Opinion ID: 3038214
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Potential “Drying Effect”

Text: Great Basin argues that the Bureau’s approval of Leeville and Amended South Project violates the Clean Water Act, the Management Act, and the Bureau’s own mining regulations, see 43 C.F.R. § 3809, because the projects will extend the periods during which existing springs and streams are dry. This, Great Basin contends, would violate federal and state requirements under the Clean Water Act that beneficial uses of waterways be maintained, and would also implicate the Act’s “antidegradation” requirements. While the district court dismissed the claim as a question of fact lying within the technical expertise of the agency, we do not reach the factual basis of the claim and hold that it fails as a matter of law. [1] It is clear that the Clean Water Act does not supersede, abrogate, or otherwise impair “the authority of each state to allocate quantities of water within its jurisdiction.” 33 U.S.C. § 1251(g). States are responsible for enforcing water quality standards on intrastate waters. See 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a). Section 401 of the statute “requires States to provide a water quality certification before a federal license or permit can be issued for activities that may result in any discharge into intrastate navigable waters.” PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cty. v. Wash. Dep’t of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 707 (1994), citing 33 U.S.C. § 1341. Great Basin places heavy weight on PUD No. 1, arguing that the case requires the Bureau to ensure that a mine operator will maintain a minimum level of stream flow before the Bureau may approve a project. In PUD No. 1, the Supreme 8630 GREAT BASIN MINE WATCH v. HANKINS Court held that the State of Washington could regulate stream flow and water quantity under its Clean Water Act authority. Great Basin points to the Supreme Court’s holding that the Clean Water Act’s definition of pollution “encompasses the effects of reduced water quantity.” Id. at 719. [2] However, PUD No. 1 does not help Great Basin. PUD No. 1 merely holds that states may set minimum flow standards as part of section 401 certification requirements; it does not hold that states must do so. In the absence of state law to the contrary, water withdrawals are not subject to the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Other circuits have interpreted the Clean Water Act in the same way. In North Carolina v. FERC, 112 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir. 1997), the D.C. Circuit reached the same conclusion in holding that the withdrawal of water from a lake did not trigger the provisions of section 401. “[N]either the withdrawal of water from the Lake nor the reduction in the volume of water . . . ‘results in a discharge’ for purposes of Section 401(a)(1). . . . [T]he word ‘discharge’ contemplates the addition, not the withdrawal, of a substance or substances.” Id. at 1187. Similarly, in Save our Community v. EPA, 971 F.2d 1155 (5th Cir. 1992), the Fifth Circuit held that the draining of wetland did not fall under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act: “We must conclude that without the existence of an effluent discharge of some kind, there is no coverage under section 404. There is no jurisdiction for the agencies or the courts to act.” Id. at 1164. The District of Colorado, in a case with similar facts, reached the same conclusion: “under Colorado law, water quality standards apply only to discharges of pollution and not to withdrawals or appropriations of water. . . . The withdrawal of water is not a discharge of pollution under the CWA.” Colo. Wild, Inc. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 122 F. Supp. 2d 1190, 1193 (D. Colo. 2000). The Supreme Court’s recent decision in S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection, 126 S. Ct. 1843 GREAT BASIN MINE WATCH v. HANKINS 8631 (2006), is not to the contrary. There, the Court held that the release of water from a hydroelectric dam constituted a “discharge” into navigable waters that is subject to state water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. However, contrary to Great Basin’s assertions, the Court did not address whether individual states are required to regulate withdrawal of water under the Act. Rather, S.D. Warren Co. reiterates that individual states have the responsibility of regulating water pollution and water use. See id. at 1853 (“Changes in the river like these fall within a State’s legitimate legislative business, and the Clean Water Act provides for a system that respects the States’ concerns”). [3] With this in mind, our next step is to determine whether Nevada law subjects withdrawal of water to the standards of the Clean Water Act, as it is permitted to do under PUD No. 1. Nevada statutory law creates different regimes for discharge of pollutants and dewatering. Discharge of pollutants is governed by the Nevada Water Pollution Control Law, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 445A.300-.730 (2006). The statute requires those seeking to discharge pollutants to obtain a permit from the Nevada state department of conservation and natural resources. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 445A.500 (2006). However, appropriation of water, including dewatering, is governed by a different statute, which maintains that any person wishing to appropriate or divert underground water should apply to the Nevada state engineer for a permit, and specifically refers to the use of water in “exploring for oil, gas, minerals or geothermal resources.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 534.050; 534.120. The Water Pollution Control Law also states that nothing in the law “shall be construed to amend, modify or supersede the provisions of [the water appropriation statutes] or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued thereunder by the state engineer.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 445A.725 (2006). Because the quality of discharged water and the quantity of appropriated water are governed by different laws and subject to different permits, it is clear that Nevada does not regulate dewatering under its Clean Water Act authority. 8632 GREAT BASIN MINE WATCH v. HANKINS [4] Great Basin’s claims under the Clean Water Act’s antidegradation provision and under the Management Act are equally untenable. The anti-degradation policy only refers to water quality standards and does not refer to water withdrawal. See 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(4). The Nevada antidegradation provision, similarly, only refers to water quality. Nev. Rev. Stat. § 445A.565. As discussed above, the Nevada statutory regime clearly separates withdrawal of water from pollution of water, and the water pollution regime, including the anti-degradation statute, is defined so as not to supersede the water allocation regime. Thus, because Nevada does not regulate water withdrawal in the same regime as water quality, the Clean Water Act’s anti-degradation provision is inapplicable. The Management Act requires the government to “take any action necessary to prevent unnecessary or undue degradation of the lands.” 43 U.S.C. § 1732(b). However, the Act also provides: Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting or restricting the power and authority of the United States or —
erning appropriation or use of, or Federal right to, water on public lands;
State jurisdiction, responsibility, interests, or rights in water resources development or control. 43 U.S.C.A. § 1701, hist. note (g) (2006). We interpret this to mean that the Management Act does not expand the requirements of the Clean Water Act. [5] Therefore, Great Basin’s arguments regarding the potential “drying effect” are untenable as a matter of law. GREAT BASIN MINE WATCH v. HANKINS 8633