Federal Judge Puts Freeze on EPA’s Clean Water Act Rulemaking: Preliminary Injunction Halts Implementation of 'Waters of U.S.' Rule

In May of this year the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) issued the much-anticipated Waters of the United States rule (the “Rule”). The Rule redefines and expands federal jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the federal Clean Water Act.

The intent of the Rule, according to the United States, is to provide greater clarity over the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act following a string of Supreme Court decisions limiting the reach of federal jurisdiction. See, e.g., Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001) and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006). According to agriculture and industry groups, the Rule is an unprecedented expansion of federal authority that vastly increases the jurisdictional reach of the Clean Water Act, will have a widespread negative economic impact, and profoundly infringes on private property rights.

The Rule has been opposed in Congress and, via a July 28 letter, by officials in 31 states that have asked EPA and the Corps to delay implementation of the Rule. A number of states and business groups have already filed challenges to the rulemaking in federal district courts. For example, on July 10, 2015, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with the National Federation of Independent Business, Portland Cement Association, State Chamber of Oklahoma and Tulsa Regional Chamber, filed a lawsuit challenging the rule in Oklahoma federal court. See Chamber of Commerce et al. v. EPA, Case No. 4:15-cv-00386 (D.Okla. July 10, 2015).

On August 10, 2015, North Dakota and 12 other states -- Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming -- sought a preliminary injunction from the District of North Dakota to prevent implementation of the Rule. North Dakota, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00059 (D. N.D. June 29, 2015). The plaintiffs argued that a preliminary injunction was needed to maintain the status quo while the Rule’s legal failings were addressed by the federal courts.

On Thursday, August 27, Judge Ralph Erickson issued the requested preliminary injunction in an 18-page order that can be read here. In issuing the preliminary injunction, Judge Erickson found it more likely than not that the EPA and the Corps had overstepped their authority in promulgating the Rule and had failed to comply with aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act. In balancing the potential harm of issuing a preliminary injunction, the Court concluded:

On balance, the harms favor the [plaintiff] States. The risk of irreparable harm to the States is both imminent and likely. More importantly delaying the Rule will cause the Agencies no appreciable harm. Delaying implementation to allow a full and final resolution on the merits is in the best interests of the public.

Order at 15.

This preliminary injunction is sure to be appealed by the United States and signals the first of many legal salvos over the legitimacy of the Rule.

-- Tom Boer

For more information, contact Tom Boer at (415) 228-5413 or jtb@bcltlaw.com.

Clean Water Act: New Rule Significantly Expands Reach of Federal Jurisdiction

On May 27, 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) finalized the long-anticipated Clean Water Rule. The Rule defines the term “waters of the United States” as used by the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq. (the “CWA”). The impact of the definition is to prescribe the scope of federal jurisdiction for regulating activity associated with waters of the United States. The Rule will be effective 60 days after publication in the Federal Register. Although the Rule has not yet been published in the Federal Register, an advance draft of the final rule can be accessed here. 

According to the government, the intent of the Rule is to make the process of identifying “waters” subject to the requirements imposed by the CWA “easier to understand, more predictable, and consistent with the law and peer-reviewed science, while protecting the streams and wetlands that form the foundation of our nation’s water resources.” Clean Water Rule Preamble at 7. As a practical matter, the new Rule substantially extends the extent of claimed federal jurisdiction over water resources nationwide, will result in significant costs for the regulated community, and, as it is applied, will likely be subject to numerous legal challenges.

The extent of federal CWA jurisdiction has been addressed in three seminal Supreme Court cases. In the first, United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121 (1985), the Supreme Court issued an unanimous opinion deferring to the Corps’ ecological judgment and upholding the inclusion of certain adjacent wetlands in the regulatory definition of “waters of the United States.” In Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), the Court struck down the government’s overbroad interpretation of the CWA extending jurisdiction over non-navigable intrastate ponds on the basis that the ponds supported migratory bird populations. Finally, in Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), a split court addressed the extent of permissible CWA jurisdiction over waters that are not navigable in a traditional sense. The plurality Rapanos opinion held that federal jurisdiction could only extend over non-navigable waters if they exhibit a relatively permanent flow or, in the case of wetlands, where there is a continuous surface water connection between the wetland and a relatively permanent waterbody. Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion held that CWA jurisdiction extends to wetlands and non-navigable waterbodies provided that there is a “significant nexus” to a traditional navigable waterway.

In response to the Supreme Court cases addressing CWA jurisdiction,  EPA and the Corps issued guidance in 2003 (post-SWANCC) and 2008 (post-Rapanos) seeking to clarify the extent of federal jurisdiction over waterways and wetlands. According to EPA, this guidance was insufficient, requiring complex and resource intensive “case-specific” jurisdictional determinations that resulted in inconsistent interpretations of CWA jurisdiction and perpetuated ambiguity over the extent of federal authority. Clean Water Rule Preamble at 13. EPA initiated a rulemaking to adopt the Clean Water Rule to define “waters of the United States” in an effort to “make the process of identifying waters protected under the CWA clearer, simpler, and faster.” Id.

Before issuing the current draft Rule, EPA and the Corps published a proposed rule addressing the scope of CWA jurisdiction in April 2014. The government received public comments for 200 days and, according to the government, over 1 million public comments were received. In adopting the final Rule, EPA and the Corps relied substantially upon a report -- Connectivity of Streams and Wetlands to Downstream Waters: A Review and Synthesis of the Scientific Evidence -- finalized by EPA’s Office of Research and Development in early 2015. That Report, a copy of which is available here, is based upon the government’s review of more than 1,200 peer-reviewed publications. According to EPA, the Science Advisory Board also reviewed the adequacy of the Report and the technical basis for the rulemaking.

According to EPA, the new Rule accomplishes the following:

• “Clearly defines and protects tributaries that impact the health of downstream waters.” The Rule concludes that tributaries are “waters of the United States” and extends federal jurisdiction over any “tributary” that shows physical features of flowing water (e.g., a bed, bank, and ordinary high water mark). Clean Water Rule Preamble at 19.
• “Provides certainty in how far safeguards extend to nearby waters.” The Rule provides that CWA jurisdiction extends to “adjacent waters.” Those waters are defined as waters or wetlands that are “bordering, contiguous, or neighboring, including waters separated from other ‘waters of the United States’ by constructed dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like.” Clean Water Rule Preamble at 20.
• The term “neighboring,” is defined in the rule to include: (i) waters located in whole or in part within 100 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas, an impoundment of jurisdictional water, or a tributary…”; (ii) “floodplain waters,” meaning “waters located in whole or in part in the 100-year floodplain and  that are within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of a traditional navigable water, interstate water, the territorial seas, an impoundment, or a tributary …”; and (iii) waters located in whole or in part within 1,500 feet of the high tide line of a traditional navigable water or the territorial seas and waters located within 1,500 feet of the ordinary high water mark of the Great Lakes. Id.
• “Protects the national’s regional water treasures.” The Rule identifies five types of isolated “waters” that will now be subject to “a case-specific analysis” to determine if a significant nexus exists with a “water of the United States”: (i) Prairie potholes, (ii) Carolina and Delmarva bays, pocosins, western vernal pools in California, and Texas coastal prairie wetlands. The Rule requires that EPA and the Corps analyze such “waters” “‘in combination’ (as a group, rather than individually) in the watershed…” Clean Water Rule Preamble at 22.
• “Focuses on Streams, not ditches.” The Rule exempts certain ditches from CWA jurisdiction. This exclusion extends to ditches with “ephemeral flow that are not a relocated tributary or excavated in a tributary, and ditches with intermittent flow that are not a relocated tributary, or excavated in a tributary, or drain wetlands.” Clean Water Rule Preamble at 25. To the extent that ditches are not exempted by the terms in Rule, they are subject to regulation under the CWA.

EPA has prepared the following chart showing how the new definitions adopted by the Rule will alter the extent of federal jurisdiction over water resources as compared to prior agency interpretations and the terms provided in the proposed rule:

The regulated community, including industry and agricultural associations, have concluded that the Rule will substantially increase the geographic reach of CWA jurisdiction. Illustrations prepared by the Farm Bureau, showing how the new definitions will extend the geographic scope of CWA authority, are available here. For example, many small, isolated geographic areas with wetland characteristics that would have fallen outside CWA jurisdiction under existing Supreme Court precedent and prior agency interpretations will now be regulated or, at a minimum, require a case-by-case evaluation for jurisdiction (e.g., vernal pools, prairie potholes, etc.) that is both time-consuming and expensive.

Although EPA and the Corps argue that the Rule “does not interfere with or change private property rights, or address land use,” as a practical matter the Rule will require many property owners that were not previously regulated by the CWA to engage with the Corps to determine whether there are jurisdictional waters and wetlands on their property and, if so, to pursue permits prior to any development or other activities within the regulated area.

Expected consequences as a result the Rule include:

• Expanded Jurisdiction and Burden on the Regulated Community. EPA and the Corps, via adoption of the Rule, seek to dramatically expand the geographic reach of federal jurisdiction under the CWA. As a result, many property owners will now be regulated by the CWA for the first time. Prior to development or intrusive activities in potentially regulated areas, those property owners will need to retain consultants to assess the extent of federal jurisdiction, potentially seek an approved jurisdictional determination from the Corps and/or a permit, and either mitigate potential impacts or alter development on, or use of their private property. For some property owners, activity that was previously lawful on their private property will now be subject to CWA jurisdiction. For example, existing mining (e.g., sand, gravel, etc.) in an area with prairie potholes or vernal pools will likely require a jurisdictional evaluation prior to continued operation.
• Regulatory Confusion. In the short-term, there is likely to be substantial confusion among regulators, as they come up to speed with the requirements in the new Rule, and throughout the regulated community as the new Rule is implemented. This confusion may result in additional enforcement activity. There is also likely to be confusion about whether the new Rule will apply to pending permit applications and existing, unresolved enforcement actions.
• Slower Permitting. Although EPA and the Corps claim that the Rule will reduce ambiguity, in the short term we expect confusion caused by the new definitions will further slow the permitting process for all. Additionally, because of the substantial increase in the geographic reach of CWA jurisdiction, an increase in permit applications (or requests for approved jurisdictional determinations) will likely tax Corps and EPA resources. Delay in issuing permits and approved jurisdictional determinations will result in substantial transaction costs and other economic damages to the regulated community.
• Legal Challenges to Scope of the Rule. We expect legal challenges to the Rule, both in connection with the rulemaking itself, and as the Rule is applied on a case-by-case basis. It will likely take years for legal precedent to accumulate to the point where the full extent of CWA jurisdiction claimed by the Rule is clearly specified and understood.
• Congressional Opposition. Republicans in Congress have already started efforts to overturn the Rule. On May 12, for example, the House, passed legislation (by a vote of 261-155) that would require EPA and the Corps to withdraw the Rule. The Senate is exploring similar legislation. Although the Obama Administration has already stated that President Obama would veto any such legislation, there is likely to be a continuing political show-down over the Rule through the 2016 election and beyond.

-- Tom Boer

For more information, contact Tom Boer at jtb@bcltlaw.com or (415) 228-5413.

Landowners, Developers Win Big In Wetlands Case

Building on a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court decision, the Eighth Circuit ruled on April 10th that Clean Water Act jurisdictional determinations made by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers can be challenged in a “pre-enforcement” context. Hawkes Co., Inc. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No. 13-3067, __ F.3d __,  (8th Cir. April 10, 2015). The decision will provide project developers and landowners with a powerful tool for ensuring that regulators do not intrude on projects over which they have no jurisdiction.

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) requires obtaining a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the “Corps”) to discharge dredged or fill materials into “navigable waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1344. The CWA defines “navigable waters” to mean “waters of the United States.”  33 U.S.C. § 1362(7). The Corps and EPA have broadly construed “waters of the United States”  to apply to many non-navigable waterbodies, including certain wetlands not connected to a surface water. As a result, the scope of “waters of the United States,” and therefore the bounds of federal jurisdiction under the CWA,  has been a highly contentious issue, and the subject of several Supreme Court decisions and ongoing federal rulemaking.
In Hawkes, the affected landowners—owners of a peat mine—contended that the Corps had exceeded its jurisdictional authority by classifying a wetlands as “waters of the United States” subject to the CWA. Such a determination by the Corps can spell the death knell for a proposed project because an “average applicant for an individual Corps permit ‘spends 788 days and $271,596 in completing the process.’” Hawkes, slip op. at 10, quoting Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 721 (2006). In Hawkes, the situation was worse—Corps regulators had “repeatedly made it clear” that a permit to mine peat would ultimately be refused. Hawkes, slip op. at 10.

Previously, persons or businesses seeking to challenge a jurisdictional determination faced a no-win situation: they had to “either to incur substantial compliance costs (the permitting process), forego what they assert is a lawful use of their property, or risk substantial enforcement penalties.” Hawkes, slip op. at 8. The delays inherent in the Corps’ permitting process meant that if the challenger lost the lawsuit disputing the jurisdictional determination, the challenger could be subject to extremely high fines because the CWA authorizes penalties of $37,500 per day per violation.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set the stage for the Hawkes decision. In Sackett, the Supreme Court held that a jurisdictional determination is a final agency action subject to judicial review, and that the CWA does not preclude pre-enforcement judicial review of administrative compliance orders issued by the agency to the landowner. 566 U.S. ___, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012). The Hawkes decision takes the Sackett decision one step further by holding that the CWA allows these jurisdictional determinations to be challenged even before the agency commences any enforcement action, administrative or otherwise.

Outlook

The Hawkes decision creates a circuit split because a prior Fifth Circuit case determined that jurisdictional determinations are not reviewable in court in a pre-enforcement context. See Belle Co., LLC v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 761 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2014), cert denied, 83 U.S.L.W. 3291 (Mar. 23, 2015) (No. 14-493). Given the Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett, the circuit split on a topic of significant controversy, and the Court’s consistently strong interest in CWA jurisdiction—see United States v. Riverside Bayview, 474 U.S. 121 (1985), Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006)—review by the U.S. Supreme Court is a distinct possibility.

- Josh Bloom and Dave Metres

For more information, contact Joshua Bloom at (415) 228-5406 or jab@bcltlaw.com, or David Metres at (415) 228-5488 or dmm@bcltlaw.com.

Fracking Contractor Sentenced to 28 Months in Prison for Clean Water Act Violation

A federal court in Ohio has handed down a 28-month prison sentence and imposed a $25,000 fine for dumping fracking waste in violation of the Clean Water Act.

 

The defendant, Benjamin Lupo, is the former owner of Hardrock Excavating, a Youngstown, Ohio oil and gas services contractor. Lupo had previously pled guilty  to one count of making an unpermitted discharge of fracking waste. In pleading guilty, Lupo admitted to ordering an employee to discharge wastewater to a tributary of the Mahoning River more than 30 times over a three-month period from a Hardrock Excavating facility. The discharge caused waste liquid that included a mixture of brine and oil-based drilling mud to enter the tributary and the Mahoning River.

 

The releases were discovered after the Ohio Department of Natural Resources received an anonymous tip in January 2013 reporting illegal after-hours discharges coming from the Hardrock Excavating facility. State inspectors went to the facility and discovered a hose releasing liquid into the storm drain. A sample of the discharge subsequently collected by the state contained benzene, toluene, and other pollutants, officials said.

 

The employee, Michael Guesman, pled guilty in August 2013, admitting to running a hose from a 20,000 gallon storage tank filled with fracking wastewater to a nearby storm drain and draining the contents of the tank into the drain in August 2013. Guesman received three years of probation at his sentencing in March 2014.

 

The aggressive prosecution of Lupo highlights the need for robust environmental compliance programs in the oil and gas industry. A comprehensive and consistently implemented compliance program is the best insurance against the fines, negative publicity, and in some instances, time in custody that well operators and consultants face following a conviction of an environmental crime. This is particularly true for fracking operations, given the intense public scrutiny—and the possibility of significant prison terms—that fracking operators currently face.

 

--Davina Pujari and Chris Jensen

 

For more information, contact Davina Pujari at (415) 228-5459 or dxp@bcltlaw.com, or Chris Jensen at (415) 228-5411 or cdj@bcltlaw.com.

 

Agencies Extend Comment Period for “Waters of the United States” Proposed Rule

Having received over 60,000 comments already, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have extended the comment period for their proposed rule defining “waters of the United States.” The proposed rule would redefine what types of waters are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. The proposed rule was published in the Federal Register on April 21, 2014 and, as Barg Coffin attorneys predicted, has received a flood of interest. Stakeholders now have until October  20, 2014 to submit comments. 

-- Estie Kus

For more information, contact Estie Kus at (415) 228-5463 or emk@bcltlaw.com.

California Water Board Finalizes New Water Quality Requirements for Industrial Facility Storm Water Discharges

For the first time in 17 years, industrial facilities in California must contend with a new set of legal requirements controlling storm water.  On April 1, 2014, the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) formally adopted the final draft of the general NPDES permit that regulates storm water discharges associated with industrial activity, known as the “Industrial General Permit.” 

The new Industrial General Permit imposes additional permitting requirements and expands the scope of the Permit to cover new categories of industrial facilities.  Facility and EHS managers should review the new permit and ensure their facilities are on-track to be in compliance when the new Permit becomes effective on July 1, 2015.   Failure to comply with the new Permit could expose facilities to regulatory action by the State Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, or result in a citizen group lawsuit under the Clean Water Act.

As discussed previously by Barg Coffin attorneys here, here, and here, the new Industrial General Permit will impose mandatory best management practices (“BMPs”), require increased sampling and monitoring, and mandate technical reports and action plans if monitoring shows that storm water discharges exceed certain pollutant concentrations. 

According to the State Board, there are over 10,000 California industrial facilities currently enrolled under the previous Industrial General Permit, and each will need to confirm that their operations and practices comply with the new requirements. 

Additionally, for the first time, some facilities not previously subject to regulation will be required to notify the State Board that their industrial activities are not exposed to rain water and will not discharge to storm drains in order to obtain an exemption from the substantive requirements of the Industrial General Permit.

Additional information is available on the State Board website, and the Order adopting the Industrial General Permit (2014-0057-DWQ) is available here.

-Don Sobelman and Dave Metres

For more information, please contact Don Sobelman at (415) 228-5456 or des@bcltlaw.com, or Dave Metres at (415) 228-5488, or dmm@bcltlaw.com

State Water Board to Adopt Revised Industrial Storm Water Permit on April 1, 2014

The California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board) recently notified the public that it will consider for adoption the final draft of the general NPDES permit that regulates storm water discharges associated with industrial activity.  The State Board will hold a public hearing on adoption of the permit at its meeting on April 1, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. at the Cal/EPA headquarters in Sacramento.

The State Board is soliciting comments by the public regarding revisions that have been made to the draft permit since July 19, 2013.  Those revisions are mostly minor, but importantly include a change to the effective date of the new permit, moving it back to July 1, 2015, from the previously proposed effective date of January 1, 2015.  Written comments must be submitted to the State Board by Tuesday, March 4 at 12:00 noon.  Oral comments may be made at the April 1 hearing.

As previously discussed here and here, the State Board’s proposed general permit would impose a new set of permitting requirements for industrial storm water discharges and would expand the scope of the program to cover new categories of industrial facilities.  With storm water discharges continuing to be the most active area of citizen enforcement under the Clean Water Act, California industrial facilities should review these proposed changes and confirm with counsel that they will be ready to obtain coverage under the new permit in 2015.

-- Don Sobelman and Dave Metres

For more information, contact Don Sobelman at des@bcltlaw.com or (415) 228-5456.  Dave Metres can be reached at dmm@bcltlaw.com or (415) 228-5488.

General Statements About Future Expansion Do Not Trigger NEPA “Cumulative Impact” Analysis Requirement For CWA Section 404 Permit

 In a ruling that stands to benefit project proponents, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Jones v. National Marine Fisheries Service,  Case No. 11-35954 (9th Cir., Dec. 20, 2013), found that the Army Corps of Engineers was not required to consider the cumulative future impacts of a mining project based on the mining company’s general statements about wanting to widen the scope of its mining activities in the future.  Judge Milan Smith authored the unanimous decision, wherein the panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Army Corps of Engineers in an action challenging the Corps’ issuance of a Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act for a project to mine mineral sands near Coos Bay, Oregon.

The plaintiffs argued that the mining company’s general statements that it intended to expand its mining operations along a 50-mile stretch of the Oregon coast, as well as the Corps’ consideration of three alternative sites analyzed in the Environmental Assessment as possible future projects, required the Corps to analyze the cumulative impacts of the permitted mining project under NEPA’s implementing regulations. 

The Court disagreed, concluding that the mining company’s stated desires, which included a statement that it intended to mine along the Oregon coast “from Cape Arago to Port Orford,” did not give specific information as to the number, scope or location of any future projects. 

The Court also found that the three alternative sites analyzed in the EA faced significant hurdles to development.  Relying on its prior decisions in Lands Council v. Powell, 395 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2005), Environmental Protection Information Center v. United States Forest Service, 451 F.3d 1005 (9th Cir. 2006), and Northern Plains Resource Council, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board, 668 F.3d 1067 (9th Cir. 2011), the Court held that the mining company’s intended future activities were speculative and not reasonably foreseeable, and therefore, cumulative impact analysis under NEPA was not required.

The Court also found that the Corps adequately examined the risks associated with potential hexavalent chromium generation from the proposed mining project and conducted an adequate “alternatives analysis” prior to issuing the Section 404 permit.

-- Samir Abdelnour

For more information, please contact Samir Abdelnour at sja@bcltlaw.com, or (415) 228-5443.

Agencies Send OMB Draft Regulations Defining Clean Water Act Jurisdiction

After years of starts and stops, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have drafted a proposed regulation that will significantly affect which waters are subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act. 

Following 2001 and 2006 U.S. Supreme Court rulings addressing which “waters of the United States” are subject to Clean Water Act jurisdiction, EPA, the Corps, federal courts across the country, and the regulated community have all struggled to interpret the Supreme Court’s rulings.  Those rulings, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006), offered no clear guidance.  Indeed, Justice Kennedy’s lone concurrence in the Rapanos plurality opinion stands as the guiding principle in determining what defines a “water of the United States.”

Justice Kennedy’s view that waters with a “significant nexus” to more traditionally jurisdictional waters may be regulated provides the basis of EPA’s and the Corps’ proposed regulation.  Among other things, the regulation would, for the first time, define “significant nexus.”  That term would be defined as “a more than speculative or insubstantial effect that a water, including wetlands, either alone or in combination with other similarly situated waters in the region . . . has on the chemical, physical or biological integrity” of more traditionally jurisdictional waters as defined in the regulation.  The proposal would also define “tributary” such that any defined tributary would have the significant nexus necessary to bring it within the scope of the Clean Water Act.

The agencies have submitted a draft of the proposed regulation to the Office of Management Budget.  When published in the Federal Register, it will undoubtedly generate thousands of comments.  It is far too early to speculate as to whether the final regulation will look like the proposed regulation, when a final regulation may be issued, and, in the face of almost certain litigation once the rule is final, when the regulations may actually be implemented. 

-- Josh Bloom

For more information, please contact Josh Bloom at (415) 228-5406 or jab@bcltlaw.com.

New Draft Storm Water Permitting Requirements Issued

California water regulators recently published a new draft of permitting requirements applicable to many businesses – including many businesses never before subject to water quality regulation.  After 16 years of settled practice, businesses will face a significant change to storm water regulation in California if the draft requirements become the law.

On July 19, 2013, the California State Water Resources Control Board (“State Board”) issued a draft general NPDES permit that regulates storm water discharges associated with industrial activity.  This “Industrial General Permit” would require industrial facilities to comply with a set of new requirements. 

The new Industrial General Permit would impose mandatory best management practices (“BMPs”), require increased sampling and monitoring, and mandate technical reports and action plans if monitoring shows that storm water discharges exceed certain pollutant concentrations.  In addition, “light industry” facilities, previously exempt upon a simple self-certification, would now have to file an annual, public report and could be subjected to inspections by water regulators.

As under the current Industrial General Permit, facilities that fail to comply with Permit requirements would be subject to civil penalties of up to $37,500 per day per violation under the federal Clean Water Act.  Accordingly, all businesses and industrial facilities would be well advised to develop a sophisticated understanding of these new requirements.

The State Board is accepting written comments and evidence on the proposed Industrial General Permit until noon on August 29, 2013.  To learn more, the public can attend a web conference workshop on the new permit on August 14, or attend the public hearing on August 21 in Sacramento.  Following the comment period, final adoption of the Industrial General Permit is scheduled for early 2014. 

Additional information is available on the State Board website at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/stormwater/industrial.shtml

--David Metres 

UPDATE, August 19, 2013:  The State Water Resources Control Board has extended the public comment period from August 29, 2013 to 12:00 noon September 12, 2013. 

UPDATE September 12, 2013: The State Board has once again extended the public comment period from September 12 to September 19, 2013.

Attorneys from Barg Coffin Lewis & Trapp, LLP, a nationally-recognized environmental law and litigation firm in San Francisco, will continue to monitor these developments. For more information, please contact Donald Sobelman, des@bcltlaw.com, (415) 228-5456, or David Metres, dmm@bcltlaw.com, (415) 228-5488.