Eroded Material Considered a Pollutant: Fid-Bau Portal

Eroded Material Considered a Pollutant

Ross Adams owned 76 acres (31 ha) of land in the North Georgia mountains. David and Barbara Driscoll owned 5 acres (2 ha) adjacent to Adams's property, and Ruel and Patricia Galbreath owned 2 acres (0.8 ha) adjacent to the Driscolls' property. The Spiva Branch stream flows downhill from Adams's property through a pond on the Driscolls' property and then through another pond on the Galbreaths' property before merging with the Nottely River. Adams harvested timber on his property from March to November 1995. During the harvest, he cut and graded roads, installed storm pipes, and cut and removed timber. The harvest and development caused erosion of mud, sand, and other materials on his property. Stormwater washed mud, silt, and other materials from Adams's property into the Spiva Branch stream and then into the Driscolls' and Galbreaths' ponds. Adams failed to seek proper approval from any federal, state, or local government agency before starting to work on his property. The Driscolls and Galbreaths sued Adams for violation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The trial court ruled against them, concluding that the requirement of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit was impossible here. On appeal, Adams argued that the discharges did not fall within the scope of prohibited pollutant discharges under the CWA. But, the court said that the definition of “pollutant” in the CWA was broad, including rock, sand, cellar dirt, and industrial, municipal, and agricultural waste. The court also said that when rain water flows from a site on which land‐disturbing activities have been conducted, it falls within the description of a pollutant. The trial court decision was reversed, and the case sent back for further proceedings.