Opinion ID: 1801815
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Application of the Watercourse Pollution Exclusion to the 1969 Overflow

Text: Insurers did not seek review of the Court of Appeal's holding that triable issues exist as to whether the 1969 overflow was sudden and accidental within the meaning of the qualified pollution exclusion, but did seek review of whether the 1969 overflow was into or upon any watercourse within the meaning of the absolute pollution exclusion for watercourses contained in all the policies but Columbia Casualty Company's. We agree with the lower court that triable issues exist on this factual issue. (5) A general dictionary defines watercourse as a stream of water, as a river or brook or the bed of a stream that flows only seasonally. (The Random House Dict. of the English Language, Unabridged (2d ed. 1987) p. 2147.) Similarly, a legal dictionary defines the term as [a] body of water, usu[ally] of natural origin, flowing in a reasonably definite channel with bed and banks. (Black's Law Dict. (8th ed. 2004) p. 1623.) We have explained that it is not necessary to the existence of a watercourse that the flow should be continuous throughout the year ( Lindblom v. Round Valley Water Co. (1918) 178 Cal. 450, 453 [173 P. 994]), but have distinguished a watercourse, i.e., water flowing in a fixed channel, from surface water, i.e., [w]ater diffused over the surface of land, or contained in depressions therein ( Keys v. Romley (1966) 64 Cal.2d 396, 400 [50 Cal.Rptr. 273, 412 P.2d 529]). Perhaps the simplest and most concise definition is `the channel through which the water of a particular district or watershed usually or periodically flows.' ( Phillips v. Burke (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 700, 703 [284 P.2d 809].) (6) Insurers have the burden of proof to show the watercourse pollution exclusion applies. (See Aydin Corp. v. First State Ins. Co., supra, 18 Cal.4th at p. 1194.) To establish their entitlement to summary judgment or summary adjudication on this basis, Insurers must show by undisputed evidence the 1969 overflow was confined to the regular channel of the stream draining the canyon where the Stringfellow site was located, Pyrite Creek, though they need not show the creek was flowing at the time. Evidence the contaminants flowed onto land drained by Pyrite Creek, by itself, is insufficient. ( Keys v. Romley, supra, 64 Cal.2d at p. 400; Phillips v. Burke, supra, 133 Cal.App.2d at p. 703.) While the evidence Insurers point to in the record does suggest the 1969 flood waters flowed directly from the site into Pyrite Creek, rather than onto the surrounding land, it falls short of establishing the waters' path as an undisputed fact. [3] The parties have not directed us to any eyewitness account of the 1969 flood in the summary judgment record. The nearest thing to a contemporaneous description appears to be the following, in a 1972 letter written by Richard A. Bueermann, executive officer of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, to a Riverside County official: In the spring of 1969, the heavy rains exceeded the capacity of the storm water diversion ditches and runoff flowed through the dump site carrying some of the waste out of the dump and down a natural drainage ditch parallel to Pyrite Street crossing Highway 60 and Mission Boulevard. Samples collected on March 18, 1969 at the dam across the mouth of the dumpsite and in the ditch at the NW corner of Pyrite and Mission Boulevard showed the presence of acid wastes in the storm runoff. In 1980, a State interagency status report on the Stringfellow site stated: The 1969 high rainfall conditions caused an undetermined quantity of sediments that had been contaminated by toxic wastes at the Stringfellow site to be eroded and deposited downstream in the Pyrite Creek drainage channel. Much later, in 2004, an expert for the State summarized the 1969 event as follows: In 1969 during a period of heavy rainfalls the Site overflowed, discharging waste and stormwater into Pyrite Creek below the Site (NBS, 1973). During this discharge the conductivity (a measure of the degree of contamination) of the discharged fluids was measured just below the dam and at the intersection of Pyrite and Mission Streets. The measurements at these two locations were 7500 and 2800 micromhos respectively, an indication that wastes were discharged from the site. Insurers contend that maps in the record show the Pyrite Creek channel extends upslope to the disposal site, from which Insurers infer that overflow from the site went directly into the channel. The maps, however, are not detailed enough to make clear the topography or hydrology of the area. Where exactly the channel ran relative to the site's evaporation ponds and dam, and where and how the 1969 floodwaters exited the disposal site, are not shown. Thus it cannot be determined from the maps, for example, that water passing over the dam at the mouth of the dumpsite, where Bueermann reported a sample showed contamination, flowed from there directly into the Pyrite Creek channel. The maps also show that the NW corner of Pyrite and Mission Boulevard, where Bueermann also reported contamination was found, is not in the Pyrite channel, which at that point runs parallel to, but east of, Pyrite Street. [4] Despite the references in Bueermann's letter, the 1980 interagency report and the 2004 report of the State's expert to a flow of contaminated water down the Pyrite drainage, then, Insurers have not established as an undisputed fact that the 1969 floodwaters overflowing the Stringfellow site were restricted to the Pyrite Creek channel and did not also flow onto and contaminate areas of land below the site.