Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Wisconsin District Court Allocates CERCLA Liability for Past and Future Response Costs
- Missouri Court Rejects "Bright-Line" Test for Determining Statute of Limitations Under CERCLA Section 107
- Louisiana Trial Court Enjoins EPA From Enforcement of Disparate Impact Regulations Under Title VI
- D.C. Circuit Continues to Afford Deference to Technical Agency Decisions
- SCOTUS to Resolve Scope of Agency NEPA Environmental Analysis
Topics
- Disparate Impact
- Environmental Justice
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- Georgia
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- FIFRA
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Environmental Covenants
- Federal Circuit
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Asbestos
- Martime
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Clean Streams Law
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Inspection
- Residential
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Tenth Circuit
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- CISWI
- Enforcement
- Consent Decree
- Equity
- Laches
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Boiler MACT
- Rulemaking
- Declaratory Relief
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Standing
- NPDES
- Procedure
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- Certification
- CLE
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Decisions of Note
- Cases to Watch
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Cost Recovery
- Defense Costs
- Insurance
- CERCLA
- Real Estate
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Trespass
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- Odors
- ISRA
- New Jersey
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- Emissions
- Railroad
- RCRA
- Waste
- Air
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Speaking Engagements
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Title V
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Camp Lejeune
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Deeds
- Marcellus Shale
- Clean Water Act
- Mineral Rights
- Due Process
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Drilling
- Exploration
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Do indirect discharges of pollutants into navigable waters amount to a violation of the Clean Water Act? On February 1st, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held in Hawaii Wildlife Fund et al. v. County of Maui, No. 15-17447, that discharges of pollutants originating from a point source violate the Clean Water Act even if the pollutants first enter another means of conveyance—in this case groundwater—before entering into a navigable waterway. Despite recent EPA efforts to roll back certain environmental regulations, the court gave no deference to EPA’s amicus curiae proposed liability rule requiring a “direct hydrological connection” between the point source and the navigable water.
The decision affirmed the district court’s summary judgment ruling which stemmed from treated effluent discharges from four injections wells at the County of Maui’s wastewater treatment facility. The facility injected 3 to 5 million gallons of treated wastewater per day into groundwater via its wells without an NPDES permit. From there, some of the wastewater from all four wells traveled from groundwater into the Pacific Ocean, a navigable water under the CWA.
Under the CWA, the county contended that it is not sufficient to focus exclusively on the original pollutant source to determine whether an NPDES permit is needed and that how pollutants travel from the original point source to navigable waters matters. In other words, to trigger liability under the CWA, the point source itself must convey the pollutants directly into the navigable water. Because the groundwater here interrupted the direct discharge into a navigable water, the county argued it should not be subject to liability under the CWA.
The court cited decisions in the Ninth Circuit and the Second Circuit which stressed that CWA jurisdiction begins when the discharge comes from a discernible point source, and not necessarily when the point source discharges into a navigable water. To give an example, the court referenced decisions in the Second Circuit dealing with discharges of pesticides into air, which eventually made their way into navigable waters. The court reasoned that the pesticides were discharged from the pesticide equipment, and not the air, concluding that the spray apparatuses constituted a point source under the CWA from which a discharge occurred.
Interestingly, the court cited Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion in Rapanos v. United States to further support the notion that the CWA forbids discharges from point sources. 547 U.S. 715 (2006). Specifically, Scalia recognized that the CWA does not forbid the “’addition of any pollutant directly to navigable waters from any point source,’ but rather the ‘addition of any pollutant to navigable waters.’” Id. at 743 (plurality opinion) (emphasis in original) (quoting §§ 1311(a), 13612(12)(A)). On that basis, Scalia noted that “from the time of the CWA’s enactment, lower courts have held that the discharge into intermittent channels from any pollutant that naturally washes downstream likely violates § 1311(a), even if the pollutants discharged from a point source do not emit ‘directly into’ covered waters, but pass ‘through conveyances’ in between.” Id. (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).
The Ninth Circuit’s decision underscores the role courts still play in shaping the environmental legal landscape. Although the EPA proposed a liability rule requiring a “direct hydrological connection” between the point source and the navigable water, the Ninth Circuit instead required only a “fairly traceable” connection. As the EPA continues its effort to roll back certain environmental regulations, dischargers must still be aware of decisions coming from the courts