Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

88 FR 61964

EPA and the Department of the Army amended the provisions of the agencies’ definition of “waters of the United States” that are invalid under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the CWA in Sackett v. EPA.

88 FR 62080

EPA entered into a proposed consent decree under the CWA in Center for Biological Diversity, v. Regan, No. 3:23-cv-535 (N.D. Cal.) in connection with the Agency’s alleged failure to satisfy its mandatory duty under the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act of 2018 to promulgate federal standards of performance for discharges incidental to the normal operation of large commercial vessels that would obligate the Agency to sign a decision taking final action by September 23, 2024.

88 FR 62079

EPA entered into a proposed interim consent decree under the CWA in Northwest Environmental Advocates v. EPA, No. 19-01537 (W.D. Wash.) in connection with the Agency’s alleged inaction concerning the state of Washington’s water quality assessment and listing program and TMDL program that would require Washington to submit three TMDLs to EPA by December 2025 and would prohibit the plaintiff from filing any new TMDL constructive submission lawsuits in Washington for a period of 34 months.

Analyzing the Consequences of Sackett v. EPA

The U.S. Supreme Court’s May ruling in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency sharply limited the scope of the federal Clean Water Act’s (CWA’s) protection for the nation’s waters. The Court redefined the Act’s coverage of “waters of the United States” (WOTUS), effectively removing protection from many wetlands that have been covered under the Act for almost a half century. On June 8, 2023, the Environmental Law Institute hosted a panel of experts that analyzed the consequences of Sackett and discussed what actions can be taken to protect non-WOTUS waters.

88 FR 57969

United States v. Ford, No. 19 Civ. 9600 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 18, 2023). A settling CWA defendant that filled wetlands, channelized streams, and discharged process wastewater and other pollutants from a concentrated animal feeding operation without a permit and violated the terms of a construction stormwater permit must restore approximately 18 acres of wetlands and two streams and pay a $200,000 civil penalty.

88 FR 55276

EPA proposed comprehensive revision to the regulations governing CWA §404 tribal and state programs.

88 FR 53522

United States v. FrieslandCampina Ingredients North America, Inc. No. 3:23-cv-00937-TJM-ML (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 2, 2023). A settling CAA and CWA defendant that allegedly failed to obtain a modification to its title V CAA permit before its hydrolyzed protein powder facility in Delhi, New York, became a major source of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions; perform a reasonably available control technology (RACT) demonstration and implement RACT before commencing operation of a major source of VOC emissions; obtain a permit before constructing a new, modified, or existing air contamination source at the facility; and report and maintain annual reports of its VOC emissions must reduce harmful toluene emissions through the installation and operation of pollution controls, comply with its permits, and pay a $2,880,000 civil penalty.

88 FR 51352

United States v. Belle Fourche Pipeline Co., No. 22-00089-DLH-CRH and United States v. Bridger Pipeline LLC, No. 22-00043-BLG-SPW (D.N.D. July 31, 2023). Under a proposed partial consent decree, settling CWA defendants must perform injunctive relief and pay a $12,500,000 civil penalty for violations arising from pipeline failures that resulted in discharges of oil into an unnamed tributary to Ash Coulee Creek and the Yellowstone River.

88 FR 50177

United States v. Jackson, Mississippi, City of, No. 3:12-cv-790-HTW-LGI (S.D. Miss. July 26, 2023). A proposed stipulated order under the CWA places the operation of the sewer system of the City of Jackson, Mississippi, under the control of an interim third-party manager and requires the manager to perform substantial work, including addressing more than 200 emergency sewer failure locations, addressing prohibited bypasses of treatment prior to discharging wastewater into the Pearl River, and implementing management, operations, and maintenance programs.

88 FR 49496

United States v. Robert Yundt Homes, LLC, No. 3:23-cv-00073-JMK (D. Alaska July 24, 2023). Settling CWA defendants that discharged pollutants into waters of the United States without a permit must restore impacted areas, perform mitigation pursuant to EPA-approved restoration plans, and pay a civil penalty.