|
BIERRA CLUB .. ABBTON CON9T.
<br />ae.rsas/.asst (teat
<br />Beloro OODHOLD, RONEY.and FRANK times cau
<br />M. JOHN30N,:Jr., Circuit Judges. depositing
<br />HONEY, Ciceuit Judge: iel Creek.
<br />Plai tiff
<br />la thl suit to enforce portions of the
<br />Federa( Water PoUutloa Control Act
<br />Amendment of 1975'v 88 U.9.C,A. 4$ 1281-
<br />86, 1y81-g8a, 1811-pJ3, 1841~a, 1881 76,
<br />agaimt coal strip minere, the issue l wheth-
<br />er pollution castled In various ways into a
<br />creek from detpndmt opal misers' strip
<br />miaeo is "point eouroe" pollution aatrolled
<br />by the Act
<br />9edlmenY basin overflow and the stwlon
<br />of pllex of discarded material resulted in
<br />ralnwaber carrying pollutants into a naviga-
<br />ble body of water. Sines them wu so
<br />direct nation of the mice operators la pump-
<br />ing or draining water into the waterway,
<br />the district court by summary judgment
<br />determined ffiero was ne violstlon of the
<br />Aat because there wu no'~oint source" of
<br />the pollution. Deciding the district court
<br />Interproted too narrowly the statutory daf6
<br />nation of the prohiMted point soutee" of
<br />pOUutlon, sad UuY there remafa genuine
<br />lesuw of material feet, we roveees.
<br />Defendants Abeton ConstruMlon Co.,
<br />DSisohall & Neely, Ina., Kellerman' Mining
<br />Co. and The Drummond Co. [heroiaafter
<br />misers] operate coal mines near Daniel
<br />Creek, a tributary of the Bleak Warrior
<br />Rive, In Tuacaloaea County, Alabama.
<br />They each employ the strip adaing tedr-
<br />nique, whereby rock material above the
<br />coal-the overburden-ia removed, theroby
<br />exposing Ufa coal that ie dose W the land
<br />eurfaoe. When the Overburden to removed,
<br />it is pushed aside, end forms "spoil piles."
<br />Durisg the mining oparaUom, and thareaft•
<br />er If the land l sot reateimed by replacing
<br />the overburden, the spoil Alice eta highly
<br />erodible. Rainwater runoff or water deain-
<br />ing from within the mined pit at .times
<br />settled the material ~ to. adjacent streams,
<br />causing siltation and acid deposiu. ' In as
<br />effort to halt runof3, the miners bete oeca-
<br />Uenally eonetruatad "sediment basins;'
<br />which were designed to fetch the runoff
<br />beforo it feaehed the creek. Their efforts
<br />were not alway6 sucoesiful. Rainfall some-
<br />CO, (NC. .~$
<br />std the bums to overflow, again
<br />tilt and said materials into Dan-
<br />e Sierra Club brought a "artists
<br />Buis" under the Federal Water Pollution
<br />Control Aat Amendment of 1878 (the Aes),
<br />Clalmieg dafendante' aetiviUee were pro-
<br />smibsd "point sourest" of pollution B9
<br />U.9.C.A. 4$ 1888(14), I865(e)(1)(A), (t).
<br />The State of Alabama through its astorney
<br />general wu allowed to intervene with simi-
<br />lar dolma. On appeal, amkus curiae briefs
<br />have been received from the Udtcd 9tateo
<br />and Bove Our CumberLnd MounWoa, Inc.
<br />The parties de not dlpute the ultimate
<br />foot that these pollutsnG appeared In the
<br />creek due to e:eeoa rainfall. Noe l there
<br />any dieagresment rho aetiv)Uee would be
<br />prohibited 1t rho pollutants had been
<br />pumped directly Into the waterways. The
<br />partln diHar only an the Iegai responsibili-
<br />ty of the mines for controlling the runoff
<br />end she legal effees of their efforts W eon-
<br />tro1 rho runoff.
<br />Plaintiff may provall 1a 1p Cltlaen suit
<br />only i! the miners have violated sonro ef•
<br />fluent limltatlens ender the Act 88 U.B.
<br />C.A. $ 1866(ax1xA). These limitations, In
<br />corn, apply only to ..point sooroa" of pollu-
<br />tion, udefined is the Act
<br />The term "point souroe^ meass say
<br />dlsaernible, oonrned eed discrete aonvey-
<br />anaa, lnduding but rot limited W any
<br />pipe, ditch, ehanael, tunnel, aondult, well,
<br />discrete flaure, eontalner, roWsg stook,
<br />oonoentroted animal feeding operation, or
<br />venal or other floating craft, from which
<br />pollutants are or may M discharged.
<br />38 U.B.C.A. $ 1362(14). Nonpolnt sources,
<br />on the other hand, are not due W be con-
<br />trolled. See 9.Rep.No.p2-J114, 98d Cang., Zd
<br />9ea., reprlntod !n [1972) U.9.Code Cong. A
<br />Admin.News, pp. 8668, 8744.
<br />Thus, lbe issue l whether defendants'
<br />eativities amounted to the erection o[ point
<br />wurees of pollution. The district court.
<br />ruled they did not. On the facts before it,
<br />the district court found the pollution has
<br />not tqulted "from any afflrmetive set of
<br />dlecharge by rho defendants." instead, any
<br />water and other material that were depos-
<br />~~~
<br />9 #:9018 ZEA EOE ~'1d3Q MNl lt/0~ ttRd Bt: L l 46-4 -Z '0~ 'JNINIW ~d0~ W9d:A9 1N3S
<br />
|