Husch Blackwell’s Daniel Fanning and Coty Hopinks-Baul provide interesting insights in the latest post from the CWA Series on whether or not a permit is required for discharges to groundwater under the Clean Water Act.
Read more here.
Contact Us
For more information about how these decisions may affect your organization, please contact Coty Hopinks-Baul or Daniel Fanning of Husch Blackwell’s Environmental team.
Ali Nelson, Senior Counsel, was featured in Rock Products October edition discussing the litigation surrounding the regulatory definition of ‘Waters of the United States’ and the recent court decisions leading to the application of different definitions in different states.
On February 20, 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) requested comments on whether pollutant discharges from point sources that reach jurisdictional surface waters via groundwater or other subsurface flow with a direct hydrologic connection to the jurisdictional surface water may be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The answer to this question will have far reaching implications because the scope of the agency’s powers under the CWA determines the scope of:
As a result, the extent to which a discharge to groundwater that reaches jurisdictional surface waters is subject to regulation under the CWA is a significant issue for farmers, manufacturers, and anyone who discharges to groundwater.
Background
The CWA regulates the discharge of pollutants and placement of fill into “navigable waters,” and defines navigable waters as “the waters of the United States.” Since the CWA was passed in 1972, there has been much debate over the extent to which waters that are not considered navigable in fact and wetlands may be regulated as waters of the United States. This uncertainty has given rise to a variety of CWA citizen suits alleging that discharges from point sources that migrate via groundwater to waters of the United States require NPDES permits.
Over the years, various federal courts have reached differing conclusions on the question of whether discharges to groundwater can be considered discharges to waters of the United States. Most recently, the Ninth Circuit addressed this issue in Hawaii Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, 881 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2018). In that case, the County of Maui (the “County”) discharged treated effluent from its wastewater reclamation facility into injection wells. Tracer dye studies confirmed that this effluent migrated through the groundwater to the Pacific Ocean. A three-judge panel for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the County’s discharge triggered Clean Water Act jurisdiction and the need for an NPDES permit because the groundwater was hydrologically connected to the Pacific Ocean, a water of the United States. Under the court’s ruling, an indirect discharge of contaminants from point sources that travels through groundwater and ultimately reaches navigable waters will now be subject to federal permitting requirements. Continue Reading EPA Considers Whether a Discharge of Pollutants to Groundwater that is Connected to Navigable Waters Requires a Federal Permit
On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that challenges to the 2015 Waters of the United States Rule (the “WOTUS Rule” or “Rule”) belong in district court rather than the appellate court. The WOTUS Rule was developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) to clarify which waters and wetlands fall under federal jurisdiction. Numerous parties challenged the Rule in both federal district courts and circuit courts of appeals. The circuit court actions were consolidated in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. In 2016, the Sixth Circuit held that it had jurisdiction to hear petitions related to the legality of the Rule and issued a nationwide stay. This decision was appealed to the Supreme Court by industry groups who argued that, under the plain text of the Clean Water Act, the district courts were the proper jurisdiction.
In an opinion authored by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, the Court noted that the Clean Water Act lists seven specific categories of EPA actions that federal courts of appeals have the exclusive power to review and the Rule did not fall into a category on the list. The Court determined that it had “no basis to depart from the [Clean Water Act]’s plain language” despite arguments by the U.S. government (forwarded by both the Obama and Trump Administrations) that the Rule was “functionally related” to categories on the list and that efficiency, national uniformity, and other policy arguments weighed in favor of making the circuit courts of appeals the appropriate jurisdiction. The Court reversed and remanded the case to the Sixth Circuit, directing the court to dismiss the petitions for review that had been filed.
Because the Supreme Court’s decision was related to jurisdiction and not the merits of the Rule, what does this mean for the Rule’s future? Continue Reading U.S. Supreme Court Sends Waters of the US Rule to District Courts; Nationwide Stay in Question
The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin has sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) over the proposed Aquila Resources Back Forty Mine, arguing that EPA and Corps have failed to take responsibility for reviewing wetland permits for the project. The lawsuit was expected since the Tribe filed a notice of intent to sue in November 2017.
Aquila Resources has proposed an open pit mine, deemed the “Back Forty Mine,” to extract gold, zinc, and other metals. The mine would be located in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula and adjacent to the Menominee River, which forms the boundary between Wisconsin and Michigan. The river flows into Lake Michigan. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (“MDEQ”) is the permitting authority and has issued three of the four permits required for the project, including a Nonferrous Metallic Mineral Mining Permit, a Michigan Air Use Permit to Install, and a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. A permit for wetland impacts is still required and is under review by MDEQ. Given the location of the wetlands near a commercially navigable interstate waterway, normally the Corps and EPA would have wetland permitting authority and permitting would also trigger an obligation for the federal agencies to consult with the Tribe under the National Historic Preservation Act. However, MDEQ is one of two state agencies which has been delegated additional permitting authority under the Clean Water Act by EPA for permitting of wetlands under federal jurisdiction, and MDEQ is not required to consult with the Tribe.
The Tribe is alleging that the federal government has deprived it of treaty rights that are supposed to protect its cultural and historical sites. The Tribe’s sacred place of origin is within its 1836 treaty territory at the mouth of the Menominee River and there are numerous sacred sites and burial mounds located along the river, including in the area of the proposed mine. The Tribe is also concerned about the potential impact of acid mine drainage from the mine on the water and fishery resources in the area and Great Lakes ecosystem. According to the Tribe, it has been trying to meet and consult with the Corps and EPA for months, but the agencies have not responded in a meaningful way. The Tribe has asked the court to order EPA and the Corps to take over the wetland permitting process.
Watch this blog for additional updates.
The month of August, 2017 has seen three distinct developments that may significantly impact management of “Coal Combustion Residuals,” or “CCR,” which include bottom ash, fly ash, boiler slag, and flue gas desulfurization materials generated from burning coal at steam‑powered electricity plants. Although one of these developments may provide a degree of regulatory relief, the other two may preserve or even strengthen existing regulatory requirements. Continue Reading The Shifting Landscape For Coal Ash