Interstate Pipeline Project: Federal Appellate Court Addresses Challenge to State Water Quality Certification

by Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

Download PDF

The United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit (“Court”) addressed a challenge to a permit issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”) related to the proposed construction of an interstate pipeline project. See Delaware Riverkeeper Network, et al. v. Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, et al., No. 17-1533 (August 30, 2017).

The proposed interstate pipeline project (“Project”) is described as 12.9 miles of pipeline transporting natural gas via Pennsylvania.

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) was designated the lead agency as required by the Natural Gas Act of 1938 since the project was one that involved multiple states. Project approval by the FERC required that the applicant obtain any other state or federal licenses required by law.

One such license is denominated a Water Quality Certification (“WQC”) which is required by Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. 1341. The Court describes this provision as:

. . . a Water Quality Certification confirms that a given facility will comply with federal discharge limitations and state water quality standards.

DEP had responsibility for addressing WQCs or activities affecting the State of Pennsylvania’s waters.

To obtain a WQC from DEP applicants were required to obtain a Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit pursuant to 25 Pa. Code Ch. 105. Such permits are referenced as “Chapter 105 permits.” They are required to give special protection to “exceptional value” wetlands. These are wetlands that are located along the drinking water supply or serve as the habitat for endangered species.

The Project would affect a total of 13 exceptional-value wetlands.

To provide a Chapter 105 permit for the project, since it affected exceptional-value wetlands, the agency was required to certify that certain state statutory requirements were met. The two relevant requirements included:

  1. The project is water-dependent. A project is water-dependent when the project requires access or proximity to or siting within the wetland to fulfill the basic purposes of the project.
  2. There is no practicable alternative to the proposed project that would not involve a wetland or that would have less effect on the wetland, and not have other significant adverse effects on the environment.

DEP subsequently issued a conditional WQC for the project and two Chapter 105 permits. The agency certified that the project:

. . . “[i]s water dependent” and would be “the least environmentally damaging alternative.”

The Delaware Riverkeeper Network and others (collectively “Riverkeeper”) petitioned the Court for review.

The Court initially resolved jurisdictional issues. It then addressed the challenge to DEP’s decisions which included whether:

  1. DEP erred in addressing the “water dependency” question

  2. DEP erred by eliminating a “compression” alternative

Riverkeeper argued that DEP should not have classified the project as water dependent. The organization contended that linear infrastructure projects (i.e., pipelines and roads) are categorically not water dependent.

In support of its objection to DEP’s finding of water dependency, Riverkeeper cited the United States Army Corps of Engineers explanation of the concept (in regards to linear infrastructure):

[T]he purpose of a residential development is to provide housing for people. Houses do not have to be located in a special aquatic site to fulfil the basic purpose of the project, i.e., providing shelter. Therefore, a residential development is not water dependent. . . . Examples of water dependent projects include, but are not limited to, dams, marinas, mooring facilities and docks. The basic purpose of these projects is to provide access to the water.

This language was cited in Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp 709 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1261(S.D. Fla. 2009)(quoting United States Army Corps of Engineers Standard Operating Procedures for Regulatory Programs).

As a result, Riverkeeper deemed the pipeline projects not water dependent because, unlike a dam, marina, or dock, pipelines are not by their nature dependent on being in or near water. This is argued to be the case even if the proposed construction route would intersect a wetland or water body.

DEP conceded that Riverkeeper’s contention may be correct under federal law. However, the state agency argued that Pennsylvania law may dictate a different result.

DEP determined that the proposed project looping “needs to cross the wetland areas to access land on either side of the wetland system” because “there are no practicable crossing alternatives to avoid the crossing.” The agency’s rejection of alternatives in the project and identification of the proposed path was deemed to unavoidably cross wetlands. Therefore, DEP concluded that it was water dependent. In other words, as the Court notes, rather than treating water dependency and alternatives as two distinct inquiries, DEP combined them into one step.

The Court rejected Riverkeeper’s argument that the federal understanding of water dependency should control. Despite the similarity between the relevant federal and Pennsylvania language, it stated that DEP relied on a regulatory provision that differed from the one found in the federal scheme. This cited provision was deemed by the Court to endorse “a more flexible approach to water dependency.” It is described as a provision stating that a water dependency finding “must be based on” the unavailability of alternatives in the project’s ability to avoid or minimize the adverse impact of the . . . encroachment upon the environment.” See 25 Pa. Code § 105.14(b)(7).

The cited language was found to support DEP’s interpretation and conclusion as to water dependency (based on its finding that no alternative location, route or design could avoid adverse impacts on aquatic sites in the environment). relevant provisions were considered conflicting and the Court concluded that the meaning of “water dependent” under Pennsylvania law is ambiguous.

Next the Court addressed whether, as with a federal agency, the state agency (i.e., DEP) should receive deference in its interpretation. It concludes that such deference is appropriate and that DEP’s interpretation of water dependency is reasonable.

The Court also addressed Riverkeeper’s argument that despite a water dependency finding, the agency’s alternative analysis was erroneous. The organization asserted that DEP was required to embrace a “compression alternative.” This alternative is described as increasing the amount of natural gas transported through existing pipelines. Such an alternative would therefore avoid all impacts on wetlands and water bodies from the construction of the project.

The Court held that DEP considered the compression alternative and rejected it for reasons supported by the record.

Tennessee Gas included an alternative analysis in its DEP application. The Court noted that Gas’s alternative analysis rejected the compression alternative because it would require adding a new greenfield compressor station. The environmental impacts associated with the construction of this facility were described by the company as less than the pipeline’s because these areas would be allowed to re-vegetate. Despite the fact that DEP did not expressly mention compression in its alternative analysis, the Court noted the agency’s review of Gas’s report in its adoption of the conclusions. It concluded that DEP did not arbitrarily and capriciously disregard the compression alternative.

The Court therefore upheld DEP’s decision to issue the Chapter 105 permits and deny Riverkeeper’s petition.

A copy of the opinion can be downloaded here.

Written by:

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C.

Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, P.L.L.C. on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.