Water Quality

Subscribe to Water Quality via RSS

On September 24, 2018, in two separate decisions, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals found that coal ash wastewater that enters groundwater and eventually travels to navigable waters through the groundwater is not regulated under the Clean Water Act (“CWA,” or the “Act”).  In these decisions, the Sixth Circuit expressly disagrees with recent holdings from the Fourth and Ninth Circuits, paving the way for potential Supreme Court review.

The CWA requires a permit for discharge of pollutants into navigable waters.  33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq.  At issue in both Sixth Circuit cases is whether the CWA extends to regulate indirect discharge into a navigable water, through groundwater.  Rejecting the “hydrological connection” theory, the Sixth Circuit found that groundwater is not subject to regulation under the CWA because it is not a point source.  Therefore, the discharge of pollutants into groundwater, and subsequent travel to a navigable water, also does not fall within the scope of the CWA.Continue Reading Sixth Circuit Limits Scope of CWA, Breaking with Fourth and Ninth Circuits

Environmental groups have obtained a favorable Clean Water Act (“CWA”) ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, which can be viewed as an expansion of jurisdiction for stormwater permitting for industrial sources.  In the Order, issued on August 9, 2018, Judge Stephen V. Wilson held that if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) determines that stormwater discharges “cause or contribute to violations of water quality standards,” then regulators must limit such stormwater discharges under the mandates of the CWA.  EPA is required to regulate stormwater discharges through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permitting scheme, and does not have discretion to address the pollution through other methods.
Continue Reading Court Finds that Privately-Owned Industrial Stormwater Discharges Require Clean Water Act Permits

Reviving a federal Clean Water Act (“CWA”) lawsuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that an indirect discharge – such as a discharge to ground water – may fall within the scope of the CWA, if the indirect discharge is sufficiently connected to navigable waters to be covered under the CWA.  The decision was issued on April 12, 2018, in the case, Upstate Forever et al. v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners LP, et al.  The facts were unusual for a citizen suit, in that the citizen group plaintiffs were targeting discharges to ground water.  Plaintiffs alleged that defendants were in violation of the CWA because defendant (or “Kinder Morgan”) discharged pollutants into navigable waters without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit.  The source of the alleged discharge is a gasoline spill: in 2014, “over 369,000 gallons of gasoline spilled from Kinder Morgan’s underground pipeline, which extends over 1100 miles through parts of the eastern United States.”  Slip Op. at 8.  According to plaintiffs, the “gasoline pollutants from the pipeline are seeping into navigable waters as defined by the CWA.”  Id.  Kinder Morgan subsequently repaired the pipeline, and has recovered at least a portion of the spilled gasoline.
Continue Reading Following Ninth Circuit’s Lead, Fourth Circuit Expands CWA Jurisdiction to Groundwater Where “Connection” to Navigable Waters Exists

On October 10, 2017, the California State Water Resources Control Board (“Water Board”) issued the second version of an order to modify agricultural waste discharge requirements (“Proposed Order”), under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (“ILRP”).  Through the ILRP, the Water Board regulates discharges from irrigated agricultural lands across the state, especially within California’s Central Valley.  Regulation of agricultural water discharges is important because such discharges can affect water quality by transporting pollutants, including pesticides, sediment, nutrients, salts, pathogens, and heavy metals, from cultivated fields into surface waters.
Continue Reading How Low Can You Go? Proposed Agricultural Waste Discharge Requirements Impose Even More Stringent Demands on Central Valley Farmers

California’s newer groundwater regulatory structure, the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014 (“SGMA”), was signed by Governor Edmund G. Brown Jr. on September 16, 2014. The State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) is the enforcement agency for SGMA. SGMA requires the SWRCB to establish a schedule of fees sufficient to recover the costs incurred by…

On April 7th, Governor Jerry Brown issued an executive order that lifts the drought emergency in fifty-four of the fifty-eight California counties. After six years of a prolonged drought in California, Executive Order B-40-17 lifts the drought emergency in all California counties except Fresno, Kings, Tulare and Tuolumne.

While the drought is declared over for…

Co-authored by Wes Miliband and guest-blogger Hayley K. Siltanen

The Ninth Circuit recently ruled that federal reserved water rights held by Indian tribes extend to groundwater underlying reservation lands. Determining the quantity of that groundwater, however, is reserved for another day.

In Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians v. Coachella Valley Water District, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s declaration that the United States impliedly reserved appurtenant water sources, with “appurtenant” including groundwater, when it created the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians’ reservation in the Coachella Valley of California. The decision marks the first time that a federal appellate court has recognized groundwater rights as being included in federal reserved water rights.

Federal reserved rights are water rights that are appurtenant to land that has been withdrawn from the public domain by the federal government, and that are necessary to accomplish the federal purpose of the withdrawn (or “reserved”) land. In a landmark decision issued over 100 years ago, Winters v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that federal reserved rights apply to Indian reservations. These rights, known as Winters rights, derive from the federal purpose of the reservation.  In the case of the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (the “Tribe”), the Ninth Circuit explained that, “[w]ithout water, the underlying purpose—to establish a home and support an agrarian society—would be entirely defeated.”Continue Reading Tribes’ Federal Water Rights Include Groundwater—But How Much?

December 31, 2016 marked a deadline for oilfield operators to comply with the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources’ (“DOGGR”) Aquifer Exemption and Compliance Schedule Regulations.  Operators were required to either cease injection of oilfield wastewater or obtain an aquifer exemption to continue injecting such wastewater.  This deadline was applicable to 11 aquifers that were historically treated as “exempt” aquifers, but have recently undergone review by DOGGR due to compliance issues with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act (“SDWA”).

For any underground injection project approved by the Division [DOGGR] for injection into one of the 11 aquifers listed in subdivision (b)(1), injection shall cease by December 31, 2016, unless and until the U.S[.] Environmental Protection Agency, subsequent to April 20, 2015, determines that the aquifer or the portion of the aquifer where injection is occurring meets the criteria for aquifer exemption.

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14, § 1779.1(b)

Continue Reading With Time Running Out for EPA to Act, Oil & Gas Operators Grow Increasingly Anxious about Pending Aquifer Exemption Applications

In a narrow win for plaintiff Wild Fish Conservancy (“Plaintiff”), the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington held that the biological opinion (“BiOp”) for the Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery (“Hatchery”) was arbitrary and capricious because the National Marine Fisheries Service (“NMFS”) failed to adequately consider the effects of climate change.

This case concerns a Hatchery located on Icicle Creek about three miles south of Leavenworth, Washington.  The purpose of the Hatchery is to replace spawning habitat impacted by construction of the Grand Coulee Dam, and it is operated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) and the Bureau of Reclamation (“BOR”).  Icicle Creek is home to two Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) listed species: the Upper Columbia River Chinook salmon and the Upper Columbia River steelhead.Continue Reading Up the Creek Without a Paddle: District Court Holds that Biological Opinion Must Consider Climate Change Impacts

About Stoel Rives Environmental Law

Learn More

Few firms view their Environment, Land Use, and Natural Resources practices as core legal services. Stoel Rives is one of them. The firm ranks #8 in the United States according to Law360’s list of the largest practices of its kind. Our sophisticated compliance counseling, permitting, regulatory development, and litigation practices continue a long tradition of specialization and deep experience. Our environment, land use, and natural resource attorneys incorporate prior agency experience, technical acumen, and industry knowledge into their legal advice. They also build strong relationships with agency officials and industry associations. Our litigation successes include landmark decisions. More than 60 attorneys, paralegals, and compliance analysts comprise Stoel Rives’ nationwide Environment, Land Use & Natural Resources practice.