In re Morrisville Hydroelectric Project Water Quality, No. 18-339

Docket NºNo. 18-339
Citation224 A.3d 473
Case DateNovember 22, 2019
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont

224 A.3d 473

IN RE MORRISVILLE HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT WATER QUALITY (Vermont Natural Resources Council, Vermont Council of Trout Unlimited, and Agency of Natural Resources, Appellants)

No. 18-339

Supreme Court of Vermont.

March Term, 2019
November 22, 2019


Thomas J. Donovan, Jr., Attorney General, and Laura B. Murphy, Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Appellant Vermont Agency of Natural Resources.

Jill Witkowski Heaps, East Amherst, New York, and Kenneth J. Rumelt, Environmental and Natural Resources Law Clinic, South Royalton, for Appellants Vermont Natural Resources Council and Vermont Council of Trout Unlimited.

James G. Murphy and William M. Kovalchik, Law Clerk (On the Brief), National Wildlife Federation, Montpelier, for Amici Curiae National Wildlife Federation, Sierra Club, Connecticut River Conservancy.

Gregory M. Eaton and Clara E. Conklin of Primmer Piper Eggleston & Cramer PC, Littleton, New Hampshire, for Cross-Appellants/Appellees Morrisville Water & Light Department.

Daniel P. Richardson and Ronald A. Shems of Tarrant Gillies & Richardson, Montpelier, for Appellees American Whitewater and Vermont Paddlers' Club.

PRESENT: Reiber, C.J., Skoglund, Robinson, Eaton and Carroll, JJ.

CARROLL, J.

¶ 1. This appeal involves a state water-quality certification pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) issued by the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) for the operation of hydroelectric dams. ANR certified three dams operated by Morrisville Water and Light (MWL) and imposed conditions, including those to control the minimum amount of water released from each dam to support habitat for fish. MWL appealed these conditions to the Environmental Division. American Whitewater and Vermont Paddlers' Club (collectively the Paddlers) also appealed, arguing that the conditions at one facility did not allow for whitewater boating. The Environmental Division rejected ANR's flow rates and imposed MWL's proposed flow rates, affirmed ANR's conditions regarding a winter drawdown for one site, and imposed scheduled releases of water as requested by the Paddlers. ANR appeals and MWL cross-appeals. We conclude that the Environmental Division erred in rejecting ANR's interpretation of its antidegradation policy and methodology for calculating flow rate, and affirm the Environmental Division on the winter drawdown and timed releases for the Paddlers at the Green River facility. Therefore, we affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.

I. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

¶ 2. This appeal involves three hydroelectric facilities operated by MWL on the Lamoille River and its tributaries: the Morrisville, Cadys Falls, and Green River facilities. These facilities were constructed between the 1890s and 1940s. In 1981, the

224 A.3d 477

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issued the facilities' original license, which expired in April 2015. To renew its license with FERC, MWL applied for a state water-quality certification from the State of Vermont. See 10 V.S.A. § 1004 (indicating that ANR is certifying agency for CWA).

¶ 3. We begin with an overview of the federal and state regulatory framework underlying this certification process. The main objective of the Clean Water Act "is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). To reach that goal, the CWA requires states to develop water-quality standards that include designated uses for a waterbody and the water-quality criteria necessary to support those uses. Id. § 1313(c)(2)(A). An applicant for a federal license for any activity that may cause a discharge into navigable waters must obtain state certification, known as § 401 certification, that the activity will comply with provisions of the CWA and state law. Id. § 1341(a)(1), (d). The operation of a hydroelectric dam must receive state certification because dams potentially result in a discharge, as that term is used in § 401 of the CWA. S.D. Warren Co. v. Me. Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 547 U.S. 370, 373, 126 S.Ct. 1843, 164 L.Ed.2d 625 (2006).

¶ 4. The Vermont Legislature delegated to ANR the responsibility to provide water-quality certification pursuant to § 401 of the CWA. 10 V.S.A. § 1004. ANR also has authority to adopt procedures for certifying hydroelectric projects. Id. § 1006(b). Pursuant to this authority, ANR has adopted the Vermont Water Quality Standards. Agency of Natural Resources, Vermont Water Quality Standards, Code of Vt. Rules 12 030 025 [hereinafter VWQS], http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/codeofvtrules.1 Any hydroelectric project seeking ANR certification must comply with the VWQS. In re Clyde River Hydroelectric Project, 2006 VT 11, ¶ 3, 179 Vt. 606, 895 A.2d 736 (mem.). As the agency tasked with granting § 401 compliance, ANR may impose reasonable conditions on a permit. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cty. v. Wash. Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 712, 114 S.Ct. 1900, 128 L.Ed.2d 716 (1994). These conditions can regulate the quantity of water because stream flow impacts a waterbody's water quality. Id. at 719, 114 S.Ct. 1900 (recognizing that "water quantity is closely related to water quality; a sufficient lowering of the water quantity in a body of water could destroy all of its designated uses, be it for drinking water, recreation, navigation or, as here, as a fishery").

¶ 5. The CWA and VWQS require water bodies "to achieve and maintain a level of quality that fully supports" the "designated uses" of those waters. VWQS § 3-04(A); see also 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(a). Designated uses are "those uses specified in water quality standards for each water body or segment whether or not they are being attained." 40 C.F.R. § 131.3(f). In Vermont, designated uses are identified for each class of water. See VWQS § 1-01(B)(14) (defining designated use as "any value or use, whether presently occurring or not, that is specified in the management objectives for each class of water"). The waters at issue in this appeal are Class B waters, and the designated use that was the primary focus in this case is the preservation of aquatic biota and wildlife through the establishment and maintenance of "high quality aquatic habitat."2

224 A.3d 478

VWQS § 3-04(A)(1). The VWQS require "[n]o change from the reference condition that would prevent the full support of aquatic biota, wildlife, or aquatic habitat uses" and protection of "[a]ll life-cycle functions." Id. § 3-04(B)(4).

¶ 6. The VWQS also protect existing uses, which are uses that have occurred in the waterbody on or before November 28, 1975. VWQS § 1-01(B)(18). To identify existing uses, ANR must consider at least five factors:

a. Aquatic biota and wildlife that utilize or are present in the waters;

b. Habitat that supports existing aquatic biota, wildlife, or plant life;

c. The use of the waters for recreation or fishing;

d. The use of the water for water supply, or commercial activity that depends directly on the preservation of an existing high level of water quality; and

e. ... under paragraphs (a) and (b) above, evidence of the use's ecological significance in the function of the ecosystem or evidence of the use's rarity.

Id. § 1-03(B)(1). The VWQS include an antidegradation policy, which requires that waters be managed "to protect, maintain, and improve water quality." VWQS § 1-03(A). The meaning of the antidegradation policy, the definition of habitat "that supports existing aquatic biota, wildlife, or plant life," and the protection to be afforded designated and existing uses are central issues in this case.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

¶ 7. The Environmental Division found the following. MWL's hydroelectric facilities impact three Vermont waters: the Lamoille River, the Green River, and the Green River Reservoir. The rivers support several fish species including brook trout, brown trout, and rainbow trout. Several more species of fish live in the Green River Reservoir. The Reservoir provides habitat for two to three nesting loon pairs. The Morrisville and Cadys Falls facilities are on the Lamoille River. They divert water from the river to generate electricity. The dams at Morrisville and Cadys Falls create bypass reaches, which are parts of the river where water would naturally flow if not diverted to the facilities. 10 V.S.A. § 1006(a)(1) (defining bypass reach). Once the facility has used the water, it returns it to the river downstream at the end of the bypass reach.3 The Green River facility operates in a store-and-release mode. The Green River Reservoir is upstream of the dam. To generate electricity, the facility draws water from the reservoir and passes it through the facility and down to the Green River, which flows into the Lamoille River.

¶ 8. To prepare for the recertification process, MWL hired a consulting firm, Gomez and Sullivan, to study the Morrisville, Cadys Falls, and Green River facilities. ANR and MWL agreed on the study's scope and goals in advance as part of the FERC relicensing. One of the goals was to determine the flow of water necessary to support aquatic habitat. In general, for the Morrisville and Cadys Falls facilities, the study considered how different flows in the bypass reach affected downstream passage, habitat connectivity, water movement, and availability of cover. For the Green River facility,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 practice notes
  • Vt. Nat'l Tel. Co. v. Dep't of Taxes, No. 19-280
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 9, 2020
    ...167 A.3d 320 (quotation and alteration omitted); In re Morrisville Hydroelectric Project Water Quality, 2019 VT 84, ¶ 17, 211 Vt. 233, 224 A.3d 473 ("To preserve an argument for appeal, a party must present an argument with specificity and clarity." (quotation omitted)). Even constitutional......
  • Vt. Nat'l Tel. Co. v. Dep't of Taxes, No. 2019-280
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 9, 2020
    ...2017 VT 22, ¶ 16 (quotation and alteration omitted); In re Morrisville Hydroelectric Project Water Quality, 2019 VT 84, ¶ 17, ___ Vt. ___, 224 A.3d 473 ("To preserve an argument for appeal, a party must present an argument with specificity and clarity." (quotation omitted)). Even constituti......
  • Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Muller, No. 19-333
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • August 28, 2020
    ...¶ 9. We review summary-judgment decisions de novo. In re Morrisville Hydroelectric Project Water Quality, 2019 VT 84, ¶ 58, ––– Vt. ––––, 224 A.3d 473. The trial court's decision will be affirmed "when there exist no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgme......
  • In re Piquette, 21-072
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • December 17, 2021
    ...on them, thus preserving the arguments for appeal. In re Morrisville Hydroelectric Project Water Quality, 2019 VT 84, ¶ 17, 211 Vt. 233, 224 A.3d 473. However, we need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 167 Vt. 75, 86, 702 A.2d 39......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 cases
  • Vt. Nat'l Tel. Co. v. Dep't of Taxes, No. 19-280
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 9, 2020
    ...167 A.3d 320 (quotation and alteration omitted); In re Morrisville Hydroelectric Project Water Quality, 2019 VT 84, ¶ 17, 211 Vt. 233, 224 A.3d 473 ("To preserve an argument for appeal, a party must present an argument with specificity and clarity." (quotation omitted)). Even constitutional......
  • Vt. Nat'l Tel. Co. v. Dep't of Taxes, No. 2019-280
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • October 9, 2020
    ...2017 VT 22, ¶ 16 (quotation and alteration omitted); In re Morrisville Hydroelectric Project Water Quality, 2019 VT 84, ¶ 17, ___ Vt. ___, 224 A.3d 473 ("To preserve an argument for appeal, a party must present an argument with specificity and clarity." (quotation omitted)). Even constituti......
  • Progressive N. Ins. Co. v. Muller, No. 19-333
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • August 28, 2020
    ...¶ 9. We review summary-judgment decisions de novo. In re Morrisville Hydroelectric Project Water Quality, 2019 VT 84, ¶ 58, ––– Vt. ––––, 224 A.3d 473. The trial court's decision will be affirmed "when there exist no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgme......
  • In re Piquette, 21-072
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • December 17, 2021
    ...on them, thus preserving the arguments for appeal. In re Morrisville Hydroelectric Project Water Quality, 2019 VT 84, ¶ 17, 211 Vt. 233, 224 A.3d 473. However, we need not consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. In re Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 167 Vt. 75, 86, 702 A.2d 39......
  • 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