Advertisement

July 28, 2014

Supreme Court Offers Comfort to Owners of Dams and Water Control Facilities

In a ruling that has important implications for the hydropower industry, municipal water control systems, and dam owners everywhere, the U.S. Supreme Court strongly affirmed an earlier holding that a "discharge of a pollutant" as regulated by the Clean Water Act does not occur when polluted water flows from an improved, man-made portion of a navigable water way into an unimproved portion of the same waterway. 

When monitoring stations on the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers indicated repeated exceedances of water quality standards in those water bodies, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Santa Monica Baykeeper brought suit under the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), charging that the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (the "District") was in violation of its permit.  The District operates a municipal separate storm sewer system that discharges to the rivers.  Because the monitoring points are within concrete channels constructed for flood control purposes, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had held that discharge from these concrete channels into the unimproved waterways below constituted a discharge under the CWA regulated by the District's discharge permit. 

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, held that "no discharge of pollutants occurs when water, rather than being removed and then returned to the water body, simply flows from one portion of the water body to another."  This holding follows closely the reasoning of the Court's 2004 decision in South Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U.S. 95, where the Court determined that pumping polluted water from one part of a water body into another part of the same body is not a discharge of pollutants under the CWA.  Justice Ginsburg drove home the point with an apt analogy from the Miccosukee opinion, that, "f one takes a ladle of soup from a pot, lifts it above the pot, and pours it back into the pot, one has not "added" soup or anything else to the pot."  Like a good soup, this opinion should bring some comfort to hydropower operators and dam owners. 

© 2014 Varnum LLP

About the Author

Timothy J. Lundgren, Varnum Law Firm, Environmental Attorney
Partner

Tim Lundgren is a partner in the Environmental and Energy Practice Groups and chair of the firm's Water Law Specialty Area. In the water area, Tim works on matters related to water quality and water supply and use, including discharge permitting and compliance, stormwater compliance, and water withdrawal. He has assisted clients with waterfront and port facilities on permitting and compliance matters both on inland waterways and on the Great Lakes, and with spill response efforts.

616/336-6750

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable pr