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 4823 <br />CWA is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and <br />biological integrity of the Nation's waters "). Here, the alter- <br />ation of the chemical integrity of the Tongue River is "man - <br />induced," as the CBM water would not flow into the Tongue <br />River but for Fidelity's methane extraction processes, and that <br />must be a focus of our concern under the CWA. Contrary to <br />the district court's conclusion, the definition of "pollution" <br />supports a finding that CBM water is a pollutant. <br />In arguing that CBM water is not a pollutant, Fidelity <br />makes much of the fact that the CBM water is "unaltered," <br />"naturally occurring," and that it is only water. Fidelity relies <br />on APHETI to argue that only those substances "transformed <br />by human activity" can be pollutants under the CWA. See <br />APHETI, 299 F.3d at 1017. Fidelity misapplies APHETI. <br />In APHETI, we clarified the meaning of "biological materi- <br />als," a term included in the CWA's definition of "pollutant." <br />Id. at 1016; see also 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6). In considering <br />whether excrement from mussels suspended from rafts in <br />Puget Sound was a pollutant under the CWA, we distin- <br />guished between biological materials that naturally occur in <br />receiving waters, such as mussel feces, and biological materi- <br />als that result from human activity, such as the "heads, tails, <br />and internal residuals" of fish dumped back into the waters <br />after processing. APHETI, 299 F.3d at 1017. Because one <br />purpose of the CWA is to protect shellfish, we concluded that <br />shellfish are not pollutants under the CWA unless human <br />activity transforms them. Id. This conclusion was necessary to <br />preserve the "integrity of the [CWA's] prohibitions." Id. at <br />1016. <br />APHETI cannot sensibly be read to require human transfor- <br />mation of all materials identified in the CWA's definition of <br />"pollutant." For one thing, the CWA definition of "pollutant" <br />includes such terms as "rock," "sand," and "heat." See 33 <br />U.S.C. § 1362(6). It is the introduction of these contaminants, <br />not their transformation by humans, that renders them pollu- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.