CWA - Discharge Flashcards
1
Q
Discharge of a Pollutant - Definition
A
- “any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from any point source”
- pollutant much broader than CAA - doesn’t require a finding of harm first
2
Q
Point Source - Definition
A
- any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance
- includes pipes, ditches, channels, tunnels, wells, CAFO
- doesn’t include agricultural stormwater discharges + return flows from irrigated agriculture
3
Q
Point Source - Evading the Statute
A
- if you can shift discharge from point source to nonpoint source, you get out of CWA regulation
4
Q
Municipal and Industrial Stormwater Discharges
A
- ## discharges composed entirely of stormwater generally don’t require permits, but there are exceptions (industrial activity, if it contributes to violation of water quality standards)
5
Q
Addition Issues
A
- groundwater and proximate cause limits
- created by the point source
- introduction to vs. movement within
- one water to another water
- proof of addition when multiple sources
6
Q
County of Maui v. Hawaii WIldlife Fund
A
- county wastewater treatment facility
- 3-5 million gallons treated effluent injected daily into wells 180 to 250 below, migrates to Pacific Ocean along two miles of coastline
- takes months to travel one-half mile
7
Q
County of Maui - Q Presented
A
- if pollutant released from point source travels short distance through groundwater + foreseeably reaches nav surface waters, does it fall within CWA prohibition on unpermitted discharges?
8
Q
County of Maui - Maui’s Args
A
- pollutants are not added to nav waters by point source unless the point source itself directly conveys the pollutants into such waters
- discharge does not accordingly include pollutants that first: travel over land before reaching nav waters or travel through groundwater to reach nav waters
9
Q
County of Maui - EPA Arg
A
- pollutants NOT added to nav waters by point source if first travel through groundwater
- discharge MAY include pollutants that originate w/ point source then travel over land before reaching nav waters
- their arg is that so much groundwater eventually reaches surface water that there’s no way to regulate it without ending the Congressional exclusion of groundwater from the act
10
Q
County of Maui - Hawaii Wildlife Fund Argument
A
Groundwater travel and travel over land counts when two conditions are met:
- pollutant in nav waters is FAIRLY TRACEABLE to point source
- point source = PROXIMATE CAUSE of added pollutants
- problem: proximate cause lacks textual basis
11
Q
Rapanos and Prox Cause
A
- basically, Scalia in Rapanos was trying to assuage worries about tributaries + said would be covered even if tributaries weren’t nav waters because the pollutant could still go into the nav waters (pollution addition doesn’t need to be direct)
- used to support Hawaii Wildlife arg
12
Q
County of Maui - Decision
A
- 2020
- Breyer opinion embraces functional equivalent test - you need a permit if adding the pollutants through groundwater is the “functional equivalent of “a direct discharge from the point source into navigable waters”
13
Q
County of Maui - Traceability
A
- SCOTUS rejects traceability as too broad = also says for groundwater, statutory structure indicates Congress intended to leave substantial responsibility and autonomy to the states
14
Q
County of Maui - SG Groundwater Exclusion Arg
A
- too narrow - “would risk serious interference with EPA’s ability to regulate ordinary point source discharges” (basically massive loophole, you could just move the pipe back a few feet so it technically goes through groundwater)
15
Q
County of Maui - Immediate Source Argument
A
- would create loophole
- reading “from” as connoting a means would be weird (“does not remotely fit in this context”)
- not supported by text