N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
C ITIZENS ALLIANC E FOR PR OPER TY R IGHTS, Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. C ITY OF DUVALL, De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e . No. 13-35959 D.C . No. 2:12-c v-01093-R AJ
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the W e ste rn Distric t of W a shington R ic ha rd A. Jone s, Distric t Judge , Pre s iding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Fe brua

ry 3, 2016 Se a ttle , W a s hington B e fore : KOZINSKI, O’ SC ANNLAIN, a nd GOULD, C irc uit Judge s. Pla intiff C itiz e ns Allia

nc e for Prope rty

R ights c onte nds tha

t the C ity of Duva l l’ s (C ity ’ s) m

unic ipa l se pa

ra te storm se we r sy s te m

(M S4) disc ha

rge s storm w a te r onto prope rty

owne d by

Ste ve and R onda

M i lls. The re is no ge nuine fa c t ua l disputetha

t the C ity ’ s storm

wa te r disc ha

rge s a re re gula t e d unde r a

sta te 

# FIL ED FEB 16 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public a t ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.issue d ge ne ra l pe rm it, whic h is a pa rt of the C le an W a te r Ac t’ s (C WA’ s) Nationa l Polluta nt Disc h arge Elim ination Sy ste m (NPDES). Se e ge ne rally 33 U.S.C . § 1342. Nor is there a

ge nuine fa c tua l disputetha t the C ity is c om ply ing with this pe rm it. Pla intiff c onte n ds tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d in gra nting sum m ary judgm e nt
on a ground not ra ise d

by the C ity , urging tha

t the C i ty m o ve d for sum

m ary judgm e nt only

on Pla intiff’ s c la im

tha t it wa s disc ha

rging polluta

nts without a NPDES pe rm it, a

nd not on Plaintiff’ s re late d c la im tha t the C ity wa s viola

ting a n e xisting NPDES perm it. This is not c orre c t. The C ity ’ s m otion for sum m a ry judgm e nt e xplic itly

disc usse s the NPDES pe rm it unde r whic h the C i ty ope rate s its M S4. M ore ove r, the C ity ’ s m otion a nd a c c o m pa ny ing de c la

rations show tha

t it ha s de v e l ope d a

nd im ple m e nte d

a storm wa te r m ana ge m e nt progra m in c om plia nc e with the ge ne ra l pe rm it, s e e 40 C .F.R . § 122.34(a), and tha t this progra

m c onta ins the “ m inim

um c ontrol m e a sure s” tha

t fe de ra l re g ulations re quire . 40 C .F.R . § 122.34(b). Although Plai ntiff ha s a lle ge d a c onne c tion be twe e n

the C ity ’ s M S4 and
naviga ble wate rs, tha

t in itse lf doe s not show a viola tion of theC W A. The C W A prohibits unperm itte d disc ha rge s of polluta

nts into na

viga ble wa t e rs. Se e 33 U.S.C . § 1251(a )(1). B ut the C ity is c om ply ing with the

a pplic a ble pe rm it. A -2-disc ha

rge into na

v iga ble wate rs in a c c ord with thete rm s of a va lid pe rm i t is not a C W A viola

tion. Pla intiff ha s not supporte d its c om p la int with “ signific an t probat ive e vide nc e ” of a

n unpe rm itte d disc h arge of polluta nts into na

viga ble
wa te rs, or a

ny othe r viola

tion of the C W A. T.W

. Ele c . Se rv ., Inc
. v . Pac
. Ele c . C ontrac tors Ass’n , 809 F.2d 626, 630 (9th C ir. 1987) (quoting First N at’l Bank of Ariz. v . C itie s Se rv . C o. , 391 U.S. 253, 290 (1968)). AFFIR M ED.

-3-