West Virginia Highlands Conservancy, Inc. v. Huffman
625 F.3d 159
| 4th Cir. | 2010Background
- This appeal concerns WVDEP’s obligation to obtain NPDES permits for bond-forfeiture sites discharging acid mine drainage into waters of West Virginia.
- The district court held that the Clean Water Act requires permits for such discharges, applying text and EPA regulations.
- WVDEP administers West Virginia’s own NPDES program and must treat the discharge as a pollutant discharge from a point source.
- Evidence shows water at the bond-forfeiture sites frequently exceeds EPA technology-based and WV water quality standards.
- WVDEP argued exemptions and causation issues, but the court found no statutory exemption or causation requirement that would avoid permitting.
- The court affirmed the injunction requiring WVDEP to apply for and obtain NPDES permits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is WVDEP required to obtain NPDES permits for bond-forfeiture sites? | Conservancy: permits required under CWA. | Huffman: permits not required for reclamation by state agency. | Yes, permits required. |
| Does the CWA exempt state reclamation agencies from permitting? | No exemption exists under text or regulations. | State agency should be exempt. | No exemption; text applies to states. |
| Must a causation link exist between initial pollution and current discharge to require a permit? | Not necessary; current discharges matter. | Causation should matter for permits. | Causation not required; focus is on current discharge. |
| Does the Water Transfers Rule exempt these discharges from permitting? | Rule should apply to transfers, not discharges. | Water Transfers Rule does not apply; discharges must be permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U.S. 95 (U.S. 2004) (permits required for discharges, even if not generating pollutants at source)
- United States v. Law, 979 F.2d 977 (4th Cir. 1992) (liability for discharging pollutants without a permit focuses on discharge, not origin)
- Sierra Club v. El Paso Gold Mines, Inc., 421 F.3d 1133 (10th Cir. 2005) (liability focuses on point of discharge, not root cause)
- Mokelumne River v. East Bay Mun. Util. Dist., 13 F.3d 309 (9th Cir. 1993) (causation not required for permitting; focus on discharge)