Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CHILLISQUAQUE CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION v. SANITARY WATER BOARD (08/02/71)

decided: August 2, 1971.

CHILLISQUAQUE CREEK WATERSHED ASSOCIATION
v.
SANITARY WATER BOARD



Appeal from the adjudication of the Sanitary Water Board at Docket No. 70-47, granting, with conditions, Application No. 4470201 requesting industrial waste permit. Protestants appealed.

COUNSEL

John D. Killian, with him Killian & Gephart, for appellants.

Allen B. Zerfoss, Assistant Attorney General, with him William M. Gross, Assistant Attorney General, and J. Shane Creamer, Attorney General, for appellee Sanitary Water Board.

Gennaro D. Caliendo, with him Vincent Butler, for intervening appellee.

President Judge Bowman and Judges Crumlish, Jr., Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., Manderino, Mencer and Rogers. Opinion by Judge Wilkinson. Dissenting Opinion by Judge Kramer. Judge Manderino joins in this dissent.

Author: Wilkinson

[ 2 Pa. Commw. Page 562]

This is an appeal from the adjudication of the Sanitary Water Board, predecessor of the Environmental Hearing Board, overruling appellants' objections to the issuance to intervening appellee of a permit to discharge industrial waste from its proposed steam electric station into Chillisquaque Creek and directing the issuance of a permit when the Department of Environmental Resources is satisfied that intervening appellee has complied with all requirements of appropriate State governmental agencies relating to flood control. The permit was later issued, qualified by 16 standard conditions and seven special conditions.

The appeal is based on three basic propositions:

1. Granting this permit was an abuse of discretion by the Board without first establishing specific water quality criteria for Chillisquaque Creek;

2. Quantity as well as quality of the discharge should have been and was not considered by the Board;

3. Sufficient studies have not been made on which to issue a permit.

We cannot agree with the appellants' position and, therefore, must dismiss this appeal.

Appellants do not direct us to any statutory requirement or court decision requiring the Board to establish specific water quality criteria prior to issuing a permit and we find none. Appellants state that such action is an abuse of the Board's discretion. A ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.