Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

jurisdictionjudicial reviewclean water act
jurisdictionappealmotionjudicial reviewclean water act

Related Cases

Ohio Forestry Ass’n, Inc. v. Sierra Club, 523 U.S. 726, 118 S.Ct. 1665, 140 L.Ed.2d 921, 46 ERC 1577, 66 USLW 4376, 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,119, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3733, 98 Daily Journal D.A.R. 5150, 98 CJ C.A.R. 2473, 11 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 525
View Case »
Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Gorsuch, 742 F.2d 1028, 21 ERC 1481, 14 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,740
View Case »
Washington Environmental Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131, 77 ERC 1321, 13 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,444, 2013 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,868
View Case »
FMC Wyoming Corp. v. Surface Transp. Bd., Not Reported in F.3d, 2000 WL 1683473
View Case »
Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170, 69 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 44,508, 65 USLW 4169, 97 FCDR 754, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1531, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 2257, 97 CJ C.A.R. 298, 10 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. S 330
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Lake Cumberland Trust, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A., 954 F.2d 1218, 22 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,558

Facts

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approved an individual control strategy (ICS) submitted by the Kentucky Cabinet for the Jamestown wastewater treatment plant, which aimed to reduce copper pollutants discharged into Big Lily Creek. The approval followed the submission of lists identifying impaired waters and point sources of pollution by the Kentucky Cabinet, as mandated by the Clean Water Act. Petitioners sought to challenge the EPA's approval, arguing that it should be subject to judicial review.

The city of Jamestown, Kentucky, owns and operates the Russell County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The plant handles wastewater from the Union Underwear Company textile manufacturing plant, which discharges high volumes of copper pollutants.

Issue

Does the Clean Water Act provide for federal judicial review of the EPA's approval of state-developed individual control strategies?

Does the Clean Water Act provide for federal judicial review of the EPA's approval of state-developed individual control strategies?

Rule

The Clean Water Act, specifically 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(G), allows for judicial review of the EPA Administrator's actions in promulgating individual control strategies, but not in approving state-issued strategies.

Section 509(b)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1), sets forth the provisions regarding review of EPA actions. Subsection (G) of that section provides in pertinent part: Review of the [EPA] Administrator's action … in promulgating any individual control strategy under section 1314(l) of this title [section 304(l) of the CWA] may be had by any interested person in the Circuit Court of Appeals of the United States for the judicial district in which such person resides or transacts business … upon application by such person….

Analysis

The court analyzed the statutory language of the Clean Water Act and determined that 'promulgation' and 'approval' are distinct terms. It concluded that the EPA's approval of a state-issued ICS does not fall under the jurisdiction for review as outlined in Section 509(b)(1)(G) of the Act. The court referenced decisions from other circuits that similarly held that only EPA-promulgated ICSs are subject to judicial review.

We hold that for 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, 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(E), compels this conclusion.

Conclusion

The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the petition for review of the EPA's approval of the ICS, leading to the dismissal of the case.

Accordingly, we determine that we are without jurisdiction to hear Petitioners' petition for review.

Who won?

The Environmental Protection Agency and the City of Jamestown prevailed in the case because the court found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the EPA's approval of the ICS.

The EPA and the City of Jamestown filed motions to dismiss this Petition for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the Clean Water Act does not provide for federal judicial review of EPA approvals of state-developed ICS's.

You must be