United States: Maryland Appellate Court: County Stormwater Permit Violates CWA And State Law

Ruling Throws into Question Numerous State-Issued Municipal Stormwater Permits I


  • The Maryland Court of Special Appeals (CSA) issued a significant decision in Maryland Department of the Environment, et al. v. Anacostia Riverkeeper, et al., holding that the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Permit (MS4) issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to Montgomery County, Md., violated the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and state of Maryland law.
  • The CSA held that the permit was not specific enough to allow for adequate public comment and did not provide meaningful deadlines to measure compliance with water quality goals. The decision could be reversed or modified by the Maryland Court of Appeals should it decide to review the ruling.
  • MS4 permits are considered by EPA to be the "regulatory backbone" necessary to help achieve the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL) plan issued in 2010 by EPA to clean up the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The seven jurisdictions affected are the District of Columbia, Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals (CSA) issued a significant decision in Maryland Department of the Environment, et al. v. Anacostia Riverkeeper, et al., holding that the Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Permit (MS4) issued by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to Montgomery County, Md., violated the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) and state of Maryland law. On April 2, 2015, the court held that the permit was not specific enough to allow for adequate public comment and did not provide meaningful deadlines to measure compliance with water quality goals. MS4 permits are required under federal and state law to address stormwater runoff impairing water quality and to ensure that the municipalities manage, implement and enforce stormwater management programs to comply with Maryland's receiving water quality standards. The decision could be reversed or modified by the Maryland Court of Appeals should it decide to review the ruling.1 However, if the decision stands, it could have major implications for the Chesapeake Bay cleanup program and could force MDE and EPA to reassess MS4 permits that have recently been issued to counties and municipalities in Maryland to meet Bay cleanup goals.

MS4 Permits Serve as the "Regulatory Backbone"

EPA believes that MS4 permits are the "regulatory backbone" necessary to help achieve the Chesapeake Bay total maximum daily load (TMDL) plan issued in 2010 by EPA to clean up the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The Bay TMDL is essentially a "pollution diet" encompassing a 64,000-square-mile watershed and identifying the necessary pollution reductions for major sources of nitrogen, phosphorus and sediments across the following jurisdictions:

  • District of Columbia
  • Delaware
  • Maryland
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania
  • Virginia
  • West Virginia

The TMDL was 10 years in the making, including a two-year public participation effort and the formulation of detailed Watershed Implementation Plans (WIPs) by each of the seven jurisdictions explaining how they will meet pollution allocations. The end result was a pollution diet that calls for reductions by 2025 of the following:

  • 25 percent less nitrogen
  • 24 percent less phosphorus
  • 20 percent less sediment

The comprehensive pollution diet incorporates accountability measures and clearly identifies goals and appropriate timelines in hopes of obtaining cleanup of the Bay and the region's streams, creeks and rivers by 2025 with an interim goal of achieving at least a 60 percent reduction in loads by 2017. The Bay TMDL is intended to further the overall goal of the CWA to restore the "Waters of the United States" so that they are "fishable" and "swimmable." In 2013, a federal court in Pennsylvania upheld the Bay TMDL and a decision is expected on the appeal of that ruling this year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.2 Most of the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal waters are listed as impaired because of excess nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment that enter the water from agricultural operations, concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs), urban and suburban stormwater runoff, wastewater facilities, air pollution and other sources. Maryland contributes 17 percent of the sediment loads delivered to the Bay and EPA has been working closely with MDE and counties and municipalities in the state to develop MS4 permits designed to reduce sediment-laden stormwater needed to achieve the TMDL's ambitious goals.

Litigation Reaches the Maryland Court of Special Appeals

The Montgomery County permit challenged in this case was issued in February 2010 for a five-year period and specifically required the county to "implement or install best management practices on twenty percent of the impervious surfaces within the County in an effort to restore the pollution reductions functions performed by undeveloped land" and to submit "a long term schedule for completion of detailed assessments of each watershed in the County." The Permit also called for pollution controls that included "management programs designed to control storm water discharges to the maximum extent practicable" along with implementing updated storm water design polices and principles and to "maintain programmatic and implementation information." The Anacostia Riverkeeper, an advocacy organization, challenged the permit. In December 2013, the Montgomery County Circuit Court held that the permit failed to ensure compliance with state water quality standards and effluent limitations under section 303(a)(1) of the CWA. The court also found that the permit relied on a vague "best management practices" standard that "did not state with clarity ... how one will measure compliance or noncompliance [and] lacks ascertainable metrics for meeting water quality standards." The court further held that "the permit's requirements to restore 20% of impervious surface is simply too general to show how permittees will meet water quality standards."

In a comprehensive 40-page opinion, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals agreed with MDE that the permit does not require an MS4 permittee to meet state water quality standards because the 1987 amendments to the CWA created a different standard for municipal storm water permits than for industrial stormwater sources – namely that MS4 permits must meet the "maximum extent practicable" (MEP) standard under section 402(p)(3) rather than the more prescriptive standard in section 303(a)(1) of ensuring compliance with water quality standards. The court relied on the Ninth Circuit's opinion of Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner3in which Congress determined that municipal stormwater discharges differed from industrial discharges. Therefore, best management practices (BMPs) to the MEP was a more appropriate standard for controlling municipal stormwater.

However, the legal standard was the only basis of agreement with MDE. Rather, the CSA found that while the permit may have complied with technical notice and comment rules, the permit failed to meet the requirements of the CWA and state law on two levels:

  1. "It failed to comply from a practical point of view because it omits or obscures important elements leaving anyone not an expert unable to decipher it. ... The permit contained aspirational goals rather than particularized objectives [and is] impossible to discern when the county would have to complete critical tasks."
  2. The permit fails as a substantive matter because "it does not contain ascertainable metrics that defines how the County must comply, or whether at some point it has complied with what all agree are two of the Permit's most important terms: regulation of TMDLs and the twenty percent requirement."

As to the first failing, the CSA focused heavily on the failure of the permit to provide sufficient and specific information to allow for the public to fairly comment on it. The permit "deferred the process of defining important substantive provisions, (TMDL implementation plans, SWMP, etc.), until well after approval" noting that "the public can't comment on a program that doesn't yet exist and by the time the program did exist, the time for comment on it had passed." The permit also did not contain sufficient information on monitoring and reporting and relied too much on incorporating outside sources (such as the state's BMP manual) so as to prevent "someone outside the [permit negotiations] to tell where to look to understand the Permit or how to challenge its terms." Thus, "there is not enough in it for the public fairly to comment on it."

As to the second failing, the CSA held that the permit failed to address the two most important elements, "[namely] the twenty percent requirement and setting of TMDLs." It contained no meaningful deadlines or ways to measure compliance, does not "connect specific or measurable BMPs or various management programs [and] requires no justification for why a BMP strategy was selected and how that program or strategy will reduce discharges to the maximum extent practicable." Most significantly, the CSA held that the permit fails to explain how "anyone can define the universe of impervious surfaces or how specific BMPs will achieve the 20% impervious restoration requirement under the permit." While the CSA agreed with MDE that the BMPs must be flexible enough to adopt them to the highly variable nature of stormwater discharges, it held that "even those flexible standards have to be expressed in a way that gives meaning to the permit ... ." Finally, the CSA agreed with Anacostia that the permit "lacks the necessary clarity for attaining TMDL requirements" noting that the county "is left to design [TMDL] implementation programs after the final permit is approved [and that] the Plans do not become [an] enforceable condition of the permit."

Implications of the CSA Decision

Should the CSA decision stand, it could profoundly impact the MS4 permits issued by MDE over the past year after careful review and approval by EPA and also affect the larger issue of how states and localities can work to achieve Bay cleanup goals. As of December 2014, MDE issued eight final MS4 permits to major Maryland counties and municipalities.4 Those permits rely on flexible programs and practices that allow for public participation as watershed assessments are completed and restoration plans are developed. They do not include the kind of prescriptive provisions, such as specific and measurable programs and practices that the CSA found are required to comply with the CWA and state law. Rather, the permits are premised on a flexible "iterative process" that allows for permittees to develop restoration plans with public input after the permits are issued to demonstrate that they are working towards achieving pollution reduction targets such as the 20 percent retrofit requirement. Several permits have been challenged in state court and recently in the Circuit Court in Anne Arundel County that upheld MDE's and EPA's approach finding that the permit does have adequate tracking implementation and water quality monitoring provisions.5

Revisions of MS4 permits to address the CSA ruling could also create practical and legal difficulties regarding the reissuance of valid MS4 permits. MDE would have to identify specific and measurable BMPs with benchmarks to demonstrate that the permit requirements such as the 20 percent restoration will be achieved even before watershed assessments are completed to determine the causes of water quality impairments for specific watersheds and the appropriate measures and schedules to achieve restoration goals. That could place major burdens on the largest Maryland municipal permittees who are facing projected costs of over $2 billion between 2014 and 2018 to meet permit targets.6 The ruling could also impact the cooperative federalism principle fundamental to the Bay TMDL whereby states and localities work cooperatively with EPA and the private sector on cost-effective and flexible measures to meet the Bay programs' ambitious goals.

Note: All the quoted text in this alert appears in the opinion for Maryland Department of the Environment, et al. v. Anacostia Riverkeeper, et al., Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, No. 2199, April 2, 2015.  


1 Under the Maryland Rules there is no automatic right of appeal. A Notice of Appeal must be filed within 30 days after entry of judgment (Rule 8- 202). A petition for writ of certiorari seeking review by the Court of Appeals must be filed no later than 15 days after the CSA issues its mandate but no later than 30 days after the filing of the Court of Special Appeals decision.(Rule 8-302).

2 American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 2013 WL 5177530 (M.D. Pa. 9/13/13) appeal pending, (No. 2014)

3 191 F.3d. 1159 ( 9th Cir. 1999)

4 Baltimore City and County, Carroll Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Prince Georges.

5 Chesapeake Bay Foundation v. MDE, No 02-C-14-186144 (AA County Cir. Ct. 12/4/14) citing bench ruling in Blue Water Baltimore v. MDE (No. 03- C014000761) where the Baltimore County Circuit Ct. also upheld MDE's permit issued to Baltimore County. The PG Co. Circuit Court also upheld PG County's permit in a December 18, 2014 Order without opinion (No. CAL 14-02279). Petitions to review MDE's issuance of MS4 permits to Howard, Frederick, Charles and Harford Counties and Baltimore City are also pending.

6 See projected stormwater costs, Md. Department of Legislative Services Stormwater Remediation Fees, Implementation of House Bill 987 of 2012"  p. 29. Ex. 4.1

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


From time to time Mondaq may send you emails promoting Mondaq services including new services. You may opt out of receiving such emails by clicking below.

*** If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of services offered by Mondaq you may opt out by clicking here .


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.