Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

jurisdictionappealjudicial reviewclean water act

jurisdictionattorneyappealclean water act

Related Cases

Boise Cascade Corp. v. U.S. E.P.A., 942 F.2d 1427, 33 ERC 1693, 60 USLW 2181, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,007

Facts

California and Oregon submitted ICSs to the EPA to manage toxic pollutant discharges into their waters. The EPA approved these ICSs, but challengers, including Citizens for a Better Environment and several pulp and paper mills, filed petitions for review. The court found that the EPA's approval did not constitute a 'promulgation' under the Clean Water Act, leading to a lack of jurisdiction for the Court of Appeals to review the decisions.

California submitted the section 1314(l) lists to the EPA in February 1989. The South San Francisco Bay was included on the B-list of water segments impaired by the discharge of section 1317(a) toxic pollutants. Area storm drains were identified as point sources contributing to violations of water quality standards.

Issue

Whether the EPA's approval of individual control strategies (ICSs) submitted by California and Oregon is subject to review by the Court of Appeals under the Clean Water Act.

Rule

The Clean Water Act, specifically 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1), delineates the actions of the EPA that are subject to review, distinguishing between 'promulgation' and 'approval' of control strategies.

33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1) provides: Review of the Administrator's action … (G) in promulgating any individual control strategy under section 1314(1) of this title, may be had by any interested person in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States for the Federal judicial district in which such person resides or transacts business which is directly affected by such action upon application by such person.

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory language of the Clean Water Act, concluding that 'promulgation' is distinct from 'approval.' The court emphasized that Congress intended for only certain EPA actions to be reviewable in federal courts, and since the approval of ICSs did not fall under the definition of 'promulgation,' the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction to review the EPA's actions.

We hold that for the purposes of section 1369(b)(1), 'promulgation' is not the same as 'approval.' The difference between subsection (G) and subsection (E), which provides for review of EPA decisions 'approving or promulgating' effluent limitations, compels this conclusion.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction, affirming that the EPA's approval of ICSs does not constitute a reviewable action under the Clean Water Act.

The petitions are DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

Who won?

The Environmental Protection Agency prevailed in the case as the court dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction, affirming the EPA's authority in approving ICSs without judicial review.

The EPA and the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Dischargers' request for attorney's fees in No. 91–70056 is DENIED.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

S.D. Warren Co. v. Maine Bd. of Environmental Protection, 547 U.S. 370, 126 S.Ct. 1843, 164 L.Ed.2d 625, 62 ERC 1257, 74 USLW 4244, 36 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,089, 06 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3937, 2006 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5759, 19 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 193, 17 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 807

Danforth v. United States, Not Reported in Fed. Supp., 2022 WL 3227637

Consolidation Coal Company v. Georgia Power Company, 781 F.3d 129, 80 ERC 1350

Palazzolo v. State, 754 So.2d 731, 25 Fla. L. Weekly D174

Sycamore Industrial Park Associates v. Ericsson, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2007 WL 1030298, 65 ERC 1341