Association to Protect Hammersley, Eld, and Totten Inlets v. Taylor Resources, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
299 F.3d 1007 (2002)
- Written by Tammy Boggs, JD
Facts
Taylor Resources Inc. (Taylor) (defendant) ran two mussel-harvesting facilities in Totten Inlet of Puget Sound, Washington. Taylor attached mussel “seeds” to suspension ropes that hung from floating rafts, and the mussels then grew without any help from Taylor by feeding on nutrients naturally found in Puget Sound. As they grew, the tiny mussels produced and released particulate matter, feces, and other byproducts of their metabolic processes, like ammonia. At the same time, the mussels’ biological processes filtered the seawater. Sometimes mussels could become separated from their shells. For its mussel-harvesting facilities, Taylor had attempted to apply for a permit from Washington’s Department of Ecology (the department), which administered the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the state, but the department would not accept Taylor’s application, believing that a permit was not required. The department opined that shellfish farmers did not have to add fish food to the water for shellfish to grow and accordingly did not pollute the water. The Association to Protect Hammersley, Eld, and Totten Inlets (the association) (plaintiff) sued Taylor in district court alleging violations of the CWA based on discharged “pollutants” from Taylor’s mussel-harvesting facilities. The district court granted summary judgment to Taylor, and the association appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gould, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 781,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
