Opinion ID: 326929
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: federal water pollution control act

Text: 164 The district court found that Reserve's discharge into Lake Superior violated §§ 1160(c)(5) and (g)(1) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. (FWPCA). 65 380 F.Supp. at 16. These two provisions authorize an action by the United States to secure abatement of water discharges in interstate waters 66 where the discharges violate state water quality standards and endanger    the health or welfare of persons. § 1160(g)(1). 67 165 Minnesota has adopted water quality standards Minnesota Water Pollution Control Regulation 15 (WPC 15) in conformity with the FWPCA. 68 These standards read in relevant part: 166 (2) No raw or treated sewage, industrial waste or other wastes shall be discharged into any interstate waters of the state so as to cause any nuisance conditions, such as the presence of significant amounts of floating solids, scum, oil slicks, excessive suspended solids, material discoloration, obnoxious odors, gas ebullition, deleterious sludge deposits, undesirable slimes or fungus growths, or other offensive or harmful effects. (WPC 15(c)(2) (emphasis added).) 167 WPC 15 incorporates selected Minnesota statutory provisions into the water quality standards, including the policy of protection of the public health contained in Minn.Stat.Ann. § 115.42 and a definition of pollution contained in Minn.Stat.Ann. § 115.01(5) as contamination which renders waters impure so as to be actually or potentially harmful or detrimental or injurious to public health, safety or welfare   . (Emphasis added). 69 168 The evidence shows Reserve's water discharge to be potentially harmful to the public health. As such, these discharges pollute the waters of Lake Superior in violation of the Minnesota water quality standards. 169 An action under the FWPCA requires proof of an additional element. The United States must establish that the water pollution which is violative of state water quality standards is also endangering the health or welfare of persons. § 1160(g)(1). 170 In this review, we must determine whether endangering within the meaning of the FWPCA encompasses the potential of harm to public health in the degree shown here. 171 Provisions of the FWPCA are aimed at the prevention as well as the cure of water pollution. The initial sentence of the FWPCA reads: 172 The purpose of this chapter is to enhance the quality and value of our water resources and to establish a national policy for the prevention, control, and abatement of water pollution. (33 U.S.C. § 1151(a).) 173 The term endangering, as used by Congress in § 1160(g)(1), connotes a lesser risk of harm than the phrase imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons as used by Congress in the 1972 amendments to the FWPCA. 33 U.S.C. § 1364 (Supp.1974). 70 174 In the context of this environmental legislation, we believe that Congress used the term endangering in a precautionary or preventive sense, and, therefore, evidence of potential harm as well as actual harm comes within the purview of that term. We are fortified in this view by the flexible provisions for injunctive relief which permit a court to enter such judgment and orders enforcing such judgment as the public interest and the equities of the case may require. 33 U.S.C. § 1160(c)(5). 175 We deem pertinent the interpretation given to the term endanger by Judge Wright of the District of Columbia Circuit in his analysis of the congressional use of the word endanger in the context of a provision of the Clean Air Act. 42 U.S.C. § 1857f-6c(c)(1)(A)(1970).