C.F.R. » Title 30 » CHAPTER VII—OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT, DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR › SUBCHAPTER K—PERMANENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS › PART 816—PERMANENT PROGRAM PERFORMANCE STANDARDS—SURFACE MINING ACTIVITIES

30 C.F.R. § 816.42

Hydrologic balance: Water quality standards and effluent limitations

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

Discharges of water from areas disturbed by surface mining activities shall be made in compliance with all applicable State and Federal water quality laws and regulations and with the effluent limitations for coal mining promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency set forth in 40 CFR part 434.

[47 FR 47222, Oct. 22, 1982, as amended at 48 FR 44051, Sept. 26, 1983; 81 FR 93392, Dec. 20, 2016; 82 FR 54979, Nov. 17, 2017]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2021 · leading case: Ohio Valley Env't Coalition, Inc. v. Hobet Mining, LLC, 723 F. Supp. 2d 886 (S.D.W. Va 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Ohio Valley Env't Coalition, Inc. v. Hobet Mining, LLC, 723 F. Supp. 2d 886 (S.D.W. Va 2010). · cites it 3× “b; see also 30 C.F.R. §§ 816.42 & 817.42. Additionally, a general condition of every WV SCMRA permit is that it must meet all applicable performance standards.”
Sierra Club v. Powellton Coal Co., LLC, 662 F. Supp. 2d 514 (S.D.W. Va 2009). · cites it 3× “b; see also 30 C.F.R. § 816.42 (federal performance standard requiring that “[discharges of water from areas disturbed by surface mining activities shall be made in compliance with all applicable State and Federal water quality laws and regulations and with the effluent…”
Club v. ICG E., LLC, 833 F. Supp. 2d 571 (N.D.W. Va. 2011). “5b; see also 30 C.F.R. §§ 816.42 , 817.42. Applicable water quality standards include the effluent limitations imposed pursuant to the CWA; therefore, if a permittee violates the terms of its CWA permit, the permittee is also in violation of the performance standards imposed by…”
Ohio Valley Env't Coalition, Inc. v. Hobet Mining, LLC, 717 F. Supp. 2d 541 (S.D.W. Va 2010). · cites it 3× “b; see also 30 C.F.R. §§ 816.42 & 817.42. Additionally, a general condition of every WV SCMRA permit is that it must meet all applicable performance standards.”
S. Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. Red River Coal Co., Inc. (W.D. Va. 2019). “” 30 C.F.R. § 816.42 . According to SAMS, adopting Red River’s broad savings clause argument would negate the SMCRA provision that expressly allows for more stringent state regulations of surface coal mining and reclamation operations.”
West Virginia Highlands Conservancy v. Lexington Coal Co., LLC (S.D.W. Va 2021). “” 30 C.F.R. § 816.42 ; 38 C.S.R. § 2- 14.5.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.