U.S. Circuit Courts Decide Against Mining Interests

SH
Stites & Harbison PLLC

Contributor

A full-service law firm representing clients across the United States and internationally, Stites & Harbison, PLLC is known as a preeminent firm managing sophisticated transactions, challenging litigation and complex regulatory matters on a daily basis.  The firm represents a broad spectrum of clients including multinational corporations, financial institutions, pharmaceutical companies, health care organizations, private companies, nonprofit organizations, and individuals. Stites & Harbison has 10 offices across five states.
On Friday, July 11, 2014, two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals issued important decisions regarding Clean Water Act permitting.
United States Energy and Natural Resources
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.

On Friday, July 11, 2014, two U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals issued important decisions regarding Clean Water Act permitting.  Both appeals saw the losing side supported by numerous and diverse amici.   These levels of participation in the appellate process indicate the far-reaching significance of the decisions beyond the cases' direct application to Appalachian coal mining.

First, National Mining Association v McCarthy (formerly Jackson) concerned the oversight of EPA and the Corps of Engineers over Clean Water Act permitting for Appalachian coal mining operations.  The D.C. Circuit reversed the D.C. District Court and found that agencies' adoption of the Enhanced Coordination Procedure for reviewing the Clean Water Act permits for Appalachian mining operations did not violate the statutory authority granted by the Act. The court further found that the Final Guidance regarding more stringent limits to be applied to those permits was not a final agency action subject to review by the court.

Second, in Southern Appalachian Mountain Stewards v. A&G Coal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court's ruling and held the Clean Water Act's "permit shield" did not protect a surface coal mining permittee from citizens' suit for pollutants discharged from the operation. In reaching this decision the court found that the mining permittee had not complied with the obligation to disclose fully the pollutants discharged from the operation.

We will be analyzing these decisions and will provide expanded discussion here on this site.

Stay tuned.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More