Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00644/USCOURTS-azd-4_12-cv-00644-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 893
Nature of Suit: Environmental Matters
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

State of Arizona, ex rel, Henry R. Darwin, Director, Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

International Boundary and Water 

Commission, United States Section; 

Edward Drusina, in his official capacity 

as Commissioner of the International 

Boundary and Water Commission, United 

States Section, 

Defendants and ThirdParty Plaintiffs, 

v. 

City of Nogales, Arizona, 

Third-Party Defendant. 

No. CV-12-00644-TUC-FRZ

ORDER 

 Plaintiff State of Arizona ex rel Henry R. Darwin, Director, Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality filed this action against the United States International 

Boundary and Water Commission (“USIBWC”) and USIBWC Commissioner Edward 

Drusina, in his official capacity, in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona, Maricopa 

County, on May 25, 2012. 

 The case was removed by Defendants to federal court on June 22, 2012 and 

ordered transferred to the Tucson Division on July 8, 2013. 

Case 4:12-cv-00644-FRZ-DTF Document 85 Filed 09/30/15 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 The First Amended Complaint, filed May 28, 2013, alleged nine claims of 

violations of the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Program, 

adopted in the State of Arizona pursuant to Arizona Revised Statutes Title 49, Chapter 2, 

Article 3.1 and Arizona Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 9, Article 9 and 10, and 

for violations of the Arizona Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, No. 

AZ0025607, issued by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (“ADEQ”) to 

the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission 

(“USIBWC”) on November 19, 2007 and of a Compliance Order issued by ADEQ on 

December 21 2010. 

 Defendants/Third-Party Plaintiffs filed a Third-Party Complaint against the City of 

Nogales on July 12, 2012. (Doc 5) 

 At issue is USIBWC’s alleged illegal discharge of wastewater and disposal of 

biosolids (sewage sludge) from the Nogales International Wastewater Treatment Plant 

(“NIWTP”) located in Southern Arizona, and alleged illegal discharges from the 

International Outfall Interceptor (“IOI”), which is the binational sewage collection 

system that USIBWC used to convey wastewater from Mexico to the NIWTP for 

treatment. 

 The Court granted judgment on the pleadings as to Claims 1, 3 and 4 by Court 

Order filed September 26, 2014. (Doc. 35) 

 Before the Court for consideration is Plaintiff State of Arizona’s Motion for Partial 

Summary Judgment: Liability for Counts 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9, seeking summary judgment 

as to liability on the remaining allegations of the Amended Complaint. 

 This matter was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for all pretrial 

proceedings and report and recommendation in accordance with the provisions of 28 

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and LRCiv 72.1 and LRCiv 72.2, Rules of Practice of the United 

States District Court for the District of Arizona. 

 Magistrate Judge D. Thomas Ferraro issued his Report and Recommendation on 

June 18, 2015, following full briefing and oral argument on the matters, heard June 8, 

Case 4:12-cv-00644-FRZ-DTF Document 85 Filed 09/30/15 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2015, recommending that the District Court grant Plaintiff summary judgment as to 

Claim 5, and deny partial summary judgment as to Claims 2, 6 and 7 as moot; and deny 

summary judgment as to Claims 8 and 9 based on genuine issues of material fact. 

 The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 68) sets forth a concise factual 

background and analysis of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.; the Arizona 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“AZPDES”) permit program - a federally 

approved National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) - administered by 

the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) and approved under the 

Equal Protection Agency (“EPA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a). 

 Under the summary judgment legal standard, pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., 

the Report and Recommendation addresses each remaining claim, applying the relevant 

legal analysis under the procedural and provisional requirements of the state and federal 

compliance regulations at issue. 

 The parties were advised that, pursuant to Rule 72(b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., any party 

may serve and file written objections within fourteen days of being served with a copy of 

the Report and Recommendation, and a party may respond to the other party’s objections 

within fourteen days therefrom. 

 Defendants filed Defendants’ Corrected Objections to Report and 

Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on July 2, 2015, 

(Doc. 70) objecting to the recommendation (1) that the Court find that Count 5 is not 

moot; and (2) that the Court find USIBWC liable on Count 5 of the Amended Complaint 

because USIBWC has admitted the allegation of Count 5. Defendants, referencing the 

permit issued by the State in 2014, argues that Count 5 is moot and present arguments to 

distinguish the authority cited by the Magistrate Judge in support of his findings and 

recommendation. Plaintiff filed a response requesting the Court reject USIBWC’s 

objections and grant summary judgment on Count 5. (Doc. 74). 

 Upon review and consideration of all matters presented and an independent 

review of the record herein, including Defendants’ Corrected Objections to the Report 

Case 4:12-cv-00644-FRZ-DTF Document 85 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

and Recommendation on Plaintiff’s Partial Motion for Summary Judgment, the Court 

finds that the findings of the Magistrate Judge as set forth in the Report and 

Recommendation, shall be accepted and adopted as the findings of fact and conclusions 

of law of this Court.

 Based on the forgoing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the 

Magistrate Judge (Doc. 68) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED as the findings of fact and 

conclusions of law by this Court; accordingly 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff State of Arizona’s Motion for Partial Summary 

Judgment: Liability for counts 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 (Doc. 45) is GRANTED in part and 

DENIED in part; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is GRANTED summary judgment as 

a matter of law as to Count Five of the First Amended Complaint; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that summary judgment is DENIED as to Counts 

Eight and Nine based on the finding of a genuine issue of material fact; 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Counts Two, Six and Seven are 

DISMISSED as moot; 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case remains referred to Magistrate Judge 

D. Thomas Ferraro for all pretrial proceedings and report and recommendation, including 

the Motion of the City of Nogales for Summary Judgment on Third Party Claim (Doc. 

64) in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rules LRCiv 

72.1 and LRCiv 72.2. All filings shall be designated: CV 12-644 TUC-FRZ (DTF) 

Dated this 30th day of September, 2015. 

Case 4:12-cv-00644-FRZ-DTF Document 85 Filed 09/30/15 Page 4 of 4