RECENT FEDERAL DECISIONS

April 2007

To read this entire item of approximately 1350 words online now in PDF format: Click here to read this item if you are an existing subscriber to this publication. Click here to purchase the full text of this item to read now (price: $25). To subscribe to this publication and immediately access all its archives including this item, select the relevant publication under 'Catalogue' in the left-hand column PLEASE NOTE: to read PDFs on www.argento.com you must be using Version 5 of Acrobat Reader or Adobe Reader. If you have an earlier version you can download the latest free of charge by clicking here

District Court Finds Storm Water Runoff from Construction Projection Is Proper Basis for Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
Patterson, et al. v. The Barden & Robenson Corporation, ___F.Supp.2d___

Plaintiffs are residents of Lincoln Woods, a subdivision in Lockport, New York, and allege that a developer of additional property near them as violated the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) under the Clean Water Act. In particular, plaintiffs claim that defendant Barden (a developer) had failed to properly manage storm water runoff from construction and that the ineffective and poor design was located on the property where defendants Barden & Robenson had developed the new subdivision. Defendant Barden moved for summary judgment because it had discontinued any ground disturbance and was no longer violating the Clean Water Act, because the Clean Water Act claim was moot because the State Department of Environmental Conservation had exercised its enforcement authority, that the plaintiffs had failed to prove that Barden had discharged pollutants, that the separation of powers doctrine barred a citizen’s lawsuit under the Clean Water Act, and, finally, if the Clean Water Act was dismissed, the court had no jurisdiction over what otherwise would be state law claims. The Federal District Court rejected each and every of defendant Barden’s arguments and found not only that it has jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act but that it also had jurisdiction over state law claims by virtue of its exercise of supplemental jurisdiction.