1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 1 of 59
`
`
`
`
`
`Adam D. Brumm, Esq. SBN#257906
`Eden Environmental Defenders
`1520 E. Covell Blvd, Suite B5-611
`Davis, CA 95616
`Telephone: (800) 545-7215, Extension 906
`Email: adam@edendefenders.org
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`CENTRAL VALLEY EDEN ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`CENTRAL VALLEY EDEN
`ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS, LLC, a
`California limited liability company,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`ACM MACHINING, INC., a California
`corporation; LUIS ALFRED BALBACH, an
`individual; PHILLIP McWILLIAMS, an
`individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`Defendants.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE AND
`DECLARATORY RELIEF, CIVIL
`PENALTIES AND REMEDIATION
`
`(Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33
`U.S.C. §§1251 et seq.)
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Plaintiff CENTRAL VALLEY EDEN ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS, LLC
`
`(“EDEN”) hereby brings this civil action pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act,
`
`also known as the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`This action is a citizen suit for injunctive relief, declaratory relief, civil
`
`penalties, and remediation against Defendants for current and ongoing violations of the
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 2 of 59
`
`
`
`National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit requirements of the
`
`CWA.
`
`2.
`
`On or about September 10, 2021, EDEN provided a Notice of Defendants’
`
`violations of the CWA to the (1) Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection
`
`Agency (“EPA”), (2) EPA’s Regional Administrator for Region Nine, (3) Executive Director of
`
`the State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) and (4) to Defendants, including a
`
`copy delivered to the Facility Manager of Defendant ACM MACHINING, INC. by certified
`
`mail, at 11390 Gold Dredge Way, Rancho Cordova, California (“the Facility”), as required by
`
`the CWA. See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A).
`
`3.
`
`A copy of EDEN’s Notice of Intent to Sue is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and
`
`incorporated herein by reference.
`
`4.
`
`More than sixty days have passed since EDEN’s Notice was properly and
`
`lawfully served on Defendants, the State Board, and the Regional and National EPA
`
`Administrators. EDEN is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that neither the
`
`National EPA, nor the State of California has commenced or is diligently prosecuting a court
`
`action to redress the violations alleged in this complaint. This action’s claim for civil penalties
`
`is not barred by any prior administrative penalty under section 309(g) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. §
`
`1319(g).
`
`JURISDICTION, VENUE AND INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1331 (federal question), and 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a) (CWA citizen suit jurisdiction). The relief
`
`requested is authorized pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202 (declaratory relief), 33 U.S.C. §§
`
`1319(b), 1365(a) (injunctive relief), and 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365(a) (civil penalties).
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 3 of 59
`
`
`
`6.
`
`The Permit under which this case arises is a Federally required permit based
`
`upon California state substantive law. (Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned
`
`Treatment Works v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (9th Cir. 2017), 853 F.3d 1076;
`
`Dept. of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates, 1 Cal.5th 749 (2016)).
`
`7.
`
`By its express language, a violation of the State permit constitutes a per se
`
`violation of the Federal Clean Water Act. (See California’s Industrial General Permit Order
`
`2014-0057 DWQ, NPDES Order No. CAS000001, Section XXI.A).
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(b)(1), (2) because Defendants reside
`
`in and the events or omissions giving rise to EDEN’s claims occurred in this District. Venue is
`
`also proper under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1) because the Facility’s CWA violations have occurred
`
`and are occurring within this Federal District.
`
`PARTIES
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff CENTRAL VALLEY EDEN ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENDERS,
`
`LLC (“EDEN”) is an environmental membership group organized under the laws of the State
`
`of California as a limited liability company.
`
`10.
`
`EDEN’s organizational purpose is the protection, preservation and enhancement
`
`of California’s waterways. EDEN’s mission is implemented by enforcing the provisions of the
`
`Federal Clean Water Act and California’s Industrial General Permit, as well as by seeking
`
`redress from environmental harms caused by Industrial Dischargers who pollute the Waters of
`
`the United States, through community education and citizen suit enforcement when necessary.
`
`11.
`
`EDEN’s members donate their time and money resources to protect, enhance,
`
`and assist in the preservation and restoration of rivers, creeks, streams, wetlands, vernal pools,
`
`and their tributaries located in California.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 4 of 59
`
`
`
`12.
`
`EDEN has members throughout Northern California. Some of EDEN’s
`
`members reside and work the Lower Sacramento River, which is the “Receiving Waters” for
`
`Defendant ACM MACHINING’s Facility storm water run-off. They use those waters and their
`
`watersheds for surfing, kayaking, camping, cycling, recreation, sports, fishing, swimming,
`
`hiking, photography, nature walks and scientific study. Their use and enjoyment of these
`
`natural resources have been and continue to be adversely impaired by Defendants’ failure to
`
`comply with the procedural and substantive requirements of the California Industrial General
`
`Permit and Federal Clean Water Act.
`
`13.
`
`EDEN has standing as an association to bring this suit against Defendants, as at
`
`least one of EDEN’s current members is experiencing continuous and ongoing harm that is
`
`particular to him or her as a specific result of Defendants’ violations of the CWA, and the
`
`resulting adverse effects to the environment and the Receiving Waters downstream from the
`
`Facility; experiencing such harm since at least the date that EDEN provided Defendants with a
`
`60-day Notice of Intent to Sue.
`
`14.
`
`Specifically, the individual member(s) who are experiencing harm from
`
`Defendants’ violations of the CWA are reluctant to utilize the Receiving Waters downstream
`
`from the Facility as specified in Paragraph 12, above, due to the pollution caused by
`
`Defendants’ environmental violations that EDEN’s members believe has entered into the
`
`Facility’s Receiving Waters. The aesthetic and recreational interests of these members are
`
`therefore adversely impacted.
`
`15.
`
`Defendants’ ongoing violations of the General Permit and the CWA have and
`
`will continue to cause irreparable harm to EDEN and certain of its current members. The relief
`
`requested will redress the ongoing injury in fact to EDEN and its members. Litigation of the
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 5 of 59
`
`
`
`asserted claims and the relief requested in this Complaint will not require the participation in
`
`this lawsuit of individual members of EDEN.
`
`16.
`
`EDEN is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that
`
`Defendant ACM MACHINING, INC. (“ACM MACHINING” or “Facility”), located at 11390
`
`Gold Dredge Way in Rancho Cordova, California, was formed on or about March 8, 1996, as a
`
`California corporation, and is identified in the Regional Water Board’s records as the Industrial
`
`General Permit applicant and operator of the Facility.
`
`17.
`
`EDEN is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that
`
`Defendant LUIS ALFRED BALBACH is the Chief Executive Officer of Defendant ACM
`
`MACHINING, according to documents on file with the California Secretary of State.
`
`18.
`
`EDEN is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that
`
`Defendant PHILLIP McWILLIAMS is the Legally Responsible Person (“LRP”) for the Facility
`
`according to documents on file with the Regional Water Board.
`
`STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`
`19.
`
`Congress declared that the Federal Clean Water Act was designed to “restore
`
`and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” through
`
`federal and state cooperation to develop and implement “programs for preventing, reducing, or
`
`eliminating the pollution of navigable waters and ground waters.” See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251(a),
`
`1252(a).
`
`20.
`
`Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the discharge of any
`
`pollutant into waters of the United States, unless such discharge is in compliance with various
`
`enumerated sections of the Act. Among other things, Section 301(a) prohibits discharges not
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 6 of 59
`
`
`
`authorized by, or in violation of, the terms of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
`
`System (“NPDES”) permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342.
`
`21.
`
`Section 402(p) of the Act establishes a framework for regulating municipal and
`
`industrial storm water discharges under the NPDES program. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p). States
`
`with approved NPDES permit programs are authorized by Section 402(p) to regulate industrial
`
`storm water discharges through individual permits issued to dischargers or through the issuance
`
`of a single, statewide general permit applicable to all industrial storm water dischargers. See 33
`
`U.S.C. § 1342(p).
`
`22.
`
`Pursuant to Section 402 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, the Administrator of the
`
`United States Environmental Protection Agency has authorized California’s State Water Board
`
`to issue NPDES permits including general NPDES permits in California.
`
`General Permit
`
`23.
`
`The State Water Board elected to issue a statewide general permit for industrial
`
`storm water discharges. The State Water Board originally issued the General Permit on
`
`November 19, 1991 and modified it on September 17, 1992. The State Water Board reissued
`
`the General Permit on April 17, 1997, and again on April 1, 2014 (the “2015 Permit” or
`
`“General Permit”), pursuant to Section 402(p) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p).
`
`The 1997 Permit was in effect between 1997 and June 30, 2015. The 2015 Permit went into
`
`effect on July 1, 2015. The 2015 Permit maintains or makes more stringent the same
`
`requirements as the 1997 Permit.
`
`24.
`
`On November 16, 2018, the State Water Board adopted a revised General Permit
`
`under Order No. 2018-XXXX-DWQ, which technically became effective on July 1, 2020.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 7 of 59
`
`
`
`However, the 2018 Revisions have not officially been finalized or certified by the Clerk of the
`
`State Water Board as of the date of this Complaint.
`
`25.
`
`In order to discharge storm water lawfully in California, industrial dischargers
`
`must comply with the terms of the General Permit or have obtained and complied with an
`
`individual NPDES permit. See 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
`
`26.
`
`The General Permit contains several prohibitions. Effluent Limitation V(A) of
`
`the General Permit requires dischargers to reduce or prevent pollutants in their storm water
`
`discharges through implementation of the Best Available Technology Economically
`
`Achievable (“BAT”) for toxic and nonconventional pollutants and the Best Conventional
`
`Pollutant Control Technology (“BCT”) for conventional pollutants. Discharge Prohibition
`
`III(C) of the General Permit prohibits storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water
`
`discharges that cause or threaten to cause pollution, contamination, or nuisance.
`
`27.
`
`Receiving Water Limitation VI(B) of the General Permit prohibits storm water
`
`discharges to any surface or ground water that adversely impact human health or the
`
`environment. Both the Receiving Water Limitation VI(A) and Discharge Prohibition III(D) of
`
`the Permit prohibit storm water discharges causing or contributing to an exceedance of any
`
`applicable water quality standard contained in Statewide Water Quality Control Plan, or the
`
`Regional Board’s Basin Plan.
`
`28.
`
`In addition to absolute prohibitions, the General Permit contains a variety of
`
`substantive and procedural requirements that Dischargers must meet. Facilities discharging, or
`
`having the potential to discharge, storm water associated with industrial activity, and who have
`
`not obtained an individual NPDES permit, must apply for coverage under the State’s General
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 8 of 59
`
`
`
`Permit by filing a Notice of Intent to Comply (“NOI”). Dischargers have been required to file
`
`NOIs since March 30, 1992.
`
`29.
`
`Dischargers must develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention
`
`Plan (“SWPPP”). The SWPPP must describe storm water control facilities and measures that
`
`comply with the BAT and BCT standards. The objective of the SWPPP requirement is to
`
`identify and evaluate sources of pollutants associated with industrial activities that may affect
`
`the quality of storm water discharges and authorized non-stormwater discharges from the
`
`facility, and to implement best management practices (“BMPs”) to reduce or prevent pollutants
`
`associated with industrial activities in storm water discharges and authorized non-storm water
`
`discharges. See General Permit § X(C). These BMPs must achieve compliance with the
`
`General Permit’s effluent limitations and receiving water limitations, including the BAT and
`
`BCT technology mandates.
`
`30.
`
`To ensure compliance with the General Permit, the SWPPP must be evaluated
`
`and revised as necessary. See General Permit § X(B).
`
`31.
`
`Failure to develop or implement an adequate SWPPP, or to update or revise an
`
`existing SWPPP as required, is a violation of the General Permit. See General Permit Fact
`
`Sheet § I(1).
`
`32.
`
`Sections X(D) – X(I) of the General Permit set forth the requirements for a
`
`SWPPP. Among other requirements, the SWPPP must include; a pollution prevention team, a
`
`site map, a list of significant materials handled and stored at the site, a description of potential
`
`pollutant sources, an assessment of potential pollutant sources, and a description of a specific
`
`mandatory set of minimum BMPs to be implemented at the facility that will reduce or prevent
`
`pollutants in storm water discharges, as well as authorized non-stormwater discharges.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 9 of 59
`
`
`
`33.
`
`The General Permit further requires dischargers to implement and maintain, to
`
`the extent feasible, any one or more of the following advanced BMPs necessary to reduce or
`
`prevent discharges of pollutants in industrial storm water discharges: exposure minimization
`
`BMPs, storm water containment and discharge reduction BMPs, treatment control BMPs, and
`
`other advanced BMPs. See General Permit § X(H)(2). Failure to implement advanced BMPs
`
`as necessary to achieve compliance with either technology or water quality standards is a
`
`violation of the General Permit.
`
`34.
`
`The General Permit also requires that the SWPPP include BMP Descriptions
`
`and a BMP Summary Table. See General Permit §§ X(H)(4), (5).
`
`35.
`
`The General Permit requires dischargers to develop and implement an adequate
`
`written Monitoring and Reporting Program. The primary objective of the Monitoring and
`
`Reporting Program is to detect and measure the concentrations of pollutants in a facility’s
`
`discharge to ensure compliance with the General Permit’s discharge prohibitions, effluent
`
`limitations, and receiving water limitations.
`
`36.
`
`As part of their monitoring program, Dischargers must identify all storm water
`
`discharge locations that produce a significant storm water discharge, evaluate the effectiveness
`
`of BMPs in reducing pollutant loading, and evaluate whether pollution control measures set out
`
`in the SWPPP are adequate and properly implemented.
`
`37.
`
`Section XI(B) of the General Permit requires that Dischargers collect and
`
`analyze storm water samples from two Qualifying Storm Events (“QSEs”) during the first half
`
`of each reporting year (July 1 to December 31) and two QSEs during the second half of each
`
`reporting year (January 1 to June 30), and that the samples be collected from all outfalls
`
`identified in the Facility SWPPP.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 10 of 59
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Under General Permit § XI(B)(2), a QSE is a precipitation event that produces a
`
`discharge for at least one drainage area and is preceded by 48 hours with no discharge from any
`
`drainage area.
`
`39.
`
`Once the storm water samples have been collected, the General Permit requires
`
`that the Discharger deliver the samples to a qualified laboratory for analysis within 48 hours of
`
`collection (General Permit, Attachment H) and upload the resulting laboratory reports into the
`
`Stormwater Multiple Application and Report Tracking System (“SMARTS”), within 30 days
`
`from receipt of the report. See General Permit § XI(B)(4).
`
`40.
`
`Under General Permit § XI(A), these facilities are also required to make
`
`monthly visual observations of storm water discharges. The visual observations must represent
`
`the quality and quantity of the facility’s storm water discharges from the storm event.
`
`41.
`
`The General Permit requires operators to conduct an Annual Comprehensive
`
`Facility Compliance Evaluation (“Annual Evaluation”) that evaluates the effectiveness of their
`
`current BMPs and the need for additional BMPs based on visual observations and sampling and
`
`analysis results. See General Permit § XV.
`
`42.
`
`Under General Permit § XI(B)(6)(c), these facilities must analyze storm water
`
`samples for pH, oil & grease and total suspended solids, as well as additional parameters
`
`indicated in the Permit by facility type and those parameters identified by the Discharger on a
`
`facility-specific basis. These measurements are intended to serve as indicators for the presence
`
`of all industrial pollutants identified in the pollutant source assessment.
`
`43.
`
`The US EPA has established Parameter Benchmark Values as guidelines for
`
`determining whether a facility discharging industrial storm water has implemented the requisite
`
`BAT and BCT. These benchmarks represent pollutant concentrations at which a storm water
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 11 of 59
`
`
`
`discharge could potentially impair, or contribute to impairing water quality, or affect human
`
`health from ingestion of water or fish.
`
`44.
`
`The Numeric Action Levels (“NALs”) in the General Permit are derived from
`
`these benchmarks. The Permit incorporates annual NALs, which are derived from the 2008
`
`Multi-Sector General Permit (“MSGP”) benchmark values, and instantaneous maximum NALs,
`
`which are derived from a Water Board dataset.
`
`45.
`
`The following annual NALs have been established under the General Permit for
`
`pollution parameters applicable to the Facility: pH – 6.0 - 9.0 standard units (“SU”); total
`
`suspended solids (“TSS”) – 100 mg/L; oil & grease (“O&G”) – 15 mg/L; Iron – 1.0 mg/L,
`
`Nitrite + Nitrate as Nitrogen --.68 mg/L, Zinc --.26 mg/L, Aluminum – .75 mg/L, Lead – .262
`
`mg/L, Cadmium -- .0053 mg/L and Silver -- .0183 mg/L.
`
`46.
`
`An exceedance of an annual NAL occurs when the average of all samples
`
`obtained for an entire facility during a single reporting year is greater than a particular annual
`
`NAL. The reporting year runs from July 1 to June 30. An instantaneous maximum NAL
`
`exceedance occurs when two or more analytical results from samples taken for any single
`
`parameter within a reporting year exceed the instantaneous maximum NAL value (for TSS and
`
`O&G) or are outside of the instantaneous maximum NAL range for pH. See General Permit §
`
`XII(A).
`
`47. When a discharger exceeds an applicable NAL, it is elevated to “Level 1
`
`Status,” which requires a revision of the SWPPP and additional BMPs. If a discharger exceeds
`
`an applicable NAL while in Level 1 Status, their facility will be elevated to “Level 2 Status”.
`
`See General Permit § XII(C).
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 11
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 12 of 59
`
`
`
`48.
`
`For Level 2 Status, a discharger is required to submit an Action Plan requiring
`
`demonstration of either additional BMPs to prevent exceedances, a determination that the
`
`exceedance is solely due to non-industrial pollutant sources, or a determination that the
`
`exceedance is solely due to the presence of the pollutant in the natural background. See
`
`General Permit § XII(D).
`
`49.
`
`Section XVI(A) of the General Permit requires that all Dischargers must certify
`
`and submit via SMARTS an Annual Report no later than July 15th following each reporting
`
`year using the standardized format and checklists provided in the SMARTS database.
`
`50.
`
`Furthermore, Section XXI(L) of the General Permit provides that all documents
`
`submitted to SMARTS, including SWPPPs and Annual Reports, be certified by the legally
`
`responsible party or duly authorized representative of the Facility, with the following
`
`certification:
`
`“I certify under penalty of law that this document and all Attachments were prepared
`under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified
`personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the
`person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering
`the information, to the best of my knowledge and belief, the information submitted is true,
`accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false
`information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
`
`
`51.
`
`Section XXI(N) of the General Permit provides that any person who knowingly
`
`makes any false material statement, representation, or certification in any record or other
`
`document submitted or required to be maintained under the General Permit, including reports
`
`of compliance or noncompliance shall upon conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than
`
`$10,000, or by imprisonment for not more than two years, or by both. See also Clean Water
`
`Act § 309(c)(4).
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 13 of 59
`
`
`
`The Central Valley Region Basin Plan
`
`
`
`52.
`
`The Regional Board has identified beneficial uses of the Central Valley
`
`Region’s waters and established water quality standards for the Sacramento River, its
`
`tributaries, and the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta in “The Water Quality Control Plan (“Basin
`
`Plan”) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley Region – The
`
`Sacramento River Basin and The San Joaquin River Basin”; generally referred to as the Basin
`
`Plan, and also the “Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
`
`Joaquin Delta Estuary”.
`
`53.
`
`The beneficial uses of these waters include, among others, domestic and
`
`municipal supply, water contact recreation, non-contact water recreation, wildlife habitat, warm
`
`and cold freshwater habitat, and fish spawning. The non-contact water recreation use is defined
`
`as “uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water, but where there is
`
`generally no body contact with water, nor any likelihood of ingestion of water”. These uses
`
`include, but are not limited to; picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, camping, boating, hunting,
`
`sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above activities.
`
`54.
`
`The Basin Plan includes a narrative toxicity standard which states that all waters
`
`shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental
`
`physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life.
`
`55.
`
`The Basin Plan provides that water shall not contain floating material in
`
`amounts that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
`
`56.
`
`The Basin Plan provides that water shall be free of discoloration that causes
`
`nuisance or adversely affects beneficial uses.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 13
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 14 of 59
`
`
`
`57.
`
`The Basin Plan provides that waters shall not contain suspended materials in
`
`concentrations that cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
`
`58.
`
`The Basin Plan also prohibits the discharges of oil and grease, stating that waters
`
`shall not contain oils, greases, waxes, or other materials in concentrations that cause nuisance,
`
`result in a visible film or coating on the surface of the water or on objects in the water, or
`
`otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses.
`
`59.
`
`The Basin Plan provides that at a minimum, water designated for use as
`
`domestic or municipal supply (MUN) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents
`
`in excess of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in the following provisions of
`
`Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, which are incorporated by reference into this
`
`plan: Tables 64431-A (Inorganic Chemicals) and 64431-B (Fluoride) of Section 64431, Table
`
`64444-A (Organic Chemicals) of Section 64444, and Tables 64449-A (Secondary Maximum
`
`Contaminant Levels-Consumer Acceptance Limits) and 64449-B (Secondary Maximum
`
`Contaminant Levels-Ranges) of Section 64449.
`
`60.
`
`Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations provides a MCL for Aluminum of
`
`1.0 mg/L, .01 mg/L for Cadmium, and .05 mg/L for Lead.
`
`61.
`
`The Basin Plan provides that the pH shall not be depressed below 6.5 nor raised
`
`above 8.5; that Iron levels not exceed .30 mg/L; that Zinc not exceed .10 mg/L; and that
`
`Cadmium not exceed .00022 mg/L.
`
`62.
`
`The Basin Plan requires that waters shall be free of changes in turbidity that
`
`cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 14
`
`

`

`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 15 of 59
`
`
`
`Citizen Suit Provision of the CWA
`
`63.
`
`Under the CWA, any citizen may commence a civil action against any person
`
`who is alleged to be in violation of an effluent standard or limitation under the CWA or an
`
`Order issued by a State with respect to such a standard or limitation. See 33 U.S.C.
`
`§1365(a)(1). No action may be commenced prior to sixty days after the plaintiff has given
`
`notice of the alleged violation (i) to the Administrator of the EPA, (ii) to the State in which the
`
`alleged violation occurs, and (iii) to any alleged violator of the standard, limitation, or order.
`
`See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A). By including a citizen suit provision in the CWA, Congress
`
`ensured that the purposes and requirements of the CWA would be enforced by Agencies of the
`
`United States Government, or, by concerned citizens.
`
`64.
`
`In furtherance of the water preservation goals established by the CWA, the
`
`citizen suit provision confirms the District Court’s jurisdiction to apply civil penalties under
`
`section 1319(d). See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a). Section 1319(d) of the CWA declares that any
`
`person who violates any permit condition or limitation implementing any of such sections in an
`
`NPDES permit shall be subject to a civil penalty not to exceed $46,192 per day for each
`
`violation occurring before November 2, 2015, and $51,570.00 per day per violation for
`
`violations occurring after November 2, 2015. See 33 U.S.C. § 1319(d). See also 40 C.F.R. §
`
`19.4. See also § General Permit XXI.Q.1.
`
`65.
`
`Violations of provisions of the General Permit, including those detailed below,
`
`constitute violations of the CWA and are subject to civil penalties. See General Permit § XXI.
`
`See also 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1342. See also 40 C.F.R. §§ 19.1-19.4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 16 of 59
`
`
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS GIVING RISE TO CLAIMS
`
`66.
`
`Defendant ACM MACHINING fabricates metal parts for the oil, gas and
`
`automotive industries. EDEN is informed and believes that the Facility falls under the
`
`Standard Industrial Classification (“SIC”) Code 3499.
`
`67.
`
`EDEN is informed and believes that ACM MACHINING stores industrial
`
`materials outdoors that can be exposed to storm water, eroded by wind, and otherwise
`
`contaminate the surrounding watershed.
`
`68.
`
`Based on EDEN’s investigation, including a review of the Facility’s Notice of
`
`Intent to Comply with the Terms of the Industrial General Permit (“NOI”), SWPPP, aerial
`
`photography, Federal, State, and local regulatory agency mapping tools, and EDEN’s
`
`information and belief; storm water is collected and discharged through seven storm drain
`
`inlets spread throughout two distinct drainage areas located within the boundaries of the
`
`Facility’s two-acre site. These drainage areas are discharging storm water to two separate
`
`outfalls; Outfalls A and B.
`
`69.
`
`The outfalls discharge storm water and pollutants contained in that storm water
`
`directly into the City’s MS4 system through Outfalls A and B, and to Sherman Lake and
`
`Morrison Creek by surface flow. The Facility’s stormwater runoff eventually makes its way to
`
`the Lower Sacramento River, a flowing and navigable waterway of the United States.
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that the storm water
`
`flows over the surface of the Facility where industrial activities occur; and, to areas where
`
`airborne materials associated with the industrial processes at the Facility may settle onto the
`
`ground. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges that storm water flowing
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT – Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-at-00191 Document 1 Filed 02/18/22 Page 17 of 59
`
`
`
`over these areas collects suspended sediment, dirt, metals, and other pollutants as it flows
`
`towards the storm water channels.
`
`71.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that there are insufficient structural
`
`storm water control measures installed at the Facility. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and
`
`thereupon alleges, that current management practices at the Facility are inadequate to prevent
`
`the sources of contamination described above from causing the discharge of pollutants to the
`
`waters of the United States.
`
`Deficient SWPPP and Site Map
`
`72.
`
`On information and belief, Plaintiff alleges that since at least March 1, 2017,
`
`Defendant has failed to implement an adequate SWPPP and Site Map for the Facility.
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and ther