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
N. PLAINS RESOURCE V. FIDELITY EXPLORATION 4821 <br />435.11(bb) (emphasis added). Fidelity argues that the CBM <br />water is not "produced water" because Fidelity adds no chem- <br />icals to the water. Whether CBM water is "produced water," <br />however, does not turn on the addition of chemicals or any <br />other alteration. The EPA regulations provide that "produced <br />water" can include added chemicals, but the definition does <br />not require it. See id. CBM water is "produced water" because <br />it is brought up from the coal seams underlying Powder Basin <br />to extract methane gas. <br />[5] The CWA contemplates that produced water, as defined <br />by EPA regulations, is a pollutant within the meaning of the <br />Act. The CWA only exempts water derived from gas extrac- <br />tion from regulation when the water is disposed of in a well <br />and will not result in the degradation of other water bodies. <br />33 U.S.C. § 1362(6)(B). Cf. Cedar Point Oil, 73 F.3d at 568 <br />( "produced water" is a pollutant if its discharge does not meet <br />exemption criteria). Fidelity disposes of the CBM water by <br />direct discharge to the Tongue, not by reinjection into a state - <br />approved well. Because Fidelity discharges "produced water" <br />and does not meet § 1362(6) exemption criteria, the CBM <br />water discharged by Fidelity is a pollutant within the plain <br />meaning of the CWA and is subject to NPDES permitting <br />requirements. <br />[6] Third, concluding that CBM water is a pollutant is con- <br />sistent with the CWA's definition of "pollution." Cf. APHETT <br />299 F.3d at 1017 (considering the definition of "pollution" to <br />determine whether biological materials emitted by mussels <br />are "pollutants "). "Pollution" is the "man -made or man - <br />induced alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, and <br />radiological integrity of water." 33 U.S.C. § 1362(19). By dis- <br />charging CBM water into the Tongue River, Fidelity alters the <br />water quality of the Tongue River. In particular, the MDEQ, <br />in the Montana Environmental Impact Statement analyzing <br />the impact of CBM production on Montana waterways, cau- <br />tions that the resulting alteration may degrade, and limit uses <br />of, the receiving water: "Surface water quality in some water- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.