Environmental Law

Farm Drainage Revisited: Will Tile-drain Effluent Be Considered A Point Source and Fall Under Clean Water Act Regulation?

Theodore Harrington, MJLST Managing Editor

For years, nutrients from farming operations have been leaking into the Raccoon and Des Moines Rivers, and ultimately arriving at the mouth of the Mighty Mississippi. These nutrients, most notably nitrate and phosphorus, are the result of both fertilizers and natural crop growth and have deleterious effects on humans and the environment. As these nutrients mix with groundwater just below the surface, a polluted effluent is created. This effluent is then drained through a grid of plastic piping a few feet below the soil.

Nearly two years ago, Des Moines Water Works (DMWW), a public water utility, sued the Drainage Districts in Sac, Buena Vista, and Calhoun Counties to recover monies spent treating the polluted effluent to make it safe for public consumption. Defendants contend that the polluted effluent does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act, and therefore DMWW is the appropriate entity to bear these costs, which approach $7,000 per day!

Where it stands: Summary Judgment briefs were traded in May and June of last year. Since then, oral arguments have been heard by the Iowa Supreme Court since September 14, 2016. (Click HERE to see John Lande arguing for the Board of Water Works and Michael Reck arguing for the counties.) A federal trial in front of Judge Leonard Strand is set for this coming June in the Northern District of Iowa. The trial will come two and a half years after the original filing, and lengthy appeals, possibly to the Supreme Court, are likely to follow. Though it will be years before we have an answer to the question titling this post, the judgment’s consequences will reach beyond individual farms to the heart of the industry.


Solar Climate Engineering and Intellectual Property

Jesse L. Reynolds 

Postdoctoral researcher, and Research funding coordinator, sustainability and climate
Department of European and International Public Law, Tilburg Law School

Climate change has been the focus of much legal and policy activity in the last year: the Paris Agreement, the Urgenda ruling in the Netherlands, aggressive climate targets in China’s latest five year plan, the release of the final US Clean Power Plan, and the legal challenge to it. Not surprisingly, these each concern controlling greenhouse gas emissions, the approach that has long dominated efforts to reduce climate change risks.

Yet last week, an alternative approach received a major—but little noticed—boost. For the first time, a federal budget bill included an allocation specifically for so-called “solar climate engineering.” This set of radical proposed technologies would address climate change by reducing the amount of incoming solar radiation. These would globally cool the planet, counteracting global warming. For example, humans might be able to mimic the well-known cooling caused by large volcanos via injecting a reflective aerosol into the upper atmosphere. Research thus far – which has been limited to modeling – indicates that solar climate engineering (SCE) would be effective at reducing climate change, rapidly felt, reversible in its direct climatic effects, and remarkably inexpensive. It would also pose risks that are both environmental – such as difficult-to-predict changes to rainfall patterns – and social – such as the potential for international disagreement regarding its implementation.

The potential role of private actors in SCE is unclear. On the one hand, decisions regarding whether and how to intentionally alter the planet’s climate should be made through legitimate state-based processes. On the other hand, the private sector has long been the site of great innovation, which SCE technology development requires. Such private innovation is both stimulated and governed through governmental intellectual property (IP) policies. Notably, SCE is not a typical emerging technology and might warrant novel IP policies. For example, some observers have argued that SCE should be a patent-free endeavor.

In order to clarify the potential role of IP in SCE (focusing on patents, trade secrets, and research data), Jorge Contreras of the University of Utah, Joshua Sarnoff of DePaul University, and I wrote an article that was recently accepted and scheduled for publication by the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology. The article explains the need for coordinated and open licensing and data sharing policies in the SCE technology space.

SCE research today is occurring primarily at universities and other traditional research institutions, largely through public funding. However, we predict that private actors are likely to play a growing role in developing products and services to serve large scale SCE research and implementation, most likely through public procurement arrangements. The prospect of such future innovation should be not stifled through restrictive IP policies. At the same time, we identify several potential challenges for SCE technology research, development, and deployment that are related to rights in IP and data for such technologies. Some of these challenges have been seen in regard to other emerging technologies, such as the risk that excessive early patenting would lead to a patent thicket with attendant anti-commons effects. Others are more particular to SCE, such as oft-expressed concerns that holders of valuable patents might unduly attempt to influence public policy regarding SCE implementation. Fortunately, a review of existing patents, policies, and practices reveals a current opportunity that may soon be lost. There are presently only a handful of SCE-specific patents; research is being undertaken transparently and at traditional institutions; and SCE researchers are generally sharing their data.

After reviewing various options and proposals, we make tentative suggestions to manage SCE IP and data. First, an open technical framework for SCE data sharing should be established. Second, SCE researchers and their institutions should develop and join an IP pledge community. They would pledge, among other things, to not assert SCE patents to block legitimate SCE research and development activities, to share their data, to publish in peer reviewed scientific journals, and to not retain valuable technical information as trade secrets. Third, an international panel—ideally with representatives from relevant national and regional patent offices—should monitor and assess SCE patenting activity and make policy recommendations. We believe that such policies could head off potential problems regarding SCE IP rights and data sharing, yet could feasibly be implemented within a relatively short time span.

Our article, “Solar Climate Engineering and Intellectual Property: Toward a Research Commons,” is available online as a preliminary version. We welcome comments, especially in the next couple months as we revise it for publication later this year.


Bottom-Up Approach to Climate Change

Allison Kvien, MJLST Managing Editor

Most often, climate change is discussed on the global, top-down level: what changes may happen all around the world as a result of increasing global temperatures and greater fluctuations in weather events. There are very interesting maps that can show you just how much coastline will be underwater depending on different levels of sea level rise. To see just how much sea level rise it would take to put any city in the world underwater, you can use this mapping tool. There are also plenty of articles discussing hundreds of other effects of global climate change, such as food production, human health, endangered species, and the global economy.

We talk about climate change from a bottom-up perspective far less often, but it is a perspective that really does deserve our attention. Myanna Dellinger, in a recent article published in 2013 by the Minnesota Journal of Law, Science, and Technology, discusses and analyzes “bottom-up, polycentric developments within national and international environmental and human rights law in general.” This approach to viewing the large issue of climate change could be very beneficial because, as Dellinger points out, “waiting for national- and supranational-level actors to reach a broadly based and substantively effective agreement on climate change mitigation is like waiting for Godot—unlikely to happen, at least at a substantively early enough point in time.” Dellinger’s article argues that bottom-up approaches could be very viable alternatives to waiting for the unlikely global, top-down action to occur. Read her interesting and novel article here.


Renewable Energy Accounts for Majority of New Energy Technology Installed in 2015 but Remains a Minority Producer Overall

John Biglow, MJLST Staffer

According to a United Nations Environment Programme report titled “Global Trends in Renewable Energy Investment 2016,” 2015 was a record setting year for global investment in renewable energy. A record $286 Billion dollars was invested in renewable energy technology in 2015. Furthermore, for the first time in history, renewable energy technologies made up more than half of the total gigawatt capacity of all newly installed energy technologies. Significantly, it was developing countries that led the way, with China, South Africa, Mexico, India, and Chile all showing an increase in investment. China itself accounted for over 1/3 of the total global investment with $102.9 billion invested.

According to a UNEP publication concerning this report, these developments are indicative of a structural change happening in the global energy system in the article Complexity in Global Energy-Environment Governance, Andrew Long discusses and describes the global energy system and the ways it reacts to change. Long argues that viewing the global energy system in the same manner that we study other complex systems will allow for a better understanding of how the system works and how it could be changed.

In his article, Long argues that the current global energy system shows both resilience and adaptation. By adaptation, he is referring to the system’s ability to incorporate new aspects into itself without experiencing an entire overhaul and shift in trajectory. The UNEP’s report which indicates the increasing role of renewable energy in the global energy system is demonstrative of this adaptation. By resilience, Long is referring to the entrenched nature and dominance of fossil fuels in the global energy system. Despite the major, and indeed record setting, strides made in 2015 in regards to renewable energy investment, it still only accounts for around 10% of total global energy production, as stated in UNEP’s recent report.

It is unclear what to make of the UNEP report at this juncture; on the one hand, if our goal is to increase the use of environmentally friendly energy sources, as it undoubtedly should be, then it appears we are on track. However, questions remain as to whether we are moving fast enough down that track. In his article, Long stated that in complex systems, occasionally small scale changes to the system can cause a system-wide shift and alteration, though he stressed that the occurrence of this is rare. Whether or not the increase of renewable energy use is indicative of a trend which will eventually de-trench the entrenched fossil fuel energy production is unclear at this point. Overall, the UNEP report seems to indicate a promising trend towards increased renewable energy usage, but if the global energy system is to undergo any drastic shifts, it seems that more countries will have to follow China’s example and invest heavily in new eco-friendly energy technologies.


The Path of Pollutants Under the Clean Water Act

Ted Harrington, MJLST Staffer

In 1972, the Clean Water Act set forth a lofty goal—to “[r]estore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” (33 U.S.C. §1251(a)). Yet, the Clean Water Act only regulates point sources that discharge pollutants into navigable waters (33 U.S.C. §1251(a)(1)). As a result, many forms of water pollution escape federal jurisdiction, most notably, groundwater. This is because CWA regulation depends on how a pollutant reaches navigable water, instead of focusing on the end result. This added constraint is hardly logical when juxtaposed against the stated goal.

For example, if a pollutant is discharged into groundwater, and eventually reaches navigable Water Body B, the CWA does not have the ability to regulate the groundwater. In other terms, if the polluted effluent passes through groundwater, considered a “nonpoint source,” before it reaches Water Body B, no CWA regulation occurs.

To combat this issue, Federal District Courts in Hawai’i, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania have begun adopting the “Conduit Theory” (See Allison Kvien note Volume 16). The conduit theory states that if a body of water (groundwater) simply acts as a conduit, it should be viewed as an extension of the point source from which it is receiving the pollutant. This theory directs its attention to the ultimate result—the pollution of Water Body B. It is only logical that if Water Body B is being polluted, the source should fall under CWA jurisdiction. Why should we leave a source of pollution unregulated simply because the effluent isn’t being directly discharged into a navigable water? As the Court in Rapanos v. United States noted, “The [Clean Water] Act does not forbid the ‘addition of any pollutant directly to navigable waters from any point source,’ but rather the ‘addition of any pollutant to navigable waters.’”

The issue of groundwater as a pollutant is receiving increasing attention in the courts. In the Northern District of Iowa, a case concerning the discharge of groundwater through tile drains is currently in litigation‑ Board of Water Works v. Sac County Board of Supervisors. This could be an opportunity for Iowa to take one of the first stances on the conduit theory in the 8th Circuit. Stay tuned!


Circumventing EPA Regulations Through Computer Programs

Ted Harrington, MJLST Staffer

In September of 2015, it was Volkswagen Group (VW). This December, it was the General Electric Company (GE) finalizing a settlement in the United States District Court in Albany. The use of computer programs or other technology to override, or “cheat,” some type of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation has become seemingly commonplace.

GE uses silicone as part of its manufacturing process, which results in volatile organic compounds and chlorinated hydrocarbons, both hazardous byproducts. The disposal of hazardous materials is closely regulated by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Under this act, the EPA has delegated permitting authority to the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). This permitting authority allows the DEC to grant permits for the disposal of hazardous wastes in the form of an NYS Part 373 Permit.

The permit allowed GE to store hazardous waste, operate a landfill, and use two incinerators on-site at its Waterford, NY plant. The permit was originally issued in 1989, and was renewed in 1999. The two incinerators included an “automatic waste feed cutoff system” designed to keep the GE facility in compliance with RCRA and the NYS Part 373 Permit. If the incinerator reached a certain limit, the cutoff system would simply stop feeding more waste.

Between September 2006 and February 2007, the cutoff system was overridden by computer technology, or manually by GE employees, on nearly 2,000 occasions. This resulted in hazardous waste being disposed of in amounts grossly above the limits of the issued permits. In early December, GE quickly settled the claim by paying $2.25 million in civil penalties.

Beyond the extra pollution caused by GE, a broader problem is emerging—in an increasingly technological world, what can be done to prevent companies from skirting regulations using savvy computer programs? With more opportunities than ever to get around regulation using technology, is it even feasible to monitor these companies? It is virtually certain that similar instances will continue to surface, and agencies such as the EPA must be on the forefront of developing preventative technology to slow this trend.


EPA Revises Agricultural Worker Protection Standard, to the Disappointment of Agriculture Industry Groups

Jody Ferris, MJLST Staffer

An important development on the regulatory front has some agriculture industry groups shaking their heads. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has released finalized revisions to the 1992 Agricultural Worker Protection Standard on Sept. 28, 2015 (40 CFR 170). These regulations apply to millions of agricultural workers in fields, forests, orchards, and greenhouses across the country. The regulations are meant to enforce the observation of good safety practices in the use of pesticides by agricultural workers.

The changes to the current requirements include:

-a new minimum age requirement that prohibits children under the age of 18 from handling pesticides.

-mandatory posting of no-entry signs on fields that have been recently treated with highly dangerous pesticides.

-whistleblower protections to protect employees who alert authorities to illegal practices.

-increased frequency of employer provided safety training (now required annually, up from the previous requirement of every five years).

-recordkeeping requirements (records of training must be kept for two years, previous requirements did not require any record keeping).

-increased requirements for use of safety equipment, including fit testing and employee training on use of safety equipment. Recordkeeping of completion of safety equipment training and fit testing is also required. The previous requirements did not require any training, formal fit testing, or record keeping.

Agricultural industry groups are unhappy with many of the revisions to the regulations. A coalition including the National Association of Wheat Growers, the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, the American Farm Bureau Federation, and the American Seed Trade Association submitted a 14-page comment letter during the public comment period and claim that their comments were not taken under proper consideration in the final revision of the rule. The coalition argued that since the original regulations were introduced in 1992, there have been significant improvements in worker safety and that acute poisoning events have been greatly reduced, thereby eliminating the need for more stringent regulations. In addition, they argue that the EPA has severely underestimated the financial costs that the new requirements place on agricultural producers. Criticism from the Agricultural Retailers Association includes the concern that the new rules will put employers at risk for increased liability without significantly increasing worker safety.

It is currently unclear whether any regulated parties will seek to challenge the revised regulations in court. It also remains unclear precisely how great a burden the new requirements will place on agricultural producers or how much they will improve the safety of workers until they are followed in practice for some time. It remains to be hoped that the new requirements will indeed significantly improve the safety of agricultural workers on the job and justify any increased burden on employers.


UN Countries Strive to Develop Legal Framework for Climate Deal

Vinita Banthia, MJLST Articles Editor

In December 2009, over a 100 world leaders gathered in Copenhagen, Denmark for the United Nations Climate Change Conference, which included the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and the 5th Conference of the Parties for the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 5). The international gathering culminated in the “Copenhagen Accord,” which member countries of the UNFCCC agreed generally to “take note of,” but failed to promise more substantial action.

While the Accord endorsed the Kyoto Protocol and included specific omission reduction targets for some countries, it did not set out any legal framework or structure for the enforcement of these guidelines. Developed countries agreed to provide $100 billion per year by 2020 to developing countries for climate improvement. Again, however, no strategy was developed for the implementation of this funding, and countries continue to disagree on the amount and sourcing of the funds.

Fast forward six years later to the meeting in Bonn, Germany last week, where delegations convened once again to negotiate an international climate agreement. In December, the delegations will reconvene in Paris for the 21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC to further discuss the terms of an international climate deal, and ideally, all 195 attending countries will adopt it. However, many of the issues that prevented a deal from being developed in Copenhagen continue to haunt current discussions.

Frist, developing countries are concerned about the amount of funding developed countries are willing to provide for their transition to clean and sustainable energy sources. In addition, most countries are hesitant to agree to a predetermined emissions reduction target and prefer a self-guided, non-legally-binding requirement that is informally tracked. The members in attendance at the climate conference in Bonn took this strategy and allowed countries to determine their own emissions goals. These compromises allowed the nations to conclude the Bonn meeting with a draft agreement that is predicted to be more successful than the Copenhagen Accord, during the final round of negotiations in Paris. However, it will be important for nations to avoid the temptations of diluting the provisions too much to gain approval of a large number of nations. Instead, nations should take a more heavy-handed approach to ensure important actions are taken, while implementing a legal structure to enforce the provisions of any final agreement.


H.R.8 and the Hydropower Improvement Act of 2015—Another Missed Opportunity

Catherine Cumming, MJLST Lead Note & Comment Editor

While many people see the hydropower industry as a clean and sustainable energy source, most hydropower facilities are decades old and have severe environmental, economic, and social externalities. Relicensing provides an opportunity to bring aging dams up to modern environmental standards and compliance requirements. Over the past thirty years, American Rivers and the Hydropower Reform Coalition used the licensing process to improve hydropower dams and restore rivers. With over 6,000 megawatts of hydropower due for relicensing within the next five years, there are hundreds of dams and thousands of miles of river with an opportunity for improvement. Recent legislation, however, has failed to address the amount of hydropower due for relicensing and the opportunities it presents for increased energy production and environmental compliance. When Congress passed the Hydropower Regulatory Efficiency Act of 2013, it failed favored efficiency over oversight and failed to the amount of hydropower due for relicensing and the opportunity it provided for efficiency upgrades.

This fall, Congress missed yet another opportunity to modernize hydropower and decrease its negative externalities. Rather than “modernize” hydropower, the Energy & Commerce Committee’s approval of a hydropower amendment to H.R.8, the “North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015” and Senator Lisa Murkowski’s “Hydropower Improvement Act” ignore the opportunity for increased efficiency and sustainability by creating compliance loopholes for the hydropower industry. If enacted, these bills would allow energy companies to opt out of Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, and state water quality and wildlife protections; allow dam owners to pass the costs and burdens of obeying water quality standards, wildlife laws, and cleaning up pollution caused by dams to taxpayers; and transfer state and federal agency authority to protect natural resources to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. While 2011 was the “Year of the River,” 2015 is becoming the “Year of Hydropower.” Community interest groups and environmental organizations are concerned that H.R.8 and the “Hydropower Improvement Act” will “turn back the clock and take the hydropower industry back to a time when they could destroy rivers with impunity.”


Shape Up or Ship Out: E.P.A. Forced to Reevaluate Their General Ballast Water Regulation Permit

John Biglow, MJLST Staffer

In the recently decided Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. E.P.A., — F.3d — (2d Cir. Oct. 5, 2015), the Second Circuit granted the petitioners’ motion, in part, for a review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 2013 Vessel General Permit (VGP) regulating the discharge of ballast water from ships. The petitioners, four environmental conservation organizations, argued successfully that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in a number of ways when it set the technology based effluent limits (TBELs) and water quality-based effluent limits (WQBELs) which must be complied with under its VGP. In so deciding, the Second Circuit has remanded the matter to the EPA for proceedings consistent with their opinion, and has kept the 2013 VGP in place until the EPA issues a new VGP.

The EPA has the authority to regulate ballast discharge under §402(a) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). When freighter ships take on or unload cargo, they adjust for changes in weight by taking on or discharging ballast water. As the court stated, this amount “can range from hundreds of gallons to as much as 25 million gallons.” The regulation of ballast discharge is an important aspect of environmental conservation due to its role as a conduit for the spread of invasive species and pollutants. When a ship takes on ballast water in a polluted or infested area, it is possible for these organisms and pollutants to get sucked up with the water, surviving in the ballast tanks before being discharged in some distinct body of water. One study referenced by the court estimated the damage from invasive species to be upwards of $137 billion annually, making the prevention of their spread both a top environmental and economic priority.

The first set of arguments made by the petitioners centered on whether the TBELs set by the EPA were arbitrary and capricious. The petitioners first argued that in setting the TBEL standard to mirror the standard adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 2004 (the IMO standard), the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously. The Court agreed, primarily because a higher standard was attainable. The CWA requires the EPA to apply the “best available technology economically achievable” (BAT) when setting their TBELs. In its investigation of the available technology, the EPA employed the Science Advisory Board (SAB) to issue a report on the different available systems. According to their report, there were a number of ballast-water treatment systems that would be able to achieve standards 10 to 100 times greater than the IMO in the near future. By ignoring this potential and instead setting the standard at the IMO, the court found that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

Next, the petitioners argued that the EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it limited the SAB’s investigation of ballast treatment systems to shipboard treatment; ignoring onshore treatment options. The court agreed, refusing arguments from the EPA that these systems were not considered because the facilities needed to implement them were not yet in existence. The court reasoned that the time and expense of creating onshore treatment infrastructure was similar to that required for shipboard treatment, and that it was arbitrary and capricious to ignore the possibility. In remanding this issue back to the EPA, the agency will need to fully consider onshore treatment options before adopting or dismissing them in their new VGP.

The petitioners further argued that the EPA was arbitrary and capricious in exempting ships built before 2009 that only sail the great lakes water system (pre-2009 Lakers). The court agreed, reasoning that there was no true distinction between pre- and post-2009 Lakers. The court further stated that exempting ships because they did not currently have the technological capacity to adopt the technology necessary to meet the VGP requirements conflicted with the CWA’s BAT requirement, which seeks to force technology to keep up with contemporary environmental demands.

The petitioners next argued that several facets of the WQBELs were arbitrary and capricious. The WQBELs were designed as a safeguard to be utilized when the TBELs alone are insufficient to meet and maintain water quality standards. In its 2013 VGP, the EPA refused to set numerical values for its WQBELs, instead stating simply that “Your discharge must be controlled as necessary to meet applicable water quality standards in the receiving water body or another water body impacted by your discharges.” The court agreed that setting a narrative WQBEL was arbitrary and capricious, noting that it fails to give ship owners clear guidance as to whether or not they are in compliance with the WQBELs.

The petitioners also argued that the monitoring requirements of the WQBELs was arbitrary and capricious. The 2013 VGP required only that ship owners monitor the expected time, place, and volume of their ballast discharges. The court agreed, reasoning that the EPA could consider requiring ship owners to monitor the actual statistics on their ballast discharges, rather than the expected ones.

It is a critical victory for environmentalists that the Second Circuit is requiring the EPA to revisit what was an incomplete and insufficient 2013 VGP; however, it is critical that the EPA get it right the second time around. The economic and environmental impact of ballast discharges is significant and due to the cost and time requirements involved in creating the infrastructure necessary to meet the VGP system requirements, we are likely to be stuck with whatever the EPA sets as the BAT for a very long time.