Opinion ID: 185919
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Increased Water Flow

Text: 15 The petitioners' argument is a straightforward one. As previously discussed, section 401(a)(1) requires state water quality certification for any activity ... which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). Emphasizing that water must flow through the turbine generators and be discharged in order for the dam project to produce electricity, the petitioners argue that the licensed activity — i.e., the installation and operation of the replacement turbines — will necessarily result in any discharge into the Tallapoosa River. Specifically, the petitioners maintain that the operation of the new turbine generators will result in an increased flow of water significantly different in volume, timing, and intensity, as well as in the amount of DO, from the flow of water passing through the old turbines. Br. for Pet'r at 16. The petitioners thus reason that, under the plain language of section 401(a)(1), Alabama Power's license amendment required state water quality certification. 16 The Commission contends, however, that the petitioners misinterpret the plain language of section 401(a)(1) and thereby misunderstand what must be shown in order to establish that an activity may result in any discharge. 11 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). More specifically, the Commission asserts that the petitioners' argument runs afoul of our reasoning in North Carolina, a case in which we considered whether FERC violated section 401(a)(1) by issuing an amended hydroelectric license authorizing a licensee to decrease the flow of water passing through a dam's turbine generators without first receiving state water quality certification. North Carolina, 112 F.3d at 1180-83. Rejecting the argument that section 401(a)(1) requires state water quality certification simply because an activity will result in an altered discharge, we reasoned as follows: 17 [T]he existence of certification rights under [s]ection 401(a)(1) does not depend on whether a discharge is altered. Section 401(a)(1) certification rights vests only if an activity may result in a discharge. This distinction is of no small moment. The word alter means to change something from its previous state, WEBSTER'S NEW INT'L DICTIONARY 63 (3rd ed.1961) (to cause to become different), implying that the thing changed was already in existence. By contrast, the word result implies causation. See id. at 1937 (arise as a consequence). Obviously, a subsequent event cannot be the cause of something that is already in existence. Given the disparity between petitioners' proposed test and the words of the [CWA], we elect to remain faithful to the language chosen by Congress and require that an activity result in a discharge in order to trigger the certification requirements of [s]ection 401(a)(1). 18 Id. at 1188. 19 Citing the lack of equivalence between [an] activity that may increase [per-second water flows] and [an] activity that ` may result in ' such flows, Br. for Resp't at 12 (emphasis in original), the Commission contends that our reasoning in North Carolina applies with equal force here. Replacement of the turbine generators cannot, in the Commission's view, possibly result in water flows that pre-existed and will continue, in some form, regardless of whether that replacement is approved. Id. at 14-15. At most, the Commission argues, replacement of the turbine generators will `alter an existing discharge by increasing the amount of water flowing through the units at any given time and, concurrently, reducing the amount of time that the units will operate each day.' Id. at 14 (quoting Order Denying Rehearing, 96 F.E.R.C. at 61,386). 20 Yet the Commission's argument ignores the critical feature of the licensing activity at issue in North Carolina: operation of the pipeline project — i.e., the activity authorized by the license amendment — resulted in the withdrawal of water from the Lake Gaston reservoir. North Carolina, 112 F.3d at 1187. In our view, the distinction between an increased discharge and a decreased discharge is of no small moment. Id. at 1188. But this should hardly come as a surprise, for we recognized as much in North Carolina itself. Relying on the definition of discharge of a pollutant and discharge of pollutants, 12 we observed that the word `discharge' contemplates the addition, not the withdrawal, of a substance or substances. Id. at 1187 (emphasis added). Because the operation of the pipeline project would not result in the addition of anything to Lake Gaston, we held that [a] decrease in the volume of water passing through the dam turbines cannot be considered a `discharge' as the term is defined in the CWA. Id. at 1188 (Obviously, the withdrawal of water from Lake Gaston will add nothing; nor will the withdrawal of water from Lake Gaston increase the volume of water flowing through the turbines of the Project dams.). 21 The plain language of section 401(a)(1) and our construction of that language in North Carolina thus compel us to conclude that Alabama Power's installation and operation of the new turbine generators at its Martin Dam Project is an activity ... which may result in any discharge within the meaning of section 401(a)(1). 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). As discussed above, the word `discharge' contemplates the addition ... of a substance or substances into the navigable waters. North Carolina, 112 F.3d at 1187. Here, the Commission concluded that the replacement turbines would increase the flow of water into the river by approximately 900 cfs. Thus, at the very least, the replacement turbines will release low DO water into the river at an increased rate of 900 cfs. The installation and operation of the replacement turbines is therefore an activity that may result in any discharge. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). 22 Our rejection in North Carolina of the altered discharge argument does not preclude this conclusion. North Carolina, 112 F.3d at 1188 (distinguishing activities that alter discharge from those that may result in discharge). While a decreased discharge does not cause a discharge under section 401(a)(1), see id., an increased discharge does in fact cause or, in the words of the statute, result in a discharge requiring state water quality certification, 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). Unlike an activity that reduces — and thus simply alters — a discharge with state water quality certification, an activity that increases a discharge poses a distinct risk — i.e., that the increased discharge may have negative water quality effects (such as low DO) that were either minimal or non-existent at the previous discharge level. Because it is the increase in the discharge that creates or causes this risk to water quality, cf. North Carolina, 112 F.3d at 1188, an increased discharge — unlike a decreased discharge — may result in a discharge under section 401(a)(1). 13 23 The Commission's reliance on the unchanged daily volume of the discharge is similarly misplaced. See supra note 4. While perhaps persuasive at first glance, the Commission's total daily volume argument suffers from a fatal flaw: it lacks any basis in the statutory language of section 401(a)(1). To wit, the Commission has offered no argument — persuasive or otherwise — as to why  any discharge should be measured on a daily, as opposed to on a weekly or even yearly, basis. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) (emphasis added). Given the possibility that even a temporary increase in a discharge could have a negative water quality impact, we elect to remain faithful to the language chosen by Congress, North Carolina, 112 F.3d at 1188, and hold that an activity that may result in any discharge triggers the certification requirements of section 401(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) (emphasis added). 14