Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. Red River Coal Company Inc
2:14-cv-00024
W.D. Va.Sep 10, 2014Background
- Plaintiffs (Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards, et al.) brought a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act alleging Red River Coal Company violated NPDES permits by exceeding allowable discharges into the South Fork of the Pound River, a waterbody subject to a state-approved TMDL.
- The defendant’s four NPDES permits include an (n)(3) condition stating discharges entering a waterbody with an approved TMDL "must be made in compliance with the TMDL and any applicable TMDL implementation plan."
- The contested TMDL for the South Fork of the Pound River was finalized after issuance of the permits; the defendant argues it cannot be bound by a TMDL that did not exist when permits issued.
- The defendant moved to dismiss on two grounds: (1) the permits do not incorporate post‑issuance TMDL requirements, and (2) the court should abstain under Burford doctrine due to complex state regulatory scheme.
- The court applied contract‑interpretation principles to NPDES permits and found the (n)(3) language not plainly resolvable in defendant’s favor; ambiguous terms require extrinsic fact development.
- The court also found abstention under Burford implicates factual issues not suitable for resolution on a dismissal motion and therefore declined to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether permits incorporate compliance with a subsequently issued TMDL | (Plaintiffs) The (n)(3) permit condition requires compliance with the TMDL, so defendant must follow the TMDL now in effect | (Defendant) The (n)(3) condition cannot be read to bind permittees to TMDLs that did not exist when permits were issued | Denied dismissal: permit language not plain; ambiguity requires further factual/record development |
| Whether federal court should abstain under Burford due to state regulatory complexity | (Plaintiffs) Federal adjudication is appropriate and Burford abstention is not warranted on the present record | (Defendant) Complex state law/policy and regulatory scheme justify Burford abstention and dismissal | Denied dismissal: abstention is discretionary but fact‑dependent; record inadequate to decide now |
Key Cases Cited
- Friends of the Earth v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 204 F.3d 149 (4th Cir. 2000) (CWA § 505 citizen suits may be brought against NPDES permit holders)
- Piney Run Pres. Ass’n v. Cnty. Comm’rs of Carroll Cnty., Md., 268 F.3d 255 (4th Cir.) (NPDES permits interpreted under contract principles)
- FDIC v. Prince George Corp., 58 F.3d 1041 (4th Cir.) (plain contractual language controls construction)
- Horlick v. Capital Women’s Care, LLC, 896 F. Supp. 2d 378 (D. Md. 2011) (ambiguous contract terms present factual issues not resolvable on a motion to dismiss)
- Martin Marietta Corp. v. Int’l Telecomms. Satellite Org., 991 F.2d 94 (4th Cir.) (contracts with ambiguity cannot be dismissed as a matter of law)
- Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706 (U.S. 1996) (explaining Burford abstention and its purpose)
- MLC Auto., LLC v. Town of S. Pines, 532 F.3d 269 (4th Cir.) (abstention is discretionary but limited by federal courts’ obligation to exercise jurisdiction)
- Anacostia Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Jackson, 798 F. Supp. 2d 210 (D.D.C. 2011) (describing TMDL process and distinction between load allocations and wasteload allocations)
Disposition: The court DENIED the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; further factual development required to resolve permit‑interpretation and abstention questions.