Clean Water Act (CWA)
In re GSP Merrimack L.L.C.

GSP Merrimack L.L.C. owns and operates Merrimack Station, a coal-fired, steamelectric power plant located in Bow, New Hampshire. In May 2020, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 (“Region”) reissued a final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit to GSP Merrimack, pursuant to section 402 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, authorizing it to continue withdrawing cooling water from and discharging pollutants, including heated wastewater, to the Merrimack River.

In re Springfield Water and Sewer Commission

The Springfield Water and Sewer Commission (“Commission”) owns and operates the Springfield Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility (“Facility”) and combined sewer collection system in and around Agawam, Massachusetts. On September 30, 2020, Region 1 (“Region”) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA” or “Agency”) issued a final National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit to the Commission and six co-permittees, pursuant to Clean Water Act § 402, 33 U.S.C.

In re Dave Erlanson, Sr.

On November 3, 2020, Mr. Dave Erlanson, Sr. (“Respondent”) appealed from Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Christine Donelian Coughlin’s Initial Decision and Order assessing a $6,600 penalty for discharging a pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, the South Fork Clearwater River in Idaho, in violation of Clean Water Act (“CWA”) section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a). In an earlier Accelerated Decision on liability, issued in September 2018, the ALJ found Respondent liable for the alleged violation. Respondent filed an appeal with the Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”).

In re VSS International, Inc.

VSS International, Inc. (“VSS”) appeals from Chief Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) Susan L. Biro’s Initial Decision and Order assessing an administrative civil penalty against VSS for violations of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulations implementing Clean Water Act § 311, as amended by the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1321. The violations occurred at VSS’s asphalt emulsion storage facility in West Sacramento, California.

In re Arizona Public Service Co.

Diné Citizens Against Ruining the Environment, San Juan Citizens Alliance, Amigos Bravos, Center for Biological Diversity, and Sierra Club (collectively, “Petitioners”) filed a petition with the Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”) seeking review on several grounds of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit renewal issued by Region 9 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the Arizona Public Service Company (“APS”).

In re City of Lowell

The City of Lowell, Massachusetts (“City”) petitioned the Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”) to review a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit that the United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 1 (“Region”) issued to the City pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The permit authorizes the City to discharge wastewater effluent from its regional wastewater treatment facility and several combined sewer overflow outfalls into the Merrimack River and two nearby tributaries. The permit on which the City seeks review is a renewal of a permit issued in 2005.

In re Incorporated County of Los Alamos

The Incorporated County of Los Alamos, New Mexico (“County”), filed a petition for review (“Petition”) with the Environmental Appeals Board (“Board”) under 40 C.F.R. § 124.19. The Petition seeks Board review of a designation decision by U.S. EPA Region 6 (“Region”) pursuant to section 402(p)(2)(E) of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(2)(E), and 40 C.F.R.

In re City of Sandpoint Wastewater Treatment Plant

The Idaho Conservation League (“League”) has petitioned for review of the effluent discharge limits in a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, to the City of Sandpoint, Idaho, for Sandpoint’s wastewater treatment facility. In its petition, the League objects to the size of the mixing zones used to set the effluent limits for phosphorus discharges in the City of Sandpoint’s permit.

State Protections of Nonfederal Waters: Turbidity Continues
Author
James McElfish
Author Bios (long)

James McElfish is a Senior Attorney at the Environmental Law Institute.

Date
September 2022
Volume
52
Issue
9
Page
10679
Type
Comment(s)
Summary

This Comment examines the legal framework for state protection of nonfederal waters and its implications for cooperative federalism. After a brief overview and legal background, it identifies some recent state actions that attempt to fill gaps in coverage created by changes in federal interpretations of the Clean Water Act. It then summarizes the current scope of state regulation of waters in every state, in order to discern the likely impact of changes at the federal level on the status of waters in the states. Finally, updating an analysis done by the Environmental Law Institute in 2013, it examines legal constraints on the ability of state agencies to engage in gap-filling regulations; and discusses the implications of impending changes that may result from federal court decisions, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s pending consideration of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency in its October 2022 term.

You must be an ELI Member to access the full content.

You are not logged in. To access this content: