Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffappealclean water act

jurisdictionappeallease

Related Cases

Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637

Facts

In late 2014, a pipeline owned by Kinder Morgan ruptured, spilling several hundred thousand gallons of gasoline near Belton, South Carolina. The gasoline seeped into nearby waterways, and conservation groups alleged that it continued to pollute navigable waters, despite the pipeline being repaired. The plaintiffs claimed that contaminants were migrating through groundwater to tributaries and wetlands, and they sought relief for ongoing pollution under the Clean Water Act.

In late 2014, several hundred thousand gallons of gasoline spilled from a rupture in a pipeline owned by Plantation Pipe Line Company, Inc., a subsidiary of Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, LP (collectively, Kinder Morgan), near Belton, South Carolina.

Issue

Whether a citizen suit can be brought under the Clean Water Act for pollution that continues to affect navigable waters through groundwater, even after the original source of pollution has been repaired.

This case requires us to determine whether citizens may bring suit alleging a violation of the CWA when the source of the pollution, the pipeline, is no longer releasing the pollutant, but the pollutant allegedly is passing a short distance through the earth via ground water and is being discharged into surface waterways.

Rule

The Clean Water Act allows citizen suits for ongoing violations, which can include indirect discharges of pollutants through groundwater that have a direct hydrological connection to navigable waters.

The CWA's citizen-suit provision does not require that a point source continue to release a pollutant for there to be an ongoing violation, but only that there be an ongoing addition of pollutants to navigable waters.

Analysis

The court determined that the Clean Water Act does not require a direct discharge from a point source into navigable waters for a violation to occur. Instead, it is sufficient that pollutants are being added to navigable waters, even if they travel through groundwater. The plaintiffs adequately alleged that the gasoline from the pipeline was continuing to seep into navigable waters, thus establishing an ongoing violation.

Accordingly, we conclude that the district court erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction, because citizens may bring suit under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(a) for discharges of pollutants that derive from a 'point source' and continue to be 'added' to navigable waters.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings, concluding that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged an ongoing violation of the Clean Water Act.

Accordingly, we vacate the district court's judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

Conservation groups prevailed in the appeal because the court found that they had sufficiently alleged ongoing violations of the Clean Water Act despite the pipeline being repaired.

The Court of Appeals, Barbara Milano Keenan, Circuit Judge, held that: 1 conservation groups sufficiently alleged an ongoing violation of CWA.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Yost, 919 F.2d 27, 32 ERC 1675, 59 USLW 2397, 21 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,336

Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd., 611 F.Supp. 1542, 22 ERC 2121, 15 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,663

Geer v. State of Conn., 161 U.S. 519, 16 S.Ct. 600, 40 L.Ed. 793

Oregon Natural Resources Council v. Daley, 16 F.Supp.2d 1256, 29 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,404

E.W. Bliss Co. v. United States Incandescent Gaslight Co., nan