- Orders Entering Consent Decrees
- United States et al. v. City of Akron, Ohio, Civ. No. 09-CV-00272 (N.D. Oh., January 17, 2014) (Consent Decree
 ) (Order approving and entering Consent Decree )
- United States and the State of Illinois v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, Civ. Action No. 1:11-cv-08859 (N.D. Ill., January 6, 2014) (Consent Decree ) (Order approving and entering Consent Decree )
- United States and State of Florida v. Miami-Dade County, Civ. Action No. 12-2440 (S.D. Fl., March 6, 2014) (Notice on Proposed Consent Decree )
- Alt v. EPA 10/23/2013 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia ruled that EPA cannot regulate agricultural stormwater runoff, but the court's ruling is limited to West Virginia; the court held that pollutants washed from a poultry “farmyard to navigable waters by a precipitation event is an agricultural stormwater discharge and therefore not a point source discharge, thereby rendering it exempt from the NPDES permit requirement of the Clean Water Act.”)
- Oneida Tribe of Indians of Wisconsin v. Vill. of Hobart , 10/18/2013 (7th Circuit decision holding that a Wisconsin village is not authorized to assess fees on tribal lands to pay for its stormwater management program because federal law does not allow states to tax or regulate pollution on tribal lands. Although the language constitutes dicta, the court also held that CWA Sec. 313 clearly “does waive federal immunity from local regulation of stormwater runoff,” which could serve as persuasive authority in future disputes over local stormwater regulation/fees on federal facilities.) Unfortunately, the court went on to opine that the village’s stormwater fees as a whole are taxes based on a test set forth in a 2011 7th Circuit decision, which held that the material distinction between taxes and fees is between exactions designed to general revenue – taxes – and exactions designed to punish or to compensate for a service provided – fees.
- Permit Shield - CWA Section 402(k)
Wisconsin Resources Protection Council v. Flambeau Mining Co., 7th Cir., 12-2969 , 08/15/2013 (Federal Appeals Court ruled that a Wisconsin mine operator is entitled to a CWA permit shield for copper discharges from a reclamation project because it took all reasonable steps to verify that its discharges were in compliance with CWA Section 402. In this case, the discharge requirements were contained in a mining permit, which substituted for the Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit (state CWA 402 discharge permit). Plaintiffs brought a citizen suit for discharge of copper without a permit contending that the defendant could not invoke the permit shield defense because the mining permit was not issued pursuant to the CWA. Wisconsin had previously requested that EPA allow the state to waive the requirement to issue separate WPDES permits if an entity's stormwater discharges were already being equally or more stringently regulated under a separate permit. EPA had expressed support but had not formally approved the change. The court held that EPA’s approval was inconsequential because the defendant (permit holder) was told by the authorized permitting authority that its mining permit constituted a valid WPDES permit and had no notice of its potential invalidity; thus, the permit shield applies and “to hold otherwise would be inconsistent with the requirements of due process.”)
Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, v. A&G Coal Corp., 2013 WL 3814340, W.D.Va. , 07/22/2013 (Citizen suit alleging that Defendant A&G Coal was violating CWA and Surface Mining Act because permits do not include selenium limits. A&G attempted to invoke the permit shield defense, arguing that the permitting agency contemplated but chose not to include effluent limits for selenium in the NPDES permit, and that compliance with the permit constitutes compliance with the CWA. A&G did not disclose the potential for selenium discharge in its permit application. In granting plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, the court held that a permittee must have actually disclosed a pollutant in its permit application to avail itself of the permit shield defense. A&G has appealed the decision to the 4th Circuit).
Sierra Club v. ICG Hazard, LLC, 2012 WL 4601012, E.D.Ky. , 09/28/2012 (6th Circuit appeal - awaiting decision; at issue is whether an entity in compliance with a general permit under the CWA NPDES program can be subject to a citizen suit or enforcement action for discharges of any pollutants that are not explicitly covered by the permit. The district court held that the “permit shield” in the NPDES provisions protected the defendant surface coal mining company from a CWA claim related to selenium discharges that were not explicitly covered by the NPDES general permit.)
- City of Dover v. U.S. EPA, 07/30/2013 (DC District Court decision finding that EPA has discretion to apply water quality criteria that were proposed by a state but never adopted when it "translates" narrative state pollution limits into permit requirements, dismissing a challenge by several New Hampshire cities to stringent nutrient permit limits).
- Iowa League of Cities v. EPA , 03/25/2013 (Federal appellate court decision vacating EPA letters attempting to limit use of mixing zones and blending, and holding that EPA efforts to limit blending by applying bypass regulation to require application of secondary treatment limits before the point of final discharge are illegal under CWA.)
- National Mining Association v. EPA, 7/31/2012 (Federal district court case striking down EPA’s use of “final guidance” document to regulate conditions in an NPDES discharge permit, and reiterating state primacy in setting water quality standards and establishing NPDES permit conditions.)
- US v. Hampton Roads Sanitation Department , 4/2/2012 (Federal district court decision finding that an SSO consent decree’s force majeure section did not excuse stipulated penalties for overflows that either should have been foreseeable by the utility or were the result of improper maintenance)
- NRDC v. County of Los Angeles, et al , Mar. 10, 2011 (Ninth Circuit decision finding that MS4 permittee is responsible for pollutants that are conveyed through MS4 system even if evidence of pollutants is established prior to discharge point to navigable waterway)
- Cumbie v. City of Grand Saline , Jan. 6, 2011 (Texas Court of Appeals case finding that the Texas Tort Claims Act bars a lawsuit by a homeowner against a municipality for damages resulting from a basement sewer backup)
- United States v. Davis Wire Company , 8/26/2010 (Plea agreement from U.S. District Court for the Central District of California where an industrial discharger acknowledges violations of pretreatment regulations due to acid discharge to municipal sewer system and agrees to pay $1.5 million in damages)
- United States, et al v. City of Loveland , 9/15/2010 (Sixth Circuit decision finding that an individual city could not remove itself from part of a large regional wastewater treatment authority based on concerns over increased rates due to consent decree obligations)
- Fowler v. EPA, 05/10/2010 (Settlement agreement between EPA and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation in which EPA agrees to enforceable milestones for restoration efforts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed)
- Adobe Lumber v. Hellman , 9/2/2009 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California ruling that a local wastewater utility can be sued under CERCLA for contaminants released into sewer system from a dry cleaning store)
- Florida Wildlife Federation v. EPA (A federal district court case in Florida challenging EPA’s failure to develop numeric nutrient criteria for the state of Florida)
- Oklahoma v. Tyson Foods, 5/13/2009 (10th Circuit ruling against preliminary injunction to stop the spread of chicken waste on farmland within the Illinois River watershed)
- Entergy v. Riverkeeper, 4/1/2009 (US Supreme Court ruling that EPA does have discretion to consider cost-benefit analysis when applying technology-based requirements under the Clean Water Act)
- National Wildlife Federation, et al. v. U.S. EPA (challenge by environmental groups calling for EPA to develop binding federal criteria for nutrients discharges under the CWA)
- Friends of the Everglades v. South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
- Sierra Club v. City and County of Honolulu
- Biosolids Cases
- Virginia Biosolids Order (Nov. 2003) ~633 KB
- Pennsylvania Supreme Court Biosolids Decision (Nov. 2003) ~1,115 KB
- Federal Land Application Case: O'Brien v. Appomattox County (4th Cir. 2003)
 ~52 KB
- Brief for Preliminary Injunction in Kern County, CA Biosolids Case, 9/2006 ~288 KB
- Opinion and Order Granting Preliminary Injunction in Kern County, CA Biosolids Case, 11/2006
- Order Denying Intervention of Right in Kern County Case, 3/29/2007
- Opinion Granting Final Judgment Against Kern County, CA , 8/10/2007
- Georgia Biosolids Case, US District Court Ruling , 2/25/2008
- U.S. v. City of Toledo, 63 F. Supp. 2d 834 (N.D. Ohio 1999) -- Case interprets NPDES wastewater treatment “bypass” regulations at 40 C.F.R. 122.21(m)(4)(i), which provide that bypassing or diverting wastewater from the treatment works is prohibited unless in summary: 1) the bypass was unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; 2) there were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, or maintenance during normal periods of downtime . . .; and 3) the permittee submitted the required notices. In Toledo, the controversial court decision finds that the term "no feasible alternatives to the bypass" includes the fact that the POTW could have taken preventative steps to increase plant capacity by constructing additional treatment units or storage equipment.
- Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner , 191 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir. 1999)--Court holds that Congress did not intend for municipal storm sewer discharges to comply strictly with state water quality standards. The Defenders Court found unambiguous the CWA plain language that municipal storm sewer discharge controls should "reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP), including management practices, control techniques and system, design and engineering methods, and such other provisions as the Administrator or the State determines appropriate for the control of such pollutants." CWA § 402(p)(3)(B)(iii).
|
