Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Clean Water Act (CWA): citizen suit against the District and others under §505 of the CWA, 33 U. S. C. §1365; the Ninth Circuit reversed in relevant part. The court held that the District was liable for the discharge of pollutants that, in the court’s view, occurred when the polluted water detected at the monitoring stations flowed out of the concrete-lined portions of the rivers, where the monitoring stations are located, into lower, unlined portions of the same rivers. Held: the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable wa­terway into an unimproved portion of the same waterway does not qualify as a “discharge of a pollutant” under the CWA. See South Fla. Water Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U. S. 95, 109– 112 (holding that the transfer of polluted water between “two parts of the same water body” does not constitute a discharge of pollutants under the CWA) (U.S. S. Ct., 08.01.13, Los Angeles County Flood Control Dist. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., J. Ginsburg).

Loi fédérale sur la protection de l'eau: la migration de l'eau d'une partie d'un plan d'eau en direction d'une autre partie du même plan d'eau ne saurait constituer un déversement de substances polluantes au sens de dite loi.