O.C.G.A. § 12-5-20 (2019)

Annotations

Law reviews. - For article examining approach to water pollution control established by the Georgia Water Quality Control Act and other regulations in light of alternative approaches, see 23 Mercer L. Rev. 603 (1972). For article, ‘‘Sharing Water Through Interbasin Transfer and Basis of Origin Protection in Georgia: Issues for Evaluation in Comprehensive State Water Planning for Georgia’s Surface Water Rivers and Groundwater Aquifers,’’ see 21 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 339 (2004). For an-

nual survey of zoning and land use law, see 58 Mercer L. Rev. 477 (2006). For annual survey on administrative law, see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 1 (2018). For article, ‘‘Integrated Water Resources Management and Effective Intergovernmental Cooperation on Watershed Issues,’’ see 70 Mercer L. Rev. 399 (2019). For comment, ‘‘Trading Water: Using Tradable Permits to Promote Conservation and Efficient Allocation of an Increasingly Scarce Resource,’’ see 59 Emory L.J. 1001 (2010).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Punitive damages. - Punitive damages are, as a general rule, improper when a defendant has complied with environmental and safety regulations. Accordingly, the award of punitive damages against a quarry operator who had adhered to the applicable laws was not supported by the evidence and warranted reversal. Stone Man, Inc. v. Green, 263 Ga. 470, 435 S.E.2d 205 (1993). Violations of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-20 et seq., were found when a city was dumping millions of gallons of inadequately treated sewage into the tributaries of the Chattahoochee River. The presence of other sources of fecal coliform pollution does not create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the facilities were causing violations of Georgia Water Quality Standards with respect to the receiving streams below the facilities. Upper Chattahoochee Riverkeeper Fund, Inc. v. City of Atlanta, 986 F. Supp. 1406 (N.D. Ga. 1997). Exclusion of evidence relevant to violations. - Trial court did not err in denying the defendant’s motion in limine to exclude evidence relating to the defen-

dant’s violations of the Georgia Water Quality Control Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-5-20 et seq., and the Sedimentation Control Act, O.C.G.A. §§ 12-7-2 and 12-7-6(a), because the evidence was relevant to the plaintiffs’ negligence per se claims. Pulte Home Corp. v. Simerly, 322 Ga. App. 699, 746 S.E.2d 173 (2013). Interpretation of narrative standard rule as to discharges. - Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division’s (EPD’s) interpretation of the narrative standard was entitled to deference as it was proper for the EPD to interpret the narrative standard as not intended to convert the designated use of a water body to a more protected use as the plain language of the narrative standard does not specify the degree of interference with legitimate water uses that would constitute a violation of the rule. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC, 346 Ga. App. 269, 816 S.E.2d 125 (2018), cert. denied, No. S18C1474, 2019 Ga. LEXIS 554 (Ga. 2019). Cited in Franklin County v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 270 Ga. 272, 507 S.E.2d 460 (1998).

RESEARCH REFERENCES Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms. - 8C Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Drains and Drainage Districts, §§ 3, 15. 24B Am. Jur. Pleading and Practice Forms, Waters, § 126.

ALR. - Actions brought under Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act) (33 USCA § 1251 et seq.) - Supreme Court cases, 163 A.L.R. Fed. 531.