1. LEGAL UPDATES IN WATER LAW
Arkansas Environmental Federation’s
WATER SEMINAR
By Allan Gates and Jordan Wimpy
April 18, 2018

2. TOPICS
WOTUS – How a criminal sentencing case may impact the revision of the WOTUS rule
Groundwater – Does a discharge to Groundwater require an NPDES Permit?
Anti-Duplication – How EPA “discretion” to regulate stormwater led to potential RCRA enforcement
401 Certification – March 2018 decisions provide clarity to Section 401 WQS certification process

3. WOTUS – How a criminal sentencing case may impact revision of the WOTUS rule
Case – Hughes v. United States, 849 F.3d 1008 (11th Cir. 2017) , cert. granted, (Dec. 8, 2017) (U.S. Dock. No ).
Issue – How should the decision in Freeman v. United States be applied to a “C-Plea” defendant’s request for sentence reduction?
Application – Marks v. United States, 430 U.S. 188, 193 (1977)
“When a fragmented Court decides a case and no single rationale explaining the result enjoys the assent of five Justices, the holding of the Court may be viewed as that position taken by the Members who concurred in the judgment on the narrowest grounds.”
Takeaway –
Confusion persists in how to apply decisions
The SCOTUS decision in Hughes v. United States may trump the Executive Order directing revision of WOTUS in line with Justice Scalia’s opinion in Rapanos

4. Groundwater – Does a discharge to Groundwater require an NPDES Permit?
Cases
Hawai’i Wildlife Fund v. County of Maui, __ F.3d __(9th Cir., Feb. 1, 2018 )
Kentucky Waterways Alliance v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 2017 WL (E.D. Ky, Dec. 28, 2017), appeal pending, No (6th Cir.)
Tennessee Clean Water Network v. TVA, 273 F. Supp. 3d 775 (M.D. Tenn 2017), appeal pending, No (6th Cir.)
Issue – Does a discharge to groundwater that ultimately affects navigable surface waters require an NPDES permit
Application
County of Maui – Yes, groundwater is conduit
Kentucky Utilities – No, groundwater is not a point source
Tenn. Clean Water – Yes, groundwater is a point source
Takeaway –
Confusion persists
EPA recently requested comments on the issue

5. Anti-Duplication – How EPA “discretion” to regulate stormwater led to potential RCRA enforcement
Case – Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 874 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2017)
Issue – Scope of the RCRA Anti-Duplication Provisions:
“Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to apply to … any activity or substance which is subject to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act … except to the extent that such application (or regulation) is not inconsistent with the requirements of such Act.” RCRA Section 1006(a), 42 USC § 6905(a) and (b).
Application –
Inconsistent = “mutually repugnant” (a.k.a. contradictory)
Requirements = “legal requirements” (rule of law to be obeyed)
Takeaway –
Fact specific application with fact specific inquiry
Must show specific contradictory permit conditions

6. 401 Certification – March 2018 decisions provide clarity to 401 WQS process
Cases –
New York State Dep’t of Envtl. Conservation v. Sarah Burns, et al., No ag, slip opinion (2d Cir. 2018)
FEB Missouri 15, LLC, 162 FERC 61,327 (Mar. 15, 2018)
Issue – Interpretation of CWA Section 401 Waiver Provision
“If the State … fails or refuses to act on a request for certification, within a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after receipt of such request, the certification requirements … shall be waived with respect to such Federal application.” CWA Section 401, 33 USC § 1341(a)(1).
Application – Plain language of Section 401 provides a “bright-line” rule regarding the beginning of review – i.e. “receipt” of application.
Takeaway – Provides clarity to the 401 process (which was apparently needed), but concerned states could still “deny the application without prejudice” (i.e. an action) and request re-application.

7. Parting Thoughts/Parting Shots?
Allan Gates
Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C
425 W. Capitol Avenue, Ste. 1800
Little Rock, AR 72201
Jordan Wimpy