Environmental Impact Statements under Environmental Law

10 Jul 2025 --
0 Comments

Water Pollution under Environmental Law – Detailed Explanation with Case Law

I. Overview of Water Pollution Law

Water pollution law aims to prevent, control, and remediate contamination of water bodies such as rivers, lakes, oceans, and groundwater. In the United States, the cornerstone statute is the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972, which regulates discharges of pollutants into “waters of the United States” and sets water quality standards.

II. Key Legal Provisions Under the Clean Water Act (CWA)

Section 301: Prohibits the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters except as authorized by a permit.

Section 402: Establishes the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program.

Section 404: Regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters, including wetlands.

Section 303: Requires states to set water quality standards and develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for pollutants.

III. Important Case Law

1. Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006)

Issue:
The case dealt with the question of what constitutes “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) under the CWA, especially regarding wetlands not directly connected to navigable waters.

Facts:
John Rapanos filled wetlands on his property without a Section 404 permit. The Corps of Engineers claimed jurisdiction based on hydrological connectivity.

Holding:

The Supreme Court issued a plurality opinion, with no majority agreement on the test for jurisdiction.

Justice Scalia argued for a narrow interpretation, holding jurisdiction only over relatively permanent, continuous surface water bodies connected to navigable waters.

Justice Kennedy proposed the “significant nexus” test, requiring that wetlands significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of navigable waters to fall under CWA jurisdiction.

Explanation:
The case is pivotal for defining the scope of federal authority over water pollution, especially wetlands protection. The ambiguity has led to regulatory uncertainty and ongoing litigation.

2. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167 (2000)

Issue:
Whether environmental groups had standing to sue a polluter violating CWA discharge permits, given that the polluter ceased the harmful activity during litigation.

Facts:
Laidlaw operated a facility that discharged pollutants into a river in violation of its permit. The company stopped the discharge after suit was filed.

Holding:

The Court held that plaintiffs had standing because they suffered actual or threatened injury due to pollution impacting their recreational use of the river.

Voluntary cessation of pollution by the defendant does not moot the case if violations could recur.

Explanation:
This case emphasized the ability of citizen groups to enforce environmental laws, a key feature of the CWA. It also clarified that environmental harms can establish legal injury even if direct physical harm is not shown.

3. International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987)

Issue:
Whether a state can impose stricter water pollution limits on a discharge from an out-of-state source than those permitted by the source’s state of origin.

Facts:
Vermont sued International Paper Co. (operating in New York) for discharges into the Connecticut River, affecting Vermont’s water quality.

Holding:

The Court held that under the CWA, the state where the discharge originates has exclusive authority to regulate the pollutant discharge.

Downstream states cannot impose stricter discharge standards on upstream dischargers.

Explanation:
This case limited states’ abilities to protect downstream waters from upstream pollution, emphasizing state sovereignty and federalism under the CWA.

4. Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007)

Issue:
Whether the EPA must regulate greenhouse gases as pollutants under the Clean Air Act, with implications for water pollution due to climate change impacts.

Holding:

The Court held that the EPA has authority to regulate greenhouse gases if they are found to endanger public health or welfare.

Though primarily an air pollution case, it indirectly impacts water pollution by recognizing climate change’s effect on water resources.

Explanation:
This case broadened environmental regulatory authority and highlighted the interconnectedness of air and water pollution, particularly regarding climate impacts on water quality and availability.

5. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 484 U.S. 49 (1987)

Issue:
Whether a plaintiff can sue for ongoing or future violations of the CWA if the defendant claims to have ceased violations.

Holding:

The Court held that to bring a citizen suit under the CWA, there must be a reasonable likelihood of continuing violations.

Past violations alone are insufficient.

Explanation:
This decision balanced the rights of citizen enforcement with protecting defendants from lawsuits over wholly past conduct, emphasizing the importance of ongoing environmental harm.

6. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994)

Issue:
Whether states can require water quality certifications for hydropower projects under Section 401 of the CWA.

Holding:

The Court upheld the state’s authority to impose conditions on water quality certifications, including conditions not directly related to pollution but necessary for water quality protection.

Explanation:
This case confirmed state authority to enforce water quality standards, reinforcing the cooperative federalism structure of the CWA.