Opinion ID: 162640
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Discharging Pollutant into Waters of the United States (Overholt).

Text: 115 Overholt contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the alleged Clean Water Act violation because the Government did not prove that the oily substance he dumped down the hillside entered the waters of the United States. He does not challenge the definition of Waters of the United States in 40 C.F.R. § 122.2, which includes: 116 (c) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams) ... or natural ponds the use, degradation, or destruction of which would affect or could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (1) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; [and] 117 ... 118 (e) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this definition.... 119 Nor does he deny that Keystone Lake, an intrastate body of water, is a water[] of the United States. Overholt's argument appears to be simply that there was no evidence that the spill entered the lake. 120 The argument fails on two grounds. First, it was unnecessary for the government to prove that the spill entered the lake. Under the regulation, the creek, too, constituted Waters of the United States, because it was a tributary of the lake. See Quivira Mining Co. v. E.P.A., 765 F.2d 126, 129-30 (10th Cir.1985) (noting cases holding that nonnavigable streams are Waters of the United States if they are tributaries of navigable waters). Overholt admits that several witnesses testified that the spill entered the creek. Second, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the spill entered Keystone Lake itself. An Overholt neighbor testified that he drove to the end of the creek four or five days after the spill and saw oil collecting on the shores of Keystone Lake. Hence Overholt's conviction on this count must stand. 121