Opinion ID: 884360
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: State and Federal regulations.

Text: Similarly, Lutes argues that the District Court erred in concluding that the sump system complied with all the relevant State and Federal environmental regulations. In making this argument, Lutes does not assert any specific violations of any particular regulation in order to prove that the Houdashelts were responsible for the pollution at Jim's Diesel. Rather, he contends that the environmental regulations in effect at the time indicate that a specific permit (other than a general septic permit) was required to operate a sump system such as the one in use at Jim's Diesel. Since the Houdashelts did not have the proper permit, Lutes argues, they were automatically in violation of the regulations which required one. Lutes argues that the District Court erred in finding to the contrary. We decline to address the specifics of this allegation of error for the same reasons given in subsection a, above. Even if the sump violated some un-named governmental regulation by failing to have the proper permit, such violation would not excuse Lutes' damage of the business by misusing the sump system and causing the subsequent pollution problem. The permit issue is largely irrelevant, as the District Court itself noted when determining it was much ado about nothing. The findings and conclusions regarding the permit, even if erroneous, are harmless and would not serve as a basis for a new trial. This Court therefore need not review them.