Source: https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/273-f-3d-481-594920458
Timestamp: 2020-04-10 00:24:22
Document Index: 791523566

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1311', '§ 1311', '§ 1342', '§ 1251', '§ 1311', '§ 1342', '§ 1342', '§ 122', '§ 1342', '§ 17', '§ 1311', '§ 1365']

273 F.3d 481 (2nd Cir. 2001), 00-9447, Catskill Mts. Ch. Trout Unltd. v City of N.Y. - Federal Cases - Case Law - VLEX 594920458
273 F.3d 481 (2nd Cir. 2001), 00-9447, Catskill Mts. Ch. Trout Unltd. v City of N.Y.
Docket Nº: Docket No. 00-9447
Citation: 273 F.3d 481
Party Name: CATSKILL MOUNTAINS CHAPTER OF TROUT UNLIMITED, INC., THEODORE GORDON FLYFISHERS, INC., CATSKILL-DELAWARE NATURAL WATER ALLIANCE, INC., FEDERATED SPORTSMEN'S CLUBS OF ULSTER COUNTY, INC. AND RIVERKEEPER, INC., PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, v. THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND JOEL A. MIELE, SR., COMMISSIONER OF
Case Date: October 23, 2001
Before: Walker, Chief Judge, Katzmann and Cudahy,[*] Circuit Judges.
On March 31, 2000, Catskill filed a complaint in district court alleging that the
City, as owner and operator of the Schoharie Reservoir and Shandaken Tunnel, was in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), which prohibits "the discharge of any pollutant" unless those discharges are conducted in accordance with a duly issued discharge permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) (citing permit requirement in 33 U.S.C. § 1342). Catskill alleged that the Tunnel discharges pollutants in the form of "suspended solids," "turbidity," and heat into Esopus Creek. They alleged that the suspended solids and turbidity are the result of earth-disturbing activities within the Reservoir's watershed that produce fine, red-clay sediments in the Reservoir. They further alleged that the discharges cause the Creek to violate state water quality standards for turbidity and temperature. Esopus Creek, Catskill contended, is naturally clearer and cooler than the water entering it from the Tunnel and supports "one of the premier trout fishing streams in the Catskill Region."
We begin with an overview of the regulatory regime. The CWA's primary function
is to regulate the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. Although the Act contains the lofty goal of eliminating water pollutant discharges altogether, see 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(1), the regulatory regime it creates requires principally that discharges be regulated by permit, not prohibited outright. The Act mandates that "the discharge of any pollutant by any person shall be unlawful," 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), "[e]xcept as in compliance" with other provisions of the statute, one of which establishes a permitting program, the "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System" ("NPDES"), 33 U.S.C. § 1342. Section 1342 in turn provides for the issuance of discharge permits ("NPDES permits") that allow the holder to discharge pollutants at levels below thresholds incorporated in the permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a); see also 40 C.F.R. § 122.1 et seq. In New York, the NPDES program is administered by NYSDEC and referred to as the State Pollution Discharge Elimination System ("SPDES"). See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(b) (authorizing state implementation of the NPDES program); N.Y. Envtl. Conserv. Law §§ 17-0105(13), 17-0701.
In addition to providing for enforcement by state agencies and the EPA, the CWA allows private parties to enforce its mandates, including the prohibition of unpermitted discharges in § 1311(a), against alleged violators in so-called "citizen suits." See 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a)(1), (f). An aggrieved plaintiff may bring a civil action for specific relief, such as the imposition of particular compliance measures, or...