Over the summer, members of the Environmental Law Clinic team prepared for and presented argument at the California Court of Appeal for the Sixth District in Monterey Water Resource Agency v. Monterey Coastkeeper. The case is an appeal from a California state trial court judgment that declared the Monterey County Water Resource Agency (“the Agency”) a “discharger” under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

The Agency operates a system of drainage ditches built in an area historically occupied by lakes and wetlands. The ditches facilitate the movement of harmful agricultural pollutants – fertilizers, pesticides, and toxic legacy pollutants long-since banned but still present in soils. By operating pumps, dredging to impose artificial flow, scouring vegetation, and removing obstructions from the drainage system, the Water Agency discharges waste into the Salinas River, Tembladero Slough, and the Pacific Ocean beyond. ELC and its client, Monterey Coastkeeper, also believe that the Agency is a trustee of the public trust, and must therefore consider the environmental and other public resource impacts of its drainage ditch operations.

After an exhaustive five-year proceeding, Coastkeeper and the ELC won at the trial court. In a 70+ page opinion, the court concluded that the Agency was clearly a “discharger” within the plain meaning of the Porter-Cologne Act because, if not for its activities, the pollutants it moves would never reach the Salinas River and other waterways. As a result of this designation, the Agency was compelled to monitor and submit data on the pollutants it moves into the waters of the state so that the Regional Water Quality Control Board could make an informed decision on whether and how to regulate the pollution.

The Agency appealed the ruling. Coastkeeper and the ELC cross-appealed on the public trust issue because the trial court made a small but critical error in its application of the law on that claim.

In late September, I presented oral argument in the case on behalf of Coastkeeper at the California Court of Appeal. The court grappled with a range of questions, including whether Coastkeeper had properly exhausted the administrative process before filing its suit against the Agency. I explained that the trial court had appropriately resolved that issue, since no adequate administrative process exists for the resolution of this kind of dispute.

The clinic team spent countless hours going over the background of the case, preparing our best arguments, and practicing for court. Having the opportunity to present oral argument in the Court of Appeal as a law student was simply incredible. Most attorneys don’t get to do this sort of thing until much later in their careers, and I’m beyond grateful to Coastkeeper and the Stanford ELC.

A ruling on the case will be finalized within 90 days of the September 28th argument.