Rock Products magazine recently published an article by Daniel Fanning discussing a proposed rule revising the definition of “waters of the United States” and its potential effects. The rule is intended “to increase CWA program predictability and consistency.” Will this change impact your operations?
Under the CWA, the discharge of pollutants, meaning the “addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source,” without a permit is prohibited. Previously, we reported on the circuit split (Part 1) between the Fourth, Sixth, and Ninth Federal Circuit Court of Appeals regarding whether indirect discharges to WOTUS through groundwater required a CWA permit. Continue Reading CWA Series: SCOTUS Agrees to Grant Certiorari on Indirect Discharge Question
As mentioned in a prior blog post, the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin (“Tribe”) sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) over the proposed Aquila Resources Back Forty Mine (“Mine”) located in Michigan, arguing that EPA and Corps have failed to take responsibility under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) for reviewing wetland permits for the project. Michigan is responsible for issuing the Section 404 wetland fill permits for the Mine because EPA delegated such permitting authority to Michigan in 1984 as allowed under the CWA.
A federal judge in Wisconsin recently ruled against the Tribe and dismissed the lawsuit, generally because the EPA and Corps did not violate any mandatory duties or make any final agency actions related to the Mine. More specifically, the judge addressed four claims made by the Tribe.
The court considered two claims made by the Tribe in its original complaint:
- The Tribe claimed the EPA and Corps had a mandatory duty under the CWA to assume jurisdiction over the Section 404 permit process, and the Tribe could enforce this under the CWA’s citizen suit provision. The court first held the CWA does not authorize citizen suits against the Corps, so the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over this claim as it pertained to the Corps. The court further held this claim must be dismissed as to the EPA because the Tribe failed to identify a nondiscretionary duty which the EPA had not performed. If the Tribe wished to challenge the EPA’s decision to allow Michigan to assume authority of the Section 404 permitting process, it would have to challenge this under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), and not a citizen suit.
- The Tribe claimed the EPA’s and Corps’ refusal to assert jurisdiction over the Section 404 permitting was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the APA. The court held that this “as-applied” challenge to the APA must rest on final agency action, and that the final agency action was EPA’s 1984 decision to allow Michigan to assume permitting authority for Section 404 permits, not any recent letters sent by EPA to the Tribe about the permitting process.
In addition, the Tribe filed a motion to amend its complaint and to add two new claims, and the court discussed these proposed claims as follows:
- The Tribe claimed the EPA’s withdrawal of its objections to Michigan’s wetland permit was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the APA. The court held the EPA’s decision to withdraw its objections was discretionary, not mandatory, and therefore is not reviewable under the APA.
- The Tribe claimed the EPA’s failure to consult with the Tribe pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act (“NHPA”) before Michigan issued its permit for the mine was arbitrary and capricious and in violation of the APA. The court held the EPA was not required to consult with the Tribe about the mining project because the NHPA only requires consultation when a project is federally funded or federally licensed. The Back Forty Mine is not federally funded, and the permits are being issued by Michigan, not the federal government.
Therefore, the court denied the Tribe’s motion to amend the complaint and held that the Tribe failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and dismissed the Tribe’s case.
The Tribe appealed the decision to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals on January 17, 2019, arguing that the Clean Water Act requires the federal government to retain jurisdiction and apply federal safeguards for the benefit of everyone who has access to interstate and commercially used waters such as the Menominee River. We will continue to provide substantive updates on this case as they develop.
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.
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:
- National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting programs;
- Section 404 wetlands permitting programs;
- Section 311 oil/hazardous substance release requirements; and
- Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) requirements.
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.
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