|
<br />Page 1
<br />504 F.3d 1007, 65 ERC 1289,07 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,947, 2007 Daily Journal D.A.R. 15,420
<br />(Cite as: 504 Fad 1007)
<br />P
<br />United States Court of Appeals,
<br />Ninth Circuit.
<br />FRIENDS OF PINTO CREEK; Grand Canyon
<br />Chapter of the Sierra Club, Maricopa Audubon So-
<br />ciety and Citizens for the Preservation of Powers
<br />Gulch and Pinto Creek, Petitioners,
<br />Carlota Copper Company, Intervenor,
<br />V.
<br />UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC-
<br />TION AGENCY, Environmental Appeals Board;
<br />Stephen L. Johnson, Acting Administrator, United
<br />States Environmental Protection Agency, Respon-
<br />dents.
<br />No. 05-70785.
<br />Argued and Submitted Nov. 13, 2006.
<br />Filed Oct. 4, 2007.
<br />Background: Environmental groups filed petition for
<br />review of order of Environmental Protection Agency
<br />(EPA) granting copper mining company's application
<br />for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
<br />(NPDES) permit under Clean Water Act (CWA).
<br />Holdings: The Court of Appeals, Hug, Circuit Judge,
<br />held that:
<br />company was not entitled to NPDES permit, and
<br />groups' claim that copper discharge from diversion
<br />channels and cutoff walls had to be considered was
<br />timely raised.
<br />Permit vacated and remanded.
<br />West Headnotes
<br />on company partially remediating discharge from
<br />another mine, where creek was already impaired by
<br />excess of copper pollutant, permit allowed company to
<br />discharge additional amounts of dissolved copper into
<br />creek, and there was no indication of any compliance
<br />schedule that would bring creek within water quality
<br />standards. Clean Water Act, § 101(a), 33 U.S.C.A. &
<br />1251 a ; 40 C.F.R. $ 122.4 (2000).
<br />f21 Environmental Law 149E 0=222
<br />149E Environmental Law
<br />149EV Water Pollution
<br />149Ek215 Administrative Agencies and Pro-
<br />ceedings
<br />149Ek222 k. Administrative Review of
<br />Administrative Decisions. Most Cited Cases
<br />Environmental groups' claim that copper discharge
<br />from diversion channels and cutoff walls to be built in
<br />connection with proposed new copper mine had to be
<br />considered in determining whether to issue National
<br />Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
<br />permit under Clean Water Act (CWA) was timely
<br />raised and should not have been deemed forfeited, but
<br />it should have been considered by Environmental
<br />Protection Agency's (EPA) Appeals Board, even
<br />though groups did not raise additional sources in first
<br />comment period for permit, where total maximum
<br />daily load (TMDL) for copper discharges had not been
<br />established before end of initial comment period, and
<br />groups raised claims during comment period after
<br />TMDL was performed. Clean Water Act, § 402, 33
<br />U.S.C.A. § 1342; 40 C.F.R. & 122.4(1)(2) (2000).
<br />*1008 Roger Flvnn, Westem Mining Action Project,
<br />Lyons, CO, for the petitioners.
<br />M Environmental Law 149E X196
<br />149E Environmental Law
<br />149EV Water Pollution
<br />149Ek194 Permits and Certifications
<br />149Ekl96 k. Discharge of Pollutants. Most
<br />Cited Cases
<br />Mining company was not entitled to National Pollu-
<br />tion Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
<br />under Clean Water Act (CWA) in connection with
<br />new copper mine, even though permit was conditioned
<br />D. Judith Keith, United States Department of Justice,
<br />Environmental Defense Section, Washington, DC;
<br />John S. Most, United States Department of Justice,
<br />Natural Resources Section, Washington, DC, for the
<br />respondents.
<br />Amv R. Porter, Lewis and Roca LLP, Phoenix, AZ,
<br />for the intervenor.
<br />On Petition for Review of an Order of the Environ-
<br />mental Protection Agency.
<br />© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
|