NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY CRITERION UNDER NPDES

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
All citizens of the state benefit from a balanced supply of housing which is affordable to persons and families of low and moderate income. Establishment.
Advertisements

Unit 6: Individual Rights and Liberties
BASIN PLAN AMENDMENTS ADOPTION HEARING Item 2 Water Board Meeting of April 9, 2014 Chuck Curtis and Robert Larsen Lahontan Water Board.
© 2014 Groundwater Desalination Molly Cagle. SB Groundwater regulation is best accomplished through local or regional districts that operate.
SEACC v. USACOE A Case Study for the Env. & Nat. Resources Section November 19, 2008.
The Entergy facility is a boiling water reactor with a rated core thermal power level of 1912 MW, providing a gross electrical output of 620 MW. The facility.
Teaching American History: Moot Courts and Constitutional Concepts.
WAR The Battle WAR for the Right of Way. City of Lansing v. Wolverine Pipeline Company: Losing the Battle but Winning the War.
BADARACCO v. COMMISSIONER, 464 U.S. 386 (1984)
NAACP v. ALABAMA ~National Association for the Advancement of Colored People~ 1 st amendment case: 1958.
Constitutional Law Part 2: The Federal Legislative Power Lecture 8: Post-Civil War Amendments (13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments)
Can a city/state ban handguns? …or is this a violation of the 2 nd Amendment?
Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier A First Amendment Case © Constitutional Rights Foundation, Los Angeles, 2002 All rights reserved.
Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation (CAFO) Regulations - Update Meg Collins Colorado Livestock Association & Landon Gates Colorado Farm Bureau Water.
Fordham IP Conference 2015 Fair Use in Israeli Copyright Law Tamir Afori, Adv. Gilat, Bareket & Co. Reinhold Cohn Group Reinhold Cohn & Partners, Patent.
THEMES IN FAMILY LAW.  WHO Regulates: State vs. Federal Law  WHY Regulate: Goals of Family Law  HOW to Regulate: Discretion vs. Rules  LIMITS on Regulation:
Ramsey-Washington Project Board September 25, Waste Delivery & Project Governance Issues Sara Bergan Kevin Johnson Stoel Rives LLP Ramsey-Washington.
Frivolous Claims. Introduction  PL (12/22/06) allows attorneys to represent veterans before VA for a fee after NOD is filed.  VA required to.
Oregon’s Statewide Land Use Planning Program A Framework for Community Decisions Richard Whitman – Director Oregon Department of Land Conservation and.
Why is NCRFRA needed now? What reason is there to believe that free exercise rights under the state constitution may not be robustly interpreted without.
Judgment on Appeal The Court prepares, not the party.
CPF National By- laws Committee Meeting April
MS4 Remand Rule Intergovernmental Associations Briefing September 15, 2015.
Governor’s Ethanol Conference The Minnesota Fuel Ethanol Industry: Regulatory and Permitting Perspectives from the Public Sector. James E. Sullivan Kansas.
Regulatory Takings and Smart Growth Douglas T. Kendall Timothy J. Dowling Community Rights Counsel May 10, 2001 Cobb County, Georgia.
Chapter 43 Administrative Law and Regulatory Agencies
© 2010 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as Prentice-Hall 1 ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND REGULATORY AGENCIES © 2010 Pearson Education, Inc., publishing as.
Regulatory Developments Affecting Southwest Washington Land Use in Southwestern Washington Law Seminars International Vancouver, WA February 11, 2008 Bill.
The Federal Courts Unit 6 – Chapter 20 “Without them (federal judges) the Constitution would be a dead letter” Alexis de Tocqueville.
Local Powers for Land Use Regulation. Local Land Use Powers Land use regulation is considered a residual power –In most circumstances, that is… –Power.
The Paralegal Professional PA101.  the power to govern is shared by one central or federal government and the 50 state governments.
ANTIDEGRADATION and THE BENEFITS OF PUMP LOGS FOR BATCH DISCHARGES Given by: Dan Murray, Terrell Hendren and Josh Frazier.
Wallace vs. Jaffree Alabama, 1985 Father versus Mobile County School – Ishmael Jaffree claimed his kids were being subjected to regular religious practices.
Stoney-Brook Development Corporation v. Town of Fremont No SUPREME COURT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE 124 N.H. 583; 474 A.2d 561; 1984 N.H. LEXIS 348 March.
Morse v. Frederick A U. S. Supreme Court Case.
QUESTION: “Does a prohibition against the wearing of armbands in public school, as a form of symbolic protest, violate the free speech clause of the First.
The Supreme Court. Jurisdiction Original—first to hear a case 1.State vs. US. (New York vs. Clinton) 2.Ambassador/public minister 3.Issues between states.
PROTECTING YOUR CHURCH’S RIGHT TO RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION Frank Sommerville, JD, CPA.
Helen Tran APES P.2. What is the Clean Water Act?  This act was introduced in the Senate as S by Edmund Muskie on October 28,  The Clean.
Chapter 2 Constitutional Law for Business and E-Commerce
FUTURE REQUIREMENTS AND GOALS
Arguments Presented in Lower Courts
Waste Discharge Permit: Paradise Irrigation District
Brevard County v Jack Snyder 627 So. 2d 469 (Fla. 1993)
Clean Water Act Regulatory Session
August 9, 2006 Adoption Hearing Carrie Austin Thomas Mumley
BACWA Air Issues & Regulations ● Wednesday, June 15, 2016
Arguments Presented in Lower Courts
Court.
GIEC Annual Meeting EPD Watershed Branch Update
LEGISLATIVE EXECUTIVE JUDICIAL FEDERAL STATE LOCAL U.S. Congress:
NPDES Permits for Discharges to Groundwater
Judicial Branch The Supreme Court.
Modify Approval of Conditional Use Permit #6222 and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Arroyo Seco Canyon Project PUBLIC HEARING City Council July.
SolarCity vs. Salt River Project
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Local Government in Georgia
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK FEBRUARY 15, 2018 ADOPTION OF RESOLUTIONS CALLING FOR A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF PASADENA AND THE.
Collection Costs on Rehabilitated Loans
What Happens After Jardines?
The Clean Water Acts of 1977, 1981, & 1987
Social Assistance Amendment Bill –B5-2010,
Are Tiered Conservation Rates Valid?
Chapter 43 Administrative Law and Regulatory Agencies
Jasper Seating Co. (1988) ALJ held that walkout was protected concerted activity, discharge for such activity violated NLRA Judge found walkout was reasonable.
Local Government in Georgia
The Supreme Court GOVT Notes 5-2.
Arguments Presented in Lower Courts
University System of New Hampshire v. Bradley Jardis, et al
Georgia’s Government Structure of the Georgia state constitution: Preamble (Introduction) Articles (11 main articles) Sections Paragraphs What.
Presentation transcript:

NARRATIVE WATER QUALITY CRITERION UNDER NPDES GIEC Annual Meeting November 2, 2017 Patricia T. Barmeyer

What is the problem? The current narrative water quality standard provides: All waters shall be free from material related to municipal, industrial or other discharges which produce turbidity, color, odor or other objectionable conditions which interfere with legitimate water uses. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. r. 391-3-6-.03(5)(c).

NPDES Permit Appeal to OSAH ALJ held that the narrative standard bars a wastewater discharge that interferes with the water quality expectations of any water user, whether reasonable or not, for any legitimate uses. Designated use of the River (Fishing) not taken into account. ALJ reversed the permit.

Appeal to Superior Court Superior Court reversed the ALJ and affirmed the NPDES permit. Held the narrative standard prohibits “unreasonable interference” with legitimate water uses. Does not prohibit a minor, insignificant interference. Extensive use of the River for fishing and recreation proves no “unreasonable interference.”

Court of Appeals Granted the discretionary appeal Briefs to be filed in late 2017 Amicus briefs will be considered Oral argument in February, 2018, if granted Decision by July, 2018

What is the Risk? Court of Appeals, or the Georgia Supreme Court, could agree with the ALJ’s overly literal reading of the narrative water quality standard. Opponents argue for the “plain meaning” interpretation of the narrative standard adopted by the ALJ.

Potential Implications for NPDES Program How can regulators, dischargers, ALJs or courts apply a standard that defers to the subjective views of even the most fastidious potential user of the waterbody? High risk of citizen suits—most POTW permits and some industrial permits include the narrative standard as a permit condition.

How to Address the Problem Strong amicus support in the Court of Appeals. Need the Court to understand the broad implications of the issue. Input from industries and from cities and counties will have an impact.

Clarify the Rule DNR Board can amend and clarify the narrative water quality standard, to make it clear that the rule prohibits only a discharge that unreasonably interferes with designated uses of the River. Would be consistent with the Water Use Classifications and different levels of protection.