UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ SOUTH SIDE QUARRY, LLC; JASON LEE STANFORD, │ Plaintiffs-Appellants, │ > No. 21-5389 │ v. │ │ LOUISVILLE & JEFFERSON COUNTY METROPOLITAN │ SEWER DISTRICT, │ Defendant-Appellee. │ ┘ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky at Louisville. No. 3:18-cv-00706—David J. Hale, District Judge.

Decided and Filed: March 11, 2022

Before: SILER, COLE, and NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judges. _________________

COUNSEL ON BRIEF: John D. Cox, Petersen S. Thomas, LYNCH, COX, GILMAN & GOODMAN, PSC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellants. Adam T. Goebel, Adam C. Reeves, STOLL KEENON OGDEN PLLC, Louisville, Kentucky, for Appellee. _________________

OPINION _________________

NALBANDIAN, Circuit Judge. This case tells a tale of two creeks. The first, Pond Creek, drains into a watershed highly prone to flooding. The second, Fishpool Creek, diverts excess stormwater from that watershed into Vulcan Quarry through a channel maintained by the Louisville & Jefferson County Metro Sewer District. For the owner of Vulcan Quarry—South Side LLC—Fishpool Creek’s diversion created only the worst of times. According to South No. 21-5389 South Side Quarry, LLC v. Louisville Page 2 & Jefferson Cnty. Metro. Sewer Dist. Side, Metro Sewer District used the diversion channel to flood and pollute Vulcan Quarry, all in violation of the Clean Water Act and Kentucky state law.

Metro Sewer District responded that the diversion channel connecting Fishpool Creek and Vulcan Quarry is part of a flood control project that was planned and constructed years ago. And that South Side knew this when it bought the property. According to Metro Sewer District, this meant that some of South Side’s claims were time-barred. It also contended that South Side failed to give it sufficient notice of the pollution problems before suing.

The district court sided with Metro Sewer District and dismissed South Side’s claims. For the following reasons, we affirm its decision.

I.

A.

The Clean Water Act’s Framework. Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA) to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Consumers Power Co., 862 F.2d 580, 582 (6th Cir. 1988) (quoting 33 U.S.C. § 1251). To reach this goal, the CWA encompasses a “comprehensive statutory system for controlling water pollution.” Id. The “cornerstone” of this system is the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. EPA, 822 F.2d 104, 108 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1342. With a permit, a person may discharge pollutants so long as he stays within the permit’s limits. But without a permit, a “discharge . . . [is] unlawful.” 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a).

The CWA’s permit program relies on “cooperative federalism” to manage “the nation’s water resources.” Cat