Browner

San Francisco Baykeeper, Inc. v. Browner

Good Law
147 F. Supp. 2d 991·2001 WL 618258·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7587
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 22, 2001C-00-0132-CAL, C-00-0424-CALCalifornia7,450 words

Opinion

Opinion

Legge, J.

ORDER ON MOTIONS

Introduction

The above entitled cases are two in a group of cases challenging the actions and the inaction of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) in its regulation of waters of the United States in California. The above two cases have been consolidated, but the motions now before the court and this order specifically address the causes of action in C-00-0182.

Plaintiffs in C-00-0132 have moved to file a second amended complaint. The proposed amendment is not opposed, and IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs proposed second amended complaint be filed. All further references in this order to plaintiffs’ claims are to those in the second amended complaint (the “SAC”).

Generally speaking, the plaintiffs in C-00-0132 are several public interest groups which “seek to remedy the failure of the EPA ■ to perform its non-discretionary duties to identify and restore water quality for polluted waters throughout the state of California.” SAC ¶ 1. More specifically, the plaintiffs allege that the EPA has failed to discharge its non-discretionary duties under section 303(d)(2) of the Clean Water Act to establish total maximum daily loads of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.