Opinion ID: 6324127
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State May Enforce the Hydrostatic Permit

Text: {¶ 31} While I would conclude that the state waived all certification requirements with respect to the federal section 401 application, I would note that the state is not entirely barred from raising claims against appellees. Although the state waived participation in the federal permitting process, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) required Rover to obtain a hydrostatic permit from the state in order for FERC to sign off on construction. The Fifth District Court of Appeals concluded that because of the state’s section 401 waiver, it could not enforce the separately obtained hydrostatic permit. 2019-Ohio-5179, 150 N.E.3d 491, ¶ 31. However, because the hydrostatic permit was obtained independently of the section 401 certification process at the behest of FERC, I would conclude that the state may seek to enforce the terms of the hydrostatic permit, and I would reverse the Fifth District’s decision on this limited basis. {¶ 32} Finally, I would also note that the state’s waiver in regard to the section 401 certification does not necessarily mean that the state is without a remedy for damages from violations of the federal permit. As the Supreme Court of the United States has noted, the state may still sue for violations of federal law. United States Dept. of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607, 613, 112 S.Ct. 1627, 118 L.Ed.2d 255 (1992), fn. 5 (states may bring a suit under the Clean Water Act pursuant to the act’s citizen-suit provision, 33 U.S.C. 1365). The state’s ability to file a suit under the Clean Water Act, coupled with its ability to enforce the hydrostatic permit, means that the state has some tools at its disposal to ensure Rover’s compliance with its relevant obligations, despite the state’s section 401 waiver.