Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 69-3-102 (2026)

Declaration of policy and purpose

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Recognizing that the waters of Tennessee are the property of the state and are held in public trust for the use of the people of the state, it is declared to be the public policy of Tennessee that the people of Tennessee, as beneficiaries of this trust, have a right to unpolluted waters. In the exercise of its public trust over the waters of the state, the government of Tennessee has an obligation to take all prudent steps to secure, protect, and preserve this right.

(b) It is further declared that the purpose of this part is to abate existing pollution of the waters of Tennessee, to reclaim polluted waters, to prevent the future pollution of the waters, and to plan for the future use of the waters so that the water resources of Tennessee might be used and enjoyed to the fullest extent consistent with the maintenance of unpolluted waters.

(c) Moreover, an additional purpose of this part is to enable the state to qualify for full participation in the national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) established under § 402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Public Law 92-500 (33 U.S.C. § 1342).

(d) Additionally, it is intended that all procedures in this part shall be in conformity with the Uniform Administrative Procedures Act, compiled in title 4, chapter 5.

Acts 1971, ch. 164, § 2; 1977, ch. 366, § 1; T.C.A., § 70-325; Acts 1992, ch. 684, § 1.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 10 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1986–2024 · leading case: E. Ron Pickard v. Tennessee Water Quality Control Bd., 424 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

E. Ron Pickard v. Tennessee Water Quality Control Bd., 424 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2013). · cites it 6× “will rule that Tennessee Code Annotated section 69 — 3—105(i) extinguishes all right under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 4-5-223 and 225.” 10 . Act of May 4, 1971, ch.”

Ergon, Inc. v. Amoco Oil Co., 966 F. Supp. 577 (W.D. Tenn. 1997). · cites it 2× “” T.C.A § 69-3-102. Thus, the statute is designed to benefit the public as a whole rather than individuals.”

Town of Smyrna v. Mun. Gas Auth., 129 F. Supp. 3d 589 (M.D. Tenn. 2015). · cites it 2× “, to secure, protect, and preserve,” Tenn.Code Ann § 69-3-102(a), the court found that the suit “benefited] not only the citizens of Elizabethton, but the general population of this state by securing, protecting and preserving the Tight to unpolluted waters.”

State v. Champion Int'l Corp., 709 S.W.2d 569 (Tenn. 1986). · cites it 4× “" [2] T.C.A. § 69-3-102(c). The statute provides a comprehensive scheme for the control of pollution of the waters of the state, the latter being defined as: ".”

Word v. Com. Oil Co., 847 F.2d 291 (6th Cir. 1988). “Tenn.Code Ann. § 69-3-102(b). Under § 69-3-116(c) damages may be assessed for violation of the Act to cover the costs involved in investigating and enforcing the law and in removing, correcting or terminating any pollution.”

Starlink Logistics, Inc. v. ACC, LLC (Tenn. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 4× “16 Tenn. Code Ann. § 69-3-102 . As a declaration of policy and purpose, the WQCA seeks to “Abate existing pollution of the waters of Tennessee, to reclaim polluted waters, to prevent the future pollution of the waters, and to plan for the future use of the waters so that the…”

Milcrofton Util. Dist. of Williamson Cnty., Tennessee v. City of Brentwood, Tennessee (M.D. Tenn. 2020). · cites it 4× “Citing the Water Quality Control Act, Tenn. Code Ann. § 69-3-102 (a), which states that it is “the public policy of Tennessee that the people of Tennessee … have a right to unpolluted waters,” the court found that the city was engaged in the exercise of a governmental function…”

Adams v. Adient US LLC (W.D. Tenn. 2022). · cites it 2× “§ 68-221 - 702 & Tenn. Code Ann. § 69-3-102 . 8 Tenn. Code Ann.”

Jamesway Constr., Inc. v. David W. Salyers, P.E. (2024). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. § 69-3-102 (b). On September 26, 2018, the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (“TDEC”) issued an order and assessment against Jamesway and others for placing the fill material on wetlands, an alleged violation of the WQCA.”

State of Tennessee, ex rel. Paul G. Summers & Milton H. Hamilton, Jr. v. B&H Investments, Inc., Charles R. Smith & Alvin G. Pierce (Tenn. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “” Tenn. Code Ann. §69-3-102 . The Act further provides that an additional purpose is to “enable the state to qualify for full participation in the national pollutant discharge elimination system established under §402 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act”.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 69-3-102(a) — 1 case

Town of Smyrna v. Mun. Gas Auth., 129 F. Supp. 3d 589 (M.D. Tenn. 2015). “, to secure, protect, and preserve,” Tenn.Code Ann § 69-3-102(a), the court found that the suit “benefited] not only the citizens of Elizabethton, but the general population of this state by securing, protecting and preserving the Tight to unpolluted waters.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 69-3-102(b) — 2 cases

E. Ron Pickard v. Tennessee Water Quality Control Bd., 424 S.W.3d 511 (Tenn. 2013). “will rule that Tennessee Code Annotated section 69 — 3—105(i) extinguishes all right under Tennessee Code Annotated sections 4-5-223 and 225.” 10 . Act of May 4, 1971, ch.”

— Tenn. Code Ann. § 69-3-102(c) — 2 cases

State v. Champion Int'l Corp., 709 S.W.2d 569 (Tenn. 1986). “" [2] T.C.A. § 69-3-102(c). The statute provides a comprehensive scheme for the control of pollution of the waters of the state, the latter being defined as: ".”

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.