{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-20", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:49b4aa", "proof": "sha256:2592940e125c00d338ca9cd6f2282996303b6b4c8cd888fadfcda6271f7a7e5d", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "Front matter", "paragraphs": [ "para_1", "para_2", "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8", "para_9", "para_10", "para_11", "para_12", "para_13", "para_14", "para_15", "para_16", "para_17", "para_18", "para_19", "para_20", "para_21", "para_22", "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26", "para_27", "para_28", "para_29", "para_30", "para_31", "para_32", "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36", "para_37", "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43", "para_44", "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49", "para_50", "para_51", "para_52", "para_53", "para_54", "para_55", "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61", "para_62", "para_63", "para_64", "para_65", "para_66", "para_67", "para_68", "para_69", "para_70", "para_71", "para_72", "para_73", "para_74", "para_75", "para_76", "para_77", "para_78", "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86", "para_87", "para_88", "para_89", "para_90", "para_91", "para_92", "para_93", "para_94", "para_95", "para_96", "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107", "para_108", "para_109", "para_110", "para_111", "para_112", "para_113", "para_114", "para_115", "para_116", "para_117", "para_118", "para_119", "para_120", "para_121", "para_122", "para_123", "para_124", "para_125", "para_126", "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130", "para_131", "para_132", "para_133", "para_134", "para_135", "para_136", "para_137", "para_138", "para_139", "para_140", "para_141", "para_142", "para_143", "para_144", "para_145", "para_146", "para_147", "para_148", "para_149", "para_150", "para_151", "para_152", "para_153", "para_154", "para_155", "para_156", "para_157", "para_158", "para_159", "para_160", "para_161", "para_162", "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188", "para_189", "para_190", "para_191", "para_192", "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215", "para_216", "para_217", "para_218", "para_219", "para_220", "para_221", "para_222", "para_223", "para_224", "para_225", "para_226", "para_227", "para_228", "para_229", "para_230", "para_231", "para_232", "para_233", "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239", "para_240", "para_241", "para_242", "para_243", "para_244", "para_245", "para_246", "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252", "para_253", "para_254", "para_255", "para_256", "para_257", "para_258", "para_259", "para_260", "para_261", "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267", "para_268", "para_269", "para_270", "para_271", "para_272", "para_273", "para_274", "para_275", "para_276", "para_277", "para_278", "para_279", "para_280", "para_281", "para_282", "para_283", "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290", "para_291", "para_292", "para_293", "para_294", "para_295", "para_296", "para_297", "para_298", "para_299", "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306", "para_307", "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315", "para_316", "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323", "para_324", "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337", "para_338", "para_339", "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344", "para_345", "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367", "para_368", "para_369", "para_370", "para_371", "para_372", "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376", "para_377", "para_378", "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384", "para_385", "para_386", "para_387", "para_388", "para_389", "para_390", "para_391", "para_392", "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396", "para_397", "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409", "para_410", "para_411", "para_412", "para_413", "para_414", "para_415", "para_416", "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423", "para_424", "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428", "para_429", "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435", "para_436", "para_437", "para_438", "para_439", "para_440", "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458", "para_459", "para_460", "para_461", "para_462", "para_463", "para_464", "para_465", "para_466", "para_467", "para_468", "para_469", "para_470", "para_471", "para_472", "para_473", "para_474", "para_475", "para_476", "para_477", "para_478", "para_479", "para_480", "para_481", "para_482", "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490", "para_491", "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495", "para_496", "para_497", "para_498", "para_499", "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503", "para_504", "para_505", "para_506", "para_507", "para_508", "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512", "para_513", "para_514", "para_515", "para_516", "para_517", "para_518", "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523", "para_524" ], "kind": "front_matter" } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "COLUMBIA RIVERKEEPER and", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "CONFEDERATED TRIBES AND", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "BANDS OF THE YAKAMA NATION,", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "Appellants,", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "v.", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "STATE OF WASHINGTON", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "POLLUTION CONTROL HEARINGS", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "BOARD,", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "Defendant,", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "STATE OF WASHINGTON,", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY and", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "FLOW POWER PROJECT 101 c/o", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "RYE DEVELOPMENT,", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Respondents.", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "DIVISION ONE", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "PUBLISHED OPINION", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "MANN, J. — Under § 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), any applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "a federal license or permit to conduct an activity that may result in any discharge into", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "navigable waters, must provide a certification from the state where the discharge", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "originates that any such discharge will comply with federally approved water quality", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "standards. 33 U.S.C. § 1341. The Department of Ecology (Ecology) is the designated", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/2", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "-2-", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "state water pollution control agency tasked with implementing the CWA and § 401 in", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Washington. RCW 90.48.260(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "On May 22, 2023, Ecology issued a § 401 water quality certification (§ 401", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "certification) to Free Flow Project 101 LLC (FFP) for the Goldendale Energy Storage", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Project (project), a proposed pumped-water storage hydropower system adjacent to, but", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "off-stream of, the Columbia River. Columbia Riverkeeper (Riverkeeper) and the", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (Yakama Nation) appealed the §", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "401 certification to the Pollution Control Hearings Board (PCHB). The PCHB affirmed", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "the § 401 certification on January 27, 2025, issuing findings of fact, conclusions of law,", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "and an order (final order).", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation appeal the PCHB’s order and make several", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "arguments, including that the § 401 certification fails to impose the necessary conditions", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "and monitoring requirements to protect the water quality of the Columbia River.", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "We conclude that the PCHB erred in finding 16 of the final order—that any", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "leakage from the project’s tunnels would be monitored and reported. As a result, we set", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "aside the § 401 certification on this limited issue. We remand for further proceedings for", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "Ecology and the PCHB to impose monitoring and reporting requirements to detect", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "leakage from the project’s tunnels. We otherwise affirm the § 401 certification.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "I. BACKGROUND", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "A. The Project", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "The project is a closed-loop hydroelectric power plant that generates electricity", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "during times of greater energy needs by releasing water from an upper reservoir", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/3", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "-3-", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "downhill to a lower reservoir.1 During periods of low energy demand, water would be", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "pumped back up to the upper reservoir. The reservoirs would be off-stream of the", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "Columbia River, with no river or stream impoundments, and vertically separated by", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "2,400 feet of elevation. Due to its closed-loop design, water would be drawn from an", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "existing pump station to initially fill the system and additional water would be drawn as", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "needed to offset any water loss.", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "The project area is approximately 681.6 acres. The lower reservoir would be", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "located on the site of the former Columbia Gorge Aluminum smelter (CGA smelter).", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "The CGA smelter is contaminated with sulfate and phosphate from the former smelter", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "operations.", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "The project entails the construction of (1) the upper and lower reservoirs, (2) an", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "underground conveyance system connecting the upper reservoir to the lower reservoir", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "and passing through an underground powerhouse with generating and pumping", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "facilities, (3) an access tunnel, (4) an underground and overhead transmission line, (5) a", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "substation, and (6) accompanying facilities.", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "The project would affect Stream 7, Stream 8, and Swale Creek, which are", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "specific locations within the construction area. FFP proposes to discharge reservoir", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "water into Swale Creek to mitigate the project’s impacts on Stream 7 and Stream 8.", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "B. Environmental Impact Statement", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "Ecology issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on December 21,", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "2022. The EIS evaluated potential impacts related to the construction and operation of", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "1 The background is taken largely from the unchallenged findings of fact in the final order. We", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "treat unchallenged findings as verities on appeal. Cowiche Canyon Conservancy v. Bosley, 118 Wn.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "801, 808, 828 P.2d 549 (1992).", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/4", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "-4-", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "the project on wetlands, regulated waters, water quantity, water quality, and water rights", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "for both surface and groundwater. For water quality, the EIS stated that “yearly", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "evaporative cycles would concentrate water quality constituent levels over time (e.g.,", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "heat, total dissolved solids, metals, nutrients, and bacteria), despite the annual addition", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "of fresh make-up water from annual precipitation and purchases of water from the", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "Columbia River.” The project’s upper and lower reservoirs would be constructed with a", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "synthetic liner system with leak-detection capabilities meant to prevent leakage, such", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "that “negligible seepage from the reservoirs is anticipated.” The “lower reservoir is", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "anticipated to include a double liner system to further minimize any potential for", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "leakage.” In addition, FFP plans to “include hydrologic/groundwater level monitoring as", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "a component of the broader water quality and response plan.”", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "Ecology concluded that “[t]hrough compliance with laws and with implementation", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "of the mitigation measures described in [the EIS], there would be no significant and", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "unavoidable adverse impacts related to water resources from construction or operation", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "of the proposed project.” Nonetheless, the EIS also states that approximately 100 acre-", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "feet of water per year (AFY) would leak from the project’s underground infrastructure", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "(piping, etc.), which would represent return flow (or artificial recharge) into the basalt", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "aquifer system. The EIS assumes that 70 percent of the underground leakage would", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "enter the Columbia River tributaries watershed and 30 percent would enter the Swale", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "Creek watershed.", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "C. § 401 Certification", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "Because FFP applied to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "a federal hydropower license, it was required to seek a § 401 certification from Ecology.", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/5", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "-5-", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). Issuance of a § 401 certification affirms that discharges will", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "comply with the water quality requirements of the CWA, including the federally approved", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "water quality standards set by the State. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). PUD No. 1 of", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "Jefferson County v. Wash. Dep’t of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 707-08, 114 S. Ct. 1900,", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "128 L. Ed. 2d 716 (1994).", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "When Ecology issued the § 401 certification for the project, Environmental", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "Protection Agency (EPA) regulations—known as the 2020 rule—applied and", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "constrained the scope of Ecology’s analysis. Under the 2020 rule, the scope of", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "Ecology’s § 401 analysis “is limited to assuring that a discharge from a federally", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "licensed or permitted activity will comply with water quality requirements.” 40 C.F.R. §", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "121.3 (2020) (emphasis added).", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "The project’s § 401 certification requires FFP to acquire additional permits,", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "including a § 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "before discharging any wastewater into the Swale Creek drainage. FFP must also", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "obtain a surface reservoir permit and a construction stormwater general permit. FFP", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "must conduct water quality monitoring in accordance with an established water quality", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "monitoring plan (WQMP). FFP is also required to remove and dispose of the contents", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "of a waste disposal site called the West Surface Impoundment (WSI), which is located", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "within the former CGA smelter site. The cleanup process includes addressing any", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "contaminated soils, as well as the decommissioning and replacement of 15 groundwater", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "monitoring wells associated with the former CGA smelter. Cleanup at the WSI must be", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "completed and approved by Ecology before conducting any ground disturbance", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "construction activities at the former CGA smelter site.", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/6", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "-6-", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "D. Procedural History", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "On June 21, 2023, Riverkeeper filed a petition for review before the PCHB", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "challenging the sufficiency of the § 401 certification in ensuring that the project would", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "comply with Washington’s water quality standards. That same day, the Yakama Nation", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "filed a similar appeal with the PCHB. On August 24, 2023, the PCHB granted the", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "parties’ joint motion for consolidation of the appeals under WAC 371-08-390(9).", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "A prehearing order was entered on August 31, 2023, and on September 6, 2023,", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation submitted their proposed legal issues. On", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "February 8, 2024, Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation stipulated that they “do not", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "intend to pursue a claim that Ecology has failed to comply with [the State Environmental", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "Policy Act (SEPA),] RCW 43.21C.060, and its implementing regulations, by deciding not", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "to deny, or further mitigate or condition, the Certification.” On February 14, 2024, the", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "PCHB entered an amended prehearing order reflecting the stipulated changes to the", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "legal issues in the case.", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "The parties filed several motions for summary judgment, which the PCHB", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "resolved in two orders. In the first order, the PCHB affirmed that the 2020 rule applied", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "to the § 401 certification and that Ecology’s consideration was limited to whether any", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "“discharge” would comply with federally approved water quality standards. As a result,", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "the appellants’ contentions concerning “withdrawal” of water from the Columbia River", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "were dismissed. In the second order, the PCHB limited which smaller waterbodies", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "qualified as “impacted waterbodies” for purposes of the § 401 certification.", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "An open record hearing on the remaining legal issues took place before the", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "PCHB on September 23-26, 2024 (final hearing). And on January 27, 2025, the PCHB", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/7", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "-7-", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "issued the final order. In it, the PCHB found, inter alia, that (1) the project was designed", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "to avoid leakage or seepage and (2) the § 401 certification included conditions to", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "protect water quality in the unlikely event of a significant leakage. Based on that, the", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "PCHB concluded that (1) the Columbia River was not an impacted waterbody for", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "purposes of the § 401 certification and (2) the § 401 certification imposed sufficient", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "conditions to ensure the project’s compliance with all applicable water quality standards.", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "The PCHB ultimately affirmed the project’s § 401 certification.", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "On February 26, 2025, Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation filed petitions for", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "review of the final order in Thurston County Superior Court. After granting FFP’s motion", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "to intervene, the superior court certified the case for transfer to this court as a direct", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "appeal.", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "II. POTENTIAL FOR DISCHARGE INTO THE COLUMBIA RIVER", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation first argue that Ecology and the PCHB erred", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "in finding that the project would not leak into the groundwater, and then failed to analyze", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "whether the leakage was directly connected to, and therefore would discharge into, the", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "Columbia River.", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "A. Standard of Review", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": "The court reviews orders from the PCHB under the Washington Administrative", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "Procedure Act (APA), ch. 34.05 RCW. Port of Seattle v. Pollution Control Hr’gs Bd.,", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "151 Wn.2d 568, 587, 90 P.3d 659 (2004). Our review is confined to the record before", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "the PCHB, RCW 34.05.558, and “[t]he burden of demonstrating the invalidity of agency", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "action is on the party asserting invalidity.” RCW 34.05.570(1)(a). We may grant relief in", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "three circumstances.", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/8", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "-8-", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "A PCHB’s order may be invalidated under the APA if it is not supported by", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "substantial evidence viewing the record as a whole. RCW 34.05.570(3)(e). Substantial", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded person of the truth or", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "correctness of the matter. Port of Seattle, 151 Wn.2d at 588. The PCHB’s factual", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "findings may be overturned only if they are clearly erroneous, such that the court is", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "“‘definitely and firmly convinced that a mistake has been made.’” Port of Seattle, 151", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "Wn.2d at 588 (quoting Buechel v. Dep’t of Ecology, 125 Wn.2d 196, 202, 884 P.2d 910", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "(1994)). The substantial evidence test does not allow reviewing courts to reverse the", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "PCHB’s findings because they would have ruled differently had they been the trier of", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "fact. Honeywell v. Dep’t of Ecology, 2 Wn. App. 2d 601, 613, 413 P.3d 41 (2017). Nor", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "does the court weigh the credibility of witnesses or substitute its judgment for the", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "PCHB’s. Port of Seattle, 151 Wn.2d at 588.", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "The court may also grant relief if a PCHB’s order has “erroneously interpreted or", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "applied the law.” RCW 34.05.570(3)(d). The application of law to the facts is a question", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "of law that we review de novo. Port of Seattle, 151 Wn.2d at 588. Likewise, where", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "statutory construction is necessary, the court will interpret statutes de novo. Port of", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "Seattle, 151 Wn.2d at 587. The court gives due deference to Ecology’s specialized", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "expertise on technical judgments, and substantial weight to the interpretation of the law", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "it administers. Port of Seattle, 151 Wn.2d at 588, 594-95.", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": "Lastly, the court may grant relief if a PCHB’s order is “arbitrary or capricious.”", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "RCW 34.05.570(3)(i). An arbitrary or capricious action is one that is “willful and", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "unreasoning and taken without regard to the attending facts or circumstances.” Port of", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "Seattle, 151 Wn.2d at 589. “Where there is room for two opinions, and the agency", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/9", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "-9-", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "acted honestly and upon due consideration, this court should not find that an action was", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "arbitrary [or] capricious, even though this court may have reached the opposite", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "conclusion.” Port of Seattle, 151 Wn.2d at 589. That is because the court should not", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "“undertake to exercise the discretion that the legislature has placed in the agency.”", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "RCW 34.05.574(1).", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "B. Leakage from the Project", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "The core of Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation’s appeal is that the PCHB erred", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": "in finding that the project will not leak polluted water into groundwater that is", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "hydrologically connected to the Columbia River. Both appellants rely on the assumption", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "in the EIS that the project would leak 100 AFY per year into groundwater. Riverkeeper", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "and the Yakama Nation contend that Ecology cannot ignore the EIS, and that the PCHB", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "failed to cite credible evidence in the record showing that the project will not leak. We", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "It is undisputed that the PCHB applies a de novo standard of review, deciding", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "cases based on all evidence available at the time of the PCHB hearing. Port of Seattle,", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "151 Wn.2d at 598. In its final order, the PCHB found that the project is designed not to", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "leak, and if it did, any leakage would be minimal based on considerable evidence.", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "The PCHB explained that FFP provided credible evidence at the hearing that the", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "project was designed to avoid leakage.2 For example, Dylan Stankus, the project", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "manager and environmental engineer, testified as an expert in hydrological modeling", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "and water quality monitoring. Stankus explained that FFP prepared an informational", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "2 Once again, appellants did not assign error to the PCHB’s findings of fact and thus they are", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "considered verities on appeal. We also note that each of the PCHB’s findings include citations to hearing", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "testimony or exhibits—the evidence that the PCHB relied upon in making said findings.", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/10", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "-10-", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "presentation for Ecology with hydraulic engineers to discuss how the reservoirs would", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "be lined to prevent leakage and seepage. Further, Shane McDonald, an expert in", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "hydrogeology, testified that the lower reservoir (which would be located on the former", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "CGA smelter site) would have two liners of geomembrane separated by a layer of", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "sand—such that in the event that water leaked through the first layer, the second layer", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "would capture it and pump it back into the project’s closed-loop system. That,", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "McDonald explained, substantially minimizes the chances of leakage into groundwater.", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "The PCHB also found credible the expert testimony presented by FFP that the", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "tunnels connecting the two reservoirs would not leak. Michael Wood, a professional", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "geologist with 37 years of experience, testified as an expert on the geology of pumped", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "storage hydropower projects. Woods explained that the standard practice for the", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "construction of tunnels for hydropower projects incorporates specific steps to prevent", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "leakage: (1) consolidation or pressure grouting around the tunnel, (2) the installation of", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "a permanent liner system of reinforced concrete or steel, (3) drilling holes into the rock", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "to inject grout to make the annular space around the tunnel between a monolithic", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "impermeable mass, and (4) a process called contact grouting, whereby grout is injected", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "between the final lining and the rock to seal any shrinkage that may have occurred", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "when the concrete cured after the final lining is installed.", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "The PCHB also found that during the § 401 certification process, Ecology staff", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "investigated and were satisfied that the project would not leak or seep a significant", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "amount of water. For example, Loreé Randall, Ecology’s team lead for the project’s §", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "401 water quality certification process, testified that Ecology dedicated time to learn the", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "applicable construction methods to determine whether the project was a closed system", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/11", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "-11-", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "that would not leak or seep. She explained that Ecology’s intent was to make sure that", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "the system would not leak from either the reservoirs or the tunnel, and that the", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "reservoirs would be lined and include a leak detection system.", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "The PCHB found that the appellants did not provide evidence refuting FFP and", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "Ecology’s explanation that the project was not designed to leak. Rather than pointing to", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "evidence refuting Ecology’s and FFP’s testimony about the project’s design to avoid", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "leakage, Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation continue to rely on appeal on the early", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "assumption in the EIS that the project would leak 100 AFY. The Yakama Nation relied", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "on the testimony of witnesses that either referred to EIS leakage assumption specifically", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "or contributed to the preparation of the EIS, but not to the § 401 certification process.", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "For instance, Rachel Elena Ramirez Groszowski, a consultant for the Yakama Nation’s", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "Fisheries Department and the Department of Natural Resources, pointed to the", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "assumption in the EIS that the project will leak 100 AFY when asked if she knew that", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "the project was being designed with leak detention capabilities. Similarly, Sage Park,", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "the SEPA official who issued the EIS, specifically referred to the 100 AFY leakage", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "assumption during her testimony. Further, Heather Page, the EIS project manager,", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "explained that she worked in the project’s proposal stage only. Lastly, Daniel Haller, a", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "water resources engineer who worked in the development of the EIS, including the", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "initial draft, testified that he did not participate in the project’s § 401 certification process.", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "The PCHB recognized that the 100 AFY described in the EIS—and relied upon", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "by Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation—was a conservative estimate used early in the", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "permitting process. Erik Steimle, FFP’s Chief Development Officer, testified that as part", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/12", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "-12-", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "of its FERC license application, FFP estimated that it would need to purchase 100 AFY", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "from Klickitat County, and that this assumption was incorporated into the EIS.", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "The PCHB found that later work by FFP and Ecology—after the EIS, and during", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "the § 401 certification process—established that the project would not leak or seep, or", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "would otherwise seep at nominal amounts only. The PCHB’s finding was supported by", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "witnesses directly involved in the § 401 certification process. For instance, Lori White,", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "Ecology’s central region section manager for the Shorelands and Environmental", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "Assistance Program, testified that Ecology has more information and a more refined", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "understanding at the time of conducting a § 401 certification process compared to the", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "scope of an EIS. Further, Damon Roberts, Ecology’s water quality section manager for", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "the central region, testified that because the reservoirs would be double lined with leak", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "detection, it was unlikely that they would leak or seep 100 AFY.", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "Ultimately, the PCHB found in an unchallenged finding that the testimony", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "supported the determination in the § 401 certification that the project would not leak:", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "[T]he testimony from FFP’s experts supporting that the project would not", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "leak was credible and more persuasive than the testimony offered by", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "Appellants’ witnesses who principally relied on the assumption in the EIS", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "that the project would leak or seep 100 AFY. At most, the evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "indicates there may be a nominal amount of seepage from the project.", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "But the record does not support Appellants’ assertion that the project is", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "likely to leak a significant amount of water and potentially diminish water", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "quality.", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "(Citations omitted.)", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "Riverkeeper’s and the Yakama Nation’s arguments appear to be less about a", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "lack of substantial evidence in the record and more about a difference of opinion with", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "respect to the PCHB’s finding that the project was designed not to leak. And because", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/13", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "-13-", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "the court defers to the PCHB’s determinations on witness credibility and conflicting", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "evidence, insofar as Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation invite us to weigh the", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "evidence in the record and substitute our own judgment for the PCHB’s, we decline the", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "invitation.", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "In sum, we conclude that the PCHB’s finding that the project is designed to avoid", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "leakage is supported by substantial evidence in the record before it. And even though", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "there may be room for two opinions, the PCHB’s finding was not made without regard to", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "the facts and evidence presented and thus cannot be labeled as arbitrary or capricious.", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "C. Groundwater Connection to the Columbia River", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "Based largely on the assumption that contaminated water from the project will", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "leak into groundwater, Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation next argue that Ecology", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "failed to determine whether the project will discharge directly into the Columbia River.", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "The CWA requires a § 401 certification for activities that “may result in any", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "discharge into the navigable waters.” 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). In County of Maui v.", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "Hawaii Wildlife Fund, 590 U.S. 165, 183-84, 140 S. Ct. 1462, 206 L. Ed. 2d 640 (2020),", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "the United States Supreme Court held that the CWA “requires a permit when there is a", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "direct discharge from a point source into navigable waters or when there is the", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "functional equivalent of a direct discharge.” (Emphasis added.) The Court also", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "described a multifactorial test to determine when an indirect discharge is the functional", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "equivalent of a direct discharge. The non-exhaustive list of factors included: “(1) [travel", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "or] transit time, (2) distance traveled, (3) the nature of the material through which the", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "pollutant travels, (4) the extent to which the pollutant is diluted or chemically changed as", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "it travels, (5) the amount of pollutant entering the navigable waters relative to the", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/14", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "-14-", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "amount of the pollutant that leaves the point source, (6) the manner by or area in which", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "the pollutant enters the navigable waters, [and] (7) the degree to which the pollution (at", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "that point) has maintained its specific identity.” County of Maui, 590 U.S. at 184-85.", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "Notwithstanding, the Court clarified that “[t]ime and distance will be the most important", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "factors in most cases, but not necessarily every case.” County of Maui, 590 U.S. at", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "185.", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation assert that any leakage from the project is", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "tantamount to a direct discharge into the Columbia River under the test established in", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "County of Maui. In contrast, Ecology and FFP argue that there is substantial evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "in the record that (1) the project is designed not to leak and (2) the water in the project", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "reservoirs will not be contaminated, and thus the PCHB properly declined to perform a", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "County of Maui analysis. We agree with Ecology and FFP.", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "As we explained above, substantial evidence in the record supports the PCHB’s", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "finding that the project was designed to avoid leakage. Similarly, substantial evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "in the record supports the PCHB’s finding that reservoir contamination will not reach the", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "Columbia River. As the PCHB summarized:", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "Appellants argue that leakage from the Project into groundwater should be", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "considered the functional equivalent of a direct discharge to the Columbia", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "River, relying on County of Maui, 590 U.S. 165. Appellants’ contention", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "that the Project discharges constitute the functional equivalent of direct", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "discharges, however, again relies on the incorrect assumption that the", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "Project will leak millions of gallons of contaminated water into the", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "underlying groundwater. Because the evidence does not show that the", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "Project will result in leakage to groundwater, there is no basis for", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "considering whether such discharge would be the functional equivalent of", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "a direct discharge to the Columbia River under County of Maui.", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/15", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "-15-", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "(Citations omitted.) We agree. The PCHB did not err by declining to perform a County", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "of Maui analysis and by subsequently not including the Columbia River as an impacted", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "waterbody that Ecology had to consider under 33 U.S.C. § 1341.", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "III. CONDITIONS AND MONITORING", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "The CWA requires that § 401 certifications include discharge limitations and", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "monitoring requirements necessary to ensure that the project complies with federal and", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "state water quality limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(d).3 Washington’s Supreme Court has", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "held that “[m]onitoring and adaptive management provide a mechanism through which", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "Ecology can mitigate [the] inherent uncertainty” in issuing a § 401 certification. Port of", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "Seattle, 151 Wn.2d at 606. In the § 401 certification context, Ecology uses adaptive", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "management with the goal of ensuring that Washington’s water quality standards are", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "protected when the information on how to best “reduc[e] pollution and meet[] the water", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "quality standards may be incomplete.” WAC 173-210A-320(6)(c). Specifically, adaptive", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "management requires that “information is developed and used expeditiously to revise", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "permit or program requirements,” and to “[i]nclude a plan that describes how information", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "will be obtained and used to ensure full compliance with this chapter.” WAC 173-210A-", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "320(6)(c)(i), (iii).", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "3 Section 401 provides:", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "Any certification provided under this section shall set forth any effluent limitations and", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "other limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any applicant for", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "a Federal license or permit will comply with any applicable effluent limitations and other", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "limitations . . . of this title . . . and with any other appropriate requirement of State law set", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "forth in such certification, and shall become a condition of any Federal license or permit", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "subject to the provisions of this section.", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "33 U.S.C. § 1341(d).", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/16", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "-16-", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "A. “End-Result” Condition", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation argue that the project’s § 401 certification’s", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "“vague” prohibition on violating water quality standards is insufficient to protect the", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "designated uses and water quality of the Columbia River. Riverkeeper and the Yakama", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "Nation focus their arguments on section C.1 of the § 401 certification, which prohibits", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "FFP from exceeding “applicable water quality standards beyond the limits established in", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "Chapter 173-201A WAC, except as authorized by [the § 401 certification].” Riverkeeper", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "and the Yakama Nation argue that Ecology’s reliance on this “end-result” condition", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "conflicts with the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in City and County of", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "San Francisco, California v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 604 U.S. 334, 145", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "S. Ct. 704, 221 L. Ed. 2d 166 (2025). We disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "In that case, the City of San Francisco (City) operated a municipal treatment", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "facility (facility) under a § 402 NPDES permit. In 2019, the facility’s NPDES permit was", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "modified to include two new conditions. The first condition prohibited the facility from", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "making any discharge that “contribute[s] to a violation of any applicable water quality", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "standard” for receiving waters. The second condition provided that the City could not", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "perform any treatment or make any discharge that “create[s] pollution, contamination, or", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "nuisance as defined by California Water Code section 13050.” San Francisco, 604 U.S.", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "at 343. The City challenged the “end-result” condition as overly burdensome.", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "The Court agreed and held that the EPA lacks the authority to impose “end-", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "result” conditions in an NPDES permit because such provisions were too burdensome", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "on permittees. The Court relied in part on the “permit shield” provision under § 402(k),", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "which deems a permittee in compliance with the CWA if it follows all of the terms of its", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/17", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "-17-", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "permit. San Francisco, 604 U.S. at 350. The Court explained that the “end-result”", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "conditions eviscerated the “permit shield” provision under § 402(k) by holding a", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "permittee liable for violating the CWA even if it complied with all of the conditions of the", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "NPDES permit. The Court explained:", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "Because of the harsh penalties for violating the terms of a permit, the", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "permit shield is invaluable. Because of it, a discharger that complies with", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "all permit conditions can rest assured that it will not be penalized. But the", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "benefit of this provision would be eviscerated if the EPA could impose a", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "permit provision making the permittee responsible for any drop in water", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "quality below the accepted standard. A permittee could do everything", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "required by all the other permit terms. It could devise a careful plan for", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "protecting water quality, and it could diligently implement that plan. But if,", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "in the end, the quality of the water in its receiving waters dropped below", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "the applicable water quality levels, it would face dire potential", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "consequences.", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "San Francisco, 604 U.S. at 351.", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation’s argument that condition C.1 conflicts with", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "San Francisco fails. San Francisco addressed end-result conditions that were added to", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "a § 402 NPDES permit and the resulting conflict with the “permit shield” provision under", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "§ 402(k). San Francisco is silent on whether such a requirement is consistent with §", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "401. Moreover, San Francisco does not hold that end-result conditions are insufficient", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "or inadequate to provide reasonable assurance that water quality standards will not be", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "violated—which was the question that Ecology and the PCHB evaluated.", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "B. Monitoring for Leakage", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation also argue that the PCHB erred in affirming", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "the project’s § 401 certification because it fails to include conditions that require", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": "monitoring for leakage into groundwater. The appellants point specifically to the failure", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/18", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "-18-", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "to require monitoring for leakage from the tunnel system between the upper and lower", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "reservoirs. We agree.", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "The PCHB’s final order addressed monitoring for leakage from the project’s", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "tunnels in finding 16. Relying on the testimony of David Johnson, one of Ecology’s", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "witnesses, the PCHB rejected the appellants’ contention that water could leak from the", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "project’s tunnels without being directly monitored. The PCHB explained:", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "This argument ignores the fact that, because the Project would be a", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "closed-loop system, FFP would be able to detect if any water", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "unexpectedly leaks from any part of the system. The only anticipated", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "causes of water loss to the system are evaporation and discharge of water", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "into a mitigation stream—both of which can be calculated. FFP would", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "therefore be able to monitor leakage because it would cause an", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "unexpected increase in water loss. And if seepage or leakage resulted in", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "an increased movement of groundwater, an increase in water quantity or", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "change in water quality also would be detected in the monitoring network.", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "Missing from the PCHB’s finding, however, is any discussion of whether the conditions", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "in the § 401 certification require tunnel leakage monitoring, and whether any", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "unexpected leakage would have to be reported to Ecology and how.", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "Johnson’s testimony similarly assumed that monitoring and reporting of leakage", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "to Ecology would be required:", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "A project of this scale that—you know, the reservoir of, you know,", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "hundreds of acres with thousands of linear feet of a very broad 29-foot-", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "diameter tunnel will have some seepage. You know, it’s acknowledged", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "that there will be seepage.", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "The design intention of both the reservoirs themselves and the tunnel is to", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "minimize the amount of seepage to the extent that it can be minimized.", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "And so there’s gonna be—there are measures for the reservoirs. So", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "there’s gonna be measures for the tunnel to minimize to the extent that", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "engineering feasibility that seepage can be minimized.", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/19", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "-19-", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "Seepage is also going to be part of the ongoing monitoring in the sense of", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "we’ll be able to understand seepage long-term from the sense of it’s a", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "closed-loop reservoir. So on any time period that we want, whether it be", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "monthly, semi-annually, annually, or you know, biannually or what", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "frequency—whatever Ecology sets, we’ll be able to basically measure the", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "evaporation. That’s the net loss of this closed system.", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "The only other loss really to the system is seepage, or what could be", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "mitigation discharge that’s going to be well understood.", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "So, we’ll be able to monitor this seepage. It will be monitored both from", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "that rough calculation standpoint, be required to be monitored. It will be", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "required to be monitored down at the lower reservoir for its potential", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "understanding of impact to the aquifer where the WSI was, both from a", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "water quality standpoint and quantity standpoint.", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "While Johnson’s testimony explains that Ecology will be able to monitor for seepage", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "from the tunnels or other unexpected water loss, neither the § 401 certification nor the", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "WQMP explicitly impose such monitoring conditions. For instance, while the § 401", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "certification requires water quality monitoring of the reservoir water discharged into", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "Swale Creek, as well as the water quality monitoring described in the WQMP, it does", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "not require monitoring or reporting of any change in water quantity either from the", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "closed-loop system or the downgradient monitoring wells. Similarly, while the WQMP", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "identifies both short- and long-term monitoring parameters, it only requires sampling", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "from the powerhouse at the project’s penstock and from the intake into the lower", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "reservoir on a semiannual basis. The WQMP does not require monitoring or reporting", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "of any change in water quantity from either monitoring location or downstream wells.", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "Given that the project’s § 401 certification does not explicitly require monitoring", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "and reporting to determine whether there is any leakage or seepage from the closed-", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "loop system—including the tunnels—the PCHB’s finding 16 is not supported by", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "substantial evidence in the record before it.", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/20", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "-20-", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "IV. SEPA", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "Riverkeeper and the Yakama Nation finally contend that Ecology erred in", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "considering information collected after the publication of the EIS to issue the project’s §", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "401 certification. Riverkeeper argues that Ecology undermined SEPA’s purpose by", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "relying on information obtained after the EIS was issued, none of which was available to", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "the public for commenting. Similarly, the Yakama Nation argues that when Ecology", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "received the additional information, it was “encouraged to make that information", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "available to the public before” making its decision. WAC 197-11-655(c). Said", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "differently, while conceding that Ecology could rely on information other than the EIS in", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "making its § 401 certification decision, the Yakama Nation nevertheless asserts that", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "Ecology was required to use the EIS unchanged, except in the scenario where there", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "[were] substantial changes to a proposal requiring preparation of a supplemental EIS", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "under WAC 197-11-600(3)(a)-(c).", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "But even assuming that Ecology was required to prepare a supplemental EIS for", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "public comment, the issue was not raised below, and accordingly we decline to address", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "it. RAP 2.5(a); RCW 34.05.554.", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "V. CONCLUSION", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "Finding 16 in the PCHB’s final order—that leakage from the project’s tunnels", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "would be monitored and reported—was not supported by substantial evidence in the", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "record before it. As a result, we set aside the § 401 certification on this limited issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "We remand for further proceedings for Ecology and the PCHB to impose monitoring and", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "reporting requirements to detect leakage from the project’s tunnels. We otherwise", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "affirm the § 401 certification.", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "No. 88259-7-I/21", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "-21-", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "WE CONCUR:", "paragraph_id": "para_524" } ], "word_count": 5678, "cites": [ "511 U.S. 700", "590 U.S. 165", "604 U.S. 334" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "803f41052af2edef9c9b0809dc23f6ce694d7cace5d53be48f21e52cac1ef6f3", "source_url": "https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/882597.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-06T07:16:27.295+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21", "neighbors": [ { "id": "us:ohioctapp-ca2026-03-035-2026-10-05", "name": "Alexander v. Conway", "decided": "2026-10-05", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2026-03-035-2026-10-05", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2026-03-035-2026-10-05", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohioctapp-ca2026-03-035-2026-10-05" }, { "id": "us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01", "name": "Lutheran Home v. DHS; Apl. of: Lutheran Home", "decided": "2026-10-01", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:pa-7-map-2025-2026-10-01" }, { "id": "us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30", "name": "State ex rel. Harris v. Put-in-Bay Police Dept.", "decided": "2026-09-30", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohio-2025-0367-2026-09-30" }, { "id": "us:illappct-3-24-0021-2026-09-30", "name": "International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. IL Commerce Comm'n", "decided": "2026-09-30", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:illappct-3-24-0021-2026-09-30", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:illappct-3-24-0021-2026-09-30", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:illappct-3-24-0021-2026-09-30" }, { "id": "us:dcd-civil-action-no-2024-0990-2026-09-29", "name": "Center for Biological Diversity v. Haaland", "decided": "2026-09-29", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2024-0990-2026-09-29", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2024-0990-2026-09-29", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2024-0990-2026-09-29" }, { "id": "us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23", "name": "Hayes Oyster Co. v. Dept. of Agriculture", "decided": "2026-09-23", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:orctapp-a187044-2026-09-23" }, { "id": "us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-3646-2026-09-22", "name": "Harris County, Texas v. United States Environmental Protection Agency", "decided": "2026-09-22", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-3646-2026-09-22", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-3646-2026-09-22", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:dcd-civil-action-no-2025-3646-2026-09-22" }, { "id": "us:ca1-24-1917-2026-09-18", "name": "Berkey International, LLC v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency", "decided": "2026-09-18", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ca1-24-1917-2026-09-18", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ca1-24-1917-2026-09-18", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ca1-24-1917-2026-09-18" }, { "id": "us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18", "name": "State ex rel. Kidd v. Clinton Cty. Bd. of Elections", "decided": "2026-09-18", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:ohio-2026-1165-2026-09-18" }, { "id": "us:wash-104-240-0-2026-09-17", "name": "Climate Sols. v. State", "decided": "2026-09-17", "judgment_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:wash-104-240-0-2026-09-17", "relations": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:wash-104-240-0-2026-09-17", "risk": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:wash-104-240-0-2026-09-17" } ], "verification": { "stored_sha256": "803f41052af2edef9c9b0809dc23f6ce694d7cace5d53be48f21e52cac1ef6f3", "recomputed_sha256": "803f41052af2edef9c9b0809dc23f6ce694d7cace5d53be48f21e52cac1ef6f3", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-20T20:54:08.926Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:2592940e125c00d338ca9cd6f2282996303b6b4c8cd888fadfcda6271f7a7e5d", "version": "legal-2026-10-20", "expires": "2026-10-21T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-20+legal-2026-10-20+2026-10-20T20:02:29", "content_hash": "sha256:2592940e125c00d338ca9cd6f2282996303b6b4c8cd888fadfcda6271f7a7e5d", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-20T21:54:09.706Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:washctapp-88259-7-2026-09-21" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "_sweep_notice": { "mode": "citation", "reason": "corpus sweep without measurable return", "vendor": "Anthropic", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text", "full_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise", "attribution": "cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source" }, "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }