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
4816 N. PLAINS RESOURCE v. FIDELITY EXPLORATION <br />ing lessee, CX Ranch, in livestock watering ponds and stock <br />tanks. <br />In August 1998, Fidelity contacted the MDEQ about the <br />possibility of discharging its CBM water into the Tongue <br />River and Squirrel Creek. By letter, the MDEQ told Fidelity <br />that it did not need a permit from the MDEQ to discharge into <br />the Tongue River because the discharge was exempt under <br />Montana Code section 75- 5- 401(1)(b), which provides: <br />Discharge to surface water of groundwater that is not <br />altered from its ambient quality does not constitute <br />a discharge requiring a permit under this part if- <br />(i) the discharge does not contain industrial waste, <br />sewage, or other wastes; (ii) the water discharged <br />does not cause the receiving waters to exceed appli- <br />cable standards for any parameters; and (iii) to the <br />extent that the receiving waters in their ambient state <br />exceed standards for any parameters, the discharge <br />does not increase the concentration of the parame- <br />ters. <br />The MDEQ, however, warned Fidelity in the same letter <br />that "the EPA, which provides state program oversight under <br />the federal Clean Water Act, does not agree with the [Mon- <br />tana] Water Quality Act permit exclusion under 75-5 - <br />401(1)(b). Therefore, they may ask at some point that you <br />obtain an [Montana Pollution Discharge Elimination System <br />( MPDES)] permit from us, or an NPDES permit from them. "' <br />The EPA told MDEQ that section 75- 5- 401(1)(b) of the Mon- <br />tana Code conflicts with the CWA because it exempts some <br />discharges otherwise subject to the CWA from NPDES per- <br />mitting requirements. The EPA stressed that "the fact that a <br />'Congress has authorized both the EPA and states to implement CWA <br />permit programs. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a) -(b). The EPA issues NPDES <br />permits, whereas Montana issues MPDES permits. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.