Judge Lets Sierra Club Join EPA Suit

The Sierra Club will be allowed to join the state and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a lawsuit filed last year against the city of San Diego for its failure to comply with the U.S. Clean Water Act, a federal judge ruled Monday.

U.S. District Judge Rudi M. Brewster made his ruling despite objections from attorneys representing the city and the EPA, two antagonists who joined in arguing against Sierra Club participation. Attorneys for both sides, who have been trying to work out a settlement before a Dec. 5 trial date, argued that allowing the Sierra Club to participate in the discussions this late in the proceedings might hamper negotiations.

At issue is a lawsuit filed against San Diego for its delay in upgrading its sewage treatment system as mandated by the federal Clean Water Act and for repeated spills of raw sewage into local waterways. The city faces the possibility of millions of dollars in fines for those spills.

Timing Protested

“We argued against including the Sierra Club to the extent that we are concerned that the addition of new parties to the litigation, so close to the trial date, might affect our ability to reach a negotiated resolution before the trial,” said James Dragna, a private Los Angeles attorney representing the city.

Dragna said the city’s goal is to reach an out-of-court settlement and avoid a trial, if possible. Sierra Club officials said they have no intention of derailing or delaying a settlement. Attorneys for the EPA could not be reached for comment.

Brewster agreed with attorney Robert Simmons, who represented the Sierra Club, and ruled that federal law allows the environmental group to join the lawsuit.

“It was the decision of the Sierra Club and myself to seek to intervene . . . to give citizens who are ratepayers a voice in decisions that are made which will affect our lives in the next 40 to 50 years,” said Simmons. “We want to make sure that the judge’s decision is the best possible compliance plan in the cleanup of the ocean and the most fiscally responsible.”

According to Simmons, Brewster will have to decide on the city’s compliance plan and whether that plan will include an upgrading to secondary treatment, which removes as much as 90% of suspended solids from effluent. The city’s current “advanced primary” system removes about 75% of solids from raw sewage.

Role in Proceedings

Dragna said it was his understanding that Brewster’s ruling specifically prohibited the Sierra Club from vetoing a settlement reached by the city with attorneys for the federal and state governments. He appeared to minimize the group’s role in the proceedings and said that the Sierra Club can merely “suggest alternative courses of action,” said Dragna.

“They can comment to the court on proposals to upgrade the sewage treatment,” said Dragna. “We welcome their comments as long as it doesn’t hinder our ability to move forward.”

Not surprisingly, Simmons had a different interpretation of Brewster’s ruling.

“We are in it as a full party, and he ordered that we must be allowed to participate in the settlement. . . . As far as we’re concerned, all the claims the EPA is making against the city are our claims,” said Simmons, who agreed that his group does not have the authority to veto a settlement.