Clean Water Act

Subscribe to Clean Water Act via RSS
Image by freepik

On August 8, 2024, the Coosa River Basin Initiative (CRBI), an environmental organization based in Georgia,  and the City of Calhoun, Georgia (the City), announced that they had reached a proposed settlement in a citizen suit case involving alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) focused solely on the City’s land application of PFAS-containing biosolids.

CRBI, through its counsel at Southern Environmental Law Center, filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on March 7, 2024, against the City and the owner of property used for land application of the City’s biosolids. The Complaint included the following alleged CWA violations:

  • The City’s land application of PFAS-contaminated biosolids onto land that was hydrologically connected to navigable waters through groundwater was the “functional equivalent” of discharging PFAS directly into navigable waters without an NPDES permit;
  • That PFAS are a toxic pollutant and that the City, therefore, violated its existing NPDES permit by failing to “take all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge or sludge disposal which might adversely affect human health or the environment,” provide notice to downstream users and take reasonable steps to prevent injury when a toxic substance has been discharged, and enforce noncompliance with any applicable pretreatment standard or requirement.

Environmental non-profit Tennessee Riverkeeper has filed a Clean Water Act (CWA) citizen suit against the City of Lebanon alleging unlawful discharges of multiple per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from the City’s inactive municipal landfill. Riverkeeper acknowledges that the landfill has a valid NPDES permit that authorizes the discharge of treated leachate, but it nevertheless alleges that the discharges constitute a CWA violation because none of the PFAS are specifically listed as authorized “pollutants” in the facility’s permit.

Section 301(a) of the CWA generally prohibits the discharge of “any pollutant” from a point source into a water of the united states, except pursuant to a permit or in compliance with certain listed section of the CWA. “Pollutant” is defined expansively as “dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, sewage, garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, chemical wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discarded equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste discharged into water.” 33 U.S.C.A. § 1362. Thus, potential liability is broad. But it is certainly not unlimited. In cases like this, where the defendant has a permit and is not alleged to be in violation of any specific discharge limit, a citizen suit claim could face a number of potential hurdles.