CENT. SIERRA ENVTL. RES. CTR. V. STANISLAUS NAT'L FOREST, No. 19-16711 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The California State Water Resources Control Board signed a Management Agency Agreement (“MAA”) with the U.S. Forest Service to formally recognize it as the management agency on Forest Service lands to implement water management plans. The U.S. Forest Service issued grazing permits in three allotments-- the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments (the “BEH Allotments”). Plaintiffs alleged that the Forest Service’s allowance of livestock grazing in the BEH Allotments led to fecal matter runoff. The only claim at issue here alleged that the government violated Section 313 of the Clean Water Act by failing to comply with requirements of California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.
The panel held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing under the associational standing doctrine because at least one member of each plaintiff organization averred that they regularly hike in all three Allotments. rest Service would instead implement the agreed-upon Best Management Practices (“BMP”s) and the provisions of the MAA. Second, plaintiffs asserted that the MAA was superseded by the State Board’s adoption of the 2004 “Policy for Implementation and Enforcement of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program” (“2004 NPS Policy”). The panel held that this argument was refuted by the text of that document. The panel concluded that plaintiffs failed to show that government violated the reporting and permitting requirements of the relevant Cal. Water Code. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs’ claims based on asserted violations of the basis plan’s water quality objectives.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment order, in which the district court rejected plaintiff environmental groups’ challenges to the government’s allowance of livestock grazing in three areas of the Stanislaus National Forest in California. In 1981, the California State Water Resources Control Board signed a Management Agency Agreement (“MAA”) with the U.S. Forest Service to formally recognize it as the management agency on Forest Service lands to implement water management plans. CSERC V. STANISLAUS NAT’L FOREST 3 The U.S. Forest Service issued grazing permits in three allotments at issue here – the Bell Meadow, Eagle Meadow, and Herring Creek Allotments (the “BEH Allotments”). Plaintiffs alleged that the Forest Service’s allowance of livestock grazing in the BEH Allotments led to fecal matter runoff that polluted streams in the area, and this impaired their members’ ability to recreate in the relevant areas of the Stanislaus National Forest. The BEH Allotments fall under the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, whose Basin Plan defines the beneficial uses for the subject waterways and the water quality objectives that would protect those beneficial uses. The only claim at issue in this appeal alleged that the government violated § 313 of the Clean Water Act by failing to comply with several requirements of California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The panel held that the plaintiffs had Article III standing under the associational standing doctrine. At least one member of each plaintiff organization averred that they regularly hike in all three Allotments and that the physical impacts of the cattle grazing impair their present and anticipated enjoyment of the area, including its creeks and streams. This showing was sufficient to establish an Article III injury-in-fact. In alleging a violation of § 313 of the Clean Water Act, plaintiffs first contended that the government violated California’s Porter-Cologne Act by failing to file a discharge report and by discharging waste without first obtaining either water discharge requirements (“WDR”s) or a waiver. The panel held that the MAA clearly established that, in lieu of filing reports and obtaining WDRs, the Forest Service would instead implement the agreed-upon Best Management Practices (“BMP”s) and the provisions of the MAA. 4 CSERC V. STANISLAUS NAT’L FOREST Second, plaintiffs asserted that the MAA was superseded by the State Board’s adoption of the 2004 “Policy for Implementation and Enforcement of the Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program” (“2004 NPS Policy”). The panel held that this argument was refuted by the text of that document. That the Forest Service is working with the regional board on options for replacing the MAA did not establish that the MAA has already been replaced. Accordingly, the panel concluded that plaintiffs failed to show that government violated the reporting and permitting requirements of Cal. Water Code §§ 13260, 13263, and 13264. The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment on these issues. Plaintiffs also alleged that the government violated § 313 of the Clean Water Act by authorizing livestock grazing that caused runoff that led to fecal coliform levels in local waterways in excess of the relevant water quality objectives in the Central Valley Regional Board’s Basin Plan. The panel held that the argument failed because the Basin Plan objectives did not apply directly, of their own force, to individual dischargers but instead reflected standards that regulators must take into account in fashioning the requirements that do apply to dischargers (such as WDRs, waivers, and basin-plan prohibitions). The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment to defendants with respect to plaintiffs’ claims based on asserted violations of the basis plan’s water quality objectives. CSERC V. STANISLAUS NAT’L FOREST 5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.