My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Water Discharge is a Pollutant, Appeals Court Says: Land Letter
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
6001-7000
>
Water Discharge is a Pollutant, Appeals Court Says: Land Letter
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/17/2012 10:12:31 AM
Creation date
8/15/2012 3:00:57 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
Description
Water Discharge is a Pollutant, Appeals Court Says: Land Letter
State
CO
Date
4/17/2003
Author
Gable, Eryn
Title
Water Discharge is a Pollutant, Appeals Court Says: Land Letter
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
News Article/Press Release
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
4818 N. PLAINS RESOURCE v. FIDELITY EXPLORATION <br />The parties filed cross - motions for summary judgment in <br />district court. The parties stipulated that of the five elements <br />necessary to prove a violation of the CWA ((1) discharge, (2) <br />pollutant, (3) from a point source, (4) to a navigable water, (5) <br />without a permit), the only element at issue is whether the <br />CBM water constitutes a pollutant; the other four elements are <br />satisfied. The district court held that the CBM water was not <br />a pollutant and granted summary judgment to Fidelity. NPRC <br />appeals.' <br />II <br />[1] The CWA prohibits the discharge of any pollutant from <br />a point source into navigable waters of the United States with- <br />out an NPDES permit. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(a), 1342. See also <br />Ass'n to Protect Hammersley, Eld, and Totten Inlets <br />(APHETI) v. Taylor Res., Inc., 299 F.3d 1007, 1009 (9th Cir. <br />2002). Fidelity and NPRC agree that Fidelity discharged <br />CBM water from a point source into navigable water without <br />an NPDES permit. Given this agreement, we need only decide <br />whether the groundwater derived from CBM extraction is a <br />"pollutant" within the meaning of the CWA. <br />The district court granted summary judgment to Fidelity <br />based on two conclusions: (1) CBM produced water is not a <br />pollutant within the meaning of the CWA, and (2) Montana <br />state law exempted Fidelity from CWA permitting require- <br />ments. We have jurisdiction, 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a); 28 U.S.C. <br />§ 1331, we review the district court's grant of summary judg- <br />3Three amici briefs were filed in this case: (1) The Western Environ- <br />mental Trade Association (WETA) filed a brief in support of Fidelity. <br />WETA is an extraction industry advocacy group; (2) Tongue & Yellow- <br />stone Irrigation District and Tongue River Water Users' Association <br />(T &Y) filed a brief in support of NPRC. T &Y is a group of ranchers and <br />farmers who depend on the Tongue River for irrigation; and (3) Northern <br />Cheyenne Tribe (Tribe). The Tongue River forms the eastern boundary of <br />the Tribe's Reservation. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.