Source: https://greatriverslaw.org/great-rivers-blog/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 14:42:23+00:00

Document:
The Supreme Court has recently granted certiorari to answer the question of whether the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) regulates discharges of pollutants to groundwater that make their way to navigable waters.
There is no question that the CWA applies to point sources that discharge pollutants directly to navigable waters, but what happens if a point source discharges pollutants to groundwater, and the groundwater conveys the pollutants to navigable waters?
Courts faced with the issue have reached different results, and a recent circuit split among federal courts is what prompted the Supreme Court to take up the issue.
In Kentucky Waterways All. v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 905 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2018), and Tennessee Clean Water Network v. Tennessee Valley Auth., 905 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018), the Sixth Circuit determined that these types of discharges were not covered by the CWA and dismissed the cases based on the fact that the discharge had occurred to groundwater, which is not a navigable water. In both Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637 (4th Cir. 2018), and Hawai’i Wildlife Fund v. Cty. of Maui, 881 F.3d 754 (9th Cir. 2018) amended by 886 F.3d 737 (9th Cir. Mar. 30, 2018), the Fourth and Ninth Circuits extended CWA jurisdiction to discharges that occurred to groundwater where those discharges were conveyed to navigable waters.
In Hawai’i Wildlife Fund, the Ninth Circuit based its holding on three facts: (1) the County discharged pollutants from a point source (i.e. wells), (2) the pollutants are fairly traceable from the point source to a navigable water such that the discharge is the functional equivalent of a discharge into the navigable water, and (3) the pollutant levels reaching navigable water are more than de minimis. Id. At 749 (emphasis added).
EPA, in its amicus brief, argued that the court should apply a “direct hydrological connection” test; however, the Ninth Circuit refused to adopt the EPA’s argument because the agency was reading the word “direct” into the statute where it did not exist. Id. at Footnote 3. EPA continues to promote the “direct hydrological connection” test in its briefs filed with the Supreme Court.
It is unclear how the Supreme Court will resolve the issue.
Given the current composition of the Court, many environmentalists are not optimistic about the outcome.
However, the Ninth Circuit made a compelling case for CWA liability to attach in indirect discharge situations by citing the late Antonin Scalia’s plurality opinion in Rapanos v. United States. In that case, Justice Scalia noted that “the CWA does not forbid the ‘addition of any pollutant directly to navigable waters from any point source,’ but rather the ‘addition of any pollutant to navigable waters.’” Id. citing Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 743, 126 S.Ct. 2208, 165 L.Ed.2d 159 (2006) (emphasis in original). Scalia noted that “from the time of the CWA’s enactment, lower courts have held that the discharge into intermittent channels of any pollutant that naturally washes downstream likely violates [the CWA], even if the pollutants discharged from a point source do not emit ‘directly into’ covered waters, but pass ‘through conveyances’ in between.” Id. (emphasis in original). Justice Scalia favorably cited a Second Circuit decision in which “the discharge of manure from point sources onto fields (which were not necessarily point sources themselves) and eventually into navigable waters constituted point source discharges under the CWA.” Id.
The Ninth Circuit also pointed out that several cases have found CWA liability where pollutants discharged from a point source made their way long distance through the air into navigable waters, such as discharges from airplanes and helicopters.
Hopefully, based on the long history of indirect discharges being prohibited by the CWA and Scalia’s textual reading in Rapanos, the Supreme Court will not buy into the Sixth Circuit’s bright line test that because groundwater is not a navigable water, discharges to groundwater without a permit are not prohibited under the CWA even where it is clear the pollutants will reach navigable waters.
Industry is pushing arguments that adoption of the Ninth Circuit’s test will result in vast regulatory uncertainty and extreme costs to state agencies that administer water permit programs.
Conversely, if the Sixth Circuit’s test is adopted, regulated entities will have a perverse incentive to discharge their pollutants to groundwater to avoid permitting requirements. This result would clearly contravene the purpose of the CWA to provide Americans with drinkable, fishable, and swimmable waters.
It would be difficult to find someone more passionate than Kay about protecting people from the dangers of nuclear power and radioactive waste. Her basement is an extensive library on nuclear issues, and she is the current President of Beyond Nuclear, a nationa nonprofit organization that works to educate the public about the hazards of nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard the future.
Kay and her late husband, Leo A. Drey, were among the founders of the Missouri Coalition for the Environment in 1969 and Kay remains active in that organization as well. They also amassed more than 153,000 acres and donated most of the property to the L-A-D Foundation (another organization they had a role in founding) in 2004. This was the largest such donation for conservation in Missouri history.
What is your favorite flower? All of Missouri’s flora!
What was the best vacation you ever went on? Leo and I used to visit Minnesota. We always loved the scenic lakes, watching the beautiful birds, and enjoying the quiet there. But the Ozarks woods and streams remain our favorite.
Henry Robertson, Climate and Energy Director at Great Rivers, filed an opening brief in the Missouri Supreme Court in a suit against the State of Missouri over its passage of House Bill 1713 in (HB 1713), which endangers Missouri’s water quality by upsetting the balance between the public interest and regulated interests at the Clean Water Commission. The Commission enforces the federal Clean Water Law and grants permits to Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs).
Great Rivers represents the Missouri Coalition for the Environment (MCE) and Carolyn Johnson, a resident of Stoddard County on this matter. They challenge the bill because the way the legislature passed it in 2016 was unconstitutional. The bill was originally about “wastewater treatment systems,” so it was misleading to add such a wide-reaching change to the bill as the composition of the Commission. However, the Court ended up dismissing the lawsuit because the plaintiffs did not have “standing” to sue; in particular, none of their tax money was spent on the Commission.
You can read Henry’s full brief here, and learn more about this case in our December press release.
Rachel has served on Great Rivers’ Young Professionals Board since June 2017, assisting with event planning, writing guest columns for the Great Rivers blog, and drafting the Young Professionals Board’s initial by-laws. She joined the Young Professionals Board because she wanted to get more involved in environmental issues and the nonprofit sector. And she knew Great Rivers was a special place because of her time working with us in 2014 as a legal extern.
Outside of Great Rivers, Rachel is an attorney who represents nonprofits and businesses in a wide variety of litigation, compliance, tax controversies, and governance matters. Her first years of practice were spent representing victims injured by dangerous chemicals and pharmaceutical drugs with a leading plaintiffs’ firm downtown. Rachel also volunteers as a pro bono attorney with Volunteer Lawyers and Accountants for the Arts and Legal Services of Eastern of Missouri, where she helps nonprofits obtain and keep tax-exempt status.
Rachel received a technical writing degree from Missouri State University and a law degree from Saint Louis University School of Law. One of her favorite memories from law school is competing in the National Environmental Law Moot Court Competition. She says her time spent interning with Great Rivers helped prepare her for tackling nuanced legal issues.
What fictional place would you most like to go? Hogwarts!
We invite you to nominate an environmental champion for a Lewis C. Green Environmental Service Award! Individuals and organizations are eligible. Selected recipients will be recognized by Great Rivers Environmental Law Center at the Lewis C. Green Awards Party on Sunday, September 22, 2019 at the Whittemore House.
Nominees should have a demonstrated long-term commitment to preservation of the environment.
All nominations are due by April 1, 2019.
CLICK HERE to submit a nomination today!
A list of past recipients of the Lewis C. Green Environmental Service Award is available here.
On February 12, 2019, Great Rivers Environmental Law Center submitted comments to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Army Corps) on a proposal for implementing Congress’ Water Resources Development Acts of 2018 and 2016. The Water Resources Development Acts authorize a wide variety of water resource projects and policies administered by the Army Corps.
In its comments Great Rivers urged the Army Corps to ensure that federal investments in the nation’s water resources protect and restore the environment, as well as increase the resiliency of people and wildlife to climate change. The increasing storms, floods, and droughts now being brought about by climate change make it more important than ever that the Army Corps use modern and environmentally sound approaches when planning water resources projects.
The comments strongly support the use of natural infrastructure solutions to reduce flood and storm damages, and call for an increased commitment from the Army Corps to using these solutions. Particular recommendations urge the Army Corps to state explicitly that temporary interests in land are not appropriate for restoration, or for natural infrastructure projects, as these temporary interests would negatively impact long-term ecological sustainability. Additionally, Great Rivers encourages the removal of infrastructure projects that no longer serve a federal interest, in order to open up opportunities for ecosystem restoration that will benefit people and wildlife. Further, Great Rivers suggests the Corps be open to considering modifications to a project, up to and including removal of the project entirely, if the change would improve the overall quality of the environment.
Great Rivers’ comments address Army Corps water resources projects across the United States. These projects include restoration, flood control, shoreline protection, and fish and wildlife management.
Finally, to ensure full transparency, Great Rivers proposed that the public be given at least 60 days to review and comment on the scope and impact of water resource development projects. Great Rivers also made suggestions for how the Army Corps could ensure its compliance with requirements imposed under related environmental laws.
A summary of the comments follows, and the full document is available for viewing here.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.