TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................... iii JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT .................................................................................1 STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES ......................................................................................2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .........................................................................................3 STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ...............................................................................9 STANDARD OF REVIEW .............................................................................................11 ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................11 I. THE PCB-IMPREGNATED SOIL AT APPELLEE’S MANUFACTURING FACILITY IS NOT A “POINT SOURCE” AS DEFINED BY THE CWA § 502(14), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14).) ............................................................................12 APPELLEE’S DISCHARGE OF PCB INTO THE BEARCLAW RIVER VIOLATES WATER QUALITY STANDARDS ESTBLISHED BY THE STATE OF NEW UNION UNDER CWA § 303, 33 U.S.C. § 1313, ARE ACTIONABLE UNDER THE CWA ....................................................................14 THE CLEAN WATER ACT DOES NOT PREEMPT THE FEDERAL COMMON LAW OF NUISANCE FOR NON POINT SOURCE POLLUTION 17 THE CWA DOES NOT PREEMPT STATE COMMON LAW OF NUISANCE FOR NON POINT SOURCE POLLUTION ORIGINATING IN ANOTHER STATE ...................................................................................................................18 BEARCLAW RIVER KEEPER MAY NOT MAINTAIN A PUBLIC NUISANCE CLAIM ON BEHALF OF ITS MEMBERS UNDER THE “SPECIAL INJURY” RULE.. ...............................................................................22 APPELLANT–NOBLESVILLE HAS A CLAIM FOR REIMBURSEMENT AND SUMMARY JUDGEMENT AGAINST APPELLEE UNDER CERCLA § 107(a), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) AS IT IS NOT A LIABLE PARTY. ........................24
II.
III. IV.
V.
VI.
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................26
i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES United States Constitution: U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3................................................................................................21 Supreme Court Decisions: Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (1992 ..................................................................14,20 Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U.S. 91 (1972), ..................................................................34, 35 Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Illinois ,146 U.S. 387, 455 (1892) .................................24 Middlesex County Sewerage Authority . v. National Sea Clammers Ass’n, 453 U.S. 1, 22 (1981) ................................................................................................................................18 Milwaukee v. Illinois. 451 U.S. 304 (1981) .......................................................................17 Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U.S. 493 (1971) ........................................15, 16 PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) ..........................................................................................................................15, 20 United States Courts of Appeal Decisions: Appalachian Power Co. v. Train, 545 F.2d 1351 (4th Cir. 1976). ...................14, 15, 20, 21 Dauge v. Burlington, 35 F.2d 1343..............................................................................19, 20 Sierra Club v. Abston Construction Co., 620 F.2d 41 (5th Cir. 1980) ..............................12 United States v. Earth Sciences, Inc., 599 F2d 368 (1979) ..............................................19 United States v. Plaza Health Labs, 3 F.3d 643 (2d Cir. 1993)…………………….12 United States District Court Decisions: Aiello v. Town of Brookhaven, 136 F. Supp 2d 81 ......................................................18, 19 Reynolds v. Rick's Mushroom Services, 246 F. Supp. 2d 449 (2003) ...............................18
ii
Federal Rules, Statutes, and Regulations: 33 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) (1987). ............................................................................................1 33 U.S.C. § 1251 (1987). ..................................................................................................2,3 33 U.S.C. § 1311. .......................................................................................1, 2, 6, 13, 26, 30 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(a). .........................................................................1, 2, 7, 10, 14, 30 33 U.S.C. § 1319(a). ..................................................................................1, 4, 6, 13, 26, 30 33 U.S.C. § 1341 (1972). .......................................................................................2, 6, 7, 28 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(2). ..............................................................................1, 2, 7, 13, 20, 30 33 U.S.C. § 1362(4) (2000). ..........................................................................................1, 12 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14) (1972). .............................................................................................1, 33 U.S.C. § 1365. .........................................................................................................2,7,19 33 U.S.C. § 1401. .......................................................................................1, 4, 6, 13, 26, 30 43 U.S.C. § 9601. .......................................................................................................1, 4, 35 43 U.S.C. § 9606 .....................................................................................................1, 3,9, 35 43 U.S.C. § 9607 ..................................................................................................1, 2,3, 9,14 43 U.S.C. § 9613(f). .................................................................................................1, 34, 35
Law Review Articles Wm Bradford Reynolds & Lisa K. Haiso, The Right of Contribution Under CERCLA After Cooper Industries v. Aviall Services, 18 Tulane environmental Law Review 399 (2005)
iii
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT 28 U.S.C.A. §1291 grants federal courts the authority to appeals from all final decisions of District Courts. See 28 U.S.C.A. §1291. The Supreme Court has held that section 1291 is to be given a “practical rather than a technical construction.” See Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 (1949). Indeed, the effect of section 1291 is to disallow appeal from any decision which is tentative, informal or incomplete. See id. at 546. In the instant matter, the District Court’s decision to permit New Union to intervene as a matter of right is appealable as it is not interlocutory and occurs after the finality of judgment. Because the court granted summary judgment against FSSC on all issues raised by Capitol City, the judgment was final. On appeal of this final judgment, FSSC seeks review by the Court of Appeals as to whether the district court erred in permitting New Union to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a). U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. grants federal statutory interpretation to United States Courts of Appeal. Here, the statutes that need to be interpreted are the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the CERCLA 33 U.S.C. 9601-. In addition, the question of whether Congress has the power to regulate such statutes is an issue that requires the interpretation of federal law under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. This Court and The United States District Court for the District of Progress have jurisdiction over these questions.
iv
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 1. Whether the PCB-impregnated soil at Appellee’s manufacturing facility is a “point source” under CWA § 502(14), 33 U.S.C. § 1362(14). Appellant-BRK argues that it is; Appellant-Noblesville and Appellee argue that it is not. Whether the allegations of Appellant-BRK and Appellant-Noblesville that Appellee’s discharge of PCBs into the Bearclaw River violates water quality standards established by the State of New Union under CWA § 303, 33 U.S.C. § 1313, are actionable under the CWA. Appellant-BRK and Appellant-Noblesville argue that they are; Appellee argues that they are not. Whether the CWA preempts the federal common law of nuisance for non-point source pollution. Appellant-BRK and Appellant-Noblesville argue that it does not; Appellee argues that it does. Whether the CWA preempts state common law of nuisance for non-point source pollution originating in another state. Appellant-BRK and Appellant-Noblesville argue that it does not; Appellee argues that it does. Whether Appellent-BRK may maintain a public nuisance claim on behalf of its members under the “special injury” rule. Appellant-BRK argues that it may; Appellant-Noblesville and Appellee argue that it may not. Whether Appellant-BRK and Appellant-Noblesville have claims for reimbursement and summary judgment against Appellee under CERCLA § 113(f), 42 U.S.C. § 9613(f), in the absence of a pending or previous action under CERCLA §§ 106 or 107, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9606 or 9607; whether AppellantNoblesville has a claim under CERCLA § 107, 42 U.S.C. § 9607, where it is also a liable party under that section; and whether the Appellant-BRK's claim under § 107, 42 U.S.C. § 9607, can be denied as inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan without an explanation of how it differs from the Plan.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
v