MWD Can’t Face Felony Charges, Judge Rules : Pollution: Only misdemeanors can be filed against public agencies, he says. The case involved a chemical spill in which six bicyclists were burned.

In a controversial decision, a municipal judge ruled Thursday that the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California cannot face felony charges for a chemical spill in Yorba Linda that inflicted second-degree burns on six men who were bicycling in a state park last year.

Judge Daniel T. Brice ruled that public agencies cannot stand trial for felonies under a major state environmental law. He added that even if they could, there was insufficient evidence in this case to warrant the charges.

Instead, the judge ordered the Los Angeles-based agency to stand trial Feb. 6 on three misdemeanor counts. The agency is the world’s largest water supplier, serving 15 million Southern Californians.

“I believe it would be inappropriate for any public entity within the state of California to be held on a felony,” said Brice, who made his ruling after a six-day preliminary hearing.

His decision was immediately disputed by top state water quality officials, who wrote and enforce the law.

Andrew Sawyer, assistant chief counsel of the state Water Resources Control Board in Sacramento said the state water code prohibits release of toxic chemicals into waterways, and is patterned after federal law, which says any individual, corporation or public entity can be held on criminal or civil charges.

“I wrote that section of the water code and it was clearly intended to apply wherever the federal Clean Water Act applies, including public entities,” he said when told of the ruling.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Pear also said he believes the judge’s decision is in error and he is considering an appeal.

Nonetheless, Marshall Schulman, the MWD’s defense attorney, said he will move to have the misdemeanor charges dropped.

“I don’t think they should be prosecuted for anything. That is the bottom line,” he said, adding that the injuries were the result of an unintentional act.

State water officials said the case marks the first time in the nation that a public or governmental agency has faced criminal charges of violating water-pollution laws. Most cases against polluters involve civil charges.

Prosecutors and water quality officials allege that the MWD’s Diemer Filtration Plant in Yorba Linda illegally discharged a caustic chemical into Chino Hills State Park when there was a pressure buildup in a pipeline.

From Oct. 26 through Oct. 28, 1989, at least 466 gallons of concentrated sodium hydroxide spilled from the Diemer plant into Telegraph Creek, which runs through the park, according to a report by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The spill, undetected by the water agency for almost three days, crossed a public bike path. Six cyclists who rode the path said they suffered blistering burns on their legs, backs and other body parts and that their mountain bikes, clothing and tires were pitted and burned.

Without felony charges, the agency faces a much lighter fine and less of a public stigma, prosecutors and environmental officials said. The maximum fine for each misdemeanor charge is $25,000 per day, or a total of $75,000 for the three-day spill, Pear said. That compares with a possible $1-million fine under a felony charge.

“I’m disappointed,” said Bruce Paine, a senior engineer at the regional Water Quality Control Board who investigated the case. “It’s a dramatic difference in the maximum liability. It certainly is not as strong a message as the potential of a $1-million fine.”

The decision calls into question whether the state’s major environmental law--the water code--allows any public agency, whether it is a city, a sanitation agency or the military, to be convicted of a felony if it disposes of dangerous chemicals illegally.

Brice said he interprets the state law to mean that the Legislature did not intend to hold public agencies liable for felonies, only misdemeanors.

But he added that much of environmental law is uncharted waters, so “I could be absolutely wrong and counsel may want to litigate further” in a higher court.

Prosecutors stress that the decision was made by a lower court. Therefore, it carries no legal precedent and is not binding to other cases. But environmental attorneys and water quality officials worry that it might discourage prosecutors from making similar felony prosecutions in the future.