explaining that the critical inquiry is “whether [the stormwa-ter] is allowed to run off naturally (and is thus a nonpoint source) or is collected, channeled, and discharged through a system of ditches, culverts, channels, and similar conveyances (and is thus a point source discharge)” (internal quotation marks omitted)
How later courts described this case
- explaining that the critical inquiry is “whether [the stormwa-ter] is allowed to run off naturally (and is thus a nonpoint source) or is collected, channeled, and discharged through a system of ditches, culverts, channels, and similar conveyances (and is thus a point source discharge)” (internal quotation marks omitted)
- holding that “materials left to accumulate long after they had served their intended purpose” — specifically, five million pounds of lead bullets and 11 million pounds of clay target debris accumulated for nearly 70 years at a firing range — met RCRA’s statutory definition of solid waste”
- explaining a district courts’ discretion in 19 dismissing a complaint without leave to amend as based on five factors: “bad faith, undue 20 delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and whether the plaintiff 21 has previously amended the complaint”
- affirming lower court’s dismissal of complaint claiming that utility company had violated RCRA by treating utility poles with wood preservative, which was released over time and was in turn “discarded” by rain water falling on poles; concluding that such wood preservative was not “discarded”, and therefore was not “solid waste” under RCRA, where it was released into the environment as an expected consequence of its intended use
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
HURWITZ, Circuit Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the result:
I concur in the majority opinion except insofar as it holds that utility poles cannot be point sources for purposes of the Clean Water Act under circumstances not presented by this case. See supra pp. 508-10. Resolution of this difficult issue is entirely unnecessary, given the opinion’s conclusion — which I join — that the defendants’ utility poles are not “associated with industrial activity.” See supra pp. 511-14.