Eiland, Debbie

English

University of Denver

Water Law Review Volume 2 Issue 1 Article 19 9-1-1998 State of Missouri v. City of Glasgow, No. 97-2279, 1998 WL 459937 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 1998) Debbie Eiland Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/wlr Custom Citation Debbie Eiland, Court Report, State of Missouri v. City of Glasgow, No. 97-2279, 1998 WL 459937 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 1998), 2 U. Denv. Water L. Rev. 127 (1998). This Court Report is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Water Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact jennifer.cox@du.edu,dig-commons@du.edu. COURT REPORTSEIGHTH CIRCUITState of Missouri v. City of Glasgow, No. 97-2279, 1998 WL 459937 (8"hCir. Aug. 10, 1998) (holding that the City of Glasgow violated the fed-eral Clean Water Act by discharging sludge from its waste water treat-ment plant without a municipal water treatment facility operatingpermit, and that the district court record was insufficient to support afinding that an increased permit fee violated the Missouri Constitu-tion).The City of Glasgow operated a water treatment facility that pro-vided drinking water to Glasgow residents. The city's water came fromthe Missouri River. The facility discharged sludge-precipitated solidsthat resulted from the treatment process, into the river after treat-ment. Because it discharged sludge into the river, the facility was a"point source" as defined by the Clean Water Act ("CWA"). As such,the CWA required that the facility have a valid operating permit.Glasgow's permit expired in 1995. Before Glasgow's permit expired,the State of Missouri amended its permit statute to increase permitfees from $75 to $1,500. Upon application for a new permit, Glasgowrefused to pay the increased fee. As a result, the state refused to issueGlasgow a new permit.The state sued Glasgow in federal district court alleging that Glas-gow violated federal law by discharging sludge into the Missouri Riverwithout a permit, and that Glasgow failed to pay permit fees as re-quired by state law. In its counterclaim requesting that the court orderthe state to issue a permit, Glasgow answered that it did not have topay the increased permit fee because the state statute requiring the feeviolated the Hancock Amendment to the Missouri Constitution. Thedistrict court held, based on a recent Missouri Supreme Court deci-sion, that the permit fee amendment violated the Hancock Amend-ment. The court also ordered the state to grant Glasgow's permit.The state appealed, alleging that the Hancock Amendment did notprevent the state from requiring Glasgow to pay the increased permitfee.The 1980 Hancock Amendment states that "the state is prohibitedfrom reducing the state financed proportion of the costs of any exist-ing activity or service required of ... political subdivisions." Beforepassage of the Hancock Amendment, and until the 1990 fee amend-ment, point source dischargers had to pay a $75 fee every five years.WATER LAW REVIEWAs of the 1990 amendment, all Missouri point source dischargers hadto pay a $1,500 annual fee to obtain a permit.The circuit court found that the state required the permit fee, andthat because the fee is a requirement of Missouri State law, it mustconform to the Missouri Constitution. Thus, the question before thecourt was whether the state had decreased its proportion of fundingfor administration of its discharge permit program, resulting in a per-mit fee that violated the state constitution.The court found that the state never funded all water pollutionregulation costs, but that the filing fees paid by municipalities subsi-dized some of those costs. Applying a previous Missouri SupremeCourt ruling, the court held that the state could lawfully increase feesif the state continued to fund the costs of administering state waterpollution laws in the same proportion it did at the time of the Han-cock Amendment's passage. Because the trial record did not provideenough evidence for the court to decide whether the amendment un-lawfully decreased the state proportion, the court reversed the districtcourt's ruling, and remanded for such a determination. The courtalso reversed the district court's ruling ordering the state to issue Glas-gow a permit, and remanded for issuance of an order declaring Glas-gow in violation of federal law and enjoining the city from dischargingsludge into the river.Debbie EilandFEDERAL DISTRICT COURTOREGONUmatilla Waterquality Protective Ass'n, Inc. v. Smith Frozen Foods,Inc., 962 F. Supp. 1312 (D. Or. 1997) (holding groundwater not sub-ject to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit un-der the Clean Water Act).Plaintiff, Umatilla Waterquality Protective Association ("UWQPA"),is a nonprofit corporation composed of approximately twelve indi-viduals whose goal is to protect the quality of water in several Oregoncounties. Members of UWQPA owned property or lived near theSmith Frozen Foods operation on Pine Creek in Weston, Oregon.Plaintiff alleged that the wastewater pipelines sometimes dischargedpollutants into the creek, which interfered with aesthetic enjoymentand water recreation in the area. Plaintiff also alleged that chemicalsfrom Smith's old brine lagoon were leaching into the groundwater andthen traveling to the creek, constituting an unpermitted continuousdischarge of pollutants into the creek.Both parties stipulated to three issues. First, whether the federalClean Water Act ("CWA") applied to pollutants discharged intogroundwater that is hydrologically connected to navigable waters.Volume 2

State of Missouri v. City of Glasgow, No. 97-2279, 1998 WL 459937 (8th
Cir. Aug. 10, 1998)

https://digitalcommons.du.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3042&context=wlr

State of Missouri v. City of Glasgow, No. 97-2279, 1998 WL 459937 (8th Cir. Aug. 10, 1998)

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Denver