A group of grazing permit holders in the Stanislaus National Forest in California were recently handed a victory in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals regarding a water quality suit brought on by the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (CSERC) and Sierra Forest Legacy.
In 2017, the environmental groups filed suit against the Stanislaus National Forest, arguing three grazing allotments in the national forest led to fecal matter runoff that polluted streams, which impaired members’ ability to recreate in the forest.
The groups’ appeal claimed the government violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) by failing to comply with several requirements of California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the principal law governing water quality regulations in the state.
Stanislaus National Forest grazing permittees, California Cattlemen’s Association (CCA), California Farm Bureau Federation and Stanislaus National Forest Grazing Permittee Association intervened in the lawsuit to defend against the environmental groups’ claims. The lawsuit was dismissed in a district court in 2019, and the groups then appealed it to the 9th Circuit.
On April 8, a panel of judges for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s order to reject the environmental groups’ challenge to livestock grazing on the three allotments in the forest.
“We conclude that plaintiffs failed to show that the government violated the reporting and permitting requirements of (the California Water Code),” Judge Daniel P. Collins wrote in his opinion.
The environmental groups also argued the government violated the CWA by allowing cattle grazing that caused fecal matter runoff in excess of the water quality objectives in the Central Valley regional board’s Basin Plan.
“This argument fails, because these Basin Plan objectives do not directly apply, of their own force, to individual dischargers but instead reflect standards that regulators must take into account in fashioning the requirements that do apply to dischargers,” Collins wrote.
He continued that the Porter-Cologne Act assigns the task of developing water quality objective implementation to the regional board, which can assess the problem as a whole and in light of other competing sources. He concluded, “It does not assign that task to the federal courts.”
In CCA’s April 11 Legislative Bulletin, the Western Resources Legal Center (WRLC), which represented CCA and the other defendant-intervenors, applauded the panel’s decision.
“CSERC sought to enforce aspirational water quality objectives established by a regional water quality board to the individual grazing decisions,” the legal center wrote.
“The 9th Circuit’s decision today makes clear that those water quality objectives are not directly enforceable, but instead are used as the basis for the water quality board to issue specific conditions applicable to nonpoint sources, typically in the form of so-called waste discharge requirements.”
The center added that the ruling means plaintiffs cannot short-circuit the ongoing processes and the board’s enforcement mechanisms. WRLC concluded, “The decision also has important implications for the continued use of best management practices to regulate agricultural uses with potential nonpoint source impacts.” — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
