Court Opinion

ID: 9716217
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:31:02.227873+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:42.962383
License: Public Domain

Concurring Opinion by
Judge Mencer:
I concur in the result reached because, in the words of President Judge Bowman, “'factors of a present activity on the part of the owner or user of the land or of a course of conduct directly producing the deleterious result are absent in this case.” The absence of these factors is the distinguishing factual feature between this case and the cases of Pittsburgh Coal Company v. Sanitary Water Board, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 407, 286 A. 2d 459 (1972), and Harmar Coal Co. v. Sanitary Water Board, 4 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 435, 285 A. 2d 898 (1972). My dissenting opinions in those two cases contended that there were violations of the 1965 amendments to The Clean Streams Law, enacted by the Act of August 23, 1965, P. L. 372, because there was a discharge into the streams as a result of present *62activity on the part of the owner or user of the land or a course of conduct (pumping) directly producing the discharge and deleterious results.
1 am of the opinion that the 1970 amendments to Section 316 of The Clean Streams Law, Act of July 31, 1970, P. L. 653, §12, 35 P.S. §691.316, could have been applied in this case but- fully agree with the opinion writer that “[t] here is no evidence in this record that the Sanitary Water Board or the Department issued any order at any time against B & T as a landowner’ under the provisions of this section.”
Finally, the confusion as to whether, during the critical periods of time in this case, B & T was operating under permit No. 567M035 or extensions of permit No. 564M005, coupled with the cessation of all operations and the closing of Mine No. 15 by late July 1969, nearly one year prior to the first breakout, leads me to believe that the result here is legally correct.