Opinion ID: 3038214
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Discharged Groundwater

Text: Great Basin next argues that the groundwater discharged from Amended South Project into Maggie Creek will violate federal and state water quality requirements. The district court ruled that the plaintiffs had not properly raised these arguments before the Bureau.
The APA requires that plaintiffs exhaust administrative remedies before bringing suit in federal court. 5 U.S.C. § 704. This requirement applies to claims under NEPA. “Persons challenging an agency’s compliance with NEPA must structure their participation so that it . . . alerts the agency to the parties’ position and contentions, in order to allow the agency to give the issue meaningful consideration.” Dep’t of Transp. v. Pub. Citizen, 541 U.S. 752, 764 (2004) (internal punctuation omitted), quoting Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). We considered the degree to which parties must raise environmental claims before the agency in Native Ecosystems Council. There, we allowed the plaintiffs to raise arguments before us where they “presented a much less refined legal argument in their administrative appeal.” 304 F.3d at 898. We defined the exhaustion requirement broadly: “The plaintiffs have exhausted their administrative appeals if the appeal, taken as a whole, provided sufficient notice to the [agency] to afford it the opportunity to rectify the violations that the plaintiffs alleged.” Id. at 899. This, we held, comported with the purposes of the exhaustion requirement: “avoiding premature claims and ensuring that the agency be given a chance to bring its expertise to bear to resolve a claim.” Id. at 900. “Requiring more might unduly burden those who pursue administrative appeals unrepresented by counsel, who may frame their claims in non-legal terms rather than precise legal formulations.” Id. We have continued to use this analysis in sub8634 GREAT BASIN MINE WATCH v. HANKINS sequent cases. See, e.g., Idaho Sporting Congress, Inc. v. Rittenhouse, 305 F.3d 957, 965 (9th Cir. 2002). [6] Applying this standard, we conclude that the Bureau was on notice that Great Basin took issue with the groundwater discharged into Maggie Creek. In its comment letter to the Bureau on the Amended South Project draft EIS, Great Basin wrote: “The [Amended South Project] indicates that groundwater released into Maggie Creek does not need to be treated, since the combined discharged water does not exceed the water quality standards established by the NPDES system. . . . This statement is different than saying that no impacts will occur. What are the water quality measurements in the Creek and in the discharged water? Are arsenic or TDS amounts increased over what exists naturally in Maggie Creek? Does the total amount of contaminants discharged add a significant amount to the total loads in the Humboldt River downstream?” Under our case law, this was sufficient to preserve the claim for judicial review. Great Basin clearly expressed concern about the current and future levels of toxins in the discharged water, and the Bureau was on notice of these concerns. [7] The district court’s conclusion that this argument was unexhausted was in error. Accordingly, we proceed to the merits.
The Environmental Protection Agency and the states are responsible for administering the Clean Water Act. Possible water pollution clearly comes within the ambit of the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 1341. [8] Newmont obtained a water pollution permit from the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP), which GREAT BASIN MINE WATCH v. HANKINS 8635 is responsible for regulating the discharge of pollutants into state waters. Great Basin’s argument is based on a table attached to the Amended South Project EIS, which details the quality of the water discharged from Newmont between 1994 and 1998. According to Great Basin, the table shows that the groundwater pumped from Amended South Project has exceeded water quality standards and the limitations of Newmont’s permit. The table belies Great Basin’s argument. While it is true that the level of pollutants occasionally exceeded those allowed by Newmont’s permit, the discharge was generally within the range allowed. The only measurement that was frequently out of line was for total dissolved solids. The thirty-day average for total dissolved solids was, however, well under the NDEP’s permit’s daily maximum. Following the Clean Water Act’s stricture that states should enforce water quality standards, the Bureau repeatedly told Newmont that it had to obtain a permit from NDEP before Newmont could discharge any pollutants. The Bureau reviewed the table and decided that “[t]he mine discharge has been generally within its permit limitations; no significant non-compliance has been found.” [9] Great Basin cites no law to demonstrate that the Bureau’s analysis of the data was arbitrary or capricious, or, indeed, even incorrect. We therefore affirm the summary judgment on this claim.