Clean Water Act

Synonyms
CLEAN WATER ACT (CWA)

City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency

Issues

Does the Clean Water Act allow the Environmental Protection Agency to discipline permit-holders for violations of water quality standards without enumerating specific limits to which permit holders’ water discharges must conform?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine if the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) must impose specific limits in the permits it distributes under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). The CWA empowers the EPA to issue National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits to cities and businesses that discharge waste. The City of San Francisco contends that the EPA can only establish limitations on effluent discharges under the permit, and that it lacks the authority to establish other generic requirements. The EPA counters that its authority reaches beyond effluent limitations and that it is permitted to enforce limitations on water receiving standards. The outcome of this case has profound implications on businesses’ ability to avoid legal liability, as well as the interests of local communities.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Clean Water Act allows EPA (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in NPDES permits that subject permitholders to enforcement for exceedances of water quality standards without identifying specific limits to which their discharges must conform.

Like most cities in the United States, San Francisco operates a combined sewer system that collects both sewage and stormwater runoff. City of San Francisco v. U.S. EPA (“Ninth Circuit”) at 7. During extreme weather, the system occasionally exceeds capacity causing a combined sewer overflow (“CSO”) that discharges pollutants into surrounding waterways.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council; Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council

Issues

Whether the discharge from Coeur Alaska's Kensington Gold Mine constitutes "fill material," and thus is regulated by § 404 permits issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, or whether the discharge is subject to the Environmental Protection Agency's effluent limitations and is governed under the § 402 permit program.

 

In 2005, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit under the federal Clean Water Act ("CWA"), authorizing Coeur Alaska, Inc. to discharge wastewater from the Kensington Gold Mine in navigable waters in Alaska. Environmental groups claimed that this permit violated the CWA because the discharge from the mine did not comply with the Environmental Protection Agency's ("EPA") pollution standards under the CWA. Coeur Alaska, however, argued that the Army Corps of Engineers governed the discharge under a different section of the  CWA,  and that the issuance of the  permit therefore  did not violate the CWA. In this case, the Supreme Court's decision will determine whether the permit issued for the Kensington Mine is valid, and potentially resolve the conflicting authority of the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers under the CWA. In addition, the outcome of this case will impact environmentalists and industry representatives in determining the extent to which certain pollutants can be discharged into U.S. waters.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (07-984)

The Clean Water Act provides two separate programs for the permitting of discharges into navigable waters of the United States. Under Section 404 of the Act, the Army Corps of Engineers may issue permits for discharges of "fill material," subject to the water-quality restrictions imposed by Section 404(b)(1). Under Section 402 of the Act, the Environmental Protection Agency may issue permits for the discharge of all other pollutants, subject to the effluent limitations prescribed under Sections 301 and 306 of the Act. In 2002, after notice and comment, the EPA and the Corps jointly promulgated a regulation defining the statutory term "discharge of fill material" to include "tailings or similar mining-related materials." Pursuant to its authority under Section 404 to grant permits for the discharge of "fill material," the Corps granted petitioner a permit to deposit certain mine tailings in a lake.

In the decision below, the Ninth Circuit invalidated that permit even though it acknowledged that the proposed discharge "facially meets the current regulatory definition of ‘fill material.'" Upsetting 35 years of established agency practice, the court of appeals held that the Corps may not issue a Section 404 permit for the discharge of fill material if the fill material in question otherwise would be subject to a Section 301 or 306 effluent limitation.

The question presented is whether the Ninth Circuit erred in reallocating the Corps' and EPA's permitting authority under the Act.

Alaska v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council (07-990)

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in invalidating the longstanding regulatory interpretation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Corps") and the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") that discharges of dredged or fill material are subject to the exclusive permitting authority of the Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, rather than effluent limitations and standards of performance promulgated under Sections 301 and 306 and applied by EPA pursuant to its separate permitting authority under Section 402.

In 2004, Coeur Alaska sought a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers ("Army Corps") to open the Kensington Gold Mine in southeast Alaska. See Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. Army Corps of Engineers, 486 F. 3d 638, 641 (9th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund (No. 18-260)

Issues

Under the Clean Water Act, is a permit required for a point source that transmits pollutants to navigable waters through an intermediary nonpoint source, such as groundwater?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine whether pollution added to navigable waters through a nonpoint source is regulated by the Clean Water Act (“CWA”). A point source is a discernable, confined, and discrete conveyance that includes pipes, ditches, and other clearly discernable means from which pollutants are or can be discharged into navigable waters. County of Maui (“Maui”) contends that pollutants that enter navigable waters through nonpoint sources, like groundwater, are too attenuated to attach liability under the CWA. Maui argues that pollutants that enter navigable waters through nonpoint sources are not added “directly to” navigable water and thus fall outside the scope of 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12)(A), the statute that codifies which pollutant discharges are subject to the CWA’s permit requirements. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund (“HWF”) counters that Maui’s reading is underinclusive and that the CWA’s intended purpose is to regulate pollutants not just added directly to navigable waters, but also those that were simply added to navigable waters. HWF argues that discharges of pollutants to nonpoint sources which then enter navigable waters fall within the meaning of “discharge of a pollutant” under the CWA. The outcome of this case has important implications for the continued viability of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System’s permit program, the divide between federal and state control of groundwater regulations, and the fiscal impact that the CWA has on individual landowners.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the Clean Water Act requires a permit when pollutants originate from a point source but are conveyed to navigable waters by a nonpoint source, such as groundwater. 

In 1972, Congress passed 33 U.S.C. § 1251, or the Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “Act”), to preserve the “Nation’s waters” by prohibiting the “discharge of any pollutant” unless certain requirements in the Act are met. Hawai'i Wildlife Fund v.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Decker, et al., v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center,Georgia-Pacific West, et al., v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center

Issues

Whether citizens can file a lawsuit to challenge the validity of the EPA granting an exception to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirement.

If a citizen's lawsuit is permissible, what level of deference, if any, should be given to the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act and the NPDES permit requirements with respect to the logging industry.

 

The Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has interpreted the Clean Water Act ("CWA") in such a way so that certain logging activities that cause polluted water to run off of forest roads and into ditches, culverts, or pipes are exempt from the permit process. Relying on §1365 of the CWA, the Northwest Environmental Defense Center ("NEDC") brought a citizen’s lawsuit in federal district court in an attempt to eliminate the exemption from the permit process. The Petitioners argue that a citizen's lawsuit was impermissible in this case because of §1369 of the CWA. The parties also do not agree on the level of deference that the EPA should have been given in interpreting its regulations. Furthermore, the NEDC takes issue with the way EPA interprets several key phrases in the CWA, which affects the substance of the EPA’s decision. The ability of federal courts to review agency action as well as the scope of an agency’s authority are at stake in this case. Also, the Supreme Court’s decision can clarify the ability of citizens to bring an action to change the EPA’s course of action under the CWA. Finally, these procedural and administrative questions could ultimately have an effect on the environment and water quality as well as the procedures loggers must follow to ensure they comply with the CWA.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

DECKER, ET AL. V. NORTHWEST ENVTL. DEFENSE CENTER

(1) Congress has authorized citizens dissatisfied with the Environmental Protection Agency’s ("EPA") rules implementing the Clean Water Act’s ("CWA") National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permitting program to seek judicial review of those rules in the Courts of Appeals. See 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b). Congress further specified that those rules cannot be challenged in any civil or criminal enforcement proceeding. Consistent with the terms of the statute, multiple circuit courts have held that if a rule is reviewable under 33 U.S.C. § 1369, it is exclusively reviewable under that statute and cannot be challenged in another proceeding. 

Did the Ninth Circuit err when, in conflict with those circuits, it held that a citizen may bypass judicial review of an NPDES permitting rule under 33 U.S.C. § 1369, and may instead challenge the validity of the rule in a citizen suit to enforce the CWA?

(2) In 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), Congress required NPDES permits for stormwater discharges “associated with industrial activity,” and delegated to the EPA the responsibility to determine what activities qualified as “industrial” for purposes of the permitting program. The EPA determined that stormwater from logging roads and other specified silvicultural activities is non-industrial stormwater that does not require an NPDES permit. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14).

Did the Ninth Circuit err when it held that stormwater from logging roads is industrial stormwater under the CWA and EPS’s rules, even though EPA has determined that it is not industrial stormwater? 

GEORGIA-PACIFIC WEST, ET AL. V. NORTHWEST ENVTL. DEFENSE CENTER 

Since passage of the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") has considered runoff of rain from forest roads--whether channeled or not--to fall outside the scope of its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) and thus not to require a permit as a point source discharge of pollutants. Under a rule first promulgated in 1976, the EPA consistently has defined as non-point source activities forest road construction and maintenance from which natural runoff results. And in regulating stormwater discharges under 1987 amendments to the Act, the EPA again expressly excluded runoff from forest roads. In consequence, forest road runoff long has been regulated as a nonpoint source using best management practices, like those imposed by the State of Oregon on the roads at issue here.

The EPA’s consistent interpretation of more than 35 years has survived proposed regulatory revision and legal challenge, and repeatedly has been endorsed by the United States in briefs and agency publications.

The Ninth Circuit--in conflict with other circuits, contrary to the position of the United States as amicus, and with no deference to the EPA--rejected the EPA’s longstanding interpretation. Instead, it directed the EPA to regulate channeled forest road runoff under a statutory category of stormwater discharges “associated with industrial activity,” for which a permit is required. The question presented is:

Whether the Ninth Circuit should have deferred to the EPA’s longstanding position that channeled runoff from forest roads does not require a permit, and erred when it mandated that the EPA regulate such runoff as industrial stormwater subject to NPDES.

The Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of pollutants from a point source into the navigable waters of the United States without a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit. The Act defines a “point source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance.” 33 U.S.C.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Entergy Corp v. EPA; PSEG Fossil LLC v. Riverkeeper, Inc.

Issues

May the EPA perform a cost-benefit analysis to decide which technologies best minimize adverse environmental impacts on marine life stemming from cooling water intake structures?

 

Cooling water intake structures divert billions of gallons of water into coolant systems for industrial equipment and power generation. These systems can injure or kill billions of aquatic organisms, resulting in severe environmental impacts. Congress sought to remedy this problem through 33 U.S.C. §1326(b). The statute requires that “cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.” The “best technology available” requirement is the heart of the dispute. In enforcing the statute, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) turned to a cost-benefit analysis. If the cost of a particular technology was not justified by a corresponding environmental benefit, the technology was not required. Environmental groups sued to require the EPA to employ a cost only analysis. This analysis requires the best technology a facility could afford, even if the environmental benefit generated was minimal. This case will affect the EPA’s method of regulating cooling water intake structures, potentially leading to greater costs for power plants and industry. Increased costs may disrupt the energy industry and potentially lead to greater costs for consumers.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1326(b), authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compare costs with benefits in determining the "best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact" at cooling water intake structures. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.

Industry diverts billions of gallons of water a day into water-intake coolant systems in order to cool industrial equipment and also to generate power. See Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 358 F.3d 174, 181 (2d. Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Submit for publication
0

Guam v. United States

Issues

Can a settlement that is not under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) or a settlement that does not explicitly resolve a party’s liability trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B)?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine how two provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”) allocate responsibility for cleaning up environmental sites. CERCLA Section 107 allows a party to recover direct costs of cleaning up a site from responsible parties, while Section 113 allows a party who has already settled its own responsibility to recover “contribution” from other responsible parties. The territory of Guam, which owns a toxic waste dump, sued the United States to help fund the dump cleanup under both Sections 107 and 113. However, the lower court found that the availability of Section 113 barred Guam’s Section 107 claim based on a previous settlement between Guam and the federal government unrelated to CERCLA. Petitioner Guam argues that a settlement that does not mention CERCLA and disclaims any liability determination cannot force a party to bring a Section 113 claim instead of a Section 107 claim. Respondent United States counters that Section 113 broadly encompasses settlements that resolve liability under other laws besides CERCLA. This case has implications for prompt cleanups of environmental hazards across the United States.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether a settlement that is not under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B); and
(2) whether a settlement that expressly disclaims any liability determination and leaves the settling party exposed to future liability can trigger a contribution claim under CERCLA Section 113(f)(3)(B).

In the 1940s, the United States Navy constructed a landfill, the Ordot Dump, on the island of Guam. Gov’t of Guam v. United States at 106–07.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Los Angeles County Flood Control District v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Issues

If water from an interstate river travels through a human-engineered stormwater channeling system before it returns into a lower portion of the same river, does the addition of polluted stormwater constitute a “discharge” from an “outfall” as defined under the Clean Water Act, even though the Supreme Court has previously decided that there can be no “discharge” when water is transferred within a single body of water?

 

Between 2002 and 2008, the Los Angeles County Flood Control District repeatedly detected impermissible levels of water pollution in its stormwater channeling system, the MS4, which collects and transports stormwater runoff through rivers flowing to the Pacific Ocean. The levels were impermissible because they exceeded the pollution amounts allowed to the District through a state-issued permit pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act. The Natural Resources Defense Council and Santa Monica Baykeeper commenced an action, seeking to impose liability on the District for its permit violations in four rivers. The District argues that this case is resolved by the Court’s earlier decision that transferring water within a single water body does not add anything. Its opponents argue that the earlier decision does not apply because the District’s permit establishes that the District discharges pollutants. The Supreme Court’s holding will determine what kinds of precautions a municipality must take to design water treatment systems that comply with the permit system of the Clean Water Act. This decision will impact the way that state and local government agencies plan to reduce pollution and allocate their risks and resources.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

The Clean Water Act regulates the addition of pollutants to the navigable waters of the United States, including pollutants stemming from municipal stormwater systems. 33 U.S.C. §1342(p).

The questions presented by this petition are:

1. Do "navigable waters of the United States" include only "naturally occurring" bodies of water so that construction of engineered channels or other man-made improvements to a river as part of municipal flood and storm control renders the improved portion no longer a "navigable water" under the Clean Water Act?

2. When water flows from one portion of a river that is navigable water of the United States, through a concrete channel or other engineered improvement in the river constructed for flood and stormwater control as part of a municipal separate storm sewer system, into a lower portion of the same river, can there be a "discharge" from an "outfall" under the Clean Water Act, notwithstanding this Court's holding in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95, 105 (2004), that transfer of water within a single body of water cannot constitute a "discharge" for purposes of the Act?

After rainstorms, unabsorbed stormwater that flows over urban areas collects pollution, ultimately carrying it into rivers and oceans. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. County of Los Angeles (“NRDC”), 673 F.3d 880, 883-84 (9th Cir.

Written by

Edited by

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection

Issues

The Clean Water Act protects the nation’s navigable waters in part by requiring state certification for dams which involve “discharge” into navigable waters. What is the definition of “discharge” under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, given the precedential force of a previous Supreme Court ruling on Section 402 of the Clean Water Act which stipulates that the term “discharge” requires the addition of water from another body of water?

 

Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that a facility requiring a federal license, such as a nuclear power plant, must receive state water quality certification when it engages in activities “which may result in any discharge” into lakes and rivers. In this case, the Supreme Court will decide whether water flowing through hydroelectric dams constitutes a “discharge.” Petitioner Warren argues that the mere flow of water through an existing dam does not constitute a discharge on the grounds that the Supreme Court had previously held in the Miccosukee case that the term “discharge” requires an addition of water to the existing flow from a distinct body of water, and thus does not refer to the removal and replacement of water from and to the same body of water. Florida Water Mgmt. Dis. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U.S. 95 (2004). Respondent Maine Board of Environmental Protection and other respondents contend that state water quality certification is required for dams because the definition of discharge used in the Miccosukee case can be distinguished from this case via two main avenues. First, respondents argue that Miccosukee dealt with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act, and is not necessarily binding in this case. Congress’ intent in enacting Section 402, respondents argue, was to regulate pollutants added to the nation’s waters, while Section 401 was aimed at water regulation generally and as such the definition of discharge in Section 401 includes water flowing through dams. Respondents also attempt to distinguish the Miccosukeerequirement of an addition of water to the existing flow of water by interpreting “discharge” under the plain meaning of the term. The definition of “discharge,” respondents claim, includes the Miccosukee requirement, but is not limited by it; hydroelectric dams are thus subject to state regulation because the more expansive plain meaning of “discharge” includes the discharge of water from a dam even without an addition to the flow. The resolution of the conflicting definitions followed by Miccosukee and state environmental protection boards will have far-reaching effects on the profitability and efficiency of hydroelectric dams throughout the nation, energy production generally, and the environment.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Does the mere flow of water through an existing dam constitute a “discharge” under Section 401, 33 U.S.C. 1341, of the Clean Water Act, despite the Supreme Court’s 2004 holding in South Florida Water Management District v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians that a discharge requires the addition of water from a distinct body of water?

Petitioner S.D. Warren Company (“Warren”), a subsidiary of South African Pulp and Paper, owns and operates five hydroelectric dam projects on the Presumpscot River in Cumberland County, Maine. S.D. Warren Company v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 2005 ME 27 at 2.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

Sackett v. EPA

Issues

What is the proper test to determine which wetlands fall within the scope of regulation under the Clean Water Act?

This case asks the Supreme Court to determine the jurisdiction granted to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) by the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) to regulate wetlands. One test for determining whether a wetland falls under the CWA is the continuous surface connection test, which allows a wetland to be regulated when it shares a continuous surface connection with a body of water. Another test is the significant nexus test, which allows an adjacent wetland to be regulated when it significantly affects waters covered under the CWA, regardless of a surface connection between them. The Sacketts assert that, under the principles of statutory interpretation and congressional intent, a version of the continuous surface connection test is proper and therefore their lot of land does not fall under the jurisdiction of the CWA. The EPA counters that due to judicial deference to administrative agencies’ interpretations of statutes, the significant nexus test is the proper test, and therefore the Sacketts’ land does fall under the jurisdiction of the CWA. The Court’s decision in this case implicates the costs which industries must bear for their infrastructure, the allocation of state and federal power, and the protection of water quality across the United States.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit set forth the proper test for determining whether wetlands are "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7).

In 1972, Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.” Sackett v. United States EPA at 1079. The CWA prohibits any person from discharging pollutants into the “waters of the United States” without a permit.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to Clean Water Act