Recent Water Law Cases
You can visit the archived cases here.
Updated on April 27, 2016
Reading Area Water Authority. v. Schuylkill River Greenway Association 2014 WL 4745698 (Pa. Sept. 24, 2014) By John Hunt
In 2010, the Reading Area Water Authority (“RAWA”), a municipal authority in Reading, Pennsylvania, filed a Declaration of Taking Complaint against the Schuylkill River Greenway Association (“the Greenway”) in Berks County common pleas court, in which RAWA requested a decree condemning a 50-foot-wide easement across the Greenway’s property.
Alt v. United States Environmental Protection Agency 758 F.3d 588 (4th Cir. July 14, 2014) By Sabrina Williams
On July 14, 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed a decision from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia denying the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s (“CBF”) motion to intervene in a poultry farmer’s lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”).
You can visit the archived news here. If you've seen a recent news story you would like us to share, please contact Kyle Robisch.
Responding to Citizen Petition, EPA Reviews Wisconsin NPDES Delegation
In response to a petition filed last year, EPA officials are reviewing documents related to forty-seven NPDES permits issued by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. According to the petition, the Wisconsin DNR issued permits that contravene CWA duties, restrict the rights of state citizens, and violate public participation requirements. EPA has never withdrawn state delegation as a result of a citizen petition, and a state spokesperson commented that the EPA review is standard procedure, the Lacrosse Tribune reported.
New Legislation Recognizes Meadows and Forests as “Integral Components of California’s Water Infrastructure”
On September 27th Governor Brown signed AB-2480 into law, recognizing the role that source watersheds play in maintaining the state’s water supply. The short bill recognizes that as “climate change advances, source watersheds . . . are of particular importance to maintaining the reliability, quantity, timing, and quality of California’s environmental, drinking, and agricultural water supply.” The new law allows use of infrastructure bonds for watershed restoration and protection, and lists financing-eligible repair and maintenance activities that include vegetation management, meadow restoration, road removal, and more. Read more at: American Rivers.
Issues of First Impression in Mississippi v. Tennessee
When the Supreme Court hears arguments in Mississippi v. Tennessee, the justices will have to decide for the first time what law applies to interstate groundwater resources like the disputed Sparta-Memphis Sand Aquifer. Mississippi alleges that the city of Memphis is extracting so much from the aquifer that a groundwater depression has formed beneath the city. That depression, the state argues, is drawing in so much water from Mississippi that the state is owed $615 million in compensation. The Solicitor General has argued in support of Tennessee’s contention that the aquifer should be treated like an interstate river, and be subject to equitable apportionment. Read more at: Circle of Blue.
Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Army Corps CWA Jurisdiction Determinations of WOTUS in Hawkes - May 31, 2016
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in U.S. Army Corps of Engineers v. Hawkes that an Army Corps “jurisdictional determination” is a “final agency action” subject to judicial review because of the significant financial and even criminal consequences for landowners if they disregard such a determination. The ruling upheld the Eighth Circuit's ruling in the matter and will surely play a part in the ongoing judicial interpretations of EPA's Clean Water Rule on defining Waters of the U.S. Read more here.
North Carolina Supreme Court Considers Asheville Water System Case - May 24, 2016
Last week, the North Carolina Supreme Court heard oral argument on a challenge to a North Carolina law that transfers control of the Asheville water system from city officials to a board comprised of officials from a two-county area, of which Asheville representatives would be a minority. More than 120,000 people utilize the Asheville water system, both inside and outside the city limits. Although most of the Court’s questions concerned whether the law in question violates a state constitutional provision prohibiting local laws relating to health and sanitation, the Court also questioned whether the state assembly has the authority to transfer an asset worth millions of dollars from one governmental entity to another without compensation. A decision is not expected for several months.