Syfert Injury Law Firm

Your Trusted Partner in Personal Injury & Workers' Compensation

Call Now: 904-383-7448

2018 Georgia Code 12-5-30 | Car Wreck Lawyer

Link to State of Georgia Official Statute 2018 Georgia Code Annotated (sourced from legal.resource.org)
O.C.G.A. 12-5-30 Case Law from Google Scholar Amendments to OCGA 12-5-30

TITLE 12 CONSERVATION AND NATURAL RESOURCES

Section 5. Water Resources, 12-5-1 through 12-5-586.

ARTICLE 2 CONTROL OF WATER POLLUTION AND SURFACE-WATER USE

12-5-30. Permits for construction, modification, or operation of facilities which discharge pollutants into waters; permits for discharge of dredged or fill material into waters and wetlands; participation in National Pollution Discharge Elimination System.

  1. Any person who owns or operates a facility of any type or who desires to erect, modify, alter, or commence operation of a facility of any type which results or will result in the discharge of pollutants from a point source into the waters of the state shall obtain from the director a permit to make such discharge. Any person desiring to erect, modify, alter, or commence operation of a facility which will result in such discharge but which is not discharging such pollutants as of July 1, 1974, must obtain such permit prior to the discharge of same. Any person who is operating a facility which results in such discharge as of July 1, 1974, may continue to make such discharge pending final action by the director on the application for such discharge permit, provided that such application has been filed with the director by September 29, 1974; and provided, further, that such discharge does not present an immediate health hazard to the public. The director, under the conditions he prescribes, may require the submission of such plans, specifications, and other information as he deems relevant in connection with the issuance of such permits. The director may, after public notice and opportunity for public hearing, issue a permit which authorizes the person to make such discharge, upon condition that such discharge meets or will meet, pursuant to any schedule of compliance included in such permit, all water quality standards, effluent limitations, and all other requirements established pursuant to this article.
  2. Any person desiring to erect or modify facilities or commence or alter an operation of any type which will result in the discharge of pollutants from a nonpoint source into the waters of the state, which will render or is likely to render such waters harmful to the public health, safety, or welfare, or harmful or substantially less useful for domestic, municipal, industrial, agricultural, recreational, or other lawful uses, or for animals, birds, or aquatic life, shall obtain a permit from the director to make such discharge. Any person desiring to erect, modify, alter, or commence operation of a facility which will result in such discharge but which is not discharging such pollutants as of July 1, 1974, must obtain such permit prior to the discharge of same. The director, under the conditions he prescribes, may require the submission of such plans, specifications, and other information as he deems relevant in connection with the issuance of such permits. The director may, after public notice and opportunity for public hearing, issue a permit which authorizes the person to make such discharge upon condition that such discharge meets or will meet, pursuant to any schedule of compliance included in such permit, all water quality standards, effluent limitations, and all other requirements established pursuant to this article.
  3. The director is authorized to require as conditions in permits issued under subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section the achievement of effluent limitations established pursuant to this article. In imposing effluent limitations as conditions in such permits, the director shall base his determination upon the assessment of technology and processes unrelated to the quality of the receiving waters of this state. Effluent limitations required as conditions of such permits shall be achieved in the shortest reasonable period of time consistent with state law and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended. The director is further authorized to set schedules of compliance and include such schedules within the terms and conditions of such permits for the discharge of such pollutants into the waters of the state and to prescribe terms and conditions for such permits to assure compliance with applicable effluent limitations and water quality criteria established pursuant to this article, including, but not limited to, requirements concerning recording, reporting, monitoring, entry, and inspection to the extent permissible under this article, and such other requirements as are consistent with the purposes of this article.
  4. Each permit issued under subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section shall have a fixed term set by the director consistent with the federal Clean Water Act of 1977, P.L. 95-217, as now or hereafter amended but not to exceed ten years. Upon expiration of such permit, a new permit may be issued by the director after review by him in accordance with such guidelines as he shall prescribe; after notice and opportunity for public hearing; and upon condition that the discharge meets or will meet, pursuant to any schedule of compliance included in such permit, all applicable water quality standards, effluent limitations, and all other requirements established pursuant to this article. The director is authorized to include in permits issued under this subsection such terms and conditions as are authorized under subsections (a) and (c) of this Code section. The director may revoke, suspend, or modify any permit issued under this subsection or subsection (a) or (b) of this Code section, for cause, including but not limited to the following:
    1. Violation of any condition of the permit;
    2. Obtaining a permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant facts;
    3. Change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the permitted discharge.

      In the event of modification, suspension, or revocation of a permit, the director shall serve written notice of such action on the permit holder and shall set forth in such notice the reason for such action.

  5. Notwithstanding any other provision in this Code section, the director may issue permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, for the discharge of dredged or fill material into the waters and wetlands of the state, in accordance with the standards and criteria set forth in Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. Section 1344, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217), upon receiving delegation of such authority, except that this subsection shall not authorize the director to issue permits with respect to projects under review by the United States Army Corps of Engineers as to which a public hearing has been held before July 1, 1974. In administering such a program, the director is empowered with the authority to take such action as is set forth in Section 404(h)(1)(A) through (H) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. Section 1344, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217). No person covered by this subsection shall discharge dredged or fill material into the waters and wetlands of this state except in a manner which complies with this article and Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. Section 1344, as amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977 (P.L. 95-217).
  6. The director may issue general permits for discharges of pollutants from categories of point sources which are subject to the same permit limitations and conditions. Such general permits may be issued without individual applications. At the discretion of the director, numeric effluent limitations and effluent monitoring provisions may be included in general permits or best management practices may be substituted for numeric effluent limitations without a showing that it would be infeasible to include effluent limitations; provided, however, that the director shall incorporate the provisions related thereto as provided in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of subsection (a) of Code Section 12-7-6 into any general permit issued for the discharge of storm water from construction activity.
  7. It is declared to be the public policy of this state, in furtherance of its responsibility to protect the public health, safety, and well-being of its citizens and to protect and enhance the quality of its environment, to prevent or mitigate where possible discharges of sediment into the waters of the state. The General Assembly declares its intent to partially fund the execution of the public policy set forth in this subsection and Chapter 7 of this title by and through the division with permit fees for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System general permit or permits for storm-water runoff from construction activities as is now in effect or as may be amended or reissued in the future pursuant to the state's authority to implement the same through federal delegation under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251, et seq., and subsection (f) of this Code section. Such fees shall be administered by the division pursuant to rules and regulations established by the board pursuant to paragraph (5) of subsection (a) of Code Section 12-5-23. The General Assembly further declares its intent that the amount of funds provided by such permit fees will not be utilized for any purposes other than the administration of Chapter 7 of this title by the division or a local issuing authority and the administration of the state general permit defined in Code Section 12-7-3 by the division, which purposes shall specifically include without limitation the study and report required by Code Section 12-7-21; provided, however, that nothing in this subsection shall be construed so as to allow the department to retain any funds required by the Constitution of Georgia to be paid into the state treasury; provided, further, that the department shall comply with all provisions of Part 1 of Article 4 of Chapter 12 of Title 45, the "Budget Act," except Code Section 45-12-92, prior to expending any funds derived from such permit fees.

(Ga. L. 1964, p. 416, § 10; Ga. L. 1973, p. 1288, § 1; Ga. L. 1974, p. 599, §§ 8-11; Ga. L. 1978, p. 2245, § 7; Ga. L. 1986, p. 350, §§ 1, 2; Ga. L. 1992, p. 6, § 12; Ga. L. 1995, p. 150, § 1; Ga. L. 2003, p. 224, § 4; Ga. L. 2007, p. 739, § 2/SB 200.)

Code Commission notes.

- Pursuant to Code Section 28-9-5, in 1986, a comma was inserted following "entry" in the fourth sentence of subsection (c).

Editor's notes.

- Ga. L. 2007, p. 739, § 5/SB 200, not codified by the General Assembly, provides that the 2007 amendment shall only become effective on January 1, 2009, upon the ratification of a resolution at the November, 2008, state-wide general election that amends the Constitution so as to authorize the General Assembly to provide by general law for the creation and comprehensive regulation of infrastructure development districts. If such resolution is not so ratified, this Act shall not become effective and shall stand repealed in its entirety on January 1, 2009. The constitutional amendment proposed in Ga. L. 2007, p. 775, was defeated in the general election on November 4, 2008.

U.S. Code.

- The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended, and the federal Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, are codified as 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq.

Law reviews.

- For article criticizing impressionistic approach to water use classification established by permit system, see 23 Mercer L. Rev. 603 (1972). For article surveying Georgia cases dealing with environment, natural resources, and land use from June 1977 through May 1978, see 30 Mercer L. Rev. 75 (1978). For note, "Regulation of Artificial Lakes and Recreational Subdivisions in Georgia," recommending methods for future regulation, see 8 Ga. St. B.J. 580 (1972). For note on the 1995 amendment of this Code section, see 12 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 39 (1995). For note on the 2003 amendment of this Code section, see 20 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 244 (2003). For note on 2007 amendment of this Code section, see 24 Ga. St. U.L. Rev. 255 (2007).

JUDICIAL DECISIONS

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).

Remand required.

- Because it was unclear from the record whether or not the changes in a final degradation permit were significant enough to require a renewed public notice and comment period, because the ALJ summarily disposed of this issue and, thus, deprived the challengers of the opportunity to present evidence supporting the challengers' claim that the changes in the permit were significant enough to require a renewed public notice and comment period, the matter was remanded for an evidentiary hearing. Hughey v. Gwinnett County, 278 Ga. 740, 609 S.E.2d 324 (2004).

Cited in Quinn v. State, 221 Ga. App. 399, 471 S.E.2d 337 (1996); Pulte Home Corp. v. Simerly, 322 Ga. App. 699, 746 S.E.2d 173 (2013).

RESEARCH REFERENCES

Am. Jur. 2d.

- 61B Am. Jur. 2d, Pollution Control, §§ 3, 4, 5.

C.J.S.

- 39A C.J.S., Health and Environment, §§ 131, 172.

ALR.

- Liability for pollution of subterranean waters, 38 A.L.R.3d 1265.

Modern status of rules governing interference with drainage of surface waters, 93 A.L.R.3d 1193.

Cases Citing O.C.G.A. § 12-5-30

Total Results: 6  |  Sort by: Relevance  |  Newest First

Copy

City of Guyton v. Barrow, 828 S.E.2d 366 (Ga. 2019).

Cited 47 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 20, 2019 | 305 Ga. 799

...discharge upon condition that such discharge meets or will meet, pursuant to any schedule of compliance included in such permit, all water quality standards, effluent limitations, and all other requirements established pursuant to this article. OCGA § 12-5-30 (b). Pursuant to this statutory requirement, the Board of Natural Resources has issued permitting regulations governing nonpoint sources, including for LASs like the City's proposed facility in this case....
...rule does not require an antidegradation analysis for nonpoint sources. The Court of Appeals construed the rule to require an antidegradation analysis for nonpoint source discharges because (1) EPD must issue a permit for such discharges under OCGA § 12-5-30 (b), (2) the antidegradation rule mentions nonpoint sources, and (3) the rule does not specifically exclude nonpoint sources from the antidegradation-analysis requirement....
...a reading that an antidegradation analysis is required for nonpoint sources. Georgia has enacted a statute requiring a permit for nonpoint sources, but this statute does not require an antidegradation analysis as a prerequisite of a permit. See OCGA § 12-5-30 (b)....
Copy

Recycle & Recover, Inc. v. Georgia Bd. of Nat. Resources, 466 S.E.2d 197 (Ga. 1996).

Cited 27 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Jan 22, 1996 | 266 Ga. 253, 96 Fulton County D. Rep. 365

...denied, 440 U.S. 936, 99 S.Ct. 1281, 59 L.Ed.2d 494 (1979). [10] See Hayes, 251 Ga. at 585, 308 S.E.2d 170. [11] See OCGA § 12-8-24(e) (granting director the power to modify solid waste handling permits according to rules promulgated by the board); cf. OCGA § 12-5-30(d) (granting the director the power to revoke, suspend, or modify permits to discharge pollutants into waters of state based on any changed condition that requires the discharge to be reduced or eliminated)....
Copy

Franklin Cnty. v. Fieldale Farms Corp., 507 S.E.2d 460 (Ga. 1998).

Cited 24 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 23, 1998 | 270 Ga. 272, 98 Fulton County D. Rep. 3939, 47 ERC (BNA) 1866

...O'Quinn, Barnhart, O'Quinn & Williams, LLP, McDonough, Douglas G. Ashworth, Green & Ashworth, Royston, for Franklin County, Georgia et al. Peter M. Degnan, Kendall T. Jones, Alston & Bird, Atlanta, for Fieldale Farms Corporation. FLETCHER, Presiding Justice. The issue in this appeal is whether OCGA § 12-5-30.3, the state statute regulating the application of sludge to land, preempts a county land disposal ordinance....
...We conclude that the General Assembly has failed to give local governments authority to regulate the application of sludge to land, except in the specific area of monitoring. Because Franklin County has sought to establish a duplicate permit system that is not authorized by general law, we hold that OCGA § 12-5-30.3 preempts the county's Land Disposal Ordinance by implication....
...n the state and require reasonable treatment of sewage, industrial wastes, and other wastes prior to their discharge into the waters of the state. [20] In 1993, the General Assembly amended the act to regulate the application of sludge to land. OCGA § 12-5-30.3 defines the term "sludge land application" as the placement of sludge on ground other than a landfill for the purpose of disposing of it, conditioning soil, or enhancing agriculture....
...IMPLIED PREEMPTION OF THE COUNTY ORDINANCE 4. A review of the relevant state laws demonstrates that general law does not give local governments broad authority to regulate the application of sludge to land. Preemption may be inferred generally from the comprehensive nature of OCGA § 12-5-30.3 and its implementing regulations. [21] In its policy statement, the Georgia Water Quality Control Act grants the state the responsibility *464 for both water quality and water supplies without mentioning the role of local governments, unlike the statutes in some states. [22] OCGA § 12-5-30.3 specifically directs the Board of Natural Resources to adopt technical and procedural regulations and requires the state EPD director to approve permits to apply sludge to land....
...th land disposal and permit requirements under the Georgia Water Quality Control Act. [23] In addition, the General Assembly expressly granted local governments limited authority to act in the field of applying sludge to land. Subsection (d) of OCGA § 12-5-30.3 provides authority for local governing authorities to assess reasonable monitoring fees and to seek an injunction if the fees are not paid....
...[24] Moreover, by assigning the task of developing permit requirements directly to the state, the statute implies that the General Assembly did not intend to give counties concurrent jurisdiction to regulate through a permit system. The legislative history of § 12-5-30.3 also supports implied preemption....
...authorize local governments to regulate the application of sludge to land, except in the specific area of monitoring. Because Franklin County has sought to establish a duplicate permit system that is not authorized by general law, we hold that OCGA § 12-5-30.3 preempts the county's ordinance by implication. Judgment affirmed. All the Justices concur. NOTES [1] 33 U.S.C.A. 1412a (d)(1) (West 1986); see also OCGA § 12-5-30.3 (1996) (defining sludge as "the solid or semisolid residue generated at a waste-water treatment or pretreatment plant")....
Copy

Hughey v. Gwinnett Cnty., 609 S.E.2d 324 (Ga. 2004).

Cited 21 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Nov 23, 2004 | 278 Ga. 740, 2004 Fulton County D. Rep. 3757, 59 ERC (BNA) 1507

...bodies state otherwise. When a proposed permit is subjected to public comment, EPD determines based on those comments whether any change to the proposed permit is necessary, and if so, those changes are incorporated into any permit issued. See OCGA § 12-5-30; Ga....
...Gwinnett County's permit. That the Hill Plant has the capability of achieving these lower limits is indisputable. That it is feasible to do so over an extended period of time is demonstrated by the history of the Upper Occoquan Plant. [15] See OCGA § 12-5-30(a); Ga....
Copy

Price v. Hill, 184 Ga. 191 (Ga. 1937).

Cited 4 times | Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | Feb 11, 1937 | 190 S.E. 575

...box, a list of which, consisting of the items and names of the legatees, is to be found therein, and attached hereto.” Physically attached as a part of the will at the time of its execution was the following exhibit: “Disposal list of my bonds. 12-5-30....
Copy

City of Guyton v. Barrow (two Cases), 305 Ga. 799 (Ga. 2019).

Published | Supreme Court of Georgia | May 20, 2019

...condition that such discharge meets or will meet, pursuant to any schedule of compliance included in such permit, all water quality standards, effluent limitations, and all other requirements established pursuant to this article. OCGA § 12-5-30 (b). Pursuant to this statutory requirement, the Board of Natural Resources has issued permitting regulations governing nonpoint sources, including for LASs like the City’s proposed facility in this case....
...supports a reading that an antidegradation analysis is required for nonpoint sources. Georgia has enacted a statute requiring a permit for nonpoint sources, but this statute does not require an antidegradation analysis as a prerequisite of a permit. See OCGA § 12-5-30 (b)....