Inside EPA is reporting that Potomac Riverkeeper and the United States Navy are discussing a settlement of the NGO's lawsuit alleging that the Navy's firing of munitions into the Potomac River without a NPDES permit violates the Clean Water Act.

The NGO alleges that the Navy has "discharged" into the Potomac, which is most certainly a Water of the United States, more than 33 million pounds of "pollutants" in the form of munitions containing “toxic metals, solvents, explosives and other potentially harmful constituents.”

Presumably, the Navy is discussing obtaining a NPDES permit for what is reportedly its largest over-the-water gun firing range.

This reminds me of the report this spring that the United States Forest Service had agreed to seek a NPDES permit authorizing its continued "discharging" (by dropping from an Air Tanker) of fire retardants to fight forest fires. 

I guess if a NPDES permit is required to fight fires then it makes sense that one is also required to fire munitions.  But, does anyone think that the Navy and the Forest Service would choose this course if their feet weren't being held to the fire by citizen suits?  One only has to look at the Federal Government's choices since the Clean Water Act was enacted a half century ago and until NGOs complained to know the answer to that question.

Which brings me to the question I asked last spring.  Does anyone truly believe that in prohibiting a discharge of a pollutant to a Water of the United States, other than with the benefit of a Federal permit, Congress intended to subject the Navy and the Forest Service to criminal and civil penalties for fighting fires or firing munitions?  And, given the monumental environmental challenges we face (including the very real contamination at many of our military bases at home and abroad), is this really what we should be spending limited Federal and State resources addressing?