`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
`TAMPA DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Case No. 8:20-cv-1742
`
`
`TAMPA BAY WATERKEEPER, OUR
`CHILDREN’S EARTH FOUNDATION
`and SUNCOAST WATERKEEPER,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`CITY OF LARGO, FLORIDA,
`
`Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND CIVIL
`PENALTIES
`
`Tampa Bay Waterkeeper (“TBWK”), Our Children’s Earth Foundation (“OCE”)
`
`and Suncoast Waterkeeper (“SCWK”), (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their
`
`counsel, hereby allege as follows:
`
`I.
`
` JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil suit brought under the citizen suit enforcement provision of
`
`the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251, et seq. (“Clean Water Act”
`
`or “CWA”) (see 33 U.S.C. § 1365). This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
`
`parties and this action pursuant to Section 505(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §
`
`1365(a)(1), and 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201 (an action for declaratory and injunctive
`
`relief arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States).
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 2 of 35 PageID 2
`
`
`
`2.
`
`On May 29, 2020, Plaintiffs issued a sixty (60) day notice letter (“Notice
`
`Letter”) to the City of Largo (“Defendant” or the “City”). The Notice Letter informed the
`
`City of its violations of the Clean Water Act and of Plaintiffs’ intention to file suit against
`
`the City. The Notice Letter was sent to the Administrator of the United States
`
`Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Administrator of EPA Region IV, and
`
`the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”) as
`
`required by Section 505(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(A).
`
`The Notice Letter was also sent to the Executive Director of the Southwest Florida Water
`
`Management District (“Regional District”).
`
`3.
`
`More than sixty (60) days have passed since the Notice Letter was issued
`
`to the City and the state and federal agencies.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that neither EPA
`
`nor the state of Florida has commenced or is diligently prosecuting an action to redress
`
`the violations alleged in the Notice Letter and in this Complaint under Section
`
`505(b)(1)(B) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B). This action is not
`
`barred by any prior administrative penalty matter issued under Section 309(g) of the
`
`Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(g). Accordingly, because the requirements of 33
`
`U.S.C. § 1365(b)(1)(B) have been met, this matter may be commenced.
`
`5.
`
`The venue is proper in the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division,
`
`pursuant to Section 505(c)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(c)(1), because
`
`the source of the violations is located within this judicial district, specifically within
`
`Pinellas County.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 3 of 35 PageID 3
`
`
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs allege the following violations of the Clean Water Act: (1)
`
`violations of the State of Florida Domestic Wastewater Facility Permit National Pollutant
`
`Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) Permit No. FL0026603 (“NPDES Permit”)
`
`(Causes of Action One and Four); (2) discharges of pollutants to waters of the United
`
`States without an NPDES Permit authorization in violation of Section 301(a) of the Clean
`
`Water Act 33 U.S.C. §1311(a) (Cause of Action Two); and (3) violations of the State of
`
`Florida Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System Permit, NPDES Permit Nos.
`
`FLS000005-003 and FLS000005-004 (collectively, “MS4 Permits”) (Cause of Action
`
`Three). The City’s violations of the Clean Water Act, its MS4 Permits and its NPDES
`
`Permit are ongoing and continuous.
`
`III.
`
`PARTIES AND BACKGROUND
`
`A. Plaintiffs
`
`1. Tampa Bay Waterkeeper
`
`7.
`
`TBWK is a Florida non-profit public benefit corporation with members
`
`throughout Tampa Bay, including Pinellas County. TBWK is dedicated to protecting and
`
`improving the Tampa Bay watershed while ensuring swimmable, drinkable and fishable
`
`water for all. TBWK’s approach combines sound science, policy advocacy, grassroots
`
`community engagement and education to stand up for clean water together as a
`
`community, ensuring a clean and vibrant future for the Tampa Bay watershed. To further
`
`its mission, TBWK actively seeks federal and state implementation of the Clean Water
`
`Act, and, where necessary, directly initiates enforcement actions on behalf of itself and its
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 4 of 35 PageID 4
`
`
`
`members. TBWK is based in Pinellas County and has been registered as a non-profit
`
`corporation in Florida since 2017. TBWK is a licensed member of Waterkeeper
`
`Alliance, Inc., an international non-profit environmental organization, made up of over
`
`300 separate Waterkeeper programs, such as TBWK.
`
`8.
`
`TBWK represents its members in and around Pinellas County who have
`
`personally suffered harm to their aesthetic, recreational, and employment-related interests
`
`due to the City’s illegal discharges of wastewater effluent into Old Tampa Bay in
`
`violation of the City’s NPDES Permit limits and the City’s sanitary sewer overflows
`
`(“SSOs”) (i.e., the unauthorized discharge of raw sewage, partially treated sewage, or
`
`treated reclaimed water) into Old Tampa Bay, Cross Bayou, Lake Seminole, Mckay
`
`Creek, Seminole Bypass Canal, Clearwater Harbor, Allen Creek, Church Creek,
`
`Rattlesnake Creek, Long Bayou, Boca Ciega Bay, Tampa Bay, the Gulf of Mexico, and
`
`other water bodies, streams, or tributaries in or adjoining the City (collectively,
`
`“Receiving Waters”), which are all waters of the United States. TBWK members use
`
`those waters for boating, fishing, wading, body contact water sports and other forms of
`
`recreation, wildlife observation, aesthetic enjoyment, educational study, and spiritual
`
`contemplation.
`
`9.
`
`TBWK members include residents of Largo and Pinellas County who
`
`reside in the vicinity of the waters directly impacted by the City’s violations and who
`
`have reasonably founded fears that the pollutants contained in the City’s SSOs, the
`
`excessive nutrient loading to Old Tampa Bay in violation of the City’s NPDES Permit
`
`effluent limits, and the City’s exceedances of other NPDES Permit limitations have and
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 5 of 35 PageID 5
`
`
`
`will continue to contribute to poor water quality in the Receiving Waters that may be
`
`dangerous to human health and the environment. TBWK members also include: (1)
`
`residents of the communities that border Tampa Bay who have reasonably founded fears
`
`that the excessive nitrogen contained in the City’s discharges of raw, partially treated
`
`and/or treated reclaimed water cause or exacerbate harmful algal blooms (“HABs”) and
`
`the decline in abundance and distribution of seagrasses, both of which negatively impact
`
`the entire estuary; (2) commercial and charter fishermen who depend upon the ecological
`
`health of Tampa Bay for their livelihood, individuals who own and operate businesses in
`
`the tourism and marine service industries located within Pinellas County, whose
`
`businesses are adversely impacted by the City’s illegal discharges and by public
`
`perception of poor water quality in Pinellas County; and (3) individuals who devote their
`
`time to Tampa Bay cleanup efforts, restoration of seagrass, and participation in wildlife
`
`patrols during nesting or hatching season. TBWK members conduct nature surveys and
`
`studies, and photograph wildlife in and around affected waterways. TBWK members
`
`contact the affected waters directly when they perform maintenance work on boats,
`
`participate in body-contact water sports, or participate in organized trash cleanups and
`
`seagrass restoration work along the shoreline.
`
`2. Our Children’s Earth Foundation
`
`10.
`
`OCE is a non-profit public benefit corporation with members throughout
`
`the United States, including Tampa Bay and specifically, Pinellas County. OCE’s
`
`mission is to promote public awareness of domestic and international human rights issues
`
`and environmental impacts through education, art, and private enforcement actions for
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 6 of 35 PageID 6
`
`
`
`the benefit of children and other populations who are the most vulnerable to pollution.
`
`OCE seeks to prevent environmental damage wherever possible and ensure that
`
`appropriate environmental protection statutes are being followed. Throughout its 20-year
`
`history, OCE has regularly initiated environmental enforcement actions on behalf of itself
`
`and its members. OCE has been registered as a non-profit corporation in Florida since
`
`2016.
`
`11.
`
`Since 2016, OCE has focused on its environmental enforcement activities
`
`related to water quality in Florida. OCE members in Pinellas County have repeatedly
`
`requested that OCE take legal action to effectively address water pollution problems in
`
`their communities, as well as sources of pollution that exacerbate HABs. OCE members
`
`have expressed concern and fear regarding their exposure to raw and partially-treated
`
`sewage pollution, as well as the impacts of nutrient pollution to waters in Tampa Bay,
`
`including to the Receiving Waters.
`
`12.
`
`OCE members have expressed frustration that local and state officials
`
`have failed to adequately address the City’s polluting of the Receiving Waters, despite
`
`recurring HABs and raw and partially-treated sewage releases that impact members’
`
`businesses, recreational activities, and quality of life.
`
`13.
`
`OCE members in and around Pinellas County have personally suffered
`
`harm to their aesthetic, recreational, and employment-related interests due to City’s
`
`unauthorized discharges of raw or inadequately treated sewage and/or reclaimed water
`
`into the Receiving Waters. Members of OCE use those waters to regularly participate in
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 7 of 35 PageID 7
`
`
`
`boating, fishing, wading, body contact water sports and other forms of recreation, wildlife
`
`observation, aesthetic enjoyment, educational study, and spiritual contemplation.
`
`3. Suncoast Waterkeeper
`
`14.
`
`SCWK is a Florida non-profit public benefit corporation with members
`
`throughout Southwest Florida, including Pinellas County. SCWK is dedicated to
`
`protecting and restoring the Florida Suncoast's waterways through fieldwork, advocacy,
`
`environmental education, and enforcement, for the benefit of the communities and
`
`SCWK’s members who rely upon these precious coastal resources. SCWK aims to
`
`protect local waterways for use for water contact recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, fishing,
`
`wildlife observation, educational study, and spiritual contemplation. To further its
`
`mission, SCWK actively seeks federal and state implementation of the Clean Water Act,
`
`and, where necessary, directly initiates enforcement actions on behalf of itself and its
`
`members. Pinellas County waterways and communities are included in SCWK’s area of
`
`operation. SCWK has been registered as a non-profit corporation in Florida since 2012
`
`and has maintained its good and current standing in Florida since that time. Like TBWK,
`
`SCWK is a licensed member of Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc.
`
`15.
`
`SCWK represents its members in and around Largo and Pinellas County
`
`who have personally suffered harm to their aesthetic, recreational, and employment-
`
`related interests due to the City’s illegal discharges of wastewater effluent into Old
`
`Tampa Bay in violation of the City’s NPDES Permit limits and the City’s SSOs into the
`
`Receiving Waters. SCWK members enjoy those waters for boating, fishing, wading,
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 8 of 35 PageID 8
`
`
`
`body contact water sports and other forms of recreation, wildlife observation, aesthetic
`
`enjoyment, educational study, and spiritual contemplation.
`
`16.
`
`SCWK members include residents of Largo and Pinellas County who
`
`reside in the vicinity of the waters affected by the City’s violations and who have
`
`reasonably founded fears that the pollutants contained in the City’s SSOs, the excessive
`
`nutrient loading to Old Tampa Bay in violation of the City’s NPDES Permit effluent
`
`limits, and the City’s exceedances of other NPDES Permit limitations have and will
`
`continue to contribute to poor water quality in the Receiving Waters that may be
`
`dangerous to them and human health and the environment. SCWK members also
`
`include: (1) residents of the communities that border Tampa Bay who have reasonably
`
`founded fears that the excessive nitrogen contained in the City’s discharges of raw,
`
`partially treated and/or treated reclaimed water cause or exacerbate HABs and the decline
`
`in abundance and distribution of seagrasses, both of which negatively impact the entire
`
`estuary; (2) commercial and charter fishermen who depend upon the ecological health of
`
`Tampa Bay for their livelihood, individuals who own and operate businesses in the
`
`tourism and marine service industries located within Pinellas County, whose businesses
`
`are adversely impacted by the City’s illegal discharges and by public perception of poor
`
`water quality in Pinellas County; and (3) individuals who devote their time to Tampa Bay
`
`cleanup efforts, restoration of seagrass, and participation in wildlife patrols during
`
`nesting or hatching season. SCWK members conduct nature surveys and studies, and
`
`photograph wildlife in and around the affected waterways. SCWK members contact the
`
`affected waters directly when they perform maintenance work on boats, participate in
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 9 of 35 PageID 9
`
`
`
`body-contact water sports, or participate in organized trash cleanups and seagrass
`
`restoration work along the shoreline.
`
`17.
`
`The City’s illegal discharges of pollutants degrade water quality and harm
`
`aquatic life in the Receiving Waters, and thus threaten or impair each of the uses
`
`described above or contribute to such threats and impairments, ultimately impairing
`
`Plaintiffs’ members’ use and enjoyment of these waters.
`
`18.
`
`The City’s illegal discharges of pollutants threaten or impair each of the
`
`uses described above or contribute to such threats and impairments. Thus, the interests of
`
`Plaintiffs’ members have been, are being, and will continue to be adversely affected by
`
`the City’s failure to comply with its NPDES and MS4 Permits and the Clean Water Act.
`
`The relief sought herein will redress the harms to Plaintiffs’ members caused by the
`
`City’s illegal conduct. Continuing commission of the acts and omissions alleged herein
`
`will irreparably harm Plaintiffs’ members, for which harm they have no plain, speedy, or
`
`adequate remedy at law.
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of their members to address and
`
`remedy the injuries in fact suffered by these members as a result of the City’s illegal
`
`discharges described above. The interests of Plaintiffs’ members at stake are germane to
`
`the purposes for which TBWK, OCE, and SCWK have been created. Plaintiffs’
`
`organizational purposes all include protecting surface waters from pollution and
`
`degradation to promote their members’ and the public’s abilities to use surface waters for
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 10 of 35 PageID 10
`
`
`
`water contact recreation, aesthetic enjoyment, fishing, wildlife observation, educational
`
`study, and spiritual contemplation.
`
`B. Defendant
`
`20.
`
`The City is a municipality incorporated under the laws of the state of
`
`Florida and a person within the meaning of Section 403.031(5), Fla. Stat., and Section
`
`502(5) of the Clean Water Act. 33 U.S.C. § 1262(5).
`
`21.
`
`The City is a “person” within the meaning of Section 502(5) of the Clean
`
`Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5).
`
`1. The City’s Sewage Collection and Treatment System
`
`22.
`
`The City holds NPDES Permit No. FL0026603, issued by FDEP for the
`
`Largo Wastewater Treatment Facility (“WWTF” or “Largo WWTF”).
`
`23.
`
`The City owns and operates the Largo WWTF, and appurtenant sewage
`
`wastewater collection and treatment system (“WCTS”) which collectively constitute a
`
`publicly owned treatment works (“POTW”) as defined in Section 212(2) of the CWA, 33
`
`U.S.C. § 1292(2), and 40 C.F.R. Section 125.58(s). The POTW collects and treats
`
`sanitary sewage from the City’s residents and businesses.
`
`24.
`
`All wastewater collected within Largo is transported to the WWTF
`
`through the WCTS. The WWTF is located at 5100 150th Ave N, Clearwater, FL 33760 in
`
`Pinellas County. It is an 18.0 million gallons per day (“MGD”) annual average daily
`
`flow (“AADF”) Type I domestic advanced wastewater treatment facility, using a high-
`
`rate three-stage biological nutrient removal process, commonly referred to as the A20
`
`Process. The treated wastewater effluent from the WWTF is either (1) distributed to a
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 11 of 35 PageID 11
`
`
`
`“Master Reuse System” for land application within the City, the Carillon area and within
`
`the City of St. Petersburg, or (2) discharged through an outfall to the stormwater system
`
`within Feather Sound and thence to Tampa Bay.
`
`25.
`
`The point of discharge of effluent from the Largo WWTF is Surface Water
`
`Discharge D-001, which is a 30” diameter, reinforced concrete pipe that discharges
`
`effluent from the WWTF as described in the NPDES Permit: “An existing 15.0 MGD
`
`[AADF] discharge to an unnamed ditch, that is part of the stormwater system within
`
`Feather Sound, into the Class III Fresh waters of Roosevelt Basin, WBID 1624A.
`
`Roosevelt Basin flows into WBID1558H, Class II Marine waters of Old Tampa Bay, at
`
`Discharge Location D-001, which is at a depth of approximately 2 feet. The point of
`
`discharge is located approximately at latitude 27°53’ 52” N, longitude 82°40’ 13” W.”
`
`26.
`
`The City owns and operates the WCTS which consists of 294 public miles
`
`of collection and transmission lines, including 240 miles of gravity pipes, 30 miles of
`
`force mains, 21 miles of interceptor pipes, and 3 miles of discharge effluent lines. There
`
`are 52 wastewater lift stations throughout the wastewater collection system and over
`
`5,400 manholes. The City is also responsible for the lower portion of lateral lines from
`
`the City’s mainline connection to the property line. Additionally, there are over 300
`
`private collection systems consisting of all the assets commonly found in a sanitary sewer
`
`collection system, including lateral and main pipes, manholes, and 164 pump stations;
`
`these private systems are conveyed to the Largo WWTF.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 12 of 35 PageID 12
`
`
`
`2. The City’s Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System
`
`27.
`
`The City’s municipal separate storm sewer system (“MS4”) contains
`
`numerous storm drain inlets that lead to underground storm drain pipes, which discharge
`
`into the Receiving Waters. The portion of the MS4 within the City’s political boundaries
`
`serves the areas also served by the WCTS.
`
`28.
`
`The City is the owner and operator of the portions of the MS4 within its
`
`political boundaries under MS4 Permit Nos. FLS000005-03 and FLS000005-04.
`
`C. The Local Waterways that Receive the City's Illegal Discharges and the
`Environmental Impacts from those Discharges
`
`29.
`
`The WWTF and WCTS are located in watersheds that drain to the
`
`Receiving Waters. The storm pipes in the MS4 owned and operated by the City also
`
`discharge into these waters.
`
`30.
`
`SSOs from the WWTF and WCTS, as well as SSOs that enter the MS4
`
`from the WWTF and WCTS and/or from privately-owned lateral lines, are discharged to
`
`the Receiving Waters.
`
`31.
`
`Effluent discharged from Surface Water Discharge D-001 flow directly
`
`through the stormwater system within Feather Sound and then to Old Tampa Bay.
`
`32.
`
`The Receiving Waters are waters of the United States, and/or have a
`
`significant nexus to waters of the United States, and thus are navigable waters as defined
`
`by the Clean Water Act and controlling authority.
`
`33.
`
`Tampa Bay is the largest open-water estuary in Florida, encompassing
`
`nearly 400 square miles, including numerous smaller bays and waterways and bordering
`
`three counties—Hillsborough, Manatee and Pinellas. Tampa Bay’s watershed covers a
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 13 of 35 PageID 13
`
`
`
`land area of 2,200 square miles. Tampa Bay is an ecologically sensitive water body and a
`
`defining feature of Southwest Florida. Tampa Bay is an important and heavily used
`
`resource, with special aesthetic and recreational significance for people living in the
`
`surrounding communities. The Tampa Bay shoreline has numerous highly valued
`
`beaches and points of public access that offer unique recreation opportunities for
`
`swimmers, kayakers, paddleboarders, windsurfers, sport fishers, and other recreational
`
`users. Included amongst Tampa Bay’s prized resources are specially recognized and
`
`protected waterways, such as the Boca Ciega Bay Aquatic Preserve and the Pinellas
`
`County Aquatic Preserve. The Boca Ciega Bay Aquatic Preserve runs along the
`
`southwest coastline of the county and the remainder of the sovereign submerged lands in
`
`Pinellas County, including those in and around the City, comprise the Pinellas County
`
`Aquatic Preserve. These two Aquatic Preserves are designated as “Outstanding Florida
`
`Waters,” pursuant to 62-302.400 F.A.C., and are afforded special significant protection
`
`because of their natural attributes.
`
`34.
`
`SSOs harm the Receiving Waters and pose a serious risk to fisheries,
`
`wildlife habitat, and human health. SSOs contain human waste, viruses, protozoa, mold
`
`spores and bacteria that are known pathogens that cause disease in humans and wildlife.
`
`SSOs also contain chemicals that cause cancer or reproductive toxicity in humans and
`
`wildlife. These chemicals come from solvents, detergents, cleansers, inks, pesticides,
`
`paints, pharmaceuticals, and other chemicals used by households and businesses and then
`
`discarded to sewage collection systems.
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 14 of 35 PageID 14
`
`
`
`35.
`
`SSOs further contain nutrients that increase the frequency, severity and
`
`duration of HABs that are toxic to humans, fish, shellfish, marine mammals and birds and
`
`are linked to a variety of illnesses in people and animals. HABs in Tampa Bay and
`
`nearshore Gulf of Mexico waters have been manifested by massive fish kills, benthic
`
`invertebrate die offs and unusually high unusually high mortality rates of sea turtles and
`
`marine mammals.
`
`36.
`
`HABs in Tampa Bay include the toxic phytoplankton species Pyrodinium
`
`bahamense, Pseudo-nitzschia, dinoflagellate Karlodinium and likely contribute to Red
`
`Tide (Karenia Brevis) blooms. Toxins found in HABs, including the potent saxitoxin
`
`found in Pyrodinium bahamense, are responsible for acute human illness and linked to
`
`neurodegenerative illness such as Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis and Parkinson’s disease.
`
`37.
`
`Pyrodinium bahamense persists in Old Tampa Bay, which directly
`
`receives the City’s effluent from Surface Water Discharge D-001. Pyrodinium
`
`bahamense contributes to a large magnitude chlorophyll-a exceedance of FDEP
`
`regulatory criteria for chlorophyll-a concentrations that has persisted for at least the last
`
`five years. (2019 Tampa Bay Water Quality Assessment. 2020. Technical Report #01-20
`
`of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program. Prepared by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (M.
`
`Beck, M. Burke & G. Raulerson)). The Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute’s
`
`HAB group is monitoring and studying HABs in Old Tampa Bay.
`
`38.
`
`Besides the direct water and airborne pathways of toxic exposure to
`
`humans and wildlife, impacts secondary to fishkills can include skin and respiratory
`
`irritation in sensitive members of the human population. The fish kills associated with
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 15 of 35 PageID 15
`
`
`
`HABs can cause eyesores and noxious odor conditions associated with dead and decaying
`
`fish, making waters unfit for recreational use, aesthetic enjoyment, or spiritual
`
`contemplation.
`
`39.
`
`SSOs that discharge into the Receiving Waters result in the addition of the
`
`pollutants described above (i.e., pathogens, nutrients, chemicals, and various toxins). The
`
`intensive use of the Receiving Waters for commercial and sport fishing, shellfish
`
`harvesting, and water-contact recreation increases the likelihood that people will come
`
`into direct contact with SSOs and the pollutants they contain. SSOs also affect people
`
`who eat fish and bivalves caught and harvested in these waters. Toxic chemicals and
`
`neurotoxins bio-accumulate in the affected waters’ food webs; i.e., contaminants
`
`absorbed by plankton accumulate in fish and birds farther up the food chain, and
`
`ultimately transfer in higher doses to human consumers.
`
`40.
`
`Old Tampa Bay, which directly receives the discharge of the City’s
`
`effluent from Surface Water Discharge D-001, is suffering from excessive pollution and
`
`is designated as an impaired water body. A water body that is designated as impaired
`
`cannot support its designated beneficial uses. The beneficial uses of Old Tampa Bay
`
`include recreation, and propagation and maintenance of a healthy, well balanced
`
`population of fish and wildlife. Portions of Old Tampa Bay are designated to support
`
`shellfish propagation or harvesting. Numerous segments of Old Tampa Bay are listed on
`
`the State of Florida’s Statewide Comprehensive Verified List of Impaired Waters (“State
`
`List”) and submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency for inclusion in the CWA
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 16 of 35 PageID 16
`
`
`
`Section 303(d) list of impaired water bodies (“Federal List”) as impaired by Bacteria (in
`
`several different forms), Biochemical Oxygen Demand and Nutrients.
`
`41.
`
`Tampa Bay, and in particular Old Tampa Bay, has a significant nitrogen
`
`pollution problem. Between 1950 and 1988, an estimated 42% of the seagrass acreage in
`
`Tampa Bay was lost primarily through excess nitrogen loading and related increases in
`
`phytoplankton concentrations, causing light limitation for seagrass survival and growth.
`
`Since the late 1980s, Tampa Bay has seen significant recovery of seagrass population
`
`through substantial financial investments. Seagrasses are an essential part of the
`
`estuarine ecosystem as they provide food and habitat for aquatic animals, filter water,
`
`reduce erosion, and anchor sediment. Additionally, juvenile survival rates are much
`
`higher for fish and other marine life in areas where seagrasses have been maintained and
`
`restored. However, Old Tampa Bay, particularly Feather Sound, where the City of Largo
`
`discharges its treated effluent, has seen poor recovery and decline in its seagrass acreage
`
`in recent years relative to the rest of the Tampa Bay estuary. SSOs and in particular the
`
`nutrients contained within the City’s discharges contribute to the decline in abundance
`
`and distribution of seagrasses in Old Tampa Bay and impair seagrass recovery in the
`
`broader Tampa Bay estuary.
`
`42.
`
`The City’s persistent NPDES Permit exceedances for TN has likely been a
`
`major contributor to persistent HABs in Old Tampa Bay and related chlorophyll-A
`
`exceedances, and helps explain the failure to attain the FDEP-established thresholds for
`
`chlorophyll-A in 2015, 2017, and 2019 set forth in the Tampa Bay Estuary Reasonable
`
`Assurance Plan (“RAP”). The RAP was developed by the Tampa Bay Estuary Program
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 17 of 35 PageID 17
`
`
`
`(TBEP) and members of the Tampa Bay Nitrogen Management Consortium in
`
`cooperation with EPA, DEP and other Tampa Bay regional stakeholders. FDEP
`
`approved the RAP on December 10, 2010, under Section 403.067, F.S., and 62-303.600
`
`(F.A.C.), consistent with Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act.
`
`43.
`
`High levels of Nitrogen in the effluent from the City’s Surface Water
`
`Discharge D-001 is a significant contributor to poor water quality, HABs, and seagrass
`
`declines. The City’s failure to meet its permit requirements fetters the collaborative
`
`efforts of stakeholders throughout the region towards seagrass recovery and water quality
`
`improvement.
`
`44.
`
`The Cross Bayou Canal is impaired for dissolved oxygen, enterococci,
`
`mercury, nutrients (chlorophyll-A), and TN and is included in the State List and Federal
`
`List for impaired waters regarding those pollutants. The water quality of Cross Bayou
`
`Canal does not support its designated beneficial uses, including recreation, propagation,
`
`and maintenance of a healthy, well balanced population of fish and wildlife. Cross
`
`Bayou Canal connects Old Tampa Bay to Long Bayou, which is on the State List and
`
`Federal List as impaired for fecal coliform and mercury, and unable to support its
`
`designated beneficial uses. Long Bayou connects to and subsequently flows into Boca
`
`Ciega Bay, Tampa Bay and the Gulf of Mexico.
`
`45.
`
`By illegally discharging SSOs (i.e., the unauthorized discharge of raw
`
`sewage, partially treated sewage, or treated reclaimed water), into the MS4, Old Tampa
`
`Bay, Cross Bayou, Lake Seminole, Mckay Creek, Seminole Bypass Canal, Clearwater
`
`Harbor, Allen Creek, Church Creek, Rattlesnake Creek, Long Bayou, Boca Ciega Bay,
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 18 of 35 PageID 18
`
`
`
`Tampa Bay, the Gulf of Mexico in or adjoining Largo and Pinellas County, and by
`
`persistently exceeding its NPDES Permit effluent limits for discharges into Old Tampa
`
`Bay, the City contributes to the continuing impairment of these waters. As such, the
`
`City’s violations of the Clean Water Act directly harm Plaintiffs’ members’ use and
`
`enjoyment of the above mentioned waters by: (1) loading these waters with pathogens
`
`and thus leading these members to have well-founded fears that engaging in water
`
`contact recreation in these waters has risked or would risk making them or their family
`
`members ill, (2) loading these waters with nutrients that have likely exacerbated HABs,
`
`fish kills, and conditions noxious to these members’ use and enjoyment of these waters
`
`and/or that have led these members to have well-founded fears of the worsening of HABs
`
`in these waters, (3) loading these waters with various toxic chemicals leading these
`
`members to have well-founded fears that they would be harmed if they engaged in water
`
`contact recreation or fishing in these waters, and (4) loading these waters with various
`
`toxic chemicals leading these members to have well-founded fears that wildlife they
`
`enjoy viewing is at risk of harm due to contamination of these waters.
`
`46. Members of the Plaintiff organizations have suffered injuries in fact
`
`caused by the City’s illegal discharges and NPDES Permit violations because the City’s
`
`illegal discharges of raw and partially treated sewage, and treated effluent to Receiving
`
`Waters have reached and directly contaminated waters that Plaintiffs’ members use for
`
`body-contact water sports, fishing, boating, and other activities, causing Plaintiffs’
`
`members to lessen the frequency and enjoyment of their activities in and around the
`
`affected waters.
`
`
`
`18
`
`
`
`Case 8:20-cv-01742-CEH-AAS Document 1 Filed 07/28/20 Page 19 of 35 PageID 19
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`STATUTORY AND LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
`
`A. The Clean Water Act
`
`47.
`
`Section 301(a) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), prohibits the
`
`discharge of a pollutant by any person to waters of the United States, except, inter alia, in
`
`compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit
`
`issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342.
`
`48.
`
`Section 502(6) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6), defines “pollutant” to
`
`include, inter alia, sewage,