Hughey v. JMS Development Corp.

Citation78 F.3d 1523
Decision Date01 April 1996
Docket NumberNos. 94-8402,94-8855,s. 94-8402
Parties, 64 USLW 2650, 34 Fed.R.Serv.3d 671, 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,924 Terence D. HUGHEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. JMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant. Terrence D. HUGHEY, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. JMS DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant, Cross-Appellee.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

Ralph Leland Taylor, III, Webb Tanner & Powell, Anthony O.L. Powell, Robert Jackson Wilson, Steven A. Pickens, Lawrenceville, GA, for appellants.

Stephen Edmund O'Day, Smith Gambrell & Russell, Clark Sullivan, Mark W. Kinzer, Atlanta, GA, for appellees.

Before ANDERSON and CARNES, Circuit Judges, and OWENS *, District Judge.

OWENS, District Judge:

I. INTRODUCTION

Appellant JMS Development Corporation ("JMS") is the developer of a 19.2-acre residential subdivision in Gwinnett County, Georgia. Appellee Terence D. Hughey ("Hughey") is a Gwinnett County homeowner admittedly opposed to all development in Gwinnett County, one of metropolitan Atlanta's fastest growing areas. Hughey's first effort to prevent development of JMS's residential subdivision was an unsuccessful suit in state court filed during the course of construction. After the subdivision had been completed, Hughey sued JMS in United States District Court alleging that JMS's completed subdivision was continuing to violate the Clean Water Act by allowing storm (rain) water runoff without possessing a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit setting forth the conditions under which storm (rain) water could be discharged.

The undisputed evidence showed that JMS submitted its subdivision plans and specifications to Gwinnett County for approval and on March 31, 1992, obtained a county permit to begin construction. The undisputed evidence further showed that a Clean Water Act NPDES permit was not then available in the State of Georgia from the only agency authorized to issue such permits--Georgia's Environmental Protection Division. The district court nevertheless found that the Clean Water Act absolutely prohibited the discharge of any storm (rain) water from JMS's completed subdivision in the absence of an NPDES permit. Relying on this finding and rejecting the uncontroverted testimony that some storm (rain) water discharge beyond the control of JMS would naturally occur whenever it rained, the district court issued permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d). The injunction ordered that JMS "not discharge stormwater into the waters of the United States from its development property in Gwinnett County, Georgia, known as Rivercliff Place if such discharge would be in violation of the Clean Water Act."

The district court also fined JMS $8,500 for continuing violations of the Clean Water Act and awarded Hughey more than $115,000 in attorney fees and costs under 33 U.S.C. § 1365(d). From those orders and judgment of the district court, JMS appeals.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Clean Water Act

In 1972 Congress passed the Clean Water Act ("CWA") amendments, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387, to remedy the federal water pollution control program which had "been inadequate in every vital aspect" since its inception in 1948. EPA v. State Water Res. Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 203, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 2024, 48 L.Ed.2d 578 (1976). The amended CWA absolutely prohibits the discharge of any pollutant by any person, unless the discharge is made according to the terms of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit. 33 U.S.C § 1311(a). This "zero discharge" standard presupposes the availability of an NPDES permit, allowing for the discharge of pollutants under the conditions set forth in the permit. Id. § 1342(a)(1). NPDES permits are usually available from the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"); however, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(c)(1) suspends the availability of federal NPDES permits once a state permitting program has been submitted and approved by the EPA. Thus, if a state administers its own NPDES permitting program under the auspices of the EPA, applicants must seek an NPDES permit from the state agency. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(c)(1); Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 484 U.S. 49, 108 S.Ct. 376, 98 L.Ed.2d 306 (1987).

On June 28, 1974, the State of Georgia was authorized by EPA to administer an NPDES program within its borders. The Georgia agency responsible for administration of that program is the Environmental Protection Division ("EPD") of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources. EPA-issued NPDES permits are thus not available in Georgia.

Even though the absolute prohibition in Section 1311(a) applied to storm water discharges, for many years the discharge of storm (rain) water was a problem that the EPA did not want to address. 1 The EPA complained that administrative concerns precluded a literal application of the CWA's absolute prohibition--if the CWA applied to storm (rain) water discharges, the EPA would be required to issue potentially millions of NPDES permits. Years of litigation ensued when the EPA promulgated NPDES permit regulations exempting uncontaminated storm water discharges from the CWA. See, e.g., Costle, supra note 1.

The congressional response to this baffling situation was the Water Quality Act, Pub.L. No. 100-4, 101 Stat. 7 (1987) (codified as amended in scattered sections of Title 33 U.S.C.), which amended the CWA to provide specifically that "storm water" discharges were within the CWA's proscription. See 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p). Because of the administrative nightmare presented by the inclusion of storm (rain) water discharges, Congress chose a phased-in approach. "The purpose of this approach was to allow EPA and the states to focus their attention on the most serious problems first." NRDC v. EPA, 966 F.2d 1292, 1296 (9th Cir.1992).

The phased-in approach established a moratorium until October 1, 1992, on requiring permits for most storm water discharges. Id.; Water Quality Act, § 402(p), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p). However, "discharge[s] associated with industrial activity" 2 were excepted from this moratorium. Water Quality Act, § 402(p)(2)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(2)(B). Section 402(p)(2)(B) required the EPA no later than February 4, 1989, to establish regulations setting forth permit application requirements for industrial storm water discharges. Those seeking such permits were to file an application no later than February 4, 1990, and permit applications were to be rejected or accepted by February 4, 1991. Id.

EPA failed to meet the statutory timetable, so it extended the deadline for submitting a permit application until October 1, 1992. The Natural Resources Defense Council ("NRDC") sued the EPA for granting this extension. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted NRDC's request for declaratory relief, but denied injunctive relief, stating the "EPA will duly perform its statutory duties." NRDC v. EPA, 966 F.2d at 1300. On September 3, 1992, the EPA confirmed the Ninth Circuit's faith by issuing its final general permits for storm water discharges associated with industrial activity; applicants were to submit their request for a permit by no later than October 1, 1992.

Since a state agency's action in advance of that taken by the EPA might be disapproved as inconsistent with the EPA's eventual position, Georgia EPD has always followed the EPA's lead in the promulgation of NPDES permits. See generally Georgia EPD's Amicus Brief, at 5. Consistent with this approach, Georgia EPD began the public notice portion of the storm (rain) water discharge permit promulgation process only after the EPA had acted. On September 23, 1992, less than one month after the EPA had issued its general permits, Georgia EPD issued public notice of its intent to issue two general permits, one of which would cover storm water discharges from construction activities involving land-disturbing activities of five acres or more. An affidavit from the section chief of Georgia EPD's Water Protection Branch summarized the state of the law in Georgia up to that time: "[N]o NPDES program for issuing NPDES permits has been in place [in Georgia] for storm water runoff from construction activities."

B. The JMS Residential Subdivision

In early 1992--when NPDES permits covering storm (rain) water were not available in Georgia--JMS planned to develop its 19.2-acre residential subdivision and for that purpose submitted its plans and specifications to Gwinnett County. In developing these plans and specifications, JMS hired a firm of consulting engineers, who were to supervise the design and control of sedimentation control measures and help ensure that JMS remained in compliance with relevant pollution control requirements.

On March 31, 1992, JMS received a permit from Gwinnett County authorizing it to conduct land-disturbing activities. 3 In accordance with requests from state and county officials, JMS spent more than $30,000 installing state of the art sedimentation control devices, including silt fences, check dams, vegetation, sloping, and a sedimentation retention basin. The erosion and sedimentation control measures met or exceeded Gwinnett County's requirements.

Prior to beginning construction, JMS had done everything possible to comply with the legal requirements of building a small residential subdivision. On the county level, County Inspector George Michael Fritcher deposed that JMS was in compliance; at the state level, David Word, Chief of EPD's Water Protection Branch, stated that EPD would not (could not) have done anything with respect to an NPDES permit for storm water discharges even if JMS had applied for one prior to beginning the development; and at the federal level resort to the EPA was foreclosed to JMS because, as noted, Georgia's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
99 cases
  • People v. Uber Techs., Inc.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • October 22, 2020
    ...85 L.Ed. 930 ( N.L.R.B. ); Del Webb Communities, Inc. v. Partington (9th Cir. 2011) 652 F.3d 1145, 1150 ; Hughey v. JMS Development Corp. (11th Cir. 1996) 78 F.3d 1523, 1531–1532.)Those cases are readily distinguishable. In Dixon, supra , 509 U.S. 688, 113 S.Ct. 2849, the High Court merely ......
  • United States Public Interest Research Group v. Stolt Sea Farm Inc., Civil No. 00-149-B-C (D. Me. 2/19/2002), Civil No. 00-149-B-C.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • February 19, 2002
    ...Stolt asserts that it is exempt from the "zero-discharge standard" in § 1311(a) under a narrow exception created in Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d 1523 (11th Cir. 1996). (DRMSJ at 5.) Hughey stands for the proposition that "Congress did not intend . . . for the zero discharge standard to......
  • N.C. Coastal Fisheries Reform Grp. v. Capt. Gaston LLC
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
    • September 17, 2021
    ...his or her failure to first obtain a permit to discharge such a pollutant back into navigable waters. See, e.g., Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d 1523, 1529-30 (11th Cir. 1996) (holding it would be absurd to apply the Clean Water Act's requirement of "zero discharge" to de minimis pollutio......
  • Natural Res. Coun. of Me. v. International Paper, No. CV-05-109-B-W.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maine
    • March 28, 2006
    ...v. Cedar Point Oil Co., 73 F.3d 546 (5th Cir.1996), with Driscoll v. Adams, 181 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir.1999), and Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d 1523 (11th Cir.1996). In those cases, the polluters had the alternative of not discharging until the NPDES permit issued, and they benefitted econ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
7 books & journal articles
  • Plain Meaning, Precedent, and Metaphysics: Interpreting the 'Pollutant' Element of the Federal Water Pollution Offense
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 44-11, November 2014
    • November 1, 2014
    ...United States v. M.C.C. of Florida, Inc., 772 F.2d 1501, 15 ELR 21091 (11th Cir. 1985) (vegetation and sediment); Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp, 78 F.3d 1523, 26 ELR 20924 (11th Cir. 1996) (sediment in rainwater lowing from construction site); Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dist. , 597 F.2d 617 (rock ......
  • Table A: Decisions Interpreting the Elements of the Water Pollution Offense
    • United States
    • Plain meaning, precedent, and metaphysics: interpreting the elements of the clean water act offense
    • October 24, 2017
    ...ELR 20853 (11th Cir. 1997) 78. Dubois v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 102 F.3d 1273, 27 ELR 20622 (1st Cir. 1996) 79. Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d 1523, 26 ELR 20924 (11th Cir. 1996) 80. Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co., Inc., 73 F.3d 546, 26 ELR 20522 (5th Cir. 1996) 81.......
  • Plain Meaning, Precedent, and Metaphysics: Lessons in Statutory Interpretation From Analyzing the Elements of the Clean Water Act Offense
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter No. 46-4, April 2016
    • April 1, 2016
    ...(11th Cir. 1997) 2, 3 78. Dubois v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 102 F.3d 1273, 27 ELR 20622 (1st Cir. 1996) 1, 3 79. Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d 1523, 26 ELR 20924 (11th Cir. 1996) 2 80. Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co., Inc., 73 F.3d 546, 26 ELR 20522 (5th Cir. 1996) 2......
  • Table of authorities
    • United States
    • Introduction to environmental law: cases and materials on water pollution control - 2d Edition
    • July 23, 2017
    ...(S.D.N.Y. 1995) .........................................................................................823 Hughey v. JMS Dev. Corp., 78 F.3d 1523 (11th Cir. 1996) ........................................206 Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) .................
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT