New Hampshire
How County of Maui v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund applies in New Hampshire: state-specific rules, key cases, and bar exam notes for Environmental Law (Clean Water Act).
New Hampshire follows a similar interpretative standard as established in the County of Maui case by addressing the definition of 'discharge of a pollutant' and its implications for point source pollution under state law. The state emphasizes the connection between the source of pollutants and their impact on navigable waters.
In New Hampshire, a discharge of a pollutant requires a direct connection (or functional equivalent) between the pollutant source and state waters, as established under RSA 485-A:2.
The court ruled that the city's wastewater treatment facility required a permit under the Clean Water Act, emphasizing the need for compliance to prevent pollutant discharge.
The court highlighted that negligent discharges of pollutants from a non-point source still require permitting if they significantly affect water quality.
This case affirmed that the Clean Water Act applies beyond point sources when there is a clear nexus between the pollutant source and water quality degradation.
New Hampshire’s approach is aligned with the federal standard set by the EPA under the Clean Water Act, as both emphasize the importance of a direct connection for liability. However, state interpretations may expand the functional equivalent doctrine more liberally in protecting water quality.
Candidates should be familiar with how New Hampshire applies the principles established in County of Maui, particularly concerning discharge permits and substantive environmental protections.