Opinion ID: 1213767
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Berm

Text: SAPS first argues that the berm leaches lead into jurisdictional waters, and is therefore a point source which discharges pollutants into navigable waters. However, there is insufficient evidence in the record to support this claim. The LBG report, as noted previously, concludes that ground water beneath the shooting range has not been impacted by lead from the... range and, regarding wetland surface water, that lead is not leaching out of the soil or surface water to contaminate surrounding waters. J.A. at 266. The AEI report does not disagree. It indicates that tests were performed on certain soil samples taken from the berm and that these samples exceeded the CTDEP's Pollutant Mobility Criteria (PMC)  its RSR for assessing, among other things, the capacity of pollutants potentially to leach. The report concludes based on this testing that the lead is leachable and may over time pose a threat to ground water quality, id. at 643, but it does not provide evidence that any actual leaching has occurred. For the reasons already articulated, the bare fact that soil samples from the Metacon berm may exceed Connecticut's RSR threshold for pollutant mobility is not enough, without more, to raise a material issue as to whether a serious risk of endangerment to ground water may be present, for the purpose of the RCRA. The AEI report suggests the lead is leachable but provides no information as to the likelihood of leaching or the seriousness of any risk it presents. Notably, the CTDEP itself informed Connecticut's Attorney General on the basis of the LBG report, which analyzed ground and surface water, that [a]ll the results indicated that lead was not detected or was present at concentrations in groundwater and surface water below action levels. Id. at 262. For the purpose of a CWA permit violation, however, all that is necessary is an unauthorized discharge into jurisdictional waters. As we have already said, there is no evidence that lead has leached from the berm into ground water. [6] And SAPS has similarly provided no evidence that lead has migrated from the berm to Metacon wetlands through leaching. Lead was detected in wetland soils and surface waters near the berm. The AEI report suggests that if the lead migrated from the berm, however, it was by means other than leaching  that wetland sediments and surface water behind and adjacent to the backstop/berm may be receptors for lead contamination due to surface water runoff and airborne dust. J.A. at 637. This method of contamination, however, even assuming that it takes place, does not fall within the statute. Id. For even assuming the Metacon berm may be described as a container, or conduit, the record contains no evidence that it serves as a confined and discrete conveyance of lead to jurisdictional wetlands by these routes. See 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). The EPA's NPDES regulations, which SAPS does not challenge and to which we defer, make clear that surface water runoff that is neither collected nor channeled does not constitute point source pollution. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.2; see also Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 268 F.3d at 94; Trustees for Alaska, 749 F.2d at 558; EPA Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Guidance 3 (1987). Even assuming rain and flooding at the Metacon site may cause lead in the berm to migrate to jurisdictional wetlands via surface water runoff, SAPS has provided no evidence that such runoff is in any way collected or channeled by man. 40 C.F.R. § 122.2. [7] Thus, there is insufficient evidence that surface water runoff from the berm constitutes a discharge from a point source, and such runoff is outside the ambit of the CWA permit requirement. This Court's precedent supports this conclusion. In Concerned Area Residents for the Environment v. Southview Farm, 34 F.3d 114 (2d Cir.1994), we found that liquid manure that flowed from the field of a farm to a jurisdictional water constituted a discharge from two point sources: (1) a swale coupled with a pipe that channeled the manure and (2) manure-spreading vehicles that discharged manure onto the field. With respect to the swale, we noted that the liquid manure was collected and channelized through the ditch or depression in the swale of field 104 and thence into the ditch leading to the stream. Id. at 119. SAPS points to no evidence of a similar conveyance in the case at bar. With respect to the manure spreading machines, this Court held as follows: [W]e agree with the appellants that, alternatively, the manure spreading vehicles themselves were point sources. The collection of liquid manure into tankers and their discharge on fields from which the manure directly flows into navigable waters are point source discharges under the case law. Id. (emphasis added). Here, by contrast, there is no evidence that lead deposited into the berm directly flows into Metacon wetlands. The AEI report indicates that it does so only as part of surface water runoff, which results from rain or flooding. Moreover, unlike in Concerned Area Residents, there is no evidence that the surface water runoff from the berm containing lead is in anyway channeled or collected. We also find that lead in the berm that migrates to jurisdictional wetlands as airborne dust does not constitute a discharge from a point source. Based on the record before us, there is no evidence that airborne lead moves by any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14), to Metacon wetlands. The berm simply cannot be described as a discernible, confined and discrete conveyance with respect to lead that is carried by the wind, some portion of which may happen to land on nearby wetlands. See Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc., 399 F.3d at 510 ([T]he [CWA] does generally contemplate that discharges be `channelized' in order to fall within the EPA's regulatory jurisdiction.). To be clear, our holding is not that a berm can never constitute a point source, but only that there is insufficient evidence that the migration of lead from Metacon's berm by virtue of runoff and airborne dust is a point source discharge. Cf. Or. Natural Desert Ass'n v. U.S. Forest Serv., 550 F.3d 778, 784 n. 4 ([W]hile a dam might not always be considered a point source, the dam turbines that were the focus of the decision in S.D. Warren clearly were a point source.). Even assuming the berm is an identifiable source from which lead pollution reaches jurisdictional wetlands  a generous assumption on the record here  this is not enough to satisfy the CWA requirement of a point source discharge. Otherwise, a passerby who flings a candy wrapper into the Hudson River, or a urinating swimmer would constitute point sources. Plaza Health Labs., 3 F.3d at 647. So too would runoff due to the agricultural use of land adjoining a river, Nat. Res. Defense Council, Inc., 268 F.3d at 94, or runoff of salt from roads, oil from parking lots, Plaza Health Labs., 3 F.3d at 652 (Oakes, J., dissenting), or pollutants from construction activities. EPA Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Guidance 3 (1987). But these are paradigmatic examples of nonpoint source pollution. Both the CWA's definition of a point source and the CWA's structure, which leaves the regulation of nonpoint source pollution to the states, make clear that Congress chose to exempt a class of pollution from the CWA's permit requirement. To find that SAPS has presented sufficient evidence that the berm constitutes a point source on the undeveloped record before us would imply that runoff or windblown pollutants from any identifiable source, whether channeled or not, are subject to the CWA permit requirement. Such a construction would eviscerate the point source requirement and undo Congress's choice. The CWA's broad remedial purpose, i.e., to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters, 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a), cannot override the plain text and structure of the statute. See Plaza Health Labs., 3 F.3d at 647. In sum, a point source discharge requires that pollutants reach navigable waters by a discernible, confined and discrete conveyance and the AEI report's vague references to potential surface water runoff and windblown dust from the berm are insufficient to raise a material issue of fact that these are point source discharges.