Opinion ID: 688768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Inactive Waste Pits and Clean Water Act Compliance

Text: 29 MESS alleges, and McClellan does not dispute, that contaminants from the inactive pits continue to leach downward into groundwater beneath the Base. This leaching, according to MESS, constitutes a point discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States which, without an authorization permit, violates 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1311 (Clean Water Act). MESS would require McClellan to procure a Clean Water Act permit authorizing all leaching from the inactive pits. The relief sought would also compel McClellan's compliance with individual state notification requirements for contaminant discharge. Absent the permit and compliance, MESS would prohibit any discharges. 30 McClellan has amply demonstrated that the leaching in question is closely connected to the CERCLA action. The leaching process is a necessary component of the CERCLA plan's groundwater extraction system, which was designed to prevent migration of contaminants away from McClellan. Any delay or interruption of the process will slow the cleanup action, a result that Congress sought to avoid in enacting Section 113(h). The district court found that claims focusing on the groundwater underlying the Base were directed at an integral part of the cleanup and, as such, may not be sustained until cleanup is completed. We agree with the district court that MESS's Clean Water Act and state water law claims, as they pertain to leaching of contaminants, are challenges to the continuing CERCLA response and are consequently beyond federal jurisdiction. 31 A slightly different question exists with regard to McClellan's alleged discharges of pollutants into surface waters. MESS asserts in its complaint that contaminants from the inactive pits discharge laterally, through perched groundwater, seeps and pipes, into the Magpie Creek at points where it crosses the Base. McClellan responds that because the sources of the alleged contaminants, the inactive pits, are subjects of the CERCLA response action and its attendant Management Action Plan, the surface water contamination claims also should be barred. We agree. 32 The source of the alleged surface water contaminants is not dispositive of MESS's claim. What is dispositive, however, is the court's inability to fashion any remedy that would not interfere with McClellan's CERCLA groundwater extraction system. While the contaminants allegedly destined for Magpie Creek are moving laterally through the soil, unlike the downward-leaching pollutants, it is impossible to require any Clean Water Act compliance measure to remedy lateral contaminant discharges from the pits that would not actively challenge CERCLA activities directed at remedying the downward discharges. MESS's claims pertaining to discharge via seepage and pipes into Magpie Creek therefore are excluded from federal court jurisdiction.