Media Releases

• County of San Diego’s own data shows a persistent pattern of releasing polluted runoff into the region’s waterways
• Coastkeeper and CERF are hopeful the lawsuit will motivate the County to clean up their act

SAN DIEGO, September 28, 2020 – Local non-profit environmental organizations San Diego Coastkeeper (Coastkeeper) and Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (CERF) have filed a notice of intent to sue the County of San Diego over the agency’s long history of violations of the Clean Water Act. For decades, the County has acknowledged that untreated urban runoff presents the greatest threat to water quality in the San Diego region, yet has consistently failed to take required action to comply with Clean Water Act obligations. Water quality data collected by Coastkeeper – along with the County’s own self-reported data – shows the County has repeatedly, persistently, and systemically failed to protect the region’s waterways and communities from the impacts of pollution.

Stormwater from the County’s outfalls routinely contains pathogens, excessive nutrients, and toxic metals. Individually and combined, these pollutants threaten human health, degrade ecosystems, and harm fish and wildlife.

The groups’ notice also points to evidence that the region’s stormwater contains human fecal matter after every rainfall. New studies from San Diego State University suggest this is caused by sewage leaking from failing infrastructure into nearby rivers, streams, and stormwater channels. High bacteria levels lead to beach closures and advisories after rainfall, and San Diegans are warned away from surfing and swimming until water quality improves. The County’s failure to adequately maintain its aging sewage infrastructure is partly to blame.

“The County and its leadership have demonstrated many years of neglect toward our rivers, streams, and waterways, which are grossly polluted due to their failure to comply with the Clean Water Act and laws meant to protect human and environmental health,” said Coastkeeper Executive Director and Managing Attorney Matt O’Malley. “We are hopeful we can work with the County to bring about solutions that will improve the health of our environment and better protect communities that depend on clean water.”

“Growing up in San Diego County, we were told to stay out of the water for 72 hours after each rainfall without fully understanding why. More than 30 years later, I’m telling my kids they can’t surf for three days after it rains. All the while, the County has been more inclined to push back on regulators than work towards any measure of real progress. At some point, government needs to be held accountable for its failure of leadership,” said Marco Gonzalez, CERF’s Executive Director.

The goal of the groups’ notice is to motivate the County to make real investments in water management solutions that reduce pollution, protect communities, and improve water quality around the region. Coastkeeper and CERF are hopeful County leadership will see this lawsuit threat as a wake-up call and an opportunity to invest in the health of its natural resources and emerge as a leader among governmental entities when it comes to clean water protections.

###

About San Diego Coastkeeper
Founded in 1995, San Diego Coastkeeper protects the region’s bays, beaches, watersheds and ocean for the people and wildlife that depend on them. Coastkeeper uses community outreach, education, and advocacy to promote stewardship of clean water and healthy coastal ecosystems. For more information, visit San Diego Coastkeeper online at http://www.sdcoastkeeper.org

About Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (CERF)
CERF is a nonprofit environmental organization founded in 2008 by surfers in North San Diego County and active throughout California’s coastal communities. CERF was established to aggressively advocate, including through litigation, for the protection and enhancement of coastal natural resources and the quality of life for coastal residents. For more information visit CERF online at https://cerf.org/

For Immediate Release – September 9, 2020

Contacts:

Duncan McFetridge, Cleveland National Forest Foundation, Tel:  (619) 445-9638    Email: [email protected]

Sara Kent, Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, Tel: (619) 494-1025    Email: [email protected]

Kevin Bundy, Shute Mihaly & Weinberger LLP, Tel: (415) 625-4709    Email: [email protected]

LAWSUIT CHALLENGES SAN DIEGO COUNTY’S FAILURE TO ADDRESS CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE FROM VEHICLE TRAVEL

SAN DIEGO, CA – Cleveland National Forest Foundation (“CNFF”) and Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation (“CERF”) filed a lawsuit in San Diego Superior Court on September 4, 2020 challenging San Diego County’s plan for addressing the climate and environmental impacts of vehicle travel as required by Senate Bill 743 (“SB 743”). Instead of adopting a plan to reduce vehicle trips caused by new development, the County chose to exempt the vast majority of potential new developments under the County’s General Plan from even examining, much less addressing, driving-related impacts.

“San Diego County keeps doubling down on sprawling, car-centered development and thumbing its nose at the law. We need a paradigm shift that unites alternative transportation and affordable housing, not the same-old-same-old backcountry sprawl, ecological destruction, and endless, dangerous commutes,” said Duncan McFetridge, Director of CNFF.

“Once again, county leadership has failed to follow data-driven laws designed to protect our region on climate. Responsible developers can, have, and will adapt to standards that will protect our shared future,” said Sara Kent, Programs Director at CERF. “We don’t need shortsighted politicians to keep outdated and polluting planning policies in place. We need them to follow the law and give us urban-centered alternatives to meet the affordable housing crisis.”

The Legislature enacted Senate Bill 743 in 2013 in order to change the way the transportation impacts of development are addressed under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). After SB 743, rather than focusing on measures of traffic congestion and delay, agencies must address vehicle miles traveled (“VMT”) or other measures that more accurately reveal and more effectively reduce the climate, air quality, and other impacts of vehicle travel.

SB 743 supports California’s broader climate goals by ensuring that analysis and mitigation of environmental impacts under CEQA will aid in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector, the state’s largest source of climate pollution. Indeed, the California Air Resources Board has found that without significant reductions in VMT at the local planning level, achieving California’s climate goals will be impossible.

The lawsuit challenges San Diego County’s SB 743 plan as directly counter to the state legislation it purports to implement. Rather than require analysis of future projects’ contribution to VMT in accordance with SB 743, the County’s plan will exempt the vast majority of General Plan developments from any requirement to reduce VMT, and will facilitate increased greenhouse gas emissions from future development projects without any disclosure, analysis, or mitigation.

The lawsuit follows on the heels of a recent Court of Appeal decision that vacated the County’s Climate Action Plan. In that case, the court zeroed in on the County’s strategy to allow massive sprawl developments to offset hundreds of thousands of tons of climate pollutants by buying carbon credits. But these offsets at best would address pollution primarily in other parts of the country or even the world, doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and other pollution generated in San Diego County.

“The County keeps taking legal shortcuts, and it keeps losing in court,” said McFetridge. “We’re running out of precious time to start solving our housing and transportation problems in San Diego. We need to stop playing legal games that profit a few at the expense of the many.”

CNFF and CERF are represented in the litigation by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP and Coast Law Group LLP. A copy of the petition and complaint can be found here: Petition-Complaint – 9-4-20