declaratory judgment is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

25 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

133. The County is an owner and operator of the MS4.

10 enters the MS4 will be included in this action.

27 requirements of the MS4 Permit without judicial intervention.

2 1319(d) and 1365(a).

3 143. An action for declaratory judgment is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2201.

14 set forth herein.

11 and the Clean Water Act.

27 of pollutants to waters of the Untied States;

2 Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a);

26 /s/ Jason R. Flanders

August 13, 2021

Via Certified U.S. Mail, Return Receipt Requested

Ann Edwards, Michael Peterson

Prabhakar Somavarapu Sacramento County Sanitation