Water

Subscribe to Water via RSS

Plaintiffs across the country have filed suit seeking relief for their exposure to per– and polyfluoroalkyl substances (“PFAS”), a group of man-made chemicals that the plaintiffs hope to link to a variety of adverse health effects, including cancer. While the health effects attributable to these chemicals are under study by state and federal regulators, decisionmakers have been slow to implement rules and regulations that provide those who have been exposed to these chemicals with a clear path for recovery. While regulators grapple with these emerging contaminants, courts are weighing in on whether those injured by exposure to PFAS are entitled to relief under the existing regulatory landscape.

On January 13 and 15, 2020, EPA and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), respectively, published their annual civil monetary penalty adjustments in the Federal Register. The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 2015 requires federal agencies to make annual inflation adjustments to federal statutory civil penalty amounts. The annual inflation adjustments are based on a cost-of-living multiplier determined by changes to the Consumer Price Index. This year’s inflation multiplier is 1.01764.

On January 10, 2020, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) published the long-awaited proposed rule to amend its regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA).  The statute, sometimes pejoratively referred to as a “paper-tiger,” requires a federal agency to take a hard look at the environmental impacts of certain proposed projects, but does not mandate any particular outcome.

On January 8, 2020, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee heard testimony from representatives of Wyoming and Maryland in an effort to evaluate the effectiveness of programs under the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) designed to reduce nonpoint source (“NPS”) pollution.

NPS pollution, unlike point source pollution that can typically be traced to an industrial or sewage treatment facility, is created by land runoff that results from rainfall or snowmelt. As the water moves over and through the ground, it picks up sediment and other pollutants that are eventually deposited into nearby waterways. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, NPS “pollutants have harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, fisheries, and wildlife.”

Somewhat like a soccer game, time on the dispute between Florida and Georgia over the waters of the Apalachicola Chattahoochee Flint (ACF) basin seems to be kept on the field. It is difficult to know from the stands exactly where the game stands notwithstanding the score.  But the report issued by Special Master Hon. Paul J. Kelly, Jr. on December 11, 2019, plainly tipped the balance in Georgia’s favor when Special Master Kelly stated that he did not recommend that “the Supreme Court grant Florida’s request for a decree equitably apportioning the waters of the ACF Basin because the evidence has not shown harm to Florida caused by Georgia; the evidence has shown that Georgia’s water use is reasonable; and the evidence has not shown that the benefits of apportionment would substantially outweigh the potential harms.”  Rep’t of Sp. Mast. at 81.

On December 9, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided not to revisit the U.S. Court of Appeals for D.C. Circuit’s decision in Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, 913 F.3d 1099 (2019), allowing the lower court’s ruling to stand.

The key holding of the D.C. Circuit’s opinion, which concerned the ongoing Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) relicensing of the Klamath Hydroelectric Project, is that the States of California and Oregon waived their authorities under section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. § 1341, by failing to rule on the applicant’s submitted request for water quality certification within one year.  The D.C. Circuit held that the plain language of CWA section 401 establishes a maximum period of one year for states to act on a request for water quality certification.  Accordingly, the court further held that FERC erred in concluding that the “withdrawal-and-resubmittal” of the water quality certification application on an annual basis resets the one-year statutory time period for state action under section 401.

On November 22, 2019, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) agreed to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for the operation of the federally owned and operated Chief Joseph Dam, the second-largest hydropower producing dam in the United States, as part of a settlement with the Columbia Riverkeeper. The settlement resolves litigation (previously addressed on this blog) brought by the Columbia Riverkeeper, which claimed that the Corps’ dam operations had long been discharging oil, grease, and heated water into the Columbia River without a permit.

Sections 301(a) and 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) prohibit anyone, including a federal agency, from discharging “pollutants” through a “point source” into a “water of the United States” except as authorized by a NPDES permit. Section 505 of the CWA provides any citizen, including a citizen group like Columbia Riverkeeper, the ability to bring a civil action against any person, including the United States, that is violating an effluent standard or limitation. As detailed by its complaint, the Columbia Riverkeeper alleged that the Corps has been in violation of CWA standards by allowing oils and grease to accumulate in sumps that drain into the river and utilizing hydro-carbon based lubricants on generation equipment that become discharged with cooling water without a NPDES permit.

On November, 4, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Andrew Wheeler announced the latest proposal to amend the Coal Combustion Residuals (CCR) rule. Since its original promulgation in April 2015, the CCR rule has been the subject of extensive litigation and numerous rounds of proposed and final revisions. Many of the revisions have sought to address decisions made by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (D.C. Circuit) and concerns raised by both industry and environmental groups. This latest round of proposed changes—entitled “A Holistic Approach to Closure Part A: Deadline to Initiate Closure”—includes the following three categories of proposed amendments to the CCR Rule.