Case Title: Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Comm’rs v. Nally

Citation: 2015-Ohio-991

Docket Number: 2013-1085

State: ohio

Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Date: 2015-03-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as 
Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Nally, Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-991.] 
 
 
NOTICE 
This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in 
an advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports.  Readers are requested 
to promptly notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 
65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or 
other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be 
made before the opinion is published. 
 
SLIP OPINION NO. 2015-OHIO-991 
FAIRFIELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, APPELLANT, v. NALLY, 
DIR., APPELLEE. 
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it 
may be cited as Fairfield Cty. Bd. of Commrs. v. Nally,  
Slip Opinion No. 2015-Ohio-991.] 
R.C. Chapter 119—Rulemaking—Ohio Environmental Protection Agency—
Water-quality standards—Total maximum daily load established by 
agency is a rule subject to requirements of R.C. Chapter 119—Ohio EPA 
must follow rulemaking procedure before submitting total maximum daily 
load to federal EPA for its approval and before total maximum daily load 
may be implemented in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 
permit. 
(No. 2013-1085—Submitted June 25, 2014—Decided March 24, 2015.) 
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County,  
No. 11AP-508, 2013-Ohio-2106. 
_________________ 
 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
2 
SYLLABUS OF THE COURT 
1. A total maximum daily load established by the Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 
1251 et seq., is a rule that is subject to the requirements of R.C. Chapter 
119, the Ohio Administrative Procedure Act.   
 
2.  The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency must follow the rulemaking 
procedure in  R.C. Chapter 119 before submitting a total maximum daily 
load to the United States Environmental Protection Agency for its 
approval and before the total maximum daily load may be implemented in 
a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. 
________________ 
 
LANZINGER, J. 
I. Introduction 
{¶ 1} This environmental case challenges the procedure used by the 
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (“Ohio EPA”) in issuing a renewed 
water-discharge permit to the Tussing Road Water Reclamation Facility in 
Fairfield County (the “Tussing Road plant”).  The  wastewater-treatment plant, 
because it  discharges certain substances into Blacklick Creek,  is required to 
obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit 
from Ohio EPA under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251 et 
seq. (“the  Clean Water Act”).  See 33 U.S.C. 1342(a); R.C. 6111.03. 
{¶ 2} Appellant, the Fairfield County Board of Commissioners (“the 
county”), challenges the validity of new phosphorus limitations added on June 30, 
2006, to the Tussing Road plant’s renewed NPDES permit. The county alleges 
that Ohio EPA ignored the administrative rulemaking procedures required by R.C. 
January Term, 2015 
3 
Chapter 119 and imposed the new limits solely on the approval by the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”) of a total maximum daily 
load (“TMDL”)1 established for the watershed in question.  The county contends 
that it should have had a full and fair opportunity to be heard and the right to 
review and challenge the TMDL before it was submitted to U.S. EPA.  Ohio EPA, 
on the other hand, maintains that a TMDL is not subject to state rulemaking 
requirements because it is not a rule. Ohio EPA argues that a party already has an 
adequate opportunity to challenge the application of pollutant limitations before 
an NPDES permit is issued. 
{¶ 3} We agree with the county’s position.  And although we affirm the 
judgment of the court of appeals that vacated the NPDES phosphorus limitations, 
we do so for different reasons.  A TMDL established by Ohio EPA pursuant to the 
Clean Water Act is a rule that is subject to the requirements of R.C. Chapter 119, 
the Ohio Administrative Procedure Act. Such a rule must be properly 
promulgated by the state before it is submitted for approval to U.S. EPA. We hold 
that Ohio EPA must follow the procedures in R.C. Chapter 119 before the TMDL 
may be implemented in an NPDES permit. 
II. 
Case Procedure 
{¶ 4} Fairfield County owns and operates its Tussing Road wastewater-
treatment plant in Pickerington, Ohio, near Blacklick Creek.  The plant discharges 
treated wastewater into Blacklick Creek pursuant to an NPDES permit, which is 
required for “point sources.”2  See generally R.C. 6111.04. 
                                          
 
1 Briefly defined, a TMDL is “a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a 
waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards * * *.”  http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs 
/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/overviewoftmdl.cfm. 
2 Ohio Adm.Code 3745-33-01(AA) defines “point source” as “any discernible, confined and 
discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, channel, tunnel, conduit, well, 
discrete fissure, container, rolling stock, concentrated animal feeding operation, or vessel or other 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
4 
{¶ 5} The county applied for renewal of the NPDES permit for the 
Tussing Road plant on Blacklick Creek, and a renewal was issued on June 30, 
2006.  The renewed permit contained a new condition limiting the discharge of 
phosphorus.  In imposing this new limit, Ohio EPA relied on its August 19, 2005 
report titled,  “Total Maximum Daily Loads for the Big Walnut Creek Watershed” 
(“the TMDL report”), available, minus the appendices, at http://www.epa. 
state.oh.us/portals/35/tmdl/BWC_Final%20081505.pdf  (accessed Mar. 12, 2015). 
{¶ 6} The county filed a notice of appeal with the Environmental Review 
Appeals Commission (“ERAC”), arguing, among other things, that the 
phosphorus limitation in the Tussing Road NPDES permit was unlawful and 
unreasonable. 
{¶ 7} After a hearing held from February 9 to 13, 2009, ERAC 
determined that Ohio EPA had a valid foundation for imposing the phosphorus 
limit in the renewed NPDES permit.  2011 WL 1841913 (May 12, 2011).  But 
ERAC determined that the agency had violated R.C. 6111.03(J)(3) by failing to 
consider whether the permit limits on phosphorus were technologically feasible 
and economically reasonable.  Id. at ¶ 88-89.  ERAC vacated the phosphorus limit 
contained in the NPDES permit and remanded the case to Ohio EPA for further 
consideration. 
{¶ 8} The county appealed ERAC’s conclusion that Ohio EPA had a 
valid foundation for imposing the phosphorus limit.  Ohio EPA cross-appealed, 
arguing that the TMDL had been federally approved and that Ohio EPA is 
required by law to set a limit that is consistent with that approved limit. 
                                                                                                                   
floating craft, from which pollutants are or may be discharged.”  Ohio Adm.Code 3745-33-01(V) 
defines “nonpoint source” as “any source of pollutants other than those defined or designated as 
point sources.”   
January Term, 2015 
5 
{¶ 9} The Tenth District Court of Appeals affirmed ERAC’s order, 
stating that the TMDL provided a “sufficient factual foundation for the 
phosphorus limitation” in the permit, that it constituted reliable, probative, and 
substantial evidence to support the order, and that it was developed in accordance 
with state and federal law.  2013-Ohio-2106, at ¶ 66.  The court of appeals also 
rejected the county’s argument that NPDES permit limitations are not subject to 
meaningful review and therefore violate due process.  Id. at ¶ 77-80. 
{¶ 10} The county appealed to this court, and we agreed to decide three 
propositions of law: (1) whether a TMDL is a “rule” that must be promulgated  
under Ohio law before it can be the basis of an NPDES permit limit,  (2) whether 
Ohio EPA’s duty to provide a factual foundation for the permit limit is satisfied 
solely by reliance on a TMDL approved by U.S. EPA, and (3) whether ERAC’s 
failure to consider evidence opposing the limit unconstitutionally insulates the 
TMDL from a meaningful review and denies the challenging party its right to due 
process of law.  137 Ohio St.3d 1469, 2014-Ohio-105, 1 N.E.3d 433. 
Issues Summarized 
{¶ 11} To summarize, we must determine whether the TMDL is a “rule” 
that requires Ohio EPA to undergo R.C. Chapter 119 rulemaking and whether the 
procedures used instead by the agency and approved by the Tenth District 
prevented the county from obtaining due process. 
{¶ 12} A brief look at the underlying statues and regulations is in order. 
III.  Statutory Overview and Relevant Definitions 
Ohio’s Obligations under the Clean Water Act 
{¶ 13} The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, codified at 33 U.S.C. 
1251 et seq., also known as the Clean Water Act, is the federal law designed to 
control and abate water pollution.  Ohio EPA has been authorized to develop 
appropriate environmental protections for the state in furtherance of the Clean 
Water Act’s objective “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
6 
biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”  33 U.S.C. 1251(a); see R.C. 3745.01 
(creating the agency to “administer laws pertaining to * * * the prevention, 
control, and abatement of * * * water pollution”).  The Clean Water Act seeks to 
achieve these goals through the use of two methods: (1) technology-based effluent 
limitations on “point sources” from which pollutants are discharged, which may 
require equipment and process changes for the point source, see 33 U.S.C. 1311, 
and (2) water-quality standards, which classify a body of water by its designated 
use and set criteria for protecting that use, see 33 U.S.C. 1313. 
{¶ 14} Section 303(d)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act requires that every 
state identify those waters within its boundaries for which the required effluent 
limitations “are not stringent enough to implement any water quality standards 
applicable to such waters.”  33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(A).  The state must rank these 
impaired waterways based on the severity of the pollution and the use of the 
waters.  Id.  Based on this ranking, the state must develop a TMDL “for those 
pollutants which [U.S. EPA] identifies under section 1314(a)(2) of this title as 
suitable for such calculation.”  33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(C).  U.S. EPA determined 
that all pollutants are suitable for TMDL calculation.  43 Fed.Reg. 60,662; 
Virginia Dept. of Transp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, E.D.Va. No. 
1:12-CV-775, 2013 WL 53741, * 1 (Jan. 13, 2013).  The TMDL sets the 
maximum amount of a pollutant that may be discharged without causing the 
receiving body of water to violate water-quality standards.  33 U.S.C. 
1313(d)(1)(C). 
{¶ 15} The state then is required to submit each TMDL to U.S. EPA for 
its approval.  33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(2).  U.S. EPA must approve or disapprove a 
state’s TMDL within 30 days of submission.  Id.  If U.S. EPA disapproves of any 
TMDL, it has 30 days from the date of disapproval to establish a new TMDL.  Id. 
{¶ 16} Once a TMDL is federally approved, the state shall incorporate 
them.  33 U.S.C. 1313(d) and (e).  Any NPDES permit must include limits that 
January Term, 2015 
7 
are “consistent with the assumptions and requirements” set forth in the TMDL.  
40 C.F.R. 122.44(d)(1)(vii)(B).  The goal is for each state to establish limitations 
on pollutants in order to implement applicable water-quality standards and restore 
those waterways that have been identified as impaired.  Developing the TMDL of 
pollutants for each such waterway in the state is one way of accomplishing those 
goals. 
The Total Maximum Daily Load  
{¶ 17} Just as many other environmental concepts do, a TMDL has a 
technical definition: 
 
Total maximum daily load (TMDL).  The sum of the 
individual WLAs [wasteload allocations] for point sources and 
LAs [load allocations] for nonpoint sources and natural 
background.  If a receiving water has only one point source 
discharger, the TMDL is the sum of that point source WLA plus 
the LAs for any nonpoint sources of pollution and natural 
background sources, tributaries, or adjacent segments.  TMDLs 
can be expressed in terms of either mass per time, toxicity, or other 
appropriate measure.  If Best Management Practices (BMPs) or 
other nonpoint source pollution controls make more stringent load 
allocations practicable, then wasteload allocations can be made 
less stringent.  Thus, the TMDL process provides for nonpoint 
source control tradeoffs. 
 
40 C.F.R. 130.2(i). 
{¶ 18} As defined more clearly in the TMDL report, a TMDL focuses on 
the water body and is “a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant that a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
8 
waterbody can receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation of 
that amount to the pollutant’s sources.”  Id. at 1. 
{¶ 19} As of May 9, 2013, Ohio EPA had listed approximately 86 water 
bodies for TMDL development, approximately one-half of which have been 
completed and approved by U.S. EPA, with the remaining in various stages of 
development.  (A map of Ohio showing the stage of TMDL development across 
the 
state 
may 
be 
downloaded 
from 
Ohio 
EPA’s 
TMDL 
website, 
http://epa.ohio.gov/dsw/tmdl/ index.aspx (accessed Mar. 12, 2015)). 
Big Walnut Creek TMDL 
{¶ 20} Establishing a TMDL involves consideration of numerous factors, 
including the type of water body at issue, the pollutant sources contributing to 
water quality, and the types of pollutants involved.  See generally Ohio 
Adm.Code 3745-2-12.  Development of the TMDL for Big Walnut Creek Basin 
began with an Ohio EPA study in 2000 with a stream survey of Blacklick Creek, 
which is one of 54 “stream segments” in the Big Walnut Creek watershed.  As 
part of the survey, Ohio EPA collected biological and chemical data from 
upstream and downstream of the Tussing Road plant.  Based on the results of the 
survey, Ohio EPA concluded that the Tussing Road plant was contributing to 
organic and nutrient enrichment in Blacklick Creek, a negative environmental 
situation.3  According to Ohio EPA, this eventually required a new phosphorus 
limitation to be added for the Tussing Road plant’s NPDES permit. 
                                          
 
3 “Elevated concentrations of nutrients can lead to excessive, often unsightly, growth of aquatic 
plants.  Overgrowth of aquatic plants can clog water-intake pipes and filters and can interfere with 
recreational activities, such as fishing, swimming, and boating.  Subsequent decay of aquatic 
plants can result in foul odors and taste.”   New Studies Initiated by the U.S. Geological Survey—
Effects of Nutrient Enrichment on Stream Ecosystems 1 (Dec.2003) (available at http://pubs. 
usgs.gov/fs/fs11803/) (last accessed Mar. 12, 2015).   
January Term, 2015 
9 
{¶ 21} The agency argues that it engaged in a lengthy process to develop 
the Big Walnut Creek watershed TMDL.  Ohio EPA collected data and 
information to assess impairments in the quality of the watershed and identify 
possible causes and sources of those impairments.  One type of impairment is 
nutrient enrichment, which causes nuisance growths of aquatic weeds and algae.  
Excessive concentrations of phosphorus contribute to nutrient enrichment.  The 
TMDL report found that nutrient enrichment was a primary cause of impairment 
in the Big Walnut Creek watershed.  To address that issue, the report established a 
phosphorus discharge limit for various sources, including the Tussing Road plant. 
{¶ 22} Ohio EPA relies on the outcome of its process, the TMDL report, a 
lengthy document containing data and analyses, graphs and charts, assumptions 
and policy choices. The agency denies that the TMDL itself is a rule, calling it 
simply guidance.  We have emphasized that “  ‘[i]t is the effect of the [document], 
not how the [agency] chooses to characterize it, that is important’ ” in determining 
whether a document qualifies as a rule.  (Brackets sic.)  State ex rel. Saunders v. 
Indus. Comm., 101 Ohio St.3d 125, 2004-Ohio-339, 802 N.E.2d 650, ¶ 26, 
quoting Ohio Nurses Assn., Inc. v. Ohio State Bd. of Nursing Edn. & Nurse 
Registration, 44 Ohio St.3d 73, 76, 540 N.E.2d 1354 (1989). 
{¶ 23} We now consider whether the TMDL is a rule. 
IV. 
Legal Analysis 
Characterization of the TMDL: Is It a Rule? 
{¶ 24} In relying on federal approval of the TMDL to affirm ERAC’s 
order, the Tenth District Court of Appeals considered the argument that the 
TMDL was a rule requiring formal promulgation under R.C. Chapter 119 and 
dismissed it in a few sentences.  2013-Ohio-2106, ¶ 76. 
{¶ 25} R.C. 119.02 broadly states: 
 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
10 
Every agency authorized by law to adopt, amend, or 
rescind rules shall comply with the procedure prescribed in 
sections 119.01 to 119.13, inclusive, of the Revised Code, for the 
adoption, amendment, or rescission of rules. Unless otherwise 
specifically provided by law, the failure of any agency to comply 
with such procedure shall invalidate any rule or amendment 
adopted, or the rescission of any rule. 
 
{¶ 26} A “rule” is defined as  
 
any rule, regulation, or standard, having a general and uniform 
operation, adopted, promulgated, and enforced by any agency 
under the authority of the laws governing such agency, and 
includes any appendix to a rule. “Rule” does not include any 
internal management rule of an agency unless the internal 
management rule affects private rights * * *. 
 
(Emphasis added.)   R.C. 119.01(C). 
{¶ 27} The county contends that a TMDL is a rule for several reasons:  (1) 
it sets the maximum amount of pollution that a particular water body can 
accommodate, (2) it elevates target values from a technical guidance document 
into de facto water-quality standards for the water body, and (3) it develops a 
second set of standards (consisting of the loading “allocation diet”) required to 
achieve the new standard.  The county asserts that when Ohio EPA applies this 
mandatory “diet” to numerous sources discharging into a specific water body or 
watershed, the TMDL is being applied just like any other rule. 
{¶ 28} Ohio EPA counters that the TMDL is not a rule because (1) the 
TMDL’s recommended discharge limits are not binding and do not impose any 
January Term, 2015 
11 
legal duties, (2) TMDL reports are merely tools that assist Ohio EPA in fulfilling 
already existing legal obligations for improving water quality, and (3) the General 
Assembly did not intend for TMDLs to be developed as formal rules. 
{¶ 29} We agree with the county. While it is true that guidelines for 
interpreting existing rules that do not substantively alter them are not subject to 
formal rulemaking, the TMDL is a “standard” that has “a general and uniform 
operation” within the meaning of R.C. 119.01(C).  It does more than simply aid in 
the interpretation of existing rules or statutes.  Instead, it prescribes a legal 
standard that did not previously exist.  As such, it must first be formally 
promulgated as a rule pursuant to R.C. Chapter 119 before it can be enforced 
against the general public.  See, e.g., Ohio Nurses Assn., 44 Ohio St.3d 73, 540 
N.E.2d 1354; Jackson Cty. Environmental Commt. v. Schregardus, 95 Ohio 
App.3d 527, 642 N.E.2d 1142 (10th Dist.1994) (holding that Ohio EPA cannot 
regulate through “guidelines” that are in reality rules requiring formal 
promulgation). 
{¶ 30} While the TMDL at issue also has characteristics that are 
discharger-specific, i.e., not strictly uniform, the county’s Tussing Road plant, as 
a point source, is but one of many affected by the TMDL.  The TMDL applies to 
all current and future dischargers in the Big Walnut Creek watershed.  The TMDL 
applies to a large segment of the public rather than a narrow group and is 
generally and uniformly applicable.  Requiring Ohio EPA to undertake 
rulemaking procedures before applying the new standard set forth in the TMDL 
ensures that all stakeholders in the watershed have an opportunity to express their 
views on the wisdom of the proposal and to contest its legality if they so desire.  
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Dist. v. Shank, 58 Ohio St.3d 16, 24, 567 N.E.2d 
993 (1991). 
{¶ 31} Although Ohio EPA strongly maintains that a TMDL is simply a 
tool for implementing the agency’s already-existing legal obligations, this 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
12 
statement ignores the consequences of a TMDL.  Once Ohio EPA establishes a 
TMDL, it must develop an implementation plan for the TMDL, and if applicable 
water-quality standards will not be immediately attained, the plan must include 
reasonable assurances that those standards will be attained in a reasonable period 
of time. Ohio Adm.Code 3745-2-12(A)(2) and (E). Additionally, for each 
established TMDL, pollutant loads allocated to point sources in a TMDL must be 
used to develop wasteload allocations for those point sources, and wasteload 
allocations determined as part of a TMDL shall be used to determine water-
quality-based effluent limits4 for that discharge.  Ohio Adm.Code 3745-2-12(G) 
and (G)(4).  These standards have general and uniform effect even though they 
will not be implemented against a point source until an NPDES permit is issued. 
{¶ 32} A TMDL also creates new legal obligations.  After determining the 
maximum capacity of a particular water body to assimilate the loadings of a 
specific pollutant, Ohio EPA sets a capacity ceiling that regulates the projected 
load of pollutant by each source.  Ohio Adm.Code 3745-2-12(B) and (I).  When 
developing the TMDL, Ohio EPA also establishes a margin of safety and a 
reserve for future growth in allocating pollutant loadings so that when the TMDL 
is finalized, a second cap also regulates the ability of dischargers to increase their 
loadings.  Ohio Adm.Code 3745-2-12(J) and (K).  When a water body is impaired 
for a pollutant contributed by both point and nonpoint sources, Ohio EPA divides 
the TMDL’s total allocation allowed for that pollutant (minus the margin of safety 
and any reserve for future growth) among these sources. See Ohio Adm.Code 
3745-2-12(F) and (G).  The result of this process is the establishment of new, 
mandatory loading reductions arbitrarily divided among the sources along the 
                                          
 
4 Water-quality-based effluent limits are the numeric limits imposed in discharge 
permits issued by Ohio EPA to point sources to ensure that applicable water-quality standards for 
a water body are achieved and maintained.  See Ohio Adm.Code 3745-2-01 and 3745-2-02(B)(71). 
January Term, 2015 
13 
stream.  These regulatory outcomes exceed mere enforcement of compliance with 
existing authority. 
Rulemaking is consistent with the position of other jurisdictions 
{¶ 33} The rule-like nature of TMDLs is also reflected in the fact that 
U.S. EPA must proceed through rulemaking when it establishes its own TMDLs.  
33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(2); see Telford Borough Auth. v. United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, E.D.Pa. No. 2:12-CV-6548, 2013 WL 6047569, * 2 (Nov. 15, 
2013) (“If the EPA administrator disapproves of the state TMDL, the EPA may 
establish its own TMDL or revise the state TMDL but must follow notice-and-
comment rulemaking provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (‘APA’) in 
doing so” [emphasis added]). 
{¶ 34} R.C. 6111.03(S)(2) also provides that R.C. Chapter 6111, Ohio’s 
Water Pollution Control Act, “shall be administered, consistent with the laws of 
this state and federal law, in the same manner that the Federal Water Pollution 
Control Act is required to be administered.” (Emphasis added.)  Because U.S. 
EPA is compelled to undertake rulemaking when it develops a TMDL for a state 
water body, R.C. 6111.03(S)(2) reflects the General Assembly's intent that Ohio 
EPA do the same. 
{¶ 35} Other state supreme courts that have addressed this issue have also 
ruled that TMDLs must be promulgated as rules before they are used as the basis 
for discharge limitations. See Asarco, Inc. v. Idaho, 138 Idaho 719, 69 P.3d 139 
(2003) (holding that permit limits were invalid because the TMDL was not 
promulgated as a rule); Commrs. of Pub. Works v. South Carolina Dept. of Health 
& Environmental Control, 372 S.C. 351, 641 S.E.2d 763 (2007) (recognizing that 
the state was not authorized to rely on unpromulgated limits within a TMDL  
{¶ 36} The rulemaking requirements of R.C. Chapter 119 are mandatory 
protections against the arbitrary imposition of regulatory requirements.  They are 
fundamental to the administrative process and apply broadly to any action by an 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
14 
agency that functions as a rule.  In Condee v. Lindley, 12 Ohio St.3d 90, 465 
N.E.2d 450 (1984), the tax commissioner argued that a long-standing allocation 
policy that applied to individual utilities was not subject to rulemaking because 
the policy fulfilled a statutory directive.  We held that the policy was not exempt 
and that rulemaking was required to determine whether the tax commissioner’s 
formula for allocating taxes was equitable and valid.  “The rulemaking 
requirements set forth in R.C. Chapter 119 are designed to permit a full and fair 
analysis of the impact and validity of a proposed rule” before it is imposed upon 
the regulated community.  Id. at 93. 
Water-quality standard for phosphorus 
{¶ 37} As a secondary position, the county argues that the TMDL 
establishes a new water-quality standard for phosphorus that itself requires 
rulemaking.  Ohio EPA acknowledges that water-quality standards must be 
adopted as rules.  The statute governing the Ohio EPA’s authority over water 
quality provides: 
 
In furtherance of sections 6111.01 to 6111.08 of the 
Revised Code, the director of environmental protection shall adopt 
standards of water quality to be applicable to the waters of the 
state.  Such standards shall be adopted pursuant to a schedule 
established, and from time to time amended, by the director, to 
apply to the various waters of the state, in accordance with 
Chapter 119. of the Revised Code. 
 
(Emphasis added.)  R.C. 6111.041.  Thus, R.C. 6111.041 requires that Ohio EPA 
follow the rulemaking procedures of R.C. Chapter 119 when adopting or 
amending standards of water quality for waters of the state. 
January Term, 2015 
15 
{¶ 38} The TMDL report notes that there are no statewide numeric water-
quality criteria for phosphorus.  Id. at 23.  A current rule covering all water-body 
segments in the Scioto River drainage basin, including Blacklick Creek, sets forth 
three use designations for each segment: aquatic life habitat, water supply, and 
recreation.  Ohio Adm.Code 3745-1-09.  Under Ohio Adm.Code 3745-1-07, 
Table 7-11, Ohio EPA has already promulgated a narrative standard for 
phosphorus, stating that total phosphorus “shall be limited to the extent necessary 
to prevent nuisance growths of algae, weeds, and slimes that result in a violation 
of water quality criteria set forth in paragraph (E) of [Ohio Adm.Code] 3745-1-04 
* * * or, for public water supplies, that result in taste or odor problems.”  But the 
TMDL now at issue imposes numeric limits for the discharge of phosphorus into 
Blacklick Creek and other water bodies in the Big Walnut Creek watershed.  The 
target value for phosphorus established in the TMDL report for all water bodies in 
the Big Walnut Creek watershed clearly constitutes a “standard of water quality” 
for “waters of the state of Ohio” within the meaning of R.C. 6111.041.  Ohio EPA 
could not lawfully impose a phosphorus allocation for the county and other 
phosphorus sources in the watershed until that standard was first promulgated as a 
rule under R.C. Chapter 119. 
Ohio EPA Must Follow R.C. Chapter 119 Before Implementing a TMDL 
{¶ 39} In this case we hold that because a TMDL is a rule, Ohio EPA 
must engage in rulemaking under R.C. Chapter 119 before the TMDL may be 
used as the basis for an NPDES permit limit.  Once those procedures have been 
completed, and U.S. EPA approves the final TMDL, any attempt to challenge the 
TMDL before ERAC or in a court will be limited to issues that were not or could 
not have been raised during the rulemaking process. 
{¶ 40} On appeal, the Tenth District ruled that Fairfield County had not 
demonstrated a due-process violation.  The court dismissed the county’s 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
16 
rulemaking argument and held that federal approval was sufficient, stating that 
“[t]he phosphorus limit in the NPDES permit came from the properly 
promulgated Big Walnut Creek TMDL.”  2013-Ohio-2106, ¶ 76.  The court stated 
that this fact distinguished the instant case from Jackson Cty. Environmental 
Commt. v. Schregardus, 95 Ohio App.3d 527, 642 N.E.2d 1142, in which 
“unpromulgated guidelines were placed directly into a permit.”  Id. at 530.  In 
Schregardus, the Tenth District determined that Ohio EPA’s “Guidelines for Land 
Application of Paper Mill Sludge” met the statutory definition of “rule” because 
they had uniform and general application.  Although the guidelines were limited 
to land application of sludge from one particular paper mill’s operations, they 
were not directed solely at the application of such sludge by that company.  Even 
if they were, the court “hesitate[d] to state that [they were] the types of guidelines 
which should be informally established by an agency when the applications may 
have far-reaching effects on the population at large, especially when that 
population is not given an opportunity to contest the guidelines through the formal 
procedures provided by R.C. Chapter 119.”  Id. at 530.  The court concluded: 
 
By failing to rule-file the instant guidelines, the director has 
effectively denied interested members of the public a full and fair 
analysis of the impact and validity of the standards set forth therein 
and the effects on the public health and safety. Therefore, this 
court holds that the guidelines at issue in the present case which set 
standards for the “safe” application of paper mill sludge containing 
dioxins under certain specific conditions are “rules” which should 
have been formally promulgated pursuant to R.C. Chapter 119. 
 
Id.   
January Term, 2015 
17 
{¶ 41} Here, the court of appeals incorrectly assumed that Ohio EPA did 
not need to comply with rulemaking procedures.  U.S. EPA’s approval of the 
TMDL for Big Walnut Creek watershed was not a “promulgation” of the TMDL 
as that process is described in R.C. 119.03.  The only review of the TMDL was 
the review by U.S. EPA, and even that review does not include the underlying 
data from the TMDL development.  33 U.S.C. 1313(d) and (e).  Because the 
TMDL did not undergo the rigors of rulemaking before being submitted to U.S. 
EPA, the stakeholders in the Big Walnut Creek watershed were denied 
meaningful review.  The first time the county had an opportunity to challenge the 
TMDL was after U.S. EPA had approved it and after Ohio EPA had applied the 
standards to the county in the context of the NPDES permit. 
{¶ 42} The TMDL for the Big Walnut Creek watershed will be used to 
impose new limits on numerous dischargers in 54 stream segments.  Yet Ohio 
EPA failed to provide these dischargers, and the public generally, with the basic 
procedural protections provided by R.C. Chapter 119. 
 
Although due process is “ ‘flexible and calls for such procedural 
protections as the particular situation demands,’ ” Mathews v. 
Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332, 96 S.Ct. 893 [47 L.Ed.2d 18] (1976), 
quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593 [33 
L.Ed.2d 484] (1972), the basic requirements of procedural due 
process are notice and an opportunity to be heard. 
 
State v. Hudson, 2013-Ohio-647, 986 N.E.2d 1128, ¶ 48 (3d Dist.). 
Procedures Required by R.C. Chapter 119, the Ohio Administrative Procedure 
Act 
 
{¶ 43} To ensure adequate public participation, R.C. Chapter 119 
requires, among other protections, public notice, the opportunity for public 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
18 
comment, and a public hearing before agency rules can be validly imposed.  R.C. 
119.03; see Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Dist., 58 Ohio St.3d at 24, 567 
N.E.2d 993.  “[F]ailure of any agency to comply with such procedure shall 
invalidate any rule or amendment adopted, or the rescission of any rule.”  R.C. 
119.02.  Ohio EPA points out that the public had an opportunity to comment on 
the draft TMDL before it was submitted.  The draft of the TMDL report was made 
available for public review from December 15, 2004, to January 21, 2005.  A 
summary of comments received and the associated responses was submitted in the 
TMDL report, Appendix E.  While this process did provide some opportunity for 
public input, it does not satisfy the requirements of R.C. Chapter 119. 
{¶ 44} R.C. 119.03 sets forth the procedure required.  These procedures 
are separate from the procedure for review and approval by the U.S. EPA.  The 
APA provides a detailed protocol for promulgating a proposed rule.  That 
protocol, generally speaking, calls for public notice, which must include certain 
information, R.C. 119.03(A), electronic filing of the full text of the rule with 
certain public offices, R.C. 119.03(B), submission to the Joint Committee on 
Agency Rule Review (“JCARR”) for its scrutiny, R.C. 119.03(C), a full public 
hearing, R.C. 119.03(D), and much more.  The purpose of these procedures is to 
provide opponents of a proposed regulation the opportunity to express their views 
as to the wisdom of the proposal and to present evidence with respect to its 
legality.  Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer Dist. at 23-24. 
 
{¶ 45} Without R.C. Chapter 119 procedures, there is no opportunity for a 
party to obtain meaningful review of a TMDL before the TMDL-derived limits 
are imposed in a permit.  The abrogation of meaningful review of TMDL-based 
NPDES permit limits deprives NPDES permit holders of the right to notice and 
the opportunity to be heard provided by R.C. Chapter 119.    
R.C. Chapter 119 Must Be Followed Before Submission of the TMDL to U.S. EPA 
January Term, 2015 
19 
{¶ 46} In this case, the court of appeals recognized that ERAC is an 
administrative agency with special expertise and expressly accorded deference to 
ERAC’s resolution of evidentiary conflicts.  2013-Ohio-2106, ¶ 47.  It is true that 
the county presented witnesses to challenge its permit limitations, but the 
appellate court held the federally approved TMDL to be invincible, relying on 
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 446 F.3d 140 
(D.C.Cir.2006), for the proposition that “ ‘[o]nce approved by [U.S.] EPA, 
TMDLs must be incorporated into permits allocating effluent discharges among 
all pollution sources, including point sources * * * and non-point sources.’ ”  Id. 
at ¶ 80, quoting Friends at 143.  But the county’s opportunity to present evidence 
challenging the TMDL before ERAC as part of the permitting phase is no 
substitute for the broader procedures afforded by R.C. Chapter 119, and this is 
especially true when the county’s evidence is judged by a standard that makes the 
TMDL virtually irrebuttable. 
{¶ 47} In the TMDL for Big Walnut Creek, Ohio EPA developed binding 
standards to apply to the entire watershed, and the discharging sources are 
expected to abide by those standards. But those who will be affected have not 
been provided with the full panoply of rights afforded by R.C. Chapter 119.  
Without the benefit of the procedure prescribed by that chapter, affected persons 
are denied access to the process that the General Assembly intended them to have, 
i.e., the early, informed, and meaningful opportunity to challenge the legality of 
the standards established in the TMDL and the underlying assumptions, data, 
logic, and policy choices that Ohio EPA made in developing those standards. 
{¶ 48} The only logical solution is to require that Ohio EPA’s 
development of TMDLs adhere to the procedure required by R.C. Chapter 119.  
Any party to that procedure has a right to appeal to ERAC pursuant to R.C. 
3745.04, and if such an appeal is taken, R.C. 3745.05 governs the hearing on 
appeal.  The TMDL may be submitted to U.S. EPA for its approval only after this 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
20 
procedure has been completed, including any appeal.  If U.S. EPA subsequently 
approves the final TMDL rule, ERAC and Ohio’s courts can then lawfully restrict 
a later state-law challenge to the TMDL to those issues not inherent in the 
rulemaking, because a full opportunity to challenge will have already been 
provided through Ohio's statutory rulemaking procedures. 
V. Conclusion 
{¶ 49} We hold that a TMDL established by Ohio EPA pursuant to the 
Clean Water Act is a rule that is subject to the requirements of R.C. Chapter 119, 
the Ohio Administrative Procedure Act.  Ohio EPA must follow the rulemaking 
procedure in R.C. Chapter 119 before submitting a TMDL to U.S. EPA for its 
approval and before the TMDL may be implemented in an NPDES permit.  We 
therefore affirm the judgment of the Tenth District, albeit for different reasons.  
The NPDES permit for Fairfield County’s Tussing Wastewater Plant is vacated 
with respect to the unpromulgated phosphorus standard.  This cause is remanded 
to Ohio EPA for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
Judgment affirmed. 
O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, FRENCH, and O’NEILL, JJ., concur. 
O’DONNELL, and KENNEDY, JJ., concur in judgment only. 
_________________________ 
O’DONNELL, J., concurring in judgment only. 
{¶ 50} This case presents only a limited question of whether an Ohio EPA 
report calculating the total maximum daily load (“TMDL”) of phosphorus for 
Blacklick Creek and recommending technology based effluent limitations to be 
incorporated into the NPDES permit issued for Fairfield County’s Tussing Road 
Waste Water Treatment Plant (“Tussing Road WWTP”) is invalid because Ohio 
EPA failed to promulgate it in accordance with the R.C. Chapter 119 
requirements for agency rulemaking.  The majority concludes that the TMDL 
“prescribes a legal standard that did not previously exist.  As such, it must first be 
January Term, 2015 
21 
formally promulgated as a rule pursuant to R.C. Chapter 119 before it can be 
enforced against the general public.”  (Emphasis sic.)  Majority opinion at ¶ 29. 
{¶ 51} In my view, the TMDL only interprets the established water 
quality standards as applied to a particular permit holder on a specific segment of 
a river’s tributary, and it therefore lacks the general and uniform operation 
required to characterize it as an administrative rule.  Because the General 
Assembly never intended a TMDL to be promulgated through administrative 
rulemaking, I would reject Fairfield County’s challenge to the validity of the 
TMDL. 
{¶ 52} Today’s majority decision is far-reaching in that Ohio EPA has 
issued 1,761 TMDLs for watercourses throughout Ohio, including 132 TMDLs 
for phosphorus alone.  See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ohio Impaired 
Waters and TMDL Information, available at http://iaspub.epa.gov/waters10/attain
s_state.report_control?p_state=OH&p_cycle=2008&p_report_type=T 
(accessed 
Mar. 12, 2015).  None apparently have been promulgated through R.C. Chapter 
119 rulemaking, and thus the majority’s decision invalidates all of them, leaving 
the enforceability of numerous permits in question. 
{¶ 53} Recent events have highlighted the challenges Ohio faces in 
protecting the waters of this state from pollutants that threaten the economy and 
endanger public health.  Recently, a toxic algae bloom in Lake Erie, fed by high 
concentrations of phosphorus from rivers in the lake’s watershed, contaminated 
Toledo’s public water supply with hazardous levels of microcystin.  See 
www.cleveland.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2014/08/toxic_algal_bloom_shuts_off_w
a. html.  And toxic algae blooms have caused authorities to issue advisories for 
Grand 
Lake 
St. 
Marys 
and 
Buckeye 
Lake. 
See 
www.dispatch.com 
/content/stories/local/2014/06/04 /Algae-warnings-issued-for-Buckeye-Lake.html.  
In my view, the majority’s decision frustrates efforts to safeguard the state’s 
surface water from these types of hazards by requiring any limit on the discharge 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
22 
of phosphorus in a particular NPDES permit to go through rulemaking and 
administrative appeal processes, forestalling a response to these conditions. 
{¶ 54} Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals 
but differ from the majority in that I would uphold the TMDL calculated by Ohio 
EPA and not require administrative rulemaking before incorporating its 
recommendations into a reissued NPDES permit. 
The Clean Water Act and Water Quality Standards 
{¶ 55} Congress enacted the Clean Water Act with the objective “to 
restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the 
Nation's waters.”  33 U.S.C. 1251(a).  To meet this objective, the act provides for 
states to promulgate water quality standards, which consist of “the designated 
uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such 
waters based upon such uses.”  33 U.S.C. 1313(c)(2)(A).  “ ‘ “Uses” are the 
functions—such as recreation, irrigation, or provision of wildlife habitat—that the 
state has assigned a given body of water. “Criteria” are the technical judgments as 
to the specific pollution levels that are compatible with those uses.’ ”  Columbus 
& Franklin Cty. Metro. Park Dist. v. Shank, 65 Ohio St.3d 86, 123, 600 N.E.2d 
1042 (1992), quoting Pedersen, Turning the Tide on Water Quality, 15 Ecology 
L.Q. 69, 92-93 (1988).  The criteria adopted by the state to protect the designated 
use may be established numerically or in a narrative form.  40 C.F.R. 
131.11(b)(2). 
{¶ 56} In R.C. 6111.041, the General Assembly delegated the duty to 
establish water quality standards to Ohio EPA, directing that agency to engage in 
administrative rulemaking pursuant to R.C. Chapter 119 in adopting them.  The 
statute further requires Ohio EPA to “implement the standards so established in 
the issuance, revocation, modification, or denial of permits.” 
{¶ 57} The water quality standards are promulgated in Ohio Adm.Code 
Chapter 3745.  These are established as numeric criteria for a variety of 
January Term, 2015 
23 
substances (such as certain chemicals and bacteria), providing a specific 
concentration of a pollutant that may be in a given volume of water but still 
achieve the water quality standard.  See generally Ohio Adm.Code 3745-1-07.  
Other water quality standards have been promulgated using narrative criteria.  
Ohio Adm.Code 3745-1-04 establishes water quality criteria applicable to all 
surface waters of the state: 
 
To every extent practical and possible as determined by the 
director, these waters shall be: 
(A) Free from suspended solids or other substances that 
enter the waters as a result of human activity and that will settle to 
form putrescent or otherwise objectionable sludge deposits, or that 
will adversely affect aquatic life; 
(B) Free from floating debris, oil, scum and other floating 
materials entering the waters as a result of human activity in 
amounts sufficient to be unsightly or cause degradation; 
(C) Free from materials entering the waters as a result of 
human activity producing color, odor or other conditions in such a 
degree as to create a nuisance; 
(D) Free from substances entering the waters as a result of 
human activity in concentrations that are toxic or harmful to 
human, animal or aquatic life and/or are rapidly lethal in the 
mixing zone; 
(E) Free from nutrients entering the waters as a result of 
human activity in concentrations that create nuisance growths of 
aquatic weeds and algae; 
(F) Free from public health nuisances associated with raw 
or poorly treated sewage. 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
24 
 
{¶ 58} Ohio EPA has not promulgated numeric criteria for phosphorus, 
but rather has provided that it “shall be limited to the extent necessary to prevent 
nuisance growths of algae, weeds, and slimes that result in a violation of the water 
quality criteria set forth in paragraph (E) of rule 3745-1-04 of the Administrative 
Code or, for public water supplies, that result in taste or odor problems.”  Id., 
Table 7-11, fn. c.  This standard is the basis for Ohio EPA’s regulatory authority 
to limit the amount of phosphorus in waters of the state. 
TMDLs to Achieve Water Quality Standards 
{¶ 59} Once a state establishes water quality standards, the Clean Water 
Act requires it to identify impaired waters and calculate the TMDL of a pollutant 
that may enter the water without causing a violation of the applicable standards.  
33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(1)(A) and (C).  In contrast to the water quality standards, the 
General Assembly has not expressly required a TMDL to be promulgated as an 
administrative rule, even though it provided other requirements for the 
development of TMDLs.  See, e.g., R.C. 6111.12(D)(2), 6111.52(E), 6111.56(A) 
and (B).  This is so because a TMDL does not represent a policy preference of 
Ohio EPA or a new water quality standard, but rather provides the factual and 
technological data, derived from observation and application of scientific 
principles, needed for Ohio EPA to implement the water quality standard. 
{¶ 60} The first step in establishing a TMDL is to establish a numeric 
target to “serve as a measure of comparison between observed instream 
conditions and conditions that are expected to restore the designated uses of the 
waterbody.”  Ohio EPA, Division of Surface Water, Total Maximum Daily Loads 
for the Big Walnut Creek Watershed 23 (Aug. 19, 2005) (“the TMDL report”), 
available, minus appendices, at http://www.epa.state.oh.us/portals/35/tmdl/BWC 
_Final%20081505.pdf (accessed Mar. 12, 2015).  That is, Ohio EPA needs to 
know the maximum amount of phosphorus that a watercourse can contain without 
January Term, 2015 
25 
violating the water quality standard—here, the specific concentration that, if 
exceeded, will cause nuisance growths of aquatic weeds and algae.  Ohio EPA has 
not promulgated statewide numeric criteria for phosphorus by administrative 
rule—i.e., through a standard having a general and uniform operation throughout 
the state regardless of local conditions—and therefore relied on the results of a 
study called Association Between Nutrients, Habitat, and the Aquatic Biota in 
Ohio Rivers and Streams, Ohio EPA Technical Bulletin MAS/1999-1-1 (Jan. 7, 
1999), available at www.epa.state.oh.us/portals/35/lakeerie/ptaskforce/Assoc 
Load.pdf (accessed Mar. 12, 2015).  That study analyzed the effects of nutrients, 
including phosphorus, on the aquatic biological communities of Ohio streams and 
rivers. 
{¶ 61} According to the TMDL report, the Association study found that 
0.11 mg/l of total phosphorus is the numeric target for wadeable streams and 
rivers in the Eastern Corn Belt Plains ecoregion of Ohio, which includes 
Blacklick Creek.  That value, representing the concentration of phosphorus that 
rivers and streams in the watershed can assimilate naturally without causing 
impairment, is derived from observation and scientific modeling that can be tested 
and verified.  Fairfield County asserts that the data and methodology used in the 
Association study to generate the numeric target are flawed, but that only 
underscores the point that the numeric target resulted from a case-by-case 
examination of local conditions, not from a policy choice.  As the TMDL report 
expressly acknowledges, “these nutrient targets are not codified in Ohio’s water 
quality standards; therefore, there is a certain degree of flexibility as to how they 
can be used in a TMDL setting.”  Id. at 24.  Thus, the numeric target is not a legal 
standard, but an objective, factual determination. 
{¶ 62} Ohio Adm.Code 3745-2-12(B) requires Ohio EPA to calculate the 
TMDL as the sum of all existing or projected loads of a pollutant (such as 
phosphorus) from all point sources (direct dischargers such as the Tussing Road 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
26 
WWTP), nonpoint sources (indirect discharges such as runoff and failing home 
sewer systems), and naturally occurring background sources that can be allowed 
and still attain the water quality standard.  These calculations showed that the 
water quality standard as quantified by the numeric target could not be achieved 
without a 62 percent reduction in phosphorus from all sources on Blacklick 
Creek.  TMDL report at 74. 
{¶ 63} The TMDL report proposes a strategy to achieve the 62 percent 
reduction by calculating wasteload allocations (i.e., the amount allowed to be 
discharged by point sources through NPDES permits) and load allocations (i.e., 
the amount of pollutant that comes from nonpoint sources and natural causes).  
The TMDL in this case recommended an 81 percent reduction in the load coming 
from nonpoint sources along Blacklick Creek, concluding that these reductions 
would be “manageable * * * although still challenging.” 
{¶ 64} In addition, the TMDL report recommended increasing the 
wasteload allocation given to point sources by 54 percent over existing loads.  For 
example, it suggested allowing the Tussing Road WWTP to increase its discharge 
of total phosphorus from an existing load of 3,047 lb/year to 4,569 lb/year, based 
on the recognition that Fairfield County is growing rapidly and will need to 
discharge more effluent into Blacklick Creek in the coming years. 
{¶ 65} But to offset this increased wasteload, the TMDL report 
recommended imposing a technology-based phosphorus limit of 0.5 mg/l for 
Fairfield County’s Tussing Road WWTP—the single largest point source 
discharger of phosphorus in the Big Walnut Creek watershed.  It proposed similar 
limits for three other facilities and a 1.0 mg/l limit for three significantly smaller 
facilities in the watershed.  These limits represent the concentration of phosphorus 
that remains in a point source’s discharges after implementing a specific treatment 
technology, and Tony Vogel, Fairfield County’s Director of Utilities, admitted 
January Term, 2015 
27 
that it was possible for the county to implement these new treatment technologies 
to comply with the 0.5 mg/l limit, although it would cost $5 million. 
{¶ 66} Contrary to the majority’s assertion, the wasteload allocations for 
point sources in the watershed are not “arbitrarily divided” by the TMDL report.  
Majority opinion at ¶ 32.  Rather, Ohio EPA calculated the wasteload allocation 
for the Tussing Road WWTP by multiplying the maximum discharge capacity of 
the facility (the design flow of three million gallons a day) by 0.5 mg/l—the 
concentration of phosphorus remaining in the discharge after the use of existing 
treatment technology—and determined that the facility may discharge a 
maximum of 4,569 pounds of phosphorus per year. 
A TMDL Is Not an Administrative Rule 
{¶ 67} Based on these facts, it is my view that neither the TMDL in 
general nor the specific technology based effluent limitation and wasteload 
allocation that Fairfield County challenges in this case can be fairly characterized 
as agency rules that must be adopted through administrative rulemaking pursuant 
to R.C. Chapter 119. 
{¶ 68} A “rule” is defined by R.C. 119.01(C)  as “any rule, regulation, or 
standard, having a general and uniform operation, adopted, promulgated, and 
enforced by any agency under the authority of the laws governing such agency, 
and includes any appendix to a rule.” (Emphasis added.)  As this court indicated 
in State ex rel. Saunders v. Indus. Comm., 101 Ohio St.3d 123, 2004-Ohio-339, 
802 N.E.2d 650, “The pivotal issue in determining the effect of a document is 
whether it enlarges the scope of the rule or statute from which it derives rather 
than simply interprets it. * * * If the former, it must be promulgated pursuant to 
R.C. Chapter 119.  If the latter, it is exempt from those requirements.”  Id. at ¶ 27. 
{¶ 69} The numeric target for phosphorus provided in the TMDL report 
represents only an application of the water quality standard promulgated by Ohio 
Adm.Code 3745-1-04(E) to a particular segment of a watershed, in which Ohio 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
28 
EPA has calculated the specific concentration of phosphorus that rivers and 
streams in the Big Walnut Creek Watershed can assimilate before it contributes to 
nuisance growths of aquatic weeds and algae that impair the water.  Thus, the 
numeric target differs from the statewide numeric criteria promulgated as rules in 
Ohio Adm.Code 3745-1-07 that provide set numerical limits for specific 
substances (such as arsenic and mercury) applicable to all surface water, 
notwithstanding the unique local characteristics of the water body that affect how 
those substances are assimilated. 
{¶ 70} The 0.5 mg/l technology based limit and the corresponding 
wasteload allocation imposed on the Tussing Road WWTP do set a ceiling on the 
amount of phosphorus the facility can discharge.  However, R.C. 6111.042 
expressly permits Ohio EPA to “establish on a case-by-case basis effluent 
limitations in a permit issued under section 6111.03 of the Revised Code, based 
upon best professional judgment,” when effluent limitations adopted by the 
United States EPA are not applicable.  Here, the United States EPA has not 
adopted an effluent limit for phosphorus, Ohio EPA expressly justified the 0.5 
mg/l technology based limit on the exercise of its best professional judgment, and 
the statute permits imposing that limit on a case-by-case basis.  Nothing in this 
statute requires the agency to promulgate a rule before exercising this authority. 
{¶ 71} Our decision in Condee v. Lindley, 12 Ohio St.3d 90, 465 N.E.2d 
450 (1984), on which the majority relies, actually supports the view that the 
technology based effluent limitation at issue here need not be promulgated as an 
administrative rule in order to be enforceable.  That case concerned the question 
of “whether the Tax Commissioner's policy (allocating thirty percent of situsable 
property value to the non-situsable property value category when compiling and 
issuing certificates of tax valuation on public utility property) is an improperly 
adopted rule and therefore invalid.”  Id. at 91.  We concluded that the policy 
should have been promulgated as a rule, noting that “the commissioner's policy 
January Term, 2015 
29 
herein was adopted in lieu of a case-by-case analysis of each taxpayer's liability.”  
(Emphasis added.)  Id. at 93.  But in contrast, the technology based effluent limit 
imposed on the Tussing Road WWTP has been applied only on a case-by-case 
basis, and even the majority concedes that these limits are “discharger-specific, 
i.e., not strictly uniform.”  Majority opinion at ¶ 30. 
{¶ 72} The majority also mistakenly concludes that “[i]n the TMDL for 
Big Walnut Creek, Ohio EPA developed binding standards to apply to the entire 
watershed * * *.”  Majority opinion at ¶ 47.  The TDML report itself characterizes 
the 0.11 mg/l numeric target as uncodified and flexible, and it calls the effluent 
limits “recommendations.”  Notably, when Ohio EPA initially drafted Fairfield 
County’s NPDES permit, it did not apply the 0.5 mg/l limit for phosphorus for the 
first 15 months of the permit period.  And when Fairfield County objected to the 
new limit, Ohio EPA eliminated the phosphorus limit for the first three years of 
the permit’s term and provided an interim limit of 1.0 mg/l through the remainder 
of the permit.  Fairfield County has continued to follow these permit conditions 
during the eight and one half years since it commenced this appeal.  The permit 
limits therefore do not represent a mechanical application of the wasteload 
allocation proposed in the TMDL;  Ohio EPA could—and in fact did—permit the 
Tussing Road WWTP to exceed the limits recommended in the TMDL report. 
{¶ 73} The majority further claims that “[t]he rule-like nature of TMDLs 
is also reflected in the fact that U.S. EPA must proceed through rulemaking when 
it establishes its own TMDLs.”  Its reliance on 33 U.S.C. 1313(d)(2) as directly 
supporting this statement is misplaced, because nothing in that section requires 
notice and comment rulemaking, and the lone citation to a single federal trial 
court case refers to dicta only.  More fundamentally, however, 33 U.S.C. 
1313(d)(2) requires United States EPA to establish a TMDL for a state “not later 
than thirty days” after it disapproves the state’s TMDL, but the federal 
Administrative Procedure Act generally requires “publication or service of a 
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO 
30 
substantive rule shall be made not less than 30 days before its effective date 
* * *.”  5 U.S.C. 553(d).  Given the short time span provided for establishing a 
TMDL, it does not appear that Congress ever intended the agency to engage in 
full-scale notice and comment rulemaking. 
{¶ 74} In the last analysis, the TMDL report’s recommendations directly 
affect only seven permit holders throughout a watershed that drains 556.7 square 
miles, while the wasteload allocation applies only to the Tussing Road WWTP.  
These are hardly standards having a general and uniform operation, and the 
majority’s conclusion that the TMDL affects “a large segment of the public rather 
than a narrow group” is not borne out by the facts of this case.  Majority opinion 
at ¶ 30. And far from being binding, it does not appear that the TMDL report’s 
recommendations for the Tussing Road WWTP have ever been applied—and they 
may never apply, given that the appellate court had remanded the permit to Ohio 
EPA to consider evidence relating to the technical feasibility and economic 
reasonableness of the 0.5 mg/l technology based effluent limit pursuant to R.C. 
6111.03(J)(3).  2013-Ohio-2106, ¶ 147-149, 160. 
{¶ 75} Accordingly, in my view, the Tenth District Court of Appeals 
properly concluded that the TMDL at issue here is not a rule or standard that may 
be adopted only through administrative rulemaking, and because Ohio EPA has 
not challenged the appellate court’s determination that the agency failed to 
consider the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of the 0.5 mg/l 
technology based limit prior to imposing it in the most recent permit, I would 
affirm the judgment of the court of appeals on the basis that the TMDL’s 
recommended effluent limitations did not require administrative rulemaking. 
KENNEDY, J., concurs in the foregoing opinion. 
_________________________ 
 
Frost Brown Todd, L.L.C., Stephen P. Samuels, Joseph M. Reidy, Stephen 
N. Haughey, and Thaddeus H. Driscoll, for appellant. 
January Term, 2015 
31 
 
Michael DeWine, Attorney General, Eric E. Murphy, State Solicitor, 
Samuel C. Peterson, Deputy Solicitor, and L. Scott Helkowski and Alana R. 
Shockey, Assistant Attorneys General, for appellee. 
Linda S. Woggon, urging reversal for amicus curiae Ohio Chamber of 
Commerce. 
John Gotherman; and Frost Brown Todd, L.L.C., Stephen H. Haughey, 
Thaddeus H. Driscoll, and Stephen J. Smith, urging reversal for amici curiae Ohio 
Municipal League and County Sanitary Engineers Association of Ohio. 
Squire Sanders L.L.P., Jessica E. DeMonte, Andrew Etter, and John D. 
Lazzaretti, urging reversal for amici curiae Association of Ohio Metropolitan 
Wastewater Agencies and National Association of Clean Water Agencies. 
_________________________