## Facts

- Lewis R. Law formed Mine Management, Inc. (MMI) in 1977 and served as its sole officer and stockholder.
- In 1980, MMI bought property containing an old coal preparation plant, coal refuse (“gob piles”), and an existing runoff/leachate collection and treatment system.
- The system collected and routed water through a collection pond, pump and piping, a hopper dispensing soda ash to raise pH, and settling ponds, before discharge into Wolf Creek and Arbuckle Creek.
- The system had been subject to an NPDES permit before MMI’s purchase, but despite repeated notice from state officials, neither MMI nor Law obtained an NPDES permit authorizing discharges.
- From March 1987 through November 15, 1991, acid mine drainage (including acid and heavy metals) discharged from MMI’s collection/settling ponds into Wolf Creek and Arbuckle Creek on at least 16 occasions.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s jury instructions improperly rejected or failed to present the defendants’ theory that they merely diverted already-polluted waters rather than “discharged” pollutants under the Clean Water Act.
2. Whether the instructions correctly stated the elements and “knowing” mental state required for felony liability under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(2).
3. Whether the evidence supported individual criminal liability for Law as the responsible corporate officer.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions of Law and MMI.
- The court held that the jury instructions, read as a whole, accurately stated the Clean Water Act requirements and did not create reversible error regarding the defendants’ “mere diversion” theory.
- The court found sufficient evidence that defendants knowingly discharged pollutants from a point source into waters of the United States without an NPDES permit.
- The court upheld Law’s individual conviction based on his control of MMI and involvement in operations that allowed unpermitted discharges.

## Legal Principles

- The Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of any pollutant into waters of the United States except in compliance with the Act, including the NPDES permitting scheme.
- Routing and releasing contaminated water through discernible, confined conveyances (such as ponds, pipes, and treatment structures) can constitute discharges from a “point source.”
- A “mere diversion” theory does not defeat liability where the defendant’s property and facilities generate or introduce pollutants that are added to receiving waters.
- Jury instructions are evaluated in their entirety; omission of a defense theory is not reversible error where the instructions correctly state the law and the theory lacks evidentiary support.
- A responsible corporate officer may be held criminally liable under the Clean Water Act when the officer knowingly participates in or permits unlawful discharges.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed felony Clean Water Act convictions where a mine-related collection and treatment system discharged acid mine drainage to creeks without an NPDES permit, rejecting a “mere diversion” characterization because the evidence showed defendants’ facilities were the source and controlled conveyance of the pollutants, and sustaining individual liability for the company’s sole controlling officer.


United States v. Law, 979 F.2d 977 (4th Cir. 1992)