Notes of Decisions
Upstate Forever v. Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P., 887 F.3d 637 (4th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 43× “” 1 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (12)(A). A “point source” in turn is defined as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure, [or] container .”
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
· cites it 22× “Rapanos that his saturated fields were "waters of the United States," 33 U. S. C. § 1362 (7), that could not be filled *721 without a permit.”
Ky. Waterways All. v. Kentucky Util. Co., 905 F.3d 925 (6th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 32× “Similarly, federal regulation under the CWA only extends to pollutants discharged into navigable waters, 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (12), leaving the states to regulate all pollution of non-navigable waters.”
Ecological Rights Found. v. Pac. Gas & Elec. Co., 713 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2013).
· cites it 12× “” 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (14). The CWA does not define “nonpoint source,” but we have explained that it is widely understood to be the type of pollution that arises from many dispersed activities over large areas, and is not traceable to any single discrete source.”
Cordiano v. Metacon Gun Club, Inc., 575 F.3d 199 (2d Cir. 2009).
· cites it 10× “” 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (12). “ ‘[P]ollutant’ is defined to include not only traditional contaminants but also solids such as ‘dredged soil, .”
Tenn. Clean Water Network v. Tenn. Valley Auth., 905 F.3d 436 (6th Cir. 2018).
· cites it 30× “” 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (7). TVA has two coal ash ponds or impoundments at the Gallatin plant: the Non-Registered Site (“NRS”) and the Ash Pond Complex (“Complex”).”
Ohio Valley Env't Coalition v. Aracoma Coal Co., 556 F.3d 177 (4th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 8× “" 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (7) (2000). The release of treated waters from sediment ponds back into a stream, for example, require a CWA § 402 NPDES permit.”
Friends of the Everglades v. South Florida Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 F.3d 1210 (11th Cir. 2009).
· cites it 9× “CARNES, Circuit Judge: This appeal turns on whether the transfer of a pollutant from one navigable body of water to another is a “discharge of a pollutant” within the meaning of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1362 (12). If it is, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination…”
— 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11) — 2 cases
— 33 U.S.C. § 1362(12) — 1 case
— 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14) — 2 cases
— 33 U.S.C. § 1362(5) — 2 cases
— 33 U.S.C. § 1362(6) — 2 cases
— 33 U.S.C. § 1362(7) — 4 cases
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.