{ Banner Image }
搜索此博客

订阅更新

最近的帖子

博客编辑器

博客贡献者

地下水与通航水的数量足以违反CWA

上周四,第四巡回上诉下期双色球预测裁定,环保组织可以根据《清洁水法》(“CWA”)反对已破裂的汽油管道的所有者,该管道已被修复,但据称泄漏的汽油继续通过地下水进入CWA规定的附近地表水“navigable waters.” 永远北部状态等。诉Kinder Morgan 能源 Partners LP等。),No.17-1640,2018 WL 1748154(4th Cir.2018年4月12日)。这样做,下期双色球预测权衡了第四巡回下期双色球预测的第一印象,这对CWA责任具有重大影响–根据《化学废物公约》,在到达通航水之前排放穿过地下水的污染物是否可能构成排放污染物。下期双色球预测还通过裁定原告充分指控了原告的侵权行为,解决了初步的管辖权问题。“ongoing violation”在地方下期双色球预测指控违反CWA的必要条件。 

该案涉及2014年由Kinder Morgan 能源 Partners,LP的子公司拥有的地下天然气管道破裂。破裂的管道在南卡罗来纳州的贝尔顿附近泄漏了数十万加仑汽油。毫无疑问,在修理破裂的管道时,泄漏的汽油继续渗入附近的水道。原告环保组织Upstate Forever和Savannah Riverkeeper在地方下期双色球预测起诉金德·摩根(Kinder Morgan),指控泄漏的汽油在进入数条小溪和规定的湿地之前先经过地下水1000英尺或更短的距离。“navigable waters.”地方下期双色球预测裁定,原告未能提出索赔,因为该管道已维修完毕,不再排放污染物“directly” into 通航水域。 The district court further held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the CWA did 不 encompass the movement of pollutants through ground water that is hydrologically connected to 通航水域。 Thus, the district court held, the violation was “wholly past”而原告未能指控“ongoing violation”根据CWA公民诉讼的要求。 

The 第四巡回赛 reversed the district court on appeal, first finding that the plaintiffs had properly alleged an 持续违规 under the CWA as necessary for subject matter jurisdiction. Judge Barbara Milano Keenan, writing for the majority and joined by Chief Judge Roger L. Gregory, 不 ed that Section 505 of the CWA defined the discharge of a pollutant as “从任何点源向通航水域添加任何污染物。” Judge Keenan reasoned that this language does 不 place temporal conditions on the discharge from the point source, nor does the definition limit the pollution from a point source that actively continues to release the pollutants. Because the plaintiffs had alleged that pollutants were discharged from a point source and continued to be added to navigable waters, the Court held that the plaintiffs had properly alleged an 持续违规 and that the district court therefore had subject matter jurisdiction.

下期双色球预测接下来审议了主要问题–以及第四巡回赛的第一印象– of whether the discharge of a pollutant that moves through the ground water before reaching navigable waters constitutes a point source discharge under the CWA. While the Court held that such a discharge can constitute a CWA violation, it specified that a plaintiff must sufficiently allege a 直接水文联系 between the ground water and navigable waters, which the court 不 ed was necessarily a fact-specific determination. In reviewing the case before it, the Court determined that the alleged “极短的距离”管道与通航水域之间1,000英尺的距离有力地支持了Kinder Morgan的结论’排放由CWA负责。值得注意的是,下期双色球预测明确指出其判决确实 认为CWA涵盖了地下水本身的排放。相反,它的控股只表明“an alleged discharge of pollutants, reaching navigable waters located 1,000 feet or less from the point source by means of ground water with a 直接水文联系 to such navigable waters, falls within the scope of the CWA.”

在其推理中,下期双色球预测首先指出,不必“directly” from a point source into 通航水域。 In support of this premise, the Court quoted Justice Scalia’在美国最高下期双色球预测具有里程碑意义的裁决中的推理, 拉帕诺斯诉美国,第547卷,第715页(2006年),其中解决了CWA下可航行水域的定义。在 拉帕诺斯,斯卡利亚(Scalia)指出,化学废物管理局(CWA)不仅禁止添加任何污染物“directly”到通航水域,而是添加任何污染物“to” 通航水域。 The Court also cited to opinions in the Second and 第九巡回赛s which had rejected theories that the CWA created liability for discharges only where the point source fed 直 into a navigable water, such as a pipe or ditch. The Court further reasoned that the CWA would be greatly undermined if a discharged pollutant was 不 covered under the CWA simply because it passed through a short distance of soil or groundwater. If this were the case, the Court 不 ed, polluters could easily avoid CWA liability by ensuring that all discharges passed through soil or groundwater before reaching 通航水域。 Thus, the Court held that the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a 直接水文联系 between the ground water and navigable waters to state a claim for a discharge of a pollutant under the CWA.  但是,尽管该决定可以视为扩大了CWA’该决定涉及间接到达通航水域的排放物的范围,因此该决定暗示了更脆弱的联系可能不够,因此 第四回路将在确定什么构成“直接水文联系”发现这种违法行为是必要的。 

法官亨利·弗洛伊德(Henry F. Floyd)对此表示反对,他对CWA进行了仔细检查后发现,国会希望CWA仅涵盖正在通航的水中不断添加的污染物“from a point source.” Because the pipeline had been repaired and was 不 currently polluting navigable waters, Judge Floyd continued, there could be no 持续违规. Judge Floyd reasoned that the continued seeping of pollutants from ground water into navigable waters constituted ongoing migration of pollutants, a type of nonpoint source pollution, which was 不 a cognizable claim under the CWA. The judge also emphasized that barring the citizen suit here would 不 allow Kinder Morgan to evade accountability for what he referred to as “严重的环境危害。”他指出,南卡罗来纳州’的环保机构已经在监督补救工作,并指示金德·摩根(Kinder Morgan)进行某些调查活动。因此,弗洛伊德法官发现,公民诉讼不是寻求补救所涉污染的适当机制。

这个决定 越来越多的判例法寻求对联邦和州一级向水体排放污染物的法定违法行为作出澄清。例如, earlier this month 我们在宾夕法尼亚最高下期双色球预测报道’s decision in EQT产品。公司诉Dep’t of Envtl. Prot., 该下期双色球预测裁定,《宾夕法尼亚州清洁流法》未授权环境保护部对英联邦水域中污染物的持续存在进行每日罚款。 No.6 MAP 2017,2018 WL 1516385,(2018年3月28日Pa)。 随着州和环境团体在执行环境法律方面发挥更大的领导作用,推动法定解释界限的案件肯定会越来越普遍。