1

07- 2449- ag ( L ) , 07- 3912- ag ( C on) Co a l it i o n o f Wa t e r s he d To wn s v . EPA UN ITED STA

TES CO URT OF AP P EALS F OR TH E S ECO N D CI RCU IT Aug us t T er m 2 008 (A rgue d: Dec emb er

12, 200 8 Dec id ed: Dec emb er 29, 200 8) Docket Nos 07-2449-ag (L), 07-3912-ag (Con) T HE C O ALI TI O N O F W A T ER S HE D T OWNS , T HE T O W N O F H UNT ER , N E W Y O RK , T HE T O W N O F R O XBURY , N E W Y O RK , T HE T O W N O F H AMDEN , N E W Y O RK , Petitioners ,
-v .- T HE U NI T ED S TA TE S E NVI RON M EN TA L P R OT EC T I ON A GE NCY , Res po nde nt ,-andT HE N E W Y O RK S T AT E D EPAR TM EN T O F H EA LTH , RI C HA R D M. D AI NES , M .D ., a s Com mi s s io ner of the New York State De partment of Health, a nd T HE C I TY O F N E W Y O RK , Interve nors-Respondents

. B ef or e: F EI NBERG , C AB R ANES , and W ES L EY , Circuit Jud ges . Pe ti ti on er s , a co nf

ede r ati onof

to wns inth e Cat s kill an d D elaw ar e wat er s hedr egi onof New York, seek reviewof two actions by the United Sta tes Environmental Protection Agenc y. For the reasons explained in this opinion, we may not address the merits of the petition beca use petitioners lack s tan di ng t o s ue u nd er

Ar ti cle I I I of

th e Con s ti tu ti on . Sp ecif

ically, pet it io ner s hav e no t s ho wn that th eir pr op os ed i nj ur

ies ar e li kely t o b e r edr es s ed b y a f avo r abl e co ur t d ecis io n. T he p et it io n i s2

DE N IED

. J OS EP H F. C A S T I GL I ONE (Kevin M. Young , on the brief

), You ng, So mm er , War d, Rit zen ber g, B aker & M oo r e, L

LC, Alb any, NY for Petitio ners . C AR OLI NE H. W EH L I NG (P hyllis Fe in mar k, Ch r is Sap or it a, o n th e brief ), Unit ed S tat es Env

ir on men tal

Pr ot ect io n Ag enc y, Was hi ngt on , D .C. (

Ron aldJ . T enp as , As s is tan t A tt orney Gen er al, J oh n C. Cr ud en, Dep ut y As s is tan t A tt orney Gen er al, andSt eph en E. Cr owl ey, A tt orney , Unit ed St ate s Dep ar tm ent

of J us ti ce, Wa s hi ngt on , D .C., o n th e brief ) fo r Re spo nde nt . P H I LI P M. B E IN , As s is tan t A tt orney Gen er al, Env

ir on men tal Pr ot ect io n B ur eau (

And r ew M . Cu om o, At to r ney General of the State of NewYork, Barbara D. Underwood, Solic itor General, Benjamin N. Gutman, Deputy Solic itor General, Monica W agne r, Ass istant So lic it or Gen er al, andKather

in e Ke nn edy , Sp ecial Dep ut y At to r ney

Gen er al o n th e br

ie fs ), Office of the At to r ney Gen er al o f t

he S tat e of

New Yor k, Alb any, NY, for Inter

venor -Responden t New York State Department of Health H I L ARY M EL T ZER , As s is tan t Co rpo r ati onCou ns el ( Mich ael A

. Car do zo, Corpo r ati onCou ns el o f the Ci ty of New Yor k, andCar r ie N ot ebo om , on the brief

), New Yor k Cit y L aw Dep ar tm ent , N ew Yo r k, N Y, for Inter venor -Responden t City of New Yor k P ER C URI AM . Petitioners are thr ee towns in the C atskill and Delaware w atershed region of New York State (the “Towns”). For

many y ears, they ac tively ne gotiated with and litiga ted aga inst New York City (the “City ”), New Y ork State (the “State”), a nd the United States Envi ronmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) rega rding the implementation of the Sa fe Drinking Wa ter Act of 1974, 42 U.S. C. § § 300f et seq. (the “ SD WA”) . T hey

pet it io n f or r evi ew o f t

wo “ fi nal act io ns ” by th e EP A: ( 1) an Ap r

il 2 5, 2 007 let te r from the EPA hig hlighting the Sta te’s non-compliance with certain EPA reg ulations regarding administrative penal ties and temporarily postponing the previously scheduled transfer t o the State ofA t oral argument, t he Stat e and t he C i t y s t at ed t hat t hey d i d not join i n t he E P A ’ s argum ent regardi ng t he 1 la c k o f an inj u ry-in-fa c t. 3 primary enforcement respons ibility (“primacy ”) over the Ca tskill and Delaw are wa tersheds until the State complie s with the relevant regula tions; and (2) a July 30, 2007 Filtration Avoida nce Dete rmination (“FAD”), which required the C ity to spend additional monie s on land acquisition in the C atskill and De lawa re wa te rshe d re gi on s. As a threshold matter, the EPA argues that, under the “ca se-or -controvers y” requirement of Article III of

the Constitution, the Towns lack standing to bring this petition because they have not

s uf fe r ed any “i nj ur

y- in -f act ,” i.e. , an inva sion of a legall y protected interest that is “concrete and par ti cul ar ized

. . . and[ ] actual

or im mi nen t, no t c on jectur al o r hyp othet ical ”. Luj

an v. Defend

ers o f 1 Wild lif e , 50 4 U. S. 5 55, 560 (1 992) ( in te r nal qu ot ati onmar ks andcit ati on s om it te d) ; see also id. at 5 60- 61 (h ol di ng that

th e thr ee el eme nt s of

Ar ti cle I I I s tan di ng a r e ( 1) an “ in ju ry infa ct ” that is (2) c aus ally related (“fairly trace able” ) to the challe nged a ction and (3) like ly to be redressed by a favorable court decision). In respons e, the Towns have proposed four injur ies that, in their opinion, confer Article III standing: (1) breach of a Memorandum of Agreement signed by the parties in 1997 (the “MOA”), which schedul ed the transfer of primacy for May 15, 2007 and ca pped the C ity’s acquisition of land and

eas eme nt s inth e Cat s kill an d D elaw ar e wat er s hedr egi on s of New Yor k at $30 0 m ill io n; (2) l os s of

an opportunity to have the State c onduct a cost-benefit anal ysis that would weigh the C ity’s land acquisition ag ainst the preservation of local “community c haracter,” pursuant to the New York State Env ir on men tal

Qu ali ty Revi ew Act , 6 N .Y. Com p. Cod es R. & Re gs . §§ 6 17 et seq. ; (3) an injury to the Towns’ “legal right to determine the future economic and pla nning goa ls for their communities;” and (4 ) a s har ed i nt er es t i n the Ci ty ’s wat er s up ply. We r ais e nostra sponte

a r elat ed ques ti onabo ut

s tan di ng: as s um in g arg

ue ndo tha t pe ti ti on er s’4

alle ged ha rms are cogni zable as injuries-in- fact, are they likely to be redress ed by a favorable c ourt de ci sio n? Se e Lu

jan , 504 U.S. a t 560. Re dress ability i s the “non-s pecula tive like lihood that the injury can b e r eme di ed b y the r equ es te d r eli ef .” W.R. H

uff As set M anag eme nt Co ., LLC v

. Delo it te & T o uch e Ll P ,

__ F. 3d

__ , N o. 06- 166 4- cf

, 20 08 WL

507 682 5, a t * 4 (

2dCir . D ec. 3 , 20 08) . “[

I]t mu s t b e li kely, as op po s ed t o m er ely s pec ul ati ve, th at the i nj ur

y will b e r edr es s ed b y a f

avo r abl e de cis io n. ” Lujan , 50 4 U.S. at 561 (internal quotation marks omitted). “Relie f that does not r emedy the injury suff ered ca nnot bo ot s tr ap a p lai nt

if f i nt o f ede r al co ur t. ” St

eel Co . v . Cit ize ns fo r a B et te r E nv ir o nme nt , 52 3 U. S. 8 3, 1 07 (1 998 ). Des pi te any i nj ur

y the Co ali ti onmay

all ege, any r eli ef

this Cou r t c ouldpr ov

id e is s pec ul ati

ve. Evenif we wer e t o h ol d that

th e EP A was r equ

ir ed b y the M OA t o tr ans fe r pr im acy t o the S tat e in May 2007, a s oppos ed to September 2007, when they actua lly transferr ed primacy , there is no basis f or us to conclude that petitioners would more likely than not be in any

different pos ition than they a re

no w. While th e St ate might hav e be en r equ

ir ed b y s tat e r egulat

io ns andlaws to per fo r m a c os t- ben ef it

r evi ew o f the s ub s tan ce o f the J uly 20 07 FAD, pet it io ner s do no t p oi nt

to any e vid enc e s ugg es ti ng that the State’s ana lysis would have substantially differed from the EPA’s, or would remedy any injury all egedby p et

it io ner s . I nd eed , the S tat e’s in te r ven ti oninthis cas e onth e s id e of th e EP A andin

s up po r t o f the J un e 20 07 FAD l eads us to con clu de that th e St ate wouldhav e pr om ulgat ed subs tantially

the same determination. * * * Fo r th e f or ego in g r eas on s , we DENY the Towns’ petition for

review a nd enter judgments for respondents . We take no position on whether the C oalition met its injury-in-fact requirement.