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 defendant'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 and12-7-6(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).

Judicial review of permit to city degrading water quality.

- Issuance of a permit to a city for a wastewater treatment facility was reversed because the administrative law judge's interpretation that the antidegradation rule was inapplicable was plain error as the rule was not limited in application to point source discharges and required that the substantive requirements be met before a permit degrading the high quality of water could be granted. Barrow v. Dunn, 344 Ga. App. 747, 812 S.E.2d 63 (2018).

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).

Cited in Franklin County v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 270 Ga. 272, 507 S.E.2d 460 (1998).

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.