United States v. Granite State Packing Company, No. 72-1253.
Decision Date | 06 November 1972 |
Docket Number | No. 72-1253. |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. GRANITE STATE PACKING COMPANY, Defendant, Appellant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit |
James E. Higgins, Manchester, N. H., with whom Sheehan, Phinney, Bass & Green, and Richard A. Morse, Manchester, N. H., were on brief, for defendant-appellant.
William B. Cullimore, U. S. Atty., for appellee.
Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, ALDRICH and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.
Defendant, operating a slaughtering plant in the City of Manchester, New Hampshire (City), appeals from a conviction on three counts for violating section 13 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 407, also known as the Refuse Act of 1899, in that it did "discharge, or deposit, or cause, suffer, or procure to be thrown, discharged, or deposited . . . refuse matter . . . other than that flowing from streets and sewers and passing there-from in a liquid state, into any navigable water of the United States. . . ." United States v. Granite State Packing Co., D.N.H., 1972, 343 F.Supp. 57. In this court defendant does not dispute the district court's finding that the Merrimack River, hereinafter river, is navigable in the jurisdictional sense. United States v. Appalachian Power Co., 1940, 311 U.S. 377, 404-410, 61 S.Ct. 291, 85 L.Ed. 243; Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Federal Power Commission, 2 Cir., 1965, 344 F.2d 594, or that its animal waste is not exempted sewerage, United States v. Republic Steel Corp., 1960, 362 U.S. 482, 80 S.Ct. 884, 4 L.Ed. 2d 903; United States v. Pennsylvania Indus. Chem. Corp., W.D.Pa., 1971, 329 F.Supp. 1118, rev'd on other grounds, 3 Cir., 1972, 461 F.2d 468. It advances various defenses based upon the fact that it discharged its refuse into the sewerage system of the City.
The facts are these. Sometime prior to 1885 a railroad, laid out between defendant's plant and the river, constructed a stone culvert under its right of way to carry discharges by defendant's predecessor in occupation. In 1885 the City connected a sewer to the culvert, part way between defendant's plant and the railroad track. Since then defendant's and the City's effluents, mingled at the point of juncture, jointly pass under the track and into the river. No exercise of eminent domain, deeds, or other documents support any part of this procedure, but it would seem reasonably apparent that by this time both defendant and the City have an easement of flow as against the railroad. Whether defendant has enforceable rights against the City need not be considered. The court found, stretching the facts, perhaps, in defendant's favor, that since the culvert "is part of the municipal sanitary and storm sewer system" of the City, "defendant discharges into a public sewer." Although it might be said, instead, that the public sewer discharges into defendant's culvert, we accept this finding for present purposes. The court concluded, however, that even though defendant discharged its refuse into a municipal sewer system, its contention that this freed it of liability did not follow. We agree.
There is nothing in the statute that supports defendant's position. As a matter of simple logic, if a party deposits an impermissible substance in a municipal sewer, knowing that the sewer leads directly into navigable water, it "causes, suffers, or procures" the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. United States Steel Corporation, 72-1590.
...not obtain a permit. However, we note that the First Circuit has, with cogency, rejected such a claim. United States v. Granite State Packing, 470 F.2d 303, 304 (1st Cir. 1972). Next defendant contends that its conviction violated due process because the Army Corps of Engineers had publicly......
-
United States v. Pennsylvania Industrial Chemical Corporation 8212 624
...waters, regardless of the effect on navigation. See, e.g., United States v. Granite State Packing Co., D.C., 343 F.Supp. 57, aff'd, 470 F.2d 303 (CA1 1972); United States v. Esso Standard Oil Co. of Puerto Rico, 375 F.2d 621 (CA3 1967); United States v. Consolidation Coal Co., 354 F.Supp. 1......
-
Environmental Defense Fund v. Corps of Eng., US Army
... ... CORPS OF ENGINEERS OF the UNITED STATES ARMY et al., Defendants-Appellees ... corporation organized under the laws of the state of New York. Ozark Society, Arkansas Audubon ... ...
-
In re Bernstein
...Rivers). The Bernsteins' reliance on United States v. Granite State Packing Co., 343 F.Supp. 57, 60-61 (D.N.H.1972), aff'd 470 F.2d 303 (1st Cir. 1972), wherein a District Court in this Circuit deemed one of Lake Winnisquam's connecting rivers navigable, is unavailing because the analysis c......
-
Addition
...Act, the predecessor of the CWA’s §402 program, and early in the enforcement of the CWA. In United States v. Granite State Packing Co ., 470 F.2d 303, 3 ELR 20074 (1st Cir. 1972), the industrial defendant was liable under the Refuse Act for discharging its waste into water that subsequently......
-
Plain Meaning, Precedent, and Metaphysics: Interpreting the 'Addition' Element of the Clean Water Act Offense
...Act, the predecessor of the CWA’s §402 program, and early in the enforcement of the CWA. In United States v. Granite State Packing Co ., 470 F.2d 303, 3 ELR 20074 (1st Cir. 1972), the industrial defendant was liable under the Refuse Act for discharging its waste into water that subsequently......
-
The Clean Water Act's 'Cooperative Federalism' and the Federal/State Regulatory Balance
.... 18. Id . at 226 (quoting Republic Steel Corp. , 362 U.S. at 491). 19. Id . 20. See , e.g. , United States v. Granite State Packing Co., 470 F.2d 303, 303-04, 3 ELR 20074 (1st Cir. 1972) (upholding a slaughtering plant’s liability under the RHA even though its wastes mingled with sewage be......