|
44 EYO FEDERAL REPORTER, 2d 91=.R1Es
<br />iced is Denial Creek wan carried by natu-
<br />sv foron, matly erw(on caused by ralnw~
<br />ter runoK, even though sash erosion was
<br />'Yadlltated by the sofa of defendants of
<br />cesatbrg piu and spoil banlu in the scores
<br />of thah• minlag openttons."
<br />A pnliminary question hero fe whether
<br />the Act may be applied to mining activities
<br />st alL The dutriet court„ although holding
<br />the miner hen did not mate point souron
<br />of pollution, eoaaedad, correctly, we think,
<br />that "some strip mine opantions. may in=
<br />calve the dieaharge of pollutants in ways
<br />whfah would bigger app8extlon of the Aet's
<br />enforaemmt prorleione.^
<br />The 18781egialation was deigned W alim-
<br />laata "diechsrga of pollutants into the navi-
<br />gable water" of the United Btatee by 1886.
<br />88 U.&C.A. S 1261(axl) Under t}ds maa-
<br />data the Itilrvlronmental Proteetlon Agency
<br />was directed to promulgate regulatlons gov-
<br />erning polne source dbmhargri. Bee Natu-
<br />ral Raourrea Defense CcuacB, Ina v. Trala,
<br />610 FRd 682 (D.C.Cir.1876); 89 U.B.CA.
<br />5f 1261, 181d(b). The atlases argue th.e
<br />Congrew, la section 90geX2x8) of the Act,
<br />88 V.&C.A. S 1814(fX2xB), intended that
<br />mining actloitln sot De eaD~eot m Lhe Aet'a
<br />effluent limltatlona, but that the Ebvbron-
<br />menW Protectlon Ageary only study and
<br />propose metbods ad controlling pollution rt:-
<br />aulting from mining. The Government
<br />points out, however, that an amendment,
<br />prof U the House of Repeweatatlva U
<br />provide • regulatory program epeelfirally
<br />covering coal miners, was withdrawn bs-
<br />eauee kappeared to be duplicative. gee
<br />Ebvlronmental Polley Division, Coagns-
<br />Houtal ltesaareh 8arvia, Library of Coa-
<br />greae, Le;glalatlve JY4toq of the Water Pol-
<br />lutlon Control Aet Amendments of I87Z
<br />680-86 (Comm. Prink Senate Committee on
<br />Public Works, 98d Coag., Lt Seca. 1678).
<br />The EPA hsa beau held to be precluded
<br />from exempting from the Aet's permit ro.
<br />quinments two other rategorin of pollu-
<br />tion originally designated for further study,
<br />agritvltunl sad eilvitvltural ectfvltiee.
<br />Natural Resoueues Defense Council, Ina v,
<br />Coetia 688 F9d 19~, 1877 (D.C.Cir.197T).
<br />[1] The dlatrlat court correctly oonelud-
<br />ed that minlag aetlvitiaa, although embtm.
<br />ing at times aonpoint aouroee of pollution
<br />that were intended only W be studied by
<br />the EPA, may also Implicate point sources
<br />of pollution, eapeeeely covered Dy the Act's
<br />effluent Itmitatloaa. See generally Unltad
<br />Btatm ~ 10errb Beieaoer, lea, 698 F.2d 868,
<br />8TL-T8 (10th C'v. 1878). .
<br />As to whether the actlvitin base fall
<br />antler the definition a? point aouyaea of
<br />polution, three poaitbne ere aa0rted:
<br />plaietiffe, dafendante', and a ~ middle
<br />ground pneented by the Goveramenk We
<br />adopt the Government's approach.
<br />Plaintiff would manly require • showing
<br />of the original sources of the pollutlon to
<br />find a statutory point aource,regardlees of
<br />how the pollutant found id way from that
<br />asiginal coons to the waterway. A'coord-
<br />1ng to this argument, the broad drafasge of
<br />rainwater carrying oily pollutants from a
<br />nod paralleling a waterway, or animal pol-
<br />Ivtants from s greaing field aontlguoua to
<br />the waterway, would violate the Ask
<br />Whether or not the Iaw should prohibit cosh
<br />pogutlee, this Act don mk The focus of
<br />this Aet ie on the "dieoermble, oorefined and
<br />diaarou^ aoeveyanee of the pollutsnk which
<br />would exelade nsturel rainfall drainage
<br />over a broad area.
<br />Defendants, on the other hand, would
<br />srcclude from the point scorns deflnitioa
<br />any dfsaharge of pollutants into the water.
<br />way through ditahea and gulliu created by
<br />astural erosion sad rainfall, even though
<br />the pollutant and the hoes material upon
<br />which the eeatoa could take Dlace to make
<br />gu8ia war created by the mine operation,
<br />and wen though the mleere' efforh may
<br />have permitted tba rainwater to flow more
<br />easily Into a natural ditch laediag to the
<br />waterway. This interpretation, eesentlal(y
<br />adopted by the district court, too narrowly
<br />eaetrieta the proerrlptloa of the Act because
<br />it fails to weulder fully the effect tae mla-
<br />ere' activity hoe on the "natural" drainage.
<br />The United Btatee, which participated in
<br />the case e.+ emtcus curiae, take n middle
<br />ground: surface runoff collected or chan-
<br />neled by the operator eonstitutea a point
<br />5 #:90L9 LE8 EOE ~'ld3(] Mtl~ 1tl0~ W~Bd 6l: ll 46-4 -i; '0~ 'JNINIW 1tl0~ W9d:1.9 1N3S
<br />
|