Sam Hess of Inside EPA is reporting that the U.S. Navy has agreed to apply for a Federal Clean Water Act NPDES permit authorizing the continuing use of the firing range at the Naval Surface Warfare Center Dahlgren on the Potomac River. Last summer, I wrote about Potomac Riverkeeper's lawsuit against the Navy for not having a NPDES permit authorizing its firing of munitions into the River.

The only thing remaining to be decided, either by the Navy and the NGO or by the Judge, is how much the Navy has to pay the NGO for suing it.

On the one hand, the Navy's agreement to obtain a NPDES permit to use its firing range is completely consistent with the United States Forest Service's agreement last year to obtain a NPDES permit in response to a lawsuit by the Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics alleging that the Forest Service needed Federal, and as many as 47 State, Clean Water Act permits to cover fighting fires from the air. 

Of course, no one is suggesting that the “pollutants” at issue, whether munitions or fire retardant, aren't going to continue to be released to the environment. But, based on these recent NGO successes, we should expect NGOs to make similar claims against other Federal agencies and others.

We also should expect that, at least during the Biden Administration, those claims will be settled by agreements to obtain NPDES permits.

Which brings me back to the question I think we all should be asking. Does anyone truly believe that Congress intended to subject the Navy and the Forest Service to criminal and civil penalties for fighting fires or firing munitions without a permit? And, given the monumental environmental challenges we face (including the very real contamination at many of our military bases at home and abroad), is permitting the fighting of fires and firing munitions really the best use of limited Federal and State resources?