The fate of Blounts Creek hanging in the balance, and in the court system, is one of the Washington Daily News’ Top 10 stories of the year.

The story started in 2013, when the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (now Department of Environmental Quality) issued a permit that would allow a mining company to discharge up to 12 million gallons of water per day into the headwaters of Blounts Creek. During a public hearing prior, environmental advocates argued this would change the pH of the upper creek sufficiently to harm aquatic species. The state, and the Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. disagreed, the permit was issued and advocates for Blounts Creek decided to take the case to the courts.

A year and a half later, Sound Rivers (formerly the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation), North Carolina Coastal Federation, represented by the Southern Environmental Law Center, got their day in court. It did not go well: In April, Administrative Hearing Judge Phil Berger Jr. ruled that the grassroots organizations had no legal standing to question a permit issued by DEQ; they were not “persons aggrieved.”

At the time, Sound Rivers Executive Director Harrison Marks said Berger’s ruling was deeply flawed.

“The other thing that the judge said in his ruling was really to say that we don’t have any standing in the courtroom, if we as citizens feel the government has violated the law,” Marks said. “The law, we believe, is quite clear on that we do.”

Within three weeks, an appeal was filed in Beaufort County Superior Court.

“The earlier court’s ruling disregarded well-established state and federal laws that allow citizens who live downstream to protect our creeks and rivers when DENR and state government fail to do so,” Geoff Gisler, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center wrote when the appeal was filed. “The scope of the earlier court decision would eliminate citizens’ right to enforce laws that protect favorite fishing and swimming holes as well as the water we drink.”

Though it would take until September for Superior Court Judge Douglas Parsons to hear the appeal, the Blounts Creek community and many other residents concerned for the potential negative environmental impact continued gathering support for the cause. In August, a “Save Blounts Creek” 5k and barbecue fundraiser drew 350 to Cotton Patch Landing and Marine on Blounts Creek. Marks said the turnout showed how much people care about the local waterways.

“I think it shows the level of appreciation, that people from all over the area — from north of the river and other places, not just Blounts Creek — understand how special (the creek) is. I think they’re all incredulous that it would be OK to destroy it, to turn it into something different. … It’s brought the community here together even more,” Marks said.

Beaufort County commissioners even got on board days before the September hearing, with a resolution in support of exploration better options for the discharge of millions of gallons of water that would be used in the mining process.

“The Beaufort County Board of Commissioners supports the rights of the citizens of Beaufort County to protect their recreational, aesthetic and economic interests in Blounts Creek and directs the Chairman of the Beaufort County Board of Commissioners and the County Manager to explore a possible alternative solution for the disposal of the water discharged form the Martin Marietta Mind into a fresh water creek, instead of into Blounts Creek,” the resolution stated.

“Save Blounts Creek” supporters showed up in masse to Beaufort County Superior Court on Sept. 17, when attorneys for DEQ and Martin Marietta Materials, Inc. and SELC addressed Parsons. SELC’s Gisler made the argument that Sound Rivers and NCCF not only had legal standing to question the permit, but that Department of Water Resources had violated the Clean Water Act and its own standards by not recognizing protections afforded to swamp waters and issuing a permit that would change the natural pH of the waters, potentially harming species already in existence there.

Lawyers for the Department of Justice argued that a change in pH would lead to a robustness of species in the creek; attorneys for Martin Marietta continued to make the case that neither of the plaintiffs, both environmental advocacy organizations, had any legal standing as “persons aggrieved.”

It took very little time for Parsons to order the case back to Office of Administrative Hearings, for a full evidentiary hearing that will include witness and expert testimony. During the proceeding he asked several questions of DOJ attorneys regarding why there was no evaluation of other discharge methods, even though both North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the Division of Marine Fisheries objected to the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) permit prior to its issuance.

While Sound Rivers was hoping Parsons would vacate the NPDES permit altogether, Pamlico-Tar riverkeeper Heather Jacobs Deck said his ruling was a victory two years in the making, not only for Sound Rivers but for all the members of the “Save Blounts Creek” committee and its supporters.

“The local community has rallied to protect to its creek when the state failed to do so,” Deck said.

The case further captured the attention of the EPA and cited the Blounts Creek case in warning to DEQ. In a letter dated Oct. 30, EPA Regional Administrator Heather McTeer Toney reminded DEQ Secretary Donald van der Vaart that both the federal Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act have minimum requirements that allow citizens to challenge CWA and CAA permits through the court system. Toney wrote that two recent court decisions, including the one by Berger, “cast serious doubt” about whether the agencies can abide by the EPA requirement.

“We must advise you that, should North Carolina appellate courts affirm decisions that limit citizen permit appeal rights in a manner which does not meet federal requirements, North Carolina’s authorization to implement CWA and CAA permitting programs will be in jeopardy with little prospect for remedying deficiencies without legislative action,” Toney stated in the letter.

“Basically, it says that your delegation, the state delegation could be in jeopardy, so state would no longer handle (the permitting). People would have to go straight to EPA,” said Pamlico-Tar riverkeeper Heather Jacobs Deck, with Sound Rivers. “To me, that’s a pretty strongly worded letter.”

At this time, there is no firm date on the next court date.