Case 4:21-cv-00045-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/05/21 Page 1 of 7
`
`Jack Silver, Esq. SB #160575
`LAW OFFICE OF JACK SILVER
`708 Gravenstein Hwy. No. #407
`Sebastopol, CA 95472-2808
`Telephone (707) 528-8175
`Email: jsilverenvironmental@gmail.com
`David J. Weinsoff, Esq. SB #141372
`LAW OFFICE OF DAVID J. WEINSOFF
`138 Ridgeway Avenue
`Fairfax, CA 94930
`Telephone (415) 460-9760
`Email: david@weinsofflaw.com
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, an IRC
`Case No.: 3:21-cv-00045
`Section 501(c)(3), non-profit, public benefit
`COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF,
`corporation,
`Plaintiff,
`CIVIL PENALTIES,
`v.
`AND DECLARATORY RELIEF
`DONALD J. MOREDA, JR., DEBORAH
`MOREDA, STEPHANIE MOREDA-AREND,
`and DOES 1 - 10, Inclusive,
`Defendants.
` /
`
`(Environmental - Clean Water Act
`33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.)
`
`Plaintiff CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH, an Internal Revenue Code § 501(c)(3), non-profit,
`public benefit corporation, (“RIVER WATCH”) 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.
`I.
`INTRODUCTION
`1.
`This action is a citizens’ suit for injunctive relief, civil penalties, and remediation brought against
`Defendants DONALD MOREDA, JR., DEBORAH MOREDA, STEPHANIE MOREDA-AREND, and
`DOES 1 - 10, Inclusive, (collectively, “MOREDA”) for routinely draining Moreda Lake1, a water of the
`United States, and the discharging of its contents to San Antonio Creek, which drains to the Petaluma
`
`1 Note that the use of the name Moreda Lake, also labeled as Moreda Laguna and Lake Laguna in
`published mapping, is used here to ensure uniformity throughout the Complaint.
`
`Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties, and Declaratory Relief
`
`1
`
`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 4:21-cv-00045-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/05/21 Page 2 of 7
`
`River, which empties to San Francisco Bay, all waters of the United States, without a National Pollutant
`Discharge Elimination (“NPDES”) permit as required by CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), and CWA
`§§ 402(a) and 402(b), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(a) and 1342(b).
`2.
`On or about March 11, 2020, RIVER WATCH provided notice of MOREDA’s 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”), (4) Donald J. Moreda, Jr., (5) Deborah Moreda and (6) Stephanie
`Moreda-Arend as required by the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A). A true and correct copy of RIVER
`WATCH’s 60-Day Notice of Violations (“Notice”) is attached as EXHIBIT A and incorporated by
`reference. Donald J. Moreda, Jr., Deborah Moreda, Stephanie Moreda-Arend, the State Board, the
`Regional and National Administrators of EPA all received this Notice.
`3.
`More than sixty days have passed since RIVER WATCH’s Notice was served on Donald J.
`Moreda, Jr., Deborah Moreda, Stephanie Moreda-Arend, the State Board, and the Regional and National
`EPA Administrators. RIVER WATCH is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that neither the
`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).
`II.
`JURISDICTION and VENUE
`4.
`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).
`5.
`Venue is proper because MOREDA, and the events or omissions giving rise to RIVER
`WATCH’s claims occurred, in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1),(2). Venue is also proper because
`MOREDA’s CWA violations have occurred and are occurring within the District. 33 U.S.C. §
`1365(c)(1).
`III.
`PARTIES
`6.
`RIVER WATCH is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, an Internal Revenue Code
`
`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 for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties, and Declaratory Relief
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00045-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/05/21 Page 3 of 7
`
`§ 501(c)(3) non-profit, public benefit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California,
`with headquarters located in Sebastopol, California and mailing address of 290 S. Main Street, #817,
`Sebastopol, California 95472. The specific purpose of RIVER WATCH is to protect, enhance and help
`restore surface and ground waters of California including rivers, creeks, streams, wetlands, vernal pools,
`aquifers and associated environs, biota, flora and fauna, and to educate the public concerning
`environmental issues associated with these environs. Members of RIVER WATCH have interests in the
`waters and watersheds which are adversely affected by MOREDA’s discharges and violations of the
`CWA as alleged herein. Said members use the effected waters and watershed areas for fishing, hiking,
`photography, nature walks and/or the like. Furthermore, the relief sought will redress the injury in fact,
`likelihood of future injury, and interference with the interests of said members. MOREDA’s ongoing
`violations of the CWA will cause irreparable harm to members of RIVER WATCH for which they have
`no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy. The relief requested will redress the ongoing injury in fact to
`RIVER WATCH’s members.
`7.
`RIVER WATCH is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that
`Defendant DONALD MOREDA, JR. is now, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, an
`individual residing in Sonoma County, California, and a person both holding an ownership interest in
`and conducting agricultural operations on, that multi-acre parcel of agricultural real property located
`at 3286 Chileno Valley Road, Petaluma, California and designated in the office of the Sonoma County
`Assessor as Assessor’s Parcel No. 020-090-005-000 (the “SITE”).
`8.
`RIVER WATCH is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that
`Defendant DEBORAH MOREDA is now, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was, an individual
`residing in Sonoma County, California, and a person both holding an ownership interest in and
`conducting agricultural operations on, the SITE.
`9.
`RIVER WATCH is informed and believes, and on such information and belief alleges, that
`Defendant STEPHANIE MOREDA-AREND is now, and at all times relevant to this Complaint was,
`an individual residing in Sonoma County, California, and a person who serves as the representative of
`MOREDA in correspondence with RIVER WATCH regarding the conduct of agricultural operations
`on the SITE.
`
`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 for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties, and Declaratory Relief
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00045-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/05/21 Page 4 of 7
`
`DEFENDANTS DOES 1 - 10, Inclusive, respectively are persons, partnerships, corporations or
`10.
`entities, who are, or were, responsible for, or in some way contributed to, the violations which are the
`subject of this Complaint or are, or were, responsible for the maintenance, management, supervision,
`operations, or insurance coverage of the SITE. The names, identities, capacities, or functions of
`DEFENDANTS DOES 1 - 10, Inclusive are presently unknown to RIVER WATCH. RIVER WATCH
`shall seek leave of court to amend this Complaint to insert the true names of said DOES Defendants
`when the same have been ascertained.
`IV.
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS WHICH GIVE RISE TO CLAIMS
`RIVER WATCH incorporates by reference all the foregoing including EXHIBIT A as though
`11.
`the same were separately set forth herein. RIVER WATCH takes this action to ensure compliance with
`the CWA, which regulates the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. The statute is structured
`in such a way that all discharges of pollutants are prohibited with the exception of enumerated statutory
`provisions. One such exception authorizes a discharger, who has been issued a permit pursuant to CWA
`§ 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, to discharge designated pollutants at certain levels subject to certain conditions.
`The effluent discharge standards or limitations specified in an NPDES permit define the scope of the
`authorized exception to the CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) prohibition, such that violation of a
`permit limit places a discharger in violation of the CWA.
`12.
`The CWA provides that authority to administer the NPDES permitting system in any given state
`or region can be delegated by the EPA to a state or to a regional regulatory agency, provided that the
`applicable state or regional regulatory scheme under which the local agency operates satisfies certain
`criteria (see CWA § 402(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b)). In California, the EPA has granted authorization to
`a state regulatory apparatus comprised of the State Water Resources Control Board and several
`subsidiary regional water quality control boards to issue NPDES permits. The entity responsible for
`issuing NPDES permits and otherwise regulating MOREDA’s operations in the region at issue in this
`Complaint is the Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (“RWQCB”).
`13. While delegating authority to administer the NPDES permitting system, the CWA provides that
`enforcement of permitting requirements under the statute relating to effluent standards or limitations
`imposed by the Regional Boards can be ensured by private parties acting under the citizen suit provision
`
`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 for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties, and Declaratory Relief
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00045-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/05/21 Page 5 of 7
`
`of the statute (see CWA § 505, 33 U.S.C. § 1365). RIVER WATCH is exercising such citizen
`enforcement to enforce compliance by MOREDA with the CWA.
`14.
`RIVER WATCH has identified the draining and dewatering of Moreda Lake, a water of the
`United States located on the SITE, and the discharging of its contents to San Antonio Creek, which
`drains to the Petaluma River, which empties to San Francisco Bay, all waters of the United States, and
`farming (e.g. planting corn, silage) at the SITE without an NPDES permit, in violation of CWA § 301(a),
`33 U.S.C. 1311(a), which states in relevant part, “Except as in compliance with this section and sections
`302, 306, 307, 318, 402, and 404 of this Act [33 U.S.C. §§ 1312, 1316, 1317, 1328, 1342, 1344], the
`discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful.” The act defines “discharge of a pollutant”
`as (A) any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source...” . 33 U.S.C. 33 U.S.C.
`§ 1362(12). Each and every discharge is a separate violation of the CWA. These enumerated violations
`are based upon RIVER WATCH’s own investigations, review of the RWQCB files for the SITE,
`interviews with area residents, and review of other files publicly available.
`This Complaint includes any and all violations evidenced by records and monitoring data for the
`SITE which MOREDA, or those in its behalf, have submitted (or failed to submit) to the RWQCB
`and/or other regulatory agencies during the period March 1, 2015 to March 1, 2020. This Complaint also
`includes any and all violations which may have occurred but for which data may not have been available
`or submitted or apparent from the face of the reports or data submitted by MOREDA to the RWQCB
`or other regulatory agencies. Observations indicate that the discharge from the SITE is continuous and
`therefore the violations of the CWA are continuous.
`15.
`RIVER WATCH alleges that for the period March 1, 2015 to the present, MOREDA has
`violated the Act as described herein. RIVER WATCH alleges these violations are continuing or have
`a likelihood of occurring in the future.
`V.
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`16.
`CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) prohibits discharges of pollutants or activities not authorized
`by, or in violation of, an effluent standard or limitation or an order issued by the EPA or a State with
`respect to such a standard or limitation including a NPDES permit issued pursuant to CWA § 402, 33
`U.S.C. § 1342. Additional sets of regulations are set forth in the Basin Plan, California Toxics Rule, 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 for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties, and Declaratory Relief
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00045-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/05/21 Page 6 of 7
`
`Code of Federal Regulations, and other regulations promulgated by the EPA and the State Water
`Resources Control Board.
`17.
`The affected waterways detailed in this Complaint and in the Notice are navigable waters of the
`United States within the meaning of CWA § 502(7), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).
`18.
`The Administrator of the EPA has authorized the Regional Water Quality Control Board to issue
`NPDES permits, subject to specified conditions and requirements, pursuant to CWA § 402, 33 U.S.C.
`§ 1342.
`19. MOREDA is in possession of no NPDES Permit authorizing it to discharge pollutants from the
`draining and dewatering of Moreda Lake at the SITE into navigable waters of the United States within
`the meaning of the CWA.
`VI.
`VIOLATIONS
`20. MOREDA’s alleged unpermitted discharges, as detailed herein and in the Notice are violations
`of CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
`21.
`The enumerated alleged violations are detailed in the Notice, incorporated herein by reference,
`and below, designating the section of the CWA violated by the described activity.
`VII. CLAIM FOR RELIEF - Pursuant to CWA § 505(a)(1)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(1)(A) -
`Violation of an effluent standard or limitation under the CWA - Discharges of a Pollutant
`From a Point Source to Navigable Waters of the United States not in Compliance with the
`Act.
`RIVER WATCH realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations of Paragraphs 1 - 21,
`22.
`including EXHIBIT A, as though fully set forth herein.
`23. MOREDA has allegedly violated and continues to violate the CWA as evidenced by the
`discharges of pollutants from a point source to waters of the United States in violation of CWA § 301(a),
`33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).
`24.
`All alleged discharges identified herein are ongoing violations of CWA § 301(a), 33 U.S.C.
`1311(a) in that they are discharges of a pollutant from a point source to a water of the United States
`without complying with any other sections of the Act. The ongoing nature of these violations can be
`found in MOREDA’s records and photographs of the SITE. MOREDA’s ongoing violations of the CWA
`
`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 for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties, and Declaratory Relief
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-00045-DMR Document 1 Filed 01/05/21 Page 7 of 7
`
`will cause irreparable harm to members of RIVER WATCH for which they have no plain, speedy, or
`adequate remedy. The relief sought will redress the injury in fact, likelihood of future injury, and
`interference with the interests of said members of RIVER WATCH.
`VIII. RELIEF REQUESTED
`WHEREFORE, RIVER WATCH prays that the Court grant the following relief:
`Declare MOREDA to have violated and to be in violation of the CWA.
`25.
`Issue an injunction ordering MOREDA to immediately operate its agricultural operations on the
`26.
`SITE in compliance with the CWA by halting the draining and dewatering of Moreda Lake.
`27.
`Order MOREDA to pay civil penalties per violation per day for its violations of the CWA
`pursuant to 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319(d), 1365, and 40 CFR §§ 19.1 - 19.4.
`28.
`Order MOREDA to pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs of RIVER WATCH (including
`expert witness fees), as provided by CWA § 505(d), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d).
`29.
`For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.
`
`DATED: January 4, 2021
`
`LAW OFFICE OF JACK SILVER
`
`By:
`Jack Silver
`
`DATED: January 4, 2021
`
`LAW OFFICE OF DAVID WEINSOFF
`
`By:
`David J. Weinsoff
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`CALIFORNIA RIVER WATCH
`
`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 for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties, and Declaratory Relief
`
`7
`
`