Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10289/USCOURTS-ca11-15-10289-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
City of Peachtree City
Appellee
George Dienhart
Appellee
Vanessa Fleisch
Appellee
Don Haddix
Appellee
Eric Imker
Appellee
Kim Learnard
Appellee
John W. Mrosek
Appellant
Lee M. Mrosek
Appellant

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-10289

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cv-00094-TCB

JOHN W. MROSEK, 

LEE M. MROSEK, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus

CITY OF PEACHTREE CITY, 

MAYOR DON HADDIX, 

GEORGE DIENHART, 

Individually and as Member of the Peachtree City Council, 

ERIC IMKER, 

Individually and as Member of the Peachtree City Council, 

KIM LEARNARD, 

Individually and Member of the Peachtree City Council, 

VANESSA FLEISCH, 

Individually and as Member of the Peachtree City Council, 

 Defendants-Appellees.

Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 1 of 8 
2

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(November 13, 2015)

Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

John and Lee Mrosek (the Mroseks) appeal the district court’s grant of 

summary judgment to the city of Peachtree City, four members of the Peachtree 

City Council, and Mayor Don Haddix (collectively, the City), in the Mroseks’

lawsuit alleging that the City violated the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 

(Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), as well as several Georgia laws, by failing 

to do maintenance and repairs on a stream, pond, and dam (Stream, Pond, and 

Dam, respectively) located partially on the Mroseks’ property. After thorough 

consideration of the briefs and review of the record, we affirm.

I.

“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, 

viewing the materials presented and drawing all factual inferences in a light most 

favorable to the non-moving party.” D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d 

1220, 1225 (11th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is properly granted if “there is no 

genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a 

Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 2 of 8 
3

matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The mere existence of a scintilla of 

evidence in support of the [nonmovant’s] position will be insufficient; there must 

be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmovant].” 

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2512 (1986).

II.

The Clean Water Act “allows states to implement their own permit programs 

. . . and Georgia has done so.” Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 386 F.3d 

993, 1005 (11th Cir. 2004). Georgia obtained a permit under the National 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which

“impose[s] limitations on the discharge of pollutants, and establish[es] related 

monitoring and reporting requirements.” See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw 

Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 174, 120 S. Ct. 693, 701 (2000); accord

Driscoll v. Adams, 181 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir. 1999). Peachtree City, as a

small municipal separate storm sewer system operator (MS4) under NPDES permit 

regulations, filed the requisite Notice of Intent with the Georgia Environmental 

Protection Division in order to discharge stormwater into navigable waters under 

the general NPDES permit. 64 Fed. Reg. 235 p. 68722. As a result, Peachtree 

City is subject to the Clean Water Act and NPDES permit requirements of 

stormwater management. See Driscoll, 181 F.3d at 1288. 

Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 3 of 8 
4

In 2001, the Atlanta Regional Commission published a three-volume 

guidebook called the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual (Blue Book) in 

order to provide guidance on stormwater runoff. While the Blue Book has no 

independent regulatory authority, the City’s local ordinance, which brings the 

municipality into compliance with the NPDES permit, incorporates the standards 

set forth in the Blue Book. See Peachtree City, Ga., Code of Ordinances 

(hereinafter Ordinance) pt. II, app. B, art. X, § 1011(a)(6). 

Of relevance to the instant appeal, the Ordinance is applicable to any “new 

development” or “redevelopment.” The Ordinance defines “new development” as 

“a land development activity on a previously undeveloped site.” Id. § 1011(a)(7). 

“Redevelopment” is “a land development project on a previously developed site, . . 

. exclud[ing] . . . exterior changes or improvements which do not materially 

increase or concentrate stormwater runoff, or cause additional nonpoint source 

pollution.”1

 Id. The Ordinance does not apply to “[r]epairs to any stormwater 

management facility or practice deemed necessary by the city engineer.” Id.

§ 1011(a)(2)(b)(iv). 

III.

 1 As relevant here, one of the following criteria must also be met: “(i) New development that 

involves the creation of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious cover, or that involves other 

land development activities of one acre or more; [or] (ii) [r]edevelopment that includes the 

creation, addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious cover, or that 

involves other land development activity of one acre or more . . . . ” Id. § 1011(a)(2)(a).

Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 4 of 8 
5

It is undisputed that the Stream, Pond, and Dam were constructed prior to 

publication of both the Blue Book in 2001 and enactment of the Ordinance in 

2007. See id. § 1011. Thus, they do not constitute new development or 

redevelopment. See id. §§ 1011(a)(2)(a), (a)(7). And the Mroseks point to no 

authority stating that the Ordinance or the Blue Book standards are retroactively 

applicable to stormwater facilities already in existence when the Ordinance was 

enacted or the Blue Book was published. Accordingly, the City would only have 

to bring the Stream, Pond, and Dam into compliance with the Ordinance and the 

Blue Book standards if some new development or redevelopment affected 

stormwater runoff to the Stream, the Pond, or the Dam. See id. § 1011(a)(2)(a). 

In 2011, a neighboring church (Church) located near the Stream, Pond, and 

Dam expanded the parking lot on its property and built a detention pond designed 

to mitigate stormwater runoff issues. The Mroseks argue that this expanded 

parking lot, which added over 100,000 square feet of impervious surface, should be 

considered new development or redevelopment that causes stormwater to run off 

into the Stream, Pond, and Dam, bringing them within the purview of the 

Ordinance. However, the Mroseks did not establish that this redevelopment 

triggered the City’s obligation under the Ordinance to retrofit the Stream, Pond, 

and Dam because they did not present sufficient evidence showing that stormwater 

from the expanded parking lot ran into those areas. A redevelopment must 

Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 5 of 8 
6

“materially increase” stormwater runoff in order to fall within the definition of 

“redevelopment” under the Ordinance. Id. § 1011(a)(7). The City presented 

evidence that the Church built its own detention pond, which accounted for any 

additional runoff created by the parking lot. Moreover, a 2011 Integrated Science 

& Engineering, Inc. study (ISE Study), completed before construction of the 

expanded parking lot began, concluded that if the Church built an onsite detention 

pond, stormwater runoff to the Pond would not increase. In contrast, the Mroseks 

presented only an affidavit from an engineer, citing to the ISE Study and stating 

that the Church improvements had “some impact” on the Pond. They did not 

provide any qualitative data in support of that statement. This is insufficient to 

show that the Church’s expansion affected the Stream, Pond, and Dam such that 

retrofitting was required under the Ordinance and Blue Book standards. See 

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S. Ct. at 2512.

Further, even if the Church’s expansion caused an increase in stormwater 

runoff, such that retrofitting was required, § 1011(a)(2)(b)(iv) permitted the City to 

defer maintenance because the City engineer deemed deferral necessary. See 

Ordinance pt. II, app. B, art. X, § 1011(a)(2)(b)(iv). The evidence showed that the 

City had solicited regular studies and assessments of the Pond and Dam, and based 

upon those reports (which concluded the Dam was not in imminent danger of 

failure) and the City’s lack of funding, the City engineer determined that repairs 

Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 6 of 8 
7

would be completed in the future. The Mroseks presented no evidence to show 

that the City failed to assess the Stream, Pond, or Dam, or that the reports were 

wrong. They therefore failed to establish that the City engineer’s determination to 

defer maintenance was outside the discretion granted by the Ordinance. See 

Eberhardt v. Waters, 901 F.2d 1578, 1580 (11th Cir. 1990) (“A [nonmoving party] 

may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but must set forth 

specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” (internal quotation 

marks omitted)). 

The Mroseks argue that the deference accorded to the City engineer exceeds 

the discretion permitted to MS4s under the NPDES regulations. However, the 

Environmental Protection Agency explains that “MS4s need the flexibility to 

optimize reductions in storm water pollutants on a location-by-location basis” and 

that the City may consider various factors in its evaluative process, including 

“implementation schedules, current ability to finance the program, . . . and capacity 

to perform operation and maintenance.” 64 Fed. Reg. 235, p. 68754. Therefore, 

the City’s decision to defer maintenance was not a violation of its NPDES permit 

or the Clean Water Act.2

 

 2 The Mroseks also argue that the deference accorded to the City engineer under the Ordinance 

violates the terms of the Blue Book incorporated in the Ordinance. However, the Ordinance 

specifically contemplates the inclusion of additional local rules. See Ordinance pt. II, app. B, art. 

X, § 1011(a)(6) (“The city will utilize the policy, criteria and information including technical 

specifications and standards in the latest edition of the [Blue Book] and any relevant local 

Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 7 of 8 
8

IV.

The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the City. 

There was no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the City’s 

responsibility to undertake maintenance and repairs of the Stream, Pond, and Dam, 

and the Mroseks failed to establish that the City’s failure to do so immediately was 

a violation of the Ordinance, the standards set forth in the Blue Book, or the Clean 

Water Act. They did not present sufficient evidence that the new development or 

redevelopment by the neighboring Church affected stormwater runoff to the 

Stream, Pond, or Dam, such that the City was required to bring them into 

compliance with its Ordinance and the Blue Book standards.

3

 Accordingly, we 

affirm.

AFFIRMED.

 

addenda, for the proper implementation of the requirements of this [O]rdinance.” (emphasis 

added)). 

3 We decline to consider the Mroseks’ argument that the Ordinance is preempted by the Clean 

Water Act because the Mroseks raised it for the first time on appeal. “This court has repeatedly 

held that an issue not raised in the district court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not 

be considered.” Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 8 of 8