Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 1 of 8
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 15-10289
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 3:12-cv-00094-TCB
JOHN W. MROSEK,
LEE M. MROSEK,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
CITY OF PEACHTREE CITY,
MAYOR DON HADDIX,
GEORGE DIENHART,
Individually and as Member of the Peachtree City Council,
ERIC IMKER,
Individually and as Member of the Peachtree City Council,
KIM LEARNARD,
Individually and Member of the Peachtree City Council,
VANESSA FLEISCH,
Individually and as Member of the Peachtree City Council,
Defendants-Appellees.
Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 2 of 8
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
________________________
(November 13, 2015)
Before WILSON, MARTIN, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
John and Lee Mrosek (the Mroseks) appeal the district court’s grant of
summary judgment to the city of Peachtree City, four members of the Peachtree
City Council, and Mayor Don Haddix (collectively, the City), in the Mroseks’
lawsuit alleging that the City violated the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
(Clean Water Act), 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a), as well as several Georgia laws, by failing
to do maintenance and repairs on a stream, pond, and dam (Stream, Pond, and
Dam, respectively) located partially on the Mroseks’ property. After thorough
consideration of the briefs and review of the record, we affirm.
I.
“We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo,
viewing the materials presented and drawing all factual inferences in a light most
favorable to the non-moving party.” D’Angelo v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 422 F.3d
1220, 1225 (11th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is properly granted if “there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
2
Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 3 of 8
matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). “The mere existence of a scintilla of
evidence in support of the [nonmovant’s] position will be insufficient; there must
be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [nonmovant].”
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2512 (1986).
II.
The Clean Water Act “allows states to implement their own permit programs
. . . and Georgia has done so.” Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 386 F.3d
993, 1005 (11th Cir. 2004). Georgia obtained a permit under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which
“impose[s] limitations on the discharge of pollutants, and establish[es] related
monitoring and reporting requirements.” See Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw
Envtl. Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 174, 120 S. Ct. 693, 701 (2000); accord
Driscoll v. Adams, 181 F.3d 1285, 1288 (11th Cir. 1999). Peachtree City, as a
small municipal separate storm sewer system operator (MS4) under NPDES permit
regulations, filed the requisite Notice of Intent with the Georgia Environmental
Protection Division in order to discharge stormwater into navigable waters under
the general NPDES permit. 64 Fed. Reg. 235 p. 68722. As a result, Peachtree
City is subject to the Clean Water Act and NPDES permit requirements of
stormwater management. See Driscoll, 181 F.3d at 1288.
3
Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 4 of 8
In 2001, the Atlanta Regional Commission published a three-volume
guidebook called the Georgia Stormwater Management Manual (Blue Book) in
order to provide guidance on stormwater runoff. While the Blue Book has no
independent regulatory authority, the City’s local ordinance, which brings the
municipality into compliance with the NPDES permit, incorporates the standards
set forth in the Blue Book. See Peachtree City, Ga., Code of Ordinances
(hereinafter Ordinance) pt. II, app. B, art. X, § 1011(a)(6).
Of relevance to the instant appeal, the Ordinance is applicable to any “new
development” or “redevelopment.” The Ordinance defines “new development” as
“a land development activity on a previously undeveloped site.” Id. § 1011(a)(7).
“Redevelopment” is “a land development project on a previously developed site, . .
. exclud[ing] . . . exterior changes or improvements which do not materially
increase or concentrate stormwater runoff, or cause additional nonpoint source
pollution.” 1 Id. The Ordinance does not apply to “[r]epairs to any stormwater
management facility or practice deemed necessary by the city engineer.” Id.
§ 1011(a)(2)(b)(iv).
III.
1
As relevant here, one of the following criteria must also be met: “(i) New development that
involves the creation of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious cover, or that involves other
land development activities of one acre or more; [or] (ii) [r]edevelopment that includes the
creation, addition or replacement of 5,000 square feet or more of impervious cover, or that
involves other land development activity of one acre or more . . . . ” Id. § 1011(a)(2)(a).
4
Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 5 of 8
It is undisputed that the Stream, Pond, and Dam were constructed prior to
publication of both the Blue Book in 2001 and enactment of the Ordinance in
2007. See id. § 1011. Thus, they do not constitute new development or
redevelopment. See id. §§ 1011(a)(2)(a), (a)(7). And the Mroseks point to no
authority stating that the Ordinance or the Blue Book standards are retroactively
applicable to stormwater facilities already in existence when the Ordinance was
enacted or the Blue Book was published. Accordingly, the City would only have
to bring the Stream, Pond, and Dam into compliance with the Ordinance and the
Blue Book standards if some new development or redevelopment affected
stormwater runoff to the Stream, the Pond, or the Dam. See id. § 1011(a)(2)(a).
In 2011, a neighboring church (Church) located near the Stream, Pond, and
Dam expanded the parking lot on its property and built a detention pond designed
to mitigate stormwater runoff issues. The Mroseks argue that this expanded
parking lot, which added over 100,000 square feet of impervious surface, should be
considered new development or redevelopment that causes stormwater to run off
into the Stream, Pond, and Dam, bringing them within the purview of the
Ordinance. However, the Mroseks did not establish that this redevelopment
triggered the City’s obligation under the Ordinance to retrofit the Stream, Pond,
and Dam because they did not present sufficient evidence showing that stormwater
from the expanded parking lot ran into those areas. A redevelopment must
5
Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 6 of 8
“materially increase” stormwater runoff in order to fall within the definition of
“redevelopment” under the Ordinance. Id. § 1011(a)(7). The City presented
evidence that the Church built its own detention pond, which accounted for any
additional runoff created by the parking lot. Moreover, a 2011 Integrated Science
& Engineering, Inc. study (ISE Study), completed before construction of the
expanded parking lot began, concluded that if the Church built an onsite detention
pond, stormwater runoff to the Pond would not increase. In contrast, the Mroseks
presented only an affidavit from an engineer, citing to the ISE Study and stating
that the Church improvements had “some impact” on the Pond. They did not
provide any qualitative data in support of that statement. This is insufficient to
show that the Church’s expansion affected the Stream, Pond, and Dam such that
retrofitting was required under the Ordinance and Blue Book standards. See
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252, 106 S. Ct. at 2512.
Further, even if the Church’s expansion caused an increase in stormwater
runoff, such that retrofitting was required, § 1011(a)(2)(b)(iv) permitted the City to
defer maintenance because the City engineer deemed deferral necessary. See
Ordinance pt. II, app. B, art. X, § 1011(a)(2)(b)(iv). The evidence showed that the
City had solicited regular studies and assessments of the Pond and Dam, and based
upon those reports (which concluded the Dam was not in imminent danger of
failure) and the City’s lack of funding, the City engineer determined that repairs
6
Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 7 of 8
would be completed in the future. The Mroseks presented no evidence to show
that the City failed to assess the Stream, Pond, or Dam, or that the reports were
wrong. They therefore failed to establish that the City engineer’s determination to
defer maintenance was outside the discretion granted by the Ordinance. See
Eberhardt v. Waters, 901 F.2d 1578, 1580 (11th Cir. 1990) (“A [nonmoving party]
may not rest upon mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but must set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
The Mroseks argue that the deference accorded to the City engineer exceeds
the discretion permitted to MS4s under the NPDES regulations. However, the
Environmental Protection Agency explains that “MS4s need the flexibility to
optimize reductions in storm water pollutants on a location-by-location basis” and
that the City may consider various factors in its evaluative process, including
“implementation schedules, current ability to finance the program, . . . and capacity
to perform operation and maintenance.” 64 Fed. Reg. 235, p. 68754. Therefore,
the City’s decision to defer maintenance was not a violation of its NPDES permit
or the Clean Water Act. 2
2
The Mroseks also argue that the deference accorded to the City engineer under the Ordinance
violates the terms of the Blue Book incorporated in the Ordinance. However, the Ordinance
specifically contemplates the inclusion of additional local rules. See Ordinance pt. II, app. B, art.
X, § 1011(a)(6) (“The city will utilize the policy, criteria and information including technical
specifications and standards in the latest edition of the [Blue Book] and any relevant local
7
Case: 15-10289 Date Filed: 11/13/2015 Page: 8 of 8
IV.
The district court did not err in granting summary judgment to the City.
There was no genuine dispute of material fact with respect to the City’s
responsibility to undertake maintenance and repairs of the Stream, Pond, and Dam,
and the Mroseks failed to establish that the City’s failure to do so immediately was
a violation of the Ordinance, the standards set forth in the Blue Book, or the Clean
Water Act. They did not present sufficient evidence that the new development or
redevelopment by the neighboring Church affected stormwater runoff to the
Stream, Pond, or Dam, such that the City was required to bring them into
compliance with its Ordinance and the Blue Book standards.3 Accordingly, we
affirm.
AFFIRMED.
addenda, for the proper implementation of the requirements of this [O]rdinance.” (emphasis
added)).
3
We decline to consider the Mroseks’ argument that the Ordinance is preempted by the Clean
Water Act because the Mroseks raised it for the first time on appeal. “This court has repeatedly
held that an issue not raised in the district court and raised for the first time in an appeal will not
be considered.” Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004)
(internal quotation marks omitted).
8