FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT OCTOB ER 4, 2004 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 03- 1381 0

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ D. C . Do ck et No . 0 2 -0 0 4 0 8 -C V- 4 -WS
FL ORI DAPU BL IC INT ERES T RES EA RCH GR OU P CITIZEN LOBBY, INC., SAVE OUR SUWANNEE, INC., etal., Pl ai nti ff s- Appe llants , ve rs us ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, MIKE LEAVITT, A dm in is tra to r, etal., D ef en dants -Appe lle es , FL ORI DADE PA RT MEN T O F ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, Int e r ve no r - D efendant-Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court fo r the N orthe rnD istri ct

of F lor ida

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (O CT O BE R 4 , 200 4)Honora ble Melvin Br

unetti, United States Circuit J udg e for the Ninth Circuit, sitt ing by * desig nation, participated in the ora l argument of this case . J udg e B runetti, howeve r, did not participate in the disposition of thi s case , which we decide by quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d). The plaintiffs a

re The Florida

Public I ntere st Researc h Group Citiz en L obby , Inc. 1 (“F PI RG”), Save Our Suwane e, Inc. (“ SOS”), Fr iends of Saint Sebastian River, a n unincorporated association (“F SSR ”), the Sierra Club, Inc. (“ Sierra Club”) , and L inda Young , a Florida resident, outdoor w ater -sports enthusiast, and e mploy ee of the Clean Water N etwork. 2 Be fo re BI RC H , MA RC U S an d B RU N E T T I , Ci rc uit

Jud ge s. * MAR CUS , C ircuit Judg e: The plaintiffs appeal fr om the district court’ s order granting summ ary 1 j udgm en t i n f

av or of the de fe ndants , the U nit ed S ta te s E nvi ro nm en ta l P ro te ct ion A ge nc y a nd i ts a dm ini str at or s ( co lle ct ive ly , “ the E PA ”) , a nd the F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of E nvi ro nm en ta l P ro te ct ion( “ the F D E P” ). A ft er tho ro ugh re vie wof the r ec or d and c ar ef

ul c onsi de ratio n of

the br ie fs a nd o ra l arg um en t, w e co nc lud e t h a tt h i s c a s e i s ju s t i c i ab l e a n dt h a tu n r e s o l v e df a c tu a l i s s u e s r e mai n . Ac c o r d i n g l y, w e va cate a nd r em an d f

or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on.

I. A. Tw o basic issues are raised on appeal: first, whether the case is j usticiable, both because the plaintiffs have standing to challenge the E PA ’ s failure to re view
a state a dm ini str at ive r

ule a ff ec tin g F lor ida ’ s w at er

qua lity standard s, a nd b ec au se the c ontro ve rs y

r em ai ns a liv e; a nd s ec ond, w he the r the F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of3

E nvi ro nm en ta l P ro te ct ion , by e sta bli shi ng a ne wr ule , c hange d or

a dde d to the state ’ s e xis tin g w at er

qua lity standard s. I na sm

uc h a s ac le ar

und er standi ng o f how the f ed er al a nd s ta te gov er

nm en ts s hare r es pons ibi lit ie s to r eg ulate w at er pol lut ion is e sse nti al to the r es olu tio n of thi s c as e, w e se t f

orth i n so m e de ta il the r el ev an t facts and the overall r egulatory and statutory

schem e em

bodi ed in the Clean W ater A ct . Si nc e 1972 , the f

ed er al a nd s ta te gov er

nm en ts h av e w orke d to ge the r to restore and m aintain the integrityof the nation’s w aters, in a partnership governed by the Feder al W ater P ollut ion Cont rol Ac t, c omm onlyknown as the Clean W ater Ac t, 86 Stat. 816 (codified as am ended at 33 U. S. C. § 125 1 et seq.) (“ Clean W ater A ct ”)
. S ee A rk an sa s v. O klahom a, 503 U . S. 91, 101 , 112 S
. Ct
. 104 6, 105 4, 117 L . E d. 2d 2 39 ( 1992 ) (d es cr ibi ng p ar tne rs hip ). Many

dut ie s to m oni tor

a nd
re gul at e pol lut ionof

the na tio n’ s w at er s are div ide d be tw ee n th e fe de ra l and s ta te go ve rn m en ts . A m ong oth er

thi ngs, state gov er

nm en ts are r es pons ibl e fo r es ta bli shi ng wa ter quality

standards for all of their w aterbodies. W ater quality standards are de sig ne d to do tw o th ing s: f ir st, the y de sig na te the use or

use s to be m ad e of

the
wa ter, such as fishing or swim m ing; and , sec ond, they

set the basic criter ia that
m ust be sa tis fi ed

inor de r to s af

el y pe rm it tho se use s. 40 C. F. R. § 13 1. 2. T he4

se co nd a spe ct

of w at er qua lity standard s, the w at er

qua lity c ri te ri a, c anbe
ex pr es se d innarr at ive f

orm or in a num er ic f

orm , e . g. spe ci fi c pol lut an t concentrations. Id. at § 131.3(b). W e have described the second aspect of a wa ter qua lit y standard a s se tti ng the “ le ve l of

w at er qua lity ne ed ed to sa fe ly a llo w [ the
w at er body ’ s de sig na te d] use . ” S ie rr a Cl ub v
. Me iburg , 296 F . 3d 1 021, 102 5 (1 1thCi r. 200 2) T his le ve l m ay be de sc ri be d a s “ co nst itu en t c onc en tr at ion s, le ve ls, or narr at ive state m en ts, r ep re se nti ng a qua lity of w at er that su ppor ts a particular use. ” 40 C. F. R. § 131 .3(b). Whil e state s are pr im ar ily r es pons ibl e fo r es ta

bli shi ng the se w at er

qua lity standard s, the E PA , in tur n, is re qui re d to und er

ta ke ar ev ie wof

a ny ne wor rev is edwate r qu al it y

st an da rd s ad op te d b y

th e st at es . 33 U.S.C. § 1 31 3( c)(2 )(A). A m ong oth er

thi ngs, thi s r ev ie winv olv es ade te rm inatio n of the f oll ow ing : Whether the state has adopted criteria that protect the designated w at er use s; [ w ] he the r the S ta te ha s f oll ow ed it s le ga l pr oc ed

ur es f or re vis ing or

a dopt ing standard s; [ an d w ] he the r the S ta te standard s w hic h do not

inc lud e the use s sp ec if

ie d inse ct ion101 (a )( 2) of the A ct a re ba se d up on a

ppr opr ia te te ch nic al a nd s ci en tif ic da taa nd an al y se s . . . . 40 C
. F. R. § 13 1. 5. Mo re ove r, und er the Cl ean W at er

A ct , the state ’ s w at er

qua lity standard s m ay

onl y be r ev ise d if

the c hange c om

pli es w iththe a nti -d eg ra da tio n po li cy whi ch EPA reg ul at io ns m an da te each st at e to ad op t. 3 3 U.S.C. §5

1313 (d )( 4) (B ); se e 40 C
. F. R. § 13 1. 12. T hus, a ny c hange m

ust , a t the ve ry

le as t,
m aintain the existin g qualityof eac h water body , pre venting any

further

“ de gr ad at ion ” of

the w at er body ’ s in te gr ity
. P U D N o. 1 of Je ff er son Co unty

a nd Ci ty of T ac om a v. W as h. D ep ’ t of E co log y , 511 U . S. 700 , 704 , 114 S
. Ct
. 190 0, 1905 -06, 128 L. Ed. 2d 716 (1994) (citing 33 U. S. C. § 131 3(d)(4)(B )). If the state’ s new or r evised standards m eet the re quirem ents of the Clean W at er Act , th e EPA m

us t ap pr ov e th e st an da rd s wi th in si xt y da y s. 3 3 U.S.C. § 1313 (c)( 3); see also A rkansas, 503 U. S. at 101, 112 S. C t. at 1054
. If, however, the E PAide nti fi es vio la tio ns o f the Cl ean W at er A ct , the E PAis re qui re d to take ap pr opr ia te m ea sur es to en sur e that the se pr obl em s are f ixe d. I n f ac t, it m ust not if y the state w ith in n ine ty

day s and s pe ci fy

the c hange s ne ed ed

to co m ply w ith the Clean W ater A ct. 33 U. S. C. § 131 3(c)( 3). The E PAalso m ust prop ose new re gul at ion s th at

sa tis fy the r equir em en ts o f the Cl ean W at er A ct . I d. a t § 1313 (c )( 4)
. A nd i f the state doe s no t a dopt E PA ’ s pr opos ed

c hange s w ith in n ine ty day s of pub lic at ion , the E PAit se lf m ust pr om ulg at e tho se standard s. I d. A ny existing water quality

standard “ rem ains the applicable standard un til [the] EP A ap pr ove s ac hange , de le tio n, or a ddi tio n to that w at er

qua lity standard , or

unt il [th e] EPA pr om

ul ga te s a m or e st rin ge nt wate r qu al it y st an da rd .” 40 C.F.R. § 13 1.2 1( e).The state pr epar es a ma nag ement program identify ing “ best manag ement pra ctices a nd 2 me a sure s” to r e du c e po llutio n, wh ic h, in t ur n, the EPAmus t a

pp ro ve and

may pr ov ide g ra

nts to implement. Meiburg , 296 F.3d at 1026. Moreover , the state pre pare s a “c ontinuing planning proce ss” which “ is essentially a plan f or how the state is goingto clean up pollution.” I d. (quoting 33 U.S.C. § 1313(e)(1) ). The E PA is then require d to approve or disapprove the c on tin uin gpla nn ingpr oc e ss a

nd , a ft e r a

pp ro va l, t o o c c a sio na lly

de te rm ine its c on sis te nc y wi th the Clean Water A ct. I d. (citing33 U.S.C. § 1313(e)(2) ). 6 W at er qua lity sta ndard s pl ay

a n im portant r ole in m ai nta ini ng and im proving the cleanliness and safety of the nation’s w aterbodies, beca use they are de sig ne d to de te rm ine w hic h w at er bodi es a re sa fe e noug h to sup port the ir de sig na te d us es . T hus, e ac h st at e m ust c om pil e a lis t i de nti fy ing tho se bod ie s of wate r th atare i m

pa ire d, i .e. no t s afe e no ug h t o u se as d es ig na te d. 3 3 U.S.C. § 1313 (d )( 1) (A ). T his li st ( known a s th e “ Im pa ir ed W at er s L ist ” or

“ 303( d) li st” ) is then sent to th e E PAfor approval. Id. at §§ 1313 (d)(1)( A) , ( d)(2). If the EP A dis ap pr ove s of

the state ’ s pr opos ed

I m pa ir ed W at er s L ist , it

m ust iss ue it s own li st. Mei bu rg , 29 6 F .3dat 1 02 5- 26 (ci ti ng 33 U.S.C. § 1 31 3( d) (2 )). Whe n aw at er

body doe s no t satis fy

aw at er qua lity standard , both th e state
an d th e fe de ra l go ve rn m en t are r equir ed to ac t t o c ontro l and r em edy the pol lut ion of the waterbody
. See Meiburg, 296 F.3d at 1025. T he state and feder al gove rn m en ts are dir ec te d to a dj ust the a m ount s of

pol lut ionthat are pe rm itt ed by ind ivi dua l, ide nti fi ab le sourc es , a nd t o im ple m en t m or e ge ne ra liz ed pr ogr am s to re duc e the a m ount

of pol lut ion
. I d. a t 10 25- 26 ( ci tin g 33 U . S. C. §§

27

1313 (e )( 1) , (2 ); 132 9( b) , ( h) ). H ow ev er , thi s im portant c le an -u

p pr oc es s do es not be ginunl es s and unti l the w at er body is ide nti fi ed

on the I m

pa ir ed W at er s L ist
. Th e F l o ri d a D ep ar t m en to f E n v i ro n m en t al Pr o t ec t i o n cr ea t ed Fl o ri d a’s
w at er qua lity standard s w he n it

pr om ulg at ed c ha pte r 62- 302 of

the F lor ida A dm ini str at ive Co de , se tti ng f orth the state ’ s “ Surf

ac e W at er Q ua lity S tandard s” (“ Fl or ida ’ s S ur fa ce W at er Q ua lity S tandard s” ). S ee F la
. A dm in. Co de A nn. r . 62- 302. 200-
. 800. T he F lor ida S ta te L eg isl at

ur e ins tr uc te d th e FD E P to a dopt

a m ethodo log y

to ide nti fy

im pa ir ed w at er s, takin g in to a cc ount “ the vari ab ili ty oc curr ing in na tur e” a nd r ec ogni zi ng “ the statis tic al vari ab ili ty inh er en t i n sam pling and testing p rocedures that ar e used to express water quality standards.” Fl a. St at . § 4 03 .02 1( 11 ). Tw o sentences found in Florida’ s Surfac e W ater Q uality Standards are
re le vant t o th is c as e. F ir st, the state r eg ulatio n, in pr ovi din g th e m ax im um le ve ls of pollut ants that each w aterbody m ay contain without b ecom ing un safe f or use, ex pla ins that “ [u ] nle ss o the rw ise state d, a ll cr ite ri a ex pr es s th e m ax im um not to be
ex ce ed ed a t any ti m e. ” F la
. A dm in. Co de A nn. r . 62- 302. 530. S ec ond, in se tti ng o u tt h e n u t r i e n tl e v e l s t h a twa t e r b o d i e s c o u l ds a f

e l y c o n t a i n , t h e r e g u l a t i o n s a ys that “ [i] n no case shall nutrient con centrations of a body of w ater be altered so asThe Impaired Water s Rule became ef fec tive on J une 10, 2002. The FDE P’s 3 promulg ation of the Impaired Water s Rule was authorized by the Flor ida L eg islature, throug h the enac tment in 1999 of the Florida Watershed Restoration Act, codified at Fla. Stat. § 403.067. Th is a c t di re c te d th e F DE P to de ve lop and “ a do pt b y

ru le a me tho do logy

fo r d e te rm ini ngtho se water s which ar e impaire d” and which, there fore , must be included on the Impaired Water s L ist. Fla. Stat. § 403.067(3) (b). The Florida State L eg islature’s a ction was in re sponse to a conse nt decr ee a pproved by

the United States District Court for the Norther n District of F lorida in Florida Wil dlife F eder ation, Inc. v. B rowne r, No. 4:98CV356-WS (N.D. Fla . Aug . 7, 1999). In that case , sever al environme ntal g roups soug ht to compel the EPA to establish max imum levels of allowable pollutants for

water s on Florida’ s 1998 I mpaired Water s L ist. Under the c onsent decr ee, if the state fa iled to establish these maxim ums for waters on F lorida’s 1998 Impaired Waters L ist, the EPA was requir ed to do so. 8 to c au se a n im

ba lanc e in n at

ur al pop ulatio ns o f aqua tic f lor a or f auna . ” I d. (em ph as is ad de d)
. The pre sent disp ute arose w hen, on April 26, 2001 , the F DE P adopted chapter 62-303 of the Florida Adm inistrative Code, the so-called “ Im paired W at er s R ule
. ” F la
. A dm in. Co de A nn. r . 62- 303. 100-
. 700. T he state d purp ose of 3 the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule w as to “ int er

pr et e xis tin g w at er

qua lity c ri te ri a an d
ev al ua te a tta inm en t of

e sta bli she d de sig na te d us es . ” F la
. A dm in. Co de A nn. r . 62- 303. 100( 3)
. T he I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule pr ovi de d th at

“ [i ] t i s no t the int en t of

thi s ch ap te r to e sta

bli sh n eww at er

qua lity c ri te ri a or

standard s, or

to de te rm ine the ap pl ic ab il it y

of e xi st in g c rit eri a u nd er o th er p ro vi si on s o f Fl or id a la w.” Id. De spite this language, the plaintiffs contend, the Im paired W aters Rule has ef fe ct ive ly c hange d F lor ida ’ s w at er

qua lity standard s. F ir st, the y

say , w hil e the
or igi na l w at er

qua lity standard s r equir ed

the ir c ri te ri a “ not

to be e xc ee de d a t anyBa sed on binomial statisti cal methodolog y , the Impaired Water s Rule provides a c hart 4 setting howmany

exceeda nces must be f

ound in a sample set to be a n acc urate measure of the total water

body ’s quality . Fla. A dmin. Code. Ann. r. 62-303.320. Sepa rate from this char

t, the I mpaired Water s Rule mandates that two samples e x cee ding the maxi mum concentr ation for tox ic pollutants must be found befor e plac ing a water body on the Impaired Water s L ist. Fla. Ad min . Co de . A nn . r . 6 2- 30 3. 34 0. Al so dis tin c t f ro m th e g e ne ra l c ha

rt of min imum sa

mpl e siz es, the Impaired Water s Rule require s that a waterbody have a minimum of two fa iled bioassessments -- not just one -- befor e beingplace d on the Impaired Water s L ist. Fla. Admin. Code. Ann. r. 62- 303.430. 9 tim e, ” the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule a llo w s m

ult ipl e ex ce ed an ce s to oc cur w ith out tr igg er ing c la ssi fi catio n of aw at er body a s im pa ir ed
. I n pr ac tic al e ff

ec t, the pla int if fs a rg ue , thi s r es ult s inam or e fo rg ivi ng, loo se r w at er qua lity standard , s i n c e t h e I mp a i r e dWa t e r s R u l e r e qu i r e s mo r e t h a n as i n g l e s a mp l e t a k e n f r o m a wa terbody

to exceed the m axim

um concentration of pollu tants before that
w at er body is de em ed

im pa ir ed , F la
. A dm in. Co de
. A nn. r . 62- 303. 320,
. 340,
. 430,

4
w hil e a sin gle e xc ee danc e w oul d have suf fi ce d un de r the pr e- ex ist ing standard s. Se co nd, the pla int if

fs a lle ge , the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule c hange s or

a dds to the narr at ive nutri en t st an dard pr ovi de d by

F lor ida ’ s S ur fa ce W at er

Q ua lity St an dard s. F lor ida ’ s narr at ive nutri en t st an dard s pr ovi de s th at “ in n o c as e sha ll nutri en t c onc en tr at ionof

abody of w at er be a lte re d so a s to c au se a n im ba lanc e in
na tur al pop ulatio ns o f aqua tic f lor a an d f auna . ” F la
. A dm in. Co de
. A nn. r . 62- 302. 530( 48) (b ). T he I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule a dopt s sp ec if

ic nutri en t c onc en tr at ion s to b e use d a s th e pr im ar

y m eans f or a sse ssi ng nutr ie nt i m

pa irm en t; the se m eansThe re levant Impaired Water s Rule provisions are these : 5 (1) Tr ophic state indice s (TSI s) a n d an n u al m ean c hlorophyll a values shall be the primary means for

assessingwhether a water should be assesse d further for nutrie nt imp a ir me nt. Othe r i nf

or matio n in dic atin gan im

ba lanc e in f

lor a or fa un a du e to nutrient enric hment, including, but not limite d t o , alg al blooms, ex cessive macr ophy te growth, decre ase in the di stribution (either in density or areal c overa g e) of sea g rasse s or other submer ged aquatic veg etation, cha ng es in alg al spec ies richne ss, and excessive diel oxy g en swing s, shall also be consider ed. (2) To be used to deter

mine whether

a water should be a ssessed fur ther for nutrient e nr ic hme nt, (a) Data must meet the r equire ments of subsections (2) , (4), ( 6), and ( 7) in rule 62- 30 3. 32 0, F .A .C. (b ) A t le a st o ne sampl e fr om e a c h s e a so n s ha ll b e re qu ir e d i n any g ive n ye ar t o calc ulate a Trophic State Index (TSI ) or a n annual mea

n chlorophyll a value f

or that y ear , and (c ) T h er e m u s tb e a n nu al m ea n s fr o m at l ea s tfo ur y ea rs wh en ev al u at i n g th e c h an ge in T SIov e r t ime purs ua

nt t o s ub se c tio n 6 2- 30 3. 35 2( 3) , F .A .C. (3 ) Wh e n c omp ari ng chang e s in c hlo ro phyll a

or TSI va lue s to his tor ic a l le ve ls, histor ic a l le v e ls s h a ll b e b a s e d o n th e lo w e s t f iv e - y e ar av e r a g e f

o r th e p e r io d of re c or d. To c a lc ulate a

fi ve -ye ar a

ve ra g e , th e re mus t be annua l me ans fr om at le a st three y ear s of the five -y ear period. Fla. A dmin. Code Ann. r. 62-303.350. Nutrients in Streams. A stream or stream seg ment shall be included on the planning list for nutrients if the followingbiologica l imbalances a re obse rved: (1) Alg al mats are prese nt in sufficient quantities to p o s e a n uisance or hinder repr oduction of a thre atene d or enda ng ere d specie s, or (2 ) Annua l me an c hlo ro phyll a c on c e ntr atio ns are g reat e r t ha n 2 0 u g/l o r i f d ata 10 ar e not inc lud ed in the pr e- ex ist ing , appr ove d w at er qua lity standard s. I n a ddi tio n, the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule pr ovi de s sp ec if

ic num er ic c ri te ri a fo r nutri en t co nc en tr at ion s w hic h do not e xis t w ith in F lor ida ’ s S ur fa ce W at er Q ua lity St an dard s. T hus, the pla int if fs c ont en d, the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule ha s th e ef

fe ct of
m odi fy ing the e xis tin g w at er qua lity standard s. 5indicate annual mean chlorophyll a values have incre ased by more th an 5 0 % o ver

his tor ic a l va lue s f

or at le a st two c on se c uti ve y e ars . Fla. A dmin. Code Ann. r. 62-303.351. Nutri ents in Estuaries. Estuar ies or estua ry seg ments shall be included on the planninglist for nutrients if their annua l mean chlor ophyll a fo r any y ear is gr eate r than 11 ug/l or if data indicate annua l mean chlorophyll a values have incr ease d by mor e tha n 5 0% ov e r h ist or ic a l va lue s f or at le a st two c on se c uti ve y e ars . Fla. A dmin. Code. Ann. r. 62-303.353. Duringan initial reviewof an e arly draf t of the Impaired Water s Rule, the EPA noted 6 that “ [a]lt ho ug h u lti mate ly

it m ay no t be a pr ob le m, a

numbe r o f t

he pr ov isi on s in

the dr a ft ru le are lik e ly to b e c on sid e re d to be re vis ion s to the State ’s wate r q ua lity sta nd ard s, and

a s su c h, wi ll require revie w and a

pproval by

[t he] EPA.” L etter f

rom Be verly

H. B anister, Ac ting Dir ector of EPA’s Water Mana g ement Division, to J err y Br ooks, Assistant Director of FDE P’s Division of Water F acilities of 9/5/2000, at 2. The letter elabor ated that the “ most troubling aspe ct of the State’ s draf t rule ar e the nume ro us pr ov isi on s th at w ou ld a llo w the State to r e mov e fr om t he ir c ur re nt s e c tio n 3 03 (d ) l ist [of impaired wate rs] many water s for what the State define s as insufficie nt data or f or other re a so ns .” I d. Th e EPA ’s po sit ion at th is t ime wa s th at “ the se pr ov isi on s a re inc on sis te nt w ith the CWA a

nd re gulatio ns , a

nd wo uld le a d to EPA ’s dis a

pp ro va l of

the a [sic ] se c tio n 3 03 (d ) l ist that was ba sed on this methodology .” I d. Mainly , the EPA was c oncer ned with appa

rent re vis ion s to the “ no t to be e xce e de d” re qu ir e me nt o f F lor ida ’s Sur fa c e Wat e r Q ua lity Sta nd ard s. Resolution of Comm ents by the USEPA on the Florida Dra ft Rule, at 4 (summarizing e arlier EPA comment letters of 9/5/2000 and 9/22/2000). Spec ifically , the EPA pointed out the I mpaired Water s Rule’s use of the minimum sample sizes and exclusions of data collecte d during cer tain events or pe riods. I d. The EPA also noted the potential revision containe d in sections 62-303.340 and 62- 303.440, which re quired the e x amination of two samples indicating toxicity befor e a w ater

was classified a s impaired. The EPA found that “these provisions appea r to modify

the State’s 11 T he E PApr ovi de d su

bst an tia l gu idanc e to the F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of Env iro nm en ta l Pr ot ect io n d ur in g t he earl y dra fti ng of t he Im

pa ire d Water s R

ul e. In de ed , it e ve n po int ed

out that the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule appe ar ed

to m ak e s e v e r a l r e v i s i o n s t o F l o r i d a ’s S u r f a c e Wa t e r Qu a l i t y S t a n d a r d s . No t ab l y, 6narr ative [water qua lity standards] criter ia for toxicity , and as suc h, would be re visions [ to] the State’s wate r quality

standards r equiringEPA’s revie w and a pproval.” Detailed Comments on the F lor ida

Dr a ft Rul e , at 5. Th e EPA ’s state d v ie w w a s th at“ [i]t w ou ld b e a pp ro pr iate to conduct a second toxicity

test to verify

the tox icity

deter mination, but in t he abse nce of such a second sa mpling, the water must be conside red impaire d.” I d. at 6. L ikewise, the EPA objec ted to the rule r equiringtwo, rathe r than one , failed bioassessment bef

ore a water body is deemed impaire d. I d. at 5. The EPA’ s stated position was that “[o] ne biolog ical samplingshould be sufficie nt unless one is unsure of the result and then one should resa

mple relatively

quickly .” I d. The EPA conc luded that the provisions providing biologica l methods “appe ar to modify the State’s nar

rative . . . c riteria f

or biolog ical hea lth, and as such, would be a re vision to t he State’s water qua lity standards r equiringEPA review and approva l.” I d. In addition to the appar ent cha ng e to the “not to be e x cee ded at a ny time” provision of Florida ’s wate r quality

standards, the EPA found in its early revie ws that portions of the proposed Impaired Water s Rule “appe ar to e stablish an implementation methodology for the State’s nar

rative c riteria f

or nutrients, and, a s such, appe ar to be revisions to Florida’ s [water quality standards] requiring[t he] EPA’s reviewand appr oval.” I d. at 6. After the FD EP made se ve ra l r e vis ion s to the I WR, the EPAmod if ie d it s v ie w o f t

he I mpa ir e d Wate rs Rul e . T he EPA explained in a letter to the F DEP that it believed “the [I mpaired Water s Rule] , as it is now draf ted, has re solved almost all of [the] EPA’s ea rlier c oncer

ns.” L etter f

rom Ba nister to Br ooks of 4/26/2001, at 1. For

example, the EPA’s prior que stions about the require ment of two exceeda nces f or tox ic pollutants were answe red to the EPA’ s satisfaction, by the Impaired Wat e rs Rul e ’s ne w r e qu ir e me nt t hat th e F DE P c oll e c t a

se c on d s ampl e te sti ngfo r t oxic pollutants when only

one sample w as ava ilable. Resolution of Comments by the USEPA on the F lor ida Dr a ft Rul e , at 8. Th e EPA ’s c on c e rn that c e rt a in p ro vis ion s o f t he I mpa ir e d Wate rs Rul e could be view ed as a

chang e to Flor ida’s water qua lity standards w as assua g ed by the re g ulatio n’ s c lari fi c atio n th at “ the [I mpa ir e d Wate rs Rul e ] expr e sse s h owthe State imp le me nts its [ water quality standards] for Sec tion 303(d) listing purpose s only , and does not c hang e any exis ting [water

quality standards].” L etter f

rom Ba nister to Br ooks of 4/26/2001, at 3. Howeve r, in spite of this cave at, the provisions initially questioned by

the EPA wer e lef

t larg e ly un c ha ng e d in su bs tanti ve te rm s. Al tho ug h th e re vis e d Impa ir e d Wate rs Rul e state d th at it only provided a

methodology

for a ssessing c ompliance with existi ngstandards, those pr ovisions the EPA had initially

conclude d would be viewe d as re visions to t he existi ngstandards w ere left larg ely the same. 12 how ev er , th e E PAdid

not c ondu ct a n of fi ci al , tho ro ugh re vie wa nd a ppr ova l of the final version of the Im paired W aters Rule, as w as required under the CleanBe cause Florida has so many

water bodies, the F DEP divided the fifty -two water ba sins 7 of the state into five distinct basin gr oups, with eac h g roup re prese nting a pproxi mately

20% of the State’s waters. The update c onducted in 2002 (“ Group One Update” ) only examined data for the 1600 wate rbodies in the first g roup. Florida later a mended the list on May

12, 2003. 8 At the time when the district c ourt enter ed fina l summary judgme nt, on May

29, 2003, 9 the re sults of the EPA’s revie w had not y et bee n rele ased. 13 W ater A ct if, in fact, the Im paired W aters Rule c reate d new or r evised water qualitystandards. 33 U. S. C. § 131 3(c)( 3). O n Augus t 28 , 200 2, the F lor ida D ep ar tm en t of E nvi ro nm en ta l P ro te ct ion fi rs t up da te d it s I m

pa ir ed W at er s L ist

by appl y ing the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule
. T his update use d th e Im

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule to re -e xa m ine about

tw en ty pe rc en t of Fl or ida ’ s w at er

bodi es . O n O ct obe r 1, 200 2, F lor ida sub m itt ed

it s G ro up O ne 7 Upda te to the 199 8 I m

pa ir ed W at er s L ist

( “ G ro up O ne Upda te ”) to the E PAf or reviewas required by

the Clean W ater A ct. See 33 U . S. C. § 13 13( d) (2 ); 40 8 C.F.R. § 13 0.7 (d ). In acc ordance w ith EPAregulations, see 40 C. F. R. § 130 .7(d), the EP A review ed the Gr oup One Update to Florida’ s Im paired W aters L ist and pu blish ed the r es ult s of

it s r ev ie won June 11, 200 3. T he E PAe xpl ai ne d init s D ec isi on 9 Docum ent that, beca

use parts of the Im

paired W aters Rule had “ not been us ed be fo re a nd [ w er e] not

part of the S ta te ’ s w at er

qua lity standard s, ” the E PAw oul dThus, for e x ample, the EPA’s f inal position on t he adde d numeric c riteria f or nutrient 10 c on c e ntr atio ns wa s th at th e I mpa ir e d Wate rs Rul e ’s us e of c hlo ro phyll a

le ve ls a nd us e of TSI to deter mine attainment of water qua lity standards f

or nutrients wa s a re asonable method of applying the State’s appr oved nar rative w ater

quality standard f

or nutrients. EPA Dec ision Document at 34-35. The EPA did not specif ically addre ss whether

the numeric criter ia wer e re vis e d o r n e w c ri te ri a , a lth ou g h it c on c lud e d th at “ the na

rr ativ e c ri te ri a

a pp lic atio n s e t out in Florida ’s listing methodolog y is consistent with Florida’s a pproved w ater

quality standard f

or nutrients.” I d. at 35. I t theref ore a pproved w ithout further re view all of the FDE P’s list ing decisions for nutr ients in lakes base d on that methodology . I d. Simi larly , the EPA found the FDE P’s exclusi on of data older than 7.5 year s to be “re asonable ,” and a ccor dingly adopted the 14 fi rs t de te rm ine w he the r ap pli catio n of the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule w as a

“ reasonable” approach to identify ing im paired w aters. Region 4, W ater Mana ge m en t D ivi sio n, E PA , D ec isi on D oc um en t R eg ar din g D ep ar tm en t of E nvi ro nm en ta l P ro te ct ion ’ s §3 03( d) L ist A m en dm en t S ubm itt ed

on O ct obe r 1, 2002 and Subsequent ly

Am ended on May

12, 2003 at 12 (Jun e 11, 2003) (“ EP A Deci si on Docu m en t” ). Inthi s r ev ie w , the E PAdid not m ak e a thr es hol d de te rm inatio n w he the r the Im pa ir ed W at er s R

ule c om pli ed w iththe r equir em en ts o f the Cl ean W at er A ct , inc lud ing it s anti -d eg ra da tio n po lic y . R athe r, it f ir st s ubj ec te d e ac h m ethodo log y ad opt ed by the S ta te to a m or e ge ne ra l “ re as ona ble ne ss” r ev ie w . Whe n it concluded th at a particular m ethodo logywa s reasonable, the EP A a pproved without further reviewall w aterbodies placed on the Im paired W aters L ist und er that m ethodo log y

- - but , not ab ly , the E PAdid not r e- ex am ine the da taf

or wa terbodies that were delisted because of the change in m ethodo logy
. E PA 10same time fr ame in its own revie w. I d. at 23.

The EPA had c oncer

ns about the data

excluded by

the FD EP. I n acc ordanc e with the 11 I mpaired Water s Rule, water bodies that did not meet the data sufficie ncy

require ments of the regulation were not included on the State’s Impaired Water s L ist. EPA Decision Document at 24 . T he F DE P thus inc lud e d th e wate rb od y on e ith e r a lis t of wate rb od ie s w ithins uf

fi c ie nt d ata for a ssessment, called Categ ory 3b, or the list of wate rbodies that ar e potentially impaired, c alled Categ ory 3c. I d. The EPA found that the I mpaired Water s Rule contradic ted an EPA re g ulation which re quired e ach state to “asse mble and eva luate all existi ngand re adily available water quality -re lated data

and information to develop the list required by §§ 130.7(b)( 1) and 130.7(b)( 2).” I d. (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 130.7(b)( 5) (e mphasis added) ). To dete rmine whe ther the I mpaired Water s Rule overly restric ted data a

naly sis and, there fore , failed to identify limit ed seg ments, the EPA revie wed a random sample of

water bodies listed in Categ ory

3b. I d. Ba sed on its re vie w, the EPAde te rm ine d th at th e data g uid e lin e s u se d b y

the F DE P “ did

no t r e su lt i n the fa ilure to identify

any water quality limit ed seg ments.” I d. The EPA looked c losely

at the data

for e ach w ater

body included in Categ ory

3c, which 12 wer e the waters that did not meet the data suffic iency require ments of the Impaired Water s Rule. As a re sult, the EPA added some waterbodies onto the Impaired Water s L ist. I d. at 27, 37. Whil e ac countingfor va

riability inhere nt in nature a

nd in sampling a

nd testing pr ocedur es, the 15 De cision Docum ent at 34-35. W here the E PAhad doub ts about an Im paired W aters Rule m ethodo logy , such as the exclusion of wate rbodies that di d not m eet the sam ple size and other data re quirem ents, the E PAexam ined the data of a
random sam ple of the de lis te d w at er

bodi es to de te rm ine w he the r the m ethodo log y failed to rea sonablyidentify im paired w aters. E PADe cision Docum ent at 24. I f the r an dom

sam ple se em ed

to es ta bli sh the r ea sona

ble ne ss o f a m ethodo log y , the E PAdid not f urthe r re vie ww he the r the m ethodo log y a cc ur at el y

ide nti fi ed

a ll im paired w aters in that category
. In still other cases, the EP A looked m ore 11 closely at individ ual sam

ple data and added wate rbodies to th e Im paired W aters Lis t b as edon it s i nd ep en de nt rev ie w. Id. at 27 , 37
. 12EPAre vie we d d ata fo r t re nd s, le ve ls d

ur ingc ri tic a l c on dit ion s, and oth e r m or e sit e sp e c if

ic data considerations such as wate rbody ty pe. I d. at 37. In o ne c a se , th e EPAc omp le te ly re je c te d o ne pr ov isi on

of the I mpa ir e d Wate rs Rul e 13 and adde d all water

bodies delisted base d on that provision. EPA Decision Docume nt at 27. The statut e a uth or izin gthe F DE P to de ve lop the I mpa ir e d Wate rs Rul e did no t pe rm it the F DE P to add any water bodies to the Impaired Water s L ist unless the FDEP identified the pollutant ca using the impairment. F la. Stat. § 403.067(4). The EPA’s position was that Section 303(d) of the Cle an Wate r A c t r e qu ir e d s tate s to lis t w ate rb od ie s th at a re imp a ir e d e ve n whe n th e sp e c if ic pollutant was unknown, unless the state c ould demonstrate that non- pollutant stressors cause the impairment. EPA Dec ision Document at 27. As a r esult, the EPA added a ll waterbodie s which had bee n identified by

Florida as impaired but we re de listed beca use the pollutant was not known. I d. Howeve r, in most cases, the E PA simpl y conducte d an indepe ndent re view of the wate rb od ie s a ff

e c te d b y a ne w m e tho do logy

re je c te d b y the EPA . T hu s, fo r e xamp le , th e EPA disapproved of

the Impaired Water s Rule’s require ment of at lea st two samples demonstrating exceeda nces of tox ic pollutants. I t noted that conce ntrations of tox ic and non- conventional pollutants ge nera lly

do not vary

widely under natural conditions, so that one sample showingan exceeda nce pr obably

meant the e ntire waterbody was ove r-polluted. I d. at 29. Ther efor e, the EPAloo ke d c are fu lly

at w ate rb od ie s w ithdata

re late d to toxic and

no n- c onve nti on a l po llutants , and adde d two water

bodies that the F DEP had fa iled to include on their Impaired Water s L ist. Howeve r, the EPA did not require Florida to chang e its policy

in future updates. L ikewise, the EPA took the position t hat, in some circ umstances, a single rec ent bioassessment could pr ovide en o u ghev i d en ce th ata w at er b o dy i s i mp ai re d
. I d
. at3 1
. R at h er th an re qu i ri n g Fl o ri d a t o ch an ge the Impaired Water s Rule, the EPA itself independe ntly revie wed the data for a ffe cted water bodies to determine if

there wer e any

water bodies which should have been listed ba sed on exis ting bioasse ssment data. I d. at 31-32. As a result of its investigation, the EPA added one water body to the I mpaired Water s L ist that the FDEP had not included in their submissi on to the EPA. 16 In no cas e d idth e EPA req ui re Fl or id a to ch an ge it s Im pa ire d Water s R

ul e. E ve n w he re it

dis ag re ed

e nti re ly w itham et

hodo log y of the ne wse t of

r eg ulatio ns, the E PAsim

ply c ondu ct ed

it s own in de pe nde nt r ev ie wof w at er bodi es , r ep eatin g rathe r than si m

ply r ev ie w ing the w ork th at

F lor ida w as r equir ed

to do. I n it s

13 Gr oup One Update, the Florida D epartm ent of E nvironm ental Protection rem ovedDuringoral a rgument, the plaintiffs said that af ter the EPA r e-listed eighty -two 14 wate rb od ie s, the re sti ll w e re on e hund re d s ixty -o ne wate rb od ie s d e lis te d, but th e y did no t c ite to any thing c ontained in the re cord to support this asser tion. The EPA Dec ision Document sug g ested that a

differ ent number of

water bodies wer e lef

t delisted. This is an issue of fac t that may be re so lve d in

the dis tr ic t c ourt

up on re mand , b ut f

or the purp os e of

thi s a pp e a l, i t is sufficie nt for us to observe that over one hundred w ater bodies wer e delisted by

Florida which the EPAdid no t put ba c k o n th e I mpa ir e d Wate rs L ist
. 17 m ore than one hund red w aterbodies from the Im paired W aters L ist. A fter r eview of the G ro up O ne Upda te , the E PAdis ag re ed w ithm an y

of the se de lis tin gs, a nd ad de d wat erb od ie s b ackto th e Im pa ire d Water s Li st . Fed eral App el le es ’ Br. at2. H ow ev er , e ve n a ft er

the E PA ’ s r ev ie wof

the G ro up O ne Upda te , ove r one hundre d w at er

bodi es that ha d pr ev iou sly be enc onsi de re d im

pa ir ed w er e now re m ove d f

ro m the I m pa ir ed W at er s L ist

a nd w er e no l onge r subj ec t t o th e pr oc ed ur es use d to c le anup i m

pa ir ed w at er s. 14 B. Af t ert h e e ff ec t i v e d at e o f t h e I m

p ai re dWat er s Ru l e, b u tp ri o r t o t h e E PA ’s
re le as e of it s r ev ie wof

the G ro up O ne Upda te , the pla int if fs br ough t this sui t against the EPAunder the citizen suit provi sion o f the Clean W ater A ct, to enforce the unam bigu ous requirem ent that the EPAreviewany new or revised w ater qualitystandards for com pliance with the A ct. See 33 U. S. C. § 136 5(a)( 2). Under thi s pr ovi sio n, c iti ze ns m ay sue the E PAa nd i ts a dm ini str at or s f or f ai lin g “ to pe rf orm a ny a ct or duty und er [ the A ct ] w hic h is not

dis cr et ion ar

y w iththeIn the alter native, the plaintiffs a

rgued that the Impaired Water s Rule is a policy that 15 implemented Flor ida’s Surfa ce Water Quality Standards, which the EPA is required to a pprove or dis a pp ro ve , s e e 40 C.F .R. § 1 31 .1 3, and that th e EPAun lawf

ull y wi thh e ld o r u

nr e a so na bly delayed that ac tion in viol ation of the Administrative Proce dure A ct. See 5 U.S.C. § 706(1). The APA g ives the fe dera l district courts the power to compel such a g ency

action, provide d that “ther e is no other a dequate reme dy in a cour t.” 5 U.S.C. § 704. I n this case, the district c ourt c on c lud e d th at it

la c ke d s ub

je c t matte r j ur isd ic tio n to re vie w the APAc la im, fo r t he same re a so ns it r e

je c te d th e Cle an Wate r A c t c iti zen su it c la im. Th e pla int if

fs argue on

a pp e a l th at, even if the district court wa s corr ect in conc luding that the E PA was not requir ed to re view the I mpaired Water s Rule, under 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c) , thus barringa citizen suit under 33 U.S.C. § 1965, the EPA still unl awf ully withheld or unre asonably delayed its action to approve policies that implement a state’s w ater quality standards, which the APA for bids. Howeve r, sec tion 131.13 mere ly

states that states may

establish “policies g ener ally aff ectingtheir application and imp le me ntatio n, ” wh ic h a re “ su bje c t to EPAre vie w a

nd a pp ro va l.” 40 C.F .R. § 1 31 .1 3. Th is languag e does not c reate a manda tory duty subject to APA regulation, and “the only ag ency action that ca

n be compe lled under the APA is action leg ally require d.” Nor

ton v. Southern Utah Wil derne ss Alliance, __ U.S. __, 124 S. Ct. 2373, 2379 & n. 1, 159 L . Ed. 137 (2004). O f c ours e , if the I mpa ir e d Wate rs Rul e c re ate d n e w o r r e vis e d w ate r q ua lity sta nd ard s, the n th e EPA plainly would have a

mandatory

duty to reviewthe re g ulation, but in that case, the pla intiffs would then have a valid cla im under the c itiz en suit provision of the Clean Water A ct, and thus wo uld have ano the r “ a de qu ate re me dy in c ourt ” wh ic h, in a

ny e ve nt, wo uld

ba r i ts A PA c la im. 18 A dm ini str at or . ” I d. T he E PA ’ s ob lig at ionto re vie wa ny ne wor r ev ise d st at e w at er qua lity standard s is one suc h m an da tor y duty . Mi cc osuk ee T ri be of I ndi an s of Fla. v. U nited States, 105 F. 3d 59 9, 602 (11th Cir. 1997). T he plaintiffs claim ed that the effe ct of the Im paired W aters Rule w as to revise Florida’ s Surfac e W ater Q uality

Standards, and, there fore, that the Im paired W aters Rule w as su bjec t t o n on di sc ret io na ry rev ie w by th e EPA. 33 U.S.C. § 1 31 3( c); 40 C.F.R. § 15 131. 5. The F DE P m oved to in tervene as a defendant and the district court granted the ir appl ic at ion
. I n ti m e, the pla int if fs , the E PA , a nd the F D E P al l f ile d c ro ss-19

m otion s for sum

m ary j udgm ent. O n May

29, 2003, the district court granted
summ ary j udgm ent to the EPA
. Florida Public Interest Re search G roup Citizen L obby , I nc . v. E PA , N o. 4:0 2c v004 08, sli p. op. a t 12 ( N . D . F la
. May 29, 200 3) ( “Op i n i o n ” )
. Th e d i s t r i c tc o u rte x p l a i n e di t s r e a s o n i n g t h i s wa y: T o m odi fy

or a m en d F lor ida ’ s w at er

qua lity standard s, F D E P m

ust co m p l y wi t h t h e ru l e- m ak i n g p ro ce du re s s et fo rt h i n Fl o ri d a’s Adm inistrative Procedure A ct. Fla. Stat. ch. 120.54. FD EP has en g ag ed i n n o s u ch ru l e- m ak i n g p ro ce s s t o m o d i fy o r a m en dFl o ri d a’s w at er qua lity standard s, a nd the E PAha s a ppr ove d no m odi fi catio ns or a m en dm en ts t o [ Fl or ida ’ s S ur fa ce W at er Q ua lit y S tandard s. ] A s a m atte r of law , the re fo re , the w at er qua lity standard s se t f

orth i n ch ap te r 62- 302 re m ai n th e w at er qua lity standard s f

or the S ta te of Florida notwithstand ing FDE P’ s adoptio n of the [Im paired W aters Ru l e]. By it s own te rm s, the [ Im

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule ] w as a nd i s in te nde d to pr ovi de am ethodo log y

f or ide nti fy ing bod ie s of

w at er that are not atta ini ng the S ta te of

F lor ida ’ s a

ppr ove d w at er

qua lity standard s and that, there fore, m

ust be includ ed on the State’ s [Im paired W aters Li s t ]. Un d ert h e C WA, t h e E PA m u s tre v i ew an dap p ro v e F l o ri d a’s [Im paired W aters L ist] before it bec om es the applicable [Im paired W at er s L ist ] f

or pur pose s of the CWA
. . . . I f Fl or ida ’ s li sti ng m ethodo log y

ha s r es ult ed

in an[ Im pa ir ed W at er s L ist ] w hic h is inc onsi ste nt w iththe state ’ s e xis tin g, E PA -a ppr ove d w at er

qua lity standard s c odi fi ed

in ch ap te r 62- 302, the E PAw oul d be r equir ed to dis ap pr ove the li st, in w hol e or in part , a nd m ak e its ow n li sti ng de ci sio ns a s a

ppr opr ia te . 40 C. F. R. § 13 0. 7( d) (2 ). T he li sti ng m ethodo log y

se t f orth i n th e [I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule ] , in oth er

w or ds, cannot pos sib ly ha ve the e ff

ec t of r ev isi ng F lor ida ’ s w at er

qua lity standards or poli cies aff

ecting thos e standards, provided that the EPA co m pl ie s -- as i t m

us t -- wit h t he req ui rem en ts of t he CWA
.20

In sum , the E PAand the FD EP persuasively argue, and this court fi n d s , t h at t h e S t at e o f F l o ri d a, t h ro u g h t h e [ Impa i re dWat er s Ru l e], has neither form ally , nor in ef fect, established new or m odified ex ist ing w at er

qua lity standard s or

pol ic ie s ge ne ra lly

a ff ec tin g th ose wate r qu al it y

st an da rd s. Opi ni on at 1 2- 13 (em

ph as is ad de d)
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt thus re lie d he av ily on thr ee m aj or

c onc lus ion s: ( 1) the FD E P ha d no t f

oll ow ed the pr ope r pr oc ed

ur es to am en d F lor ida ’ s w at er qua lity s t ad ar d s ; (2 ) t h e E PA h ad n o tfo rmal l y ap p ro v ed an y amen d m en t s t o Fl o ri d a’s
w at er qua lity standard s; and ( 3) the E PA ’ s su bse que nt r ev ie wof

the f ina l l ist of im pa ir ed w at er s m eant tha t the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule c oul d no t have the e ff ec t of revising Florida’ s wate r quality standards. T he district court, there fore, concluded that the EPAhad no no ndiscretionary duty to reviewthe Im

paired W aters Rule,
an d a cc or din gly , that the c ourt l ac ke d j ur isd ic tio n to c om pe l the E PAto re vie wthe Ru le , un de r th e p ro vi si on s o f ei th er Tit le 33 U.S.C. § 1 31 3 o r 40 C.F.R. § 13 1.1 3. It the n gr an te d f

ina l s um m ar y j udgm en t t o th e de fe ndants . O n a ppe al , the pla int if

fs a rg ue that the dis tr ic t c ourt e rr ed by f ai lin g to specifically

determ ine the effe ct of the Im paired W aters Rule on Florida’ s Surfac e W at er Q ua lity S tandard s. H ad

the dis tr ic t c ourt do ne so, the pla int if fs say , it
w oul d have c onc lud ed

that the e ff

ec t of the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule w as a ct

ua lly to re vis e Fl or ida ’ s “ not

to be e xc ee de d a t any

ti m e” standard

a nd F lor ida ’ s narr at ive21

nutrient stand ard. T he plaintiffs urge this Court to d eclar e that as a m atter of law the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule is ei the r a re vis ionto Fl or ida ’ s w at er qua lity standard s, or, in the alter

native, to rem and the case to the district court to determ ine the effe ct of the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule on F lor ida ’ s w at er

qua lity standard s. T he state a

ppe lle e, the F lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of E nvi ro nm en ta l P ro te ct ion , re spon ds tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y c onc lud ed

the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule c oul d ha ve no e ff

ec t onF lor ida ’ s S ur fa ce W at er Q ua lity S tandard s. Mo re ove r, e ve n if th e d is tri ctco ur t h adlo ok edm or e cl os el y at t he Im pa ire d Water s R

ul e, th e FDEP cl ai m s, it w oul d have f

ound that the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule sim ply c lari fi ed ( an d di d n ot ch an ge ) ex is ti ng wate r qu al it y st an da rd s. Th e fed eral ap pe ll ee, t he EPA,
ar gue s a lte rn at ive ly

that w e shou ld a ff

irm be ca use the c as e is n ot j ust ic ia ble : f ir st, be ca use the pla int if

fs do n ot h av e standi ng t o br ing thi s su it; a nd s ec ond, be ca use the EP A’ s subs equent ind ependent review of the Gr oup One Update r endered
m oot any claim resulting from

the EP A’ s failure to re view the I m paired W aters Rule. II. A ft er tho ro ugh re vie w , w e co nc lud e that ( 1) the pla int if fs ha ve standi ng; ( 2) the ir c la im ha s no t be enm oot ed

by the E PA ’ s r ev ie wof

the I m pa ir ed W at er s L ist ; and (3) the district court err ed in determ ining as a m atter of law that the I m paired22

W aters Rule did not establish new or revised w ater quality standards. T he district
co urt sh oul d no t have r el ie d onthe F D E P’ s f ai lur e to f oll owit s own pr oc ed

ur es to
am en d th e w at er

qua lity standard s, nor

on the E PA ’ s su

bse que nt r ev ie wof

the Im pa ir ed W at er s L ist
. R athe r, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as r equir ed to de te rm ine how Fl or ida ’ s S ur fa ce W at er

Q ua lity S tandard s ha d pr ev iou sly be enappl ie d, a nd
w he the r the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule , a s a ppl ie d, a ct

ua lly c hange d th e w at er

qua lity standard s. A cc or din gly , w e va cate the e ntr y of f ina l sum m ar y j udgm en t, a nd
rem and for further proceedings to d eterm ine what ef fect, if any , the I m

paired W at er s R ule ha d onF lor ida ’ s w at er qua lity standard s. A. W e re vie wque sti ons of

standi ng and m ootne ss d e novo . S ee L ondo n v. W al-Mar t Stores, Inc. , 340 F. 3d 12 46, 1251 (11t h Cir. 2003 ); 31 Foster Children
v. Bu sh, 329 F . 3d 1 255, 126 3 ( 11th C ir
. 200 3)
. A n or de r of sum m ar y j udgm en t i s al so s ubj ec t t o de nov o r ev ie w ; w e ap ply the sam e le ga l st an dard s th at bound the dis tr ic t c ourt. S ee , e . g. , N at ’ l F ir e In s. Co
. of H ar tf or d v. F ortun e Co nstr. Co
. , 320 F. 3d 12 60, 1267 (11t h Cir. 2003 ). Sum m ary j udgm ent shou ld be granted when

“ the pleadings , depositions , answers to interrogatories, and adm issio ns on file, tog ethe r w iththe a ff

idavit s, if a ny , sho wthat the re is no g enuin e iss ue a s to a ny m at er ia l f ac t and tha t the m ovi ng p ar ty is en tit le d to aj udgm en t a s am atte r of23

law . ” F ed
. R. Ci v. P . 56 ( c)
. “ Whe re the r ec or d take n a s aw hol e co uld not le ad a ratio na l tri er

of f ac t t o f ind f or the non -m ovi ng p ar

ty , the re is no ‘ ge nui ne iss ue f or tr ia l. ’ ” Matsu shi taE le c. I ndus
. Co
. v. Z en ithRa dio Co rp . , 475 U . S. 574 , 587 , 106 S. Ct
. 134 8, 135 6, 89 L
. E d. 2d 5 38 ( 1986 ) (quot ing F ir st N at ’ l B an k of A ri zo nav. Ci tie s S er v. Co
. , 391 U . S. 253 , 289 , 88 S
. Ct
. 157 5, 159 2, 20 L
. E d. 2d 5 69 (1968)). I n m aking th is assessm ent, w e “ m ust view all the evidence and all fa ctual inf er en ce s r ea sona

bly dr awn f ro m the e vid en ce in the li ght

m ost f av or ab le to the
nonm ovi ng p ar

ty , ” S te w ar

t v. H ap py

H er m an ’ s C he shi re Br idg e, I nc . , 117 F . 3d 1278 , 128 5 ( 11th C ir
. 1997 ), a nd “ re sol ve a ll re as ona ble doubts about

the f ac ts i n favor of the non -m ovant. ” U nit ed of O m ah a L if

e In s. v. S un L if

e In s. Co
. , 894 F. 2d 1 555, 155 8 ( 11th C ir
. 1990 ); se e al so W oode n v. Bd
. of Re ge nts of

the U niv
. Sy s. of G a. , 247 F. 3d 12 62, 1271 n . 9 ( 11th Cir. 2001 ) (c iting Rosen v. Be zner, 996 F. 2d 1 527, 153 0 n. 2 ( 3d C ir
. 199 3) ( “ [B ] ec au se sum m ar y j udgm en t m ay

onl y be granted wher e there is no genu ine issue of m aterial f act, any purported ‘ factual finding s’ of the trial court c annot be ‘ factual f indin gs’
. . . but rather ar e conclusio ns as a m atter of law . . . . ”)). B. Be fo re a ddr es sin g th e pla int if fs ’ sub stanti ve a rg um en ts, w e ar e re qui re d to
answer whether this case is j usticiable. Fir st, the E PAsuggest s that the plainti ffs24

ha ve not m et the ba sic r equir em en ts o f standi ng. A lth oughthe dis tr ic t c ourt di d not r el y on s tandi ng, the E PAsay s th at the la ck of standi ng a ff

or ds an a lte rn at ive ba si s t o a ffi rm

th e d is m is sa l. It is sur el y tr ue that “ [t ] he f

ed er al c ourts are und er

a n in de pe nde nt obl igatio n to e xa m ine the ir ow n j ur isd ic tio n, a nd s tandi ng i s pe rh ap s th e m ost im portant of the jurisdictional doctrines.” Re gion 8 Forest Se rv. T im ber Purc ha se rs Co unc il v. A lc oc k, 993 F . 2d 8 00, 807 n. 9 ( 11th C ir
. 199 3) ( ci ta tio ns an d qu otatio n m ar

ks o m itt ed ). I t i s a lso by

noww el l e sta

bli she d th at

to ha ve standi ng, a nd the re fo re aj ust ic ia ble “ ca se or

c ontro ve rs y , ” the pla int if fs m ust satisfy three c onsti tutio nal requirem ents. L ujan v. D efenders of W ildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 560 -6 1, 112 S
. Ct
. 213 0, 213 6, 119 L . E d. 2d. 351 ( 1992 ). T he y m ust es ta bli sh tha t: (1 ) the y

ha ve suf fe re d an in

j ur y in fa ct that i s c onc re te a nd part ic ulari ze d and a ct

ua l or im m ine nt, not

c onj ec tur al or

hy pothe tic al ; ( 2) the injury is fairly trace able to the challenged action; and (3) it is lik ely that the injury
m ay be r edre sse d by

j udi ci al a ct ion
. R eg ion8, 993 F . 2d a t 80 5. Mor eo ve r, “ [t ] he party

inv oki ng f

ed er al j ur isd ic tio n be ar s th e bur de n of proving standing .” Bischoff v. Osce ola County , 222 F. 3d 87 4, 878 (11th Cir. 2000 ); se e al so L uj an , 504 U . S. a t 56 1, 112 S
. Ct
. a t 21 36. “ [E ] ac h e le m en t of standi ng ‘ m

ust be sup porte d inthe sam e w ay a s any oth er m atte r on whic h th e25

plaintiff bears the burden of proof, i. e. , w ith the m anner and degree of evidence
re qui re d a t the suc ce ssi ve sta ge s of the li tig at ion
. ’ ” Bi sc hof f, 222 F . 3d a t 87 8 (quot ing L uj an , 504 U . S. a t 56 1, 112 S
. Ct
. a t 21 36)
. T he re fo re , w he n st an din g is raised on a m otion to dism iss, it m ay be sufficient to provide “ general fa ctual allegations of injury

resulting from

the defendant’ s conduct.” Id. “ How ever, when standing is raised at the sum m ary j udgm ent stage, the plaintiff c an no lon ger rest on ‘ m ere allegations.’ ” Id. (quoting Luj an, 504 U. S. at 561, 112 S.C t. at 2137 ). R athe r, “ the pla int if f m ust se t f orth b y a ff idavit or oth er e vid en ce spe ci fi c fa ct s w hic h f

or pur pose s of the sum m ar y j udgm en t m oti on w ill be take n to be tr ue . ” I d. ( ci ta tio ns and quot at ionm ar ks o m itt ed ). A nd the c ourt m ust c onstru e th e d is pu te d fa ct s i n t he li gh t m os t fa vo rab le to th e p la in ti ffs . Id. T he inj ur y a lle ge d inthi s c as e is the pla int if fs ’ los s of e nj oym en t of Fl or ida ’ s w at er s be ca

use the y a re ove r- pol lut ed
. A cc or din g to the pla int if fs , Fl or ida is usi ng the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule both to r em ove w at er bodi es f ro m it s Im pa ir ed W at er s L ist

a nd t o a voi d in cl udi ng w at er bodi es on the li st i n th e fi rs t place. When a waterbody is not in cluded on th e Im paired W aters L ist, plaintiffs say , that w aterbody

is not su bje ct to pollu tion con trols. A s a consequence, pol lut ionc ont inu es , de gr ad ing the w at er bodi es a nd c onf

er ri ng h ar m on the pl ai nt iff s.26

Whe n C ongr es s “ ha s auth or iz ed pub lic of fi ci al s to pe rf

orm c er ta in f unc tio ns ac co rd ing to law , a nd h as pr ovi de d by statut e fo r j udi ci al r ev ie wof tho se a ct ion s unde r ce rt ai n c ir cu m stanc es , the inquir y a s to standi ng m

ust be ginw itha de te rm inatio n of

w he the r the statut e in que sti on a uth or iz es r ev ie wa t the be he st o f the pla int if

f. ” S ie rr a Cl ub v
. Mo rt on, 405 U . S. 727 , 732 , 92 S
. Ct
. 136 1, 136 4- 65, 31 L
. E d. 2d 6 36 ( 1972 ). T he c re at ionof w at er qua lity standard s by

the state s, a nd the r ev ie wby

the E PA , a re pla inl y

int en de d to “ pr ote ct

the pub lic he al th o r we lfare , e nhance the qualityof w ater and serve the purposes o f this chapter. Such standard s sh al l be e sta

bli she d takin g in to c onsi de ratio n th ei r use a nd v al ue f or publ ic w ater supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, r ecre ation [and oth er pu rp os es .] ” PUD No. 1 , 51 1 U.S. at 70 4- 05 , 11 4 S . Ct. at 19 05 -0 6 (q uo ti ng 33 U. S. C. § 13 13( c) (2 )( A )) ( al te ratio n inor igi na l)
. C ongr es s ha s auth or iz ed sui t by any one having an interest that m ay be adversely

aff ected by agency inaction. Se e 33 U
. S. C. § 13 65. T he a lle ge d in j ur y m ay be f el t c onc re te ly

a nd a ct ua lly by tho se w ho u se the a ff

ec te d w at er s and “ fo r w hom the a es the tic a nd r ec re at ion al va lue s of the area will be lessened” by

the degradation of wate r quality
. Morton, 405 U. S. at 73 5, 9 2 S . Ct. at 13 66
. The plaintiffs have provided detailed affidavits averr ing ho w they are part ic ularl y

inj ur ed by the E PA ’ s f

ai lur e to r ev ie wthe I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule
. R 6-27

2. T hus, f

or e xa m ple , P la int if

f L ind a Y oung , ar es ide nt o f Fl or ida , is ana vid canoeist and enjoy s sailing , sw im m ing, fishing, and other wate r ac tivities. R 6-2 at 1. S he use s nu m er ous w at er bodi es in the state of

F lor ida , inc lud ing the Ichetucknee River, Sante F e River, Suwannee River, Blackw ater R iver, Coldwater Cr ee k, S an taRo saS ound , Jun ipe r Cr ee k, W ak ull a Ri ve r, S t. Mark ’ s R ive r, A uc ill a River, and num erous lakes and sink holes in Leon County
. Id. at 1. He r en j oym en t of

F lor ida ’ s w at er s, she c la im s, ha s be en“ se ve re ly li m ite d” by

the E PA ’ s f ai lur e to r ev ie wthe I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule
. I d. F or

e xa m ple , the Fe nhol low ay

Ri ve r, loc at ed

sou th o f T al laha sse e, she say s, use d to be “ be au tif ul
an d c le an . ” I d. T his w at er body ha d pr ev iou sly

be ende cl ar ed

im pa ir ed , a nd the state wa s required to take steps to m onito r and clean the water body
. How ever, be ca use the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule c au se d th is w at er

body to be de lis te d f

ro m the Im paired W aters L ist, and because the E PAfailed to reviewthe Im paired W aters Ru le , a t the ti m e sui t w as f ile d th is “pol lut ed

r ive r” w as no l onge r subj ec t t o th e appropriate clean-up procedures. A ccording to Young , “ the very pollu ted river
re m ai ns unf

it fo r fi shi ng o r sw im

m ing
. ” I d. a t 2. T hus, pla int if f Y oung ’ s us e of the r ive r ha s a lle ge dly

be enim pa ir ed be ca use it is pol lut ed

a nd s he c annot

c an oe in it , pu rp or te dl y

be cau se of t he EPA’ s i na ct io n.Plaintiff L inda Youngand Sierra Club member Kathlee n Cantwell are just two of the 16 nume ro us ind ivi du a ls who have su bmi tte d d e ta ile d d e c laratio ns in s up po rt of the pla int if

fs ’ claims. In the intere st of brevity , we have not detailed the claims of all the individuals who buttress the plaintiffs’ position on standing . We do note, howeve r, that in addition to those of Youngand Cantwe ll, the plaintiffs have submitted additional dec larations from FPI RG members Holly Binns and Ma

rk F err ulo, SOS m ember s L oy e B arna rd, Tommy

Br unjes, and L ay

ne Redmond, FSSR member Russell Herrma nn, and Sierra

Club members Dwig ht Adams, L inda Polli ni, J ulia Reiskind, J ulia Thaler , Susan Wright, as we ll as Glady s L ane, a resident of Ga ine sv ill e , F lor ida . T he a lle g atio ns c on ta ine d w ith in t he se a dd iti on a l de c laratio ns e c ho , in mate ri a l te rm s, tho se ma de by Yo un gand

Cantw e ll. For a voluntary

membership org anization like FPI RG, SOS, FSS R or Sierra Club to have s ta n d in g , it mu s t m e e t c e rta in

r e qu ir e me n ts . T h e Su

p r e me Co urt h a s e xp la in e d th at “ [a ]n 28 Likew ise, S ierra

Club m em

ber K athleen Cantwe ll canoes, sw im s, and fishes in m any of Florida’ s wate rbodies, includin g the Ichetucknee River, the Santa F e Ri ve r, an d t he Su wan ne e Ri ve r as well as t he sp rin gs co nn ect edto th es e ri ve rs . R6 -2 a t 1. S he a ve rs that sh e use s w at er bodi es that w er e de lis te d f ro m the Im pa ir ed W at er s L ist , or

w er e ex cl ude d f

ro m the li st i n th e fi rs t pl ac e, a s ar es ult of th e Im pa ire d Water s R

ul e, al lo win g p ol lu ti on of t he wate rb od ie s t o c on ti nu e. Id. As a result, she too claim s that the EPA ’ s failure to re view the I m paired W at ers Ru le ha s ad ve rs el y affec te d h er en

joym en t o f th e wat erb od ie s. Id . at 2
. In addition , she c laim s that she used to eat the bass that she caught in the Sante Fe
an d S uw an ee Ri ve rs , but

doe s no t do so n owbe ca use of c onc er ns a bout heightened levels of m ercury . Id. Beca use Florida delisted sections of those water bodi es , Cantw el l say s th at the m er cury

pr obl em is not be ing r es olv ed

by F lor ida or the f ed er al gov er

nm en t, f urthe r dim ini shi ng h er

e nj oym en t of

the w at er s. 16a sso c iatio n h a s st and ingto b ri ngsu it o n b e ha lf of its me mbe rs wh e n it s me mbe rs wo uld otherwise ha

ve standingto sue in their own rig ht, the interests at stake are g erma ne to the org anization’s purpose, and ne ither the c laim asserte d nor the re lief re quested re quires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” F riends of the Earth, Inc. v. L aidlaw, 528 U. S. 1 67 , 1 81 , 1 20 S. Ct . 6 93 , 7 04 , 1 45 L . E d. 2d 61 0 ( 20 00 ) ( c iti ngHunt v . Wa sh . St ate Ap ple Adver . Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S . Ct. 2434, 2441, 53 L . Ed. 2d 383 (1977)) . The Supreme Court explained the rationale behind these org anizational standing r equire ments by observingthat, “[i] f in a prope r ca se the a ssociation seeks a decla ration, injunction, or some other fo rm of pr os pe c tiv e re lie f, it c an r e a so na bly be su pp os e d th at th e re me dy , if g ra nte d, wi ll i nure to the bene fit of those member s of the assoc iation actually injured.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 51 5, 95 S. Ct . 2 19 7, 22 13 , 4 5 L . E d. 2d 34 3 ( 19 75 ). Th os e ind ivi du a l me mbe rs of F PI RG , SO S, F SSR, and

Sie rr a Clu b who have su

bmi tte d d e ta ile d d e c lara

tio ns have sta

nd ingto p ur su e c la ims in their own name s. Moreove r, the intere sts this lawsuit seeks to protec t are tied to the or g anizatio na l mi ssi on s o f t he se g ro up s, and

the pr os pe c tiv e re lie f s ou g ht, if awa rd e d, wo uld inu re to t he be ne fi t of

the ir me mbe rs , ma

kin gind ivi du a l pa

rt ic ipatio n unn e c e ssa

ry . F PI RG , SO S, FS S R an d S i erraC l u

b h av e e s t ab l i s h edth e r equ i re m en t s o f s t an d i n g. 29 T he harm that the se ind ivi dua ls c la im to ha ve suf

fe re d - - the pol lut ionof
w at er bodi es that the y

use a nd whose int eg ri ty

the Cl ean W at er

A ct is int en de d to pr ot ect -- is of a type th e co ur ts ha ve reco gn iz edas a n “ in jury in fa ct .” See, e.g ., A la ska Ctr. f or the E nv’ t v. Br ow ne r, 20 F
. 3d 9 81, 984 -9 86 ( 9thCi r. 199 4) (c o n cl u d i n g p l ai n t i ff

s h ad s t an d i n g u n d erCl ea n Wat erAc tt o ch al l en g e t h e E PA ’s fa ilure to es ta

bli sh m ax im

um pol lut an t l ev el s f

or w at er bodi es in the state of A la ska ); se e al so J ap anWha lin g A ss’ n v. A m er . Ce ta ce anS oc . , 478 U . S. 221 , 230, 106 S. Ct. 2860 , 2866, 92 L. Ed. 2d. 166 (1986 ) (holding th at plaintiffs al le ge d asuf

fi ci en t “ inj ur

y in fa ct ” in tha t the ir

m em be rs ’ w ha le -w at ch ing a nd stu dy ing w oul d be a dve rs el y a ff ec te d by c ont inu ed

w ha le harv es tin g, a nd this ty pe of injury wa s within “ zone of interests” protected by statute); Biodiversity

Le gal30

Found. v. Ba dgley , 309 F. 3d 11 66, 1171 (9th Cir. 2002 ) (c onclud ing th at en vir onm en ta l gr oups ha d st an din g to c om pla in o f ex cl usi on o f spe ci es f ro m li st of endangered species). Moreover, there see m s to be little dis pute that the plain tiffs have satisfied the oth er pr ongs of

the standi ng i nqui ry . T he pur porte d in j ur y - - ca use d by the
co n t i n u ed p o l l u t i o n o f t h e s t at e’s wa t erb o d i es -- i s fa i rl y t ra ce ab l e t o t h e E PA ’s fa ilure to re vie wthe I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule , sin ce use of

the Ru le c oul d r es ult

in pol lut ed w at er bodi es be ing le ft

of f the I m pa ir ed W at er s L ist

a nd n ot b ei ng cl eane d. F ina lly , the c la im ed inj ur y m ay be r edre sse d by

r equir ing the E PAto reviewthe state’ s Im

paired W aters Rule. T hus, we conclude that the plaint iffs have standin g to sue. W e tur n, the n, to the se co nd a spe ct of the j ust ic ia

bil ity inquir y : w he the r the
c a s e h a s b e c o me mo o t . O n t h i s p o i n t , t h e E P A c o n t e n d s t h a tt h e p l a i n t i f f s ’ c l a i ms ar e no l onge r j ust ic ia

ble be ca use of the E PA ’ s su

bse que nt r ev ie wof

the G ro up O ne Upda te . A s w ithstandi ng, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t gr an t sum m ar y j udgm en t ba se d onm ootne ss, but

“ [l ] ike the r equir em en t of standi ng, m ootne ss i s a j ust ic ia bil ity doc tr ine that m

ust be sa tis fi ed

be fo re w e m ay

de ci de ac as e. ” G ranit e St at e Out do orAdv er., In c. v. Cl earwa te r, 35 1 F .3d11 12 , 11 19 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ).

“ T he doc tr ine of

m ootne ss d er ive s di re ct ly f ro m the c as e- or -c ontro ve rs y

li m itatio n31

be ca use a n a ct ionthat i s m oot c an not be c hara ct er iz ed

a s an a ct ive c as e or co ntr ove rs y . Ac as e is m oot w he n th e iss ue s pr es en te d are no l onge r ‘ liv e’ or the part ie s la ck

ale ga lly c ogni za ble int er es t i n th e out co m e. ” A l N aj j ar v. A shc ro ft , 273 F.3d 133 0, 1335-36 (11t h Cir. 2001 ) (per curiam) (c itations and internal quot ation m arks om itted). O r, put anoth er w ay , “ a case is m oot when it no lo nger pr es en ts a

li ve c ontro ve rs y

w ithr es pe ct

to w hic h th e co urt c angiv e m eanin gf ul relief. If events that occur subsequ ent to the filing o f a lawsuit or an appeal deprive the court of the ability to give the plain tiff or a

ppellant m eaningful relief, the n th e ca se is m oot

a nd m ust be dis m iss ed
. ” I d. I nde ed , be ca use m ootne ss i s j ur isd ic tio na l, dis m iss al is m an da te d. I d. “ A ny de ci sio n onthe m er its of am oot ca se or iss ue w oul d be a n im

pe rm iss ibl e advis or

y opi nio n. ” I d. The E PAargues that this case is now m oot because, even if the plaintiffs ini tia lly ha d st an din g, the E PA ’ s su bse que nt r ev ie wof

the I m pa ir ed W at er s L ist nul lif ie s any harm that m ay ha ve r es ult ed

f ro m the E PA ’ s f

ai lur e to r ev ie wthe Im paired W aters Rule itself. A ccording to th e E PA , e ven if the Im paired W aters R u l e c h a n g e dF l o r i d a ’s wa t e r qu a l i t y s t a n d a r d s , t h e EP A h a s r e v e r s e d , a n da l w a ys w ill r ev er se , the e ff

ec t of a ny c hange by

r ev ie w ing the I m

pa ir ed W at er s L ist ( w h i c h t h e I mp a i r e dWa t e r s R u l e i s u s e dt o c o mp i l e )
. I n e s s e n c e , t h e EP A s a ys that no harm

to the pla int if

fs ha s r es ult ed

- - nor c oul d it e ve r m at er ia liz e -- f

ro mAs we a pp re he nd it, the EPA ’s argume nts on moo tne ss a

nd sta nd ingare int imate ly 17 related. The EPA a

ppear s to argue, first, that its revie w of the Impaired Water s L ist prevents any injury -in-fa ct from a ccr

uing, thus de feating standing . In a similar but alternative formulation, the EPA sugg ests that its review of the Impaired Water s L ist has the prac tical ef fec t of reve rsingany injury that its failure to re view the Impaired Water s Rule could have c aused, thus re nderingthe plaintiffs’ cla ims moot . Whil e the EPA a dvance s variations of this argument to attack standing and asse rt mootness, we be lieve this contention is more prope rly understood as a ssertingthat no “ liv e ” c on tr ov e rs y

e xists , a nd we the re fo re a dd

re ss t his argume nt i n te rm s o f m oo tne ss. Of c ourse, the E PA had not y et re viewed the Group One Update when the plaintiffs 18 fi le d th e ir c omp la int . A nd

“ [t]he e xiste nc e of

fe de ra l juri sd ic tio n o rd ina ri ly de pe nd s o n th e fa c ts as they exis t when the c omplaint is filed.” Lujan, 504 U.S. at 569 n.4, 112 S. Ct. at 2141 n.4 (e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) (c itatio n a nd qu otatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) . A t th e tim e the pla int if fs fi le d s uit , the EPA had not y et conduc ted its Group One U pdate r eview a

nd it was entirely

unclea r whe ther its review would a dequate ly addre ss the alleg ed infirmities of the state ’s Impaired Water s Rule.

32 the EP A’ s failure to re view the I m paired W aters Rule, “ so lon g as [the] EP A pr ope rl y dis ch ar ge s it s r es pons ibi lity to ind ep en de ntl y

a sse ss whic h w at er s sh oul d be listed based on Florida’ s underly ing water qualitystandards.” Feder al 17 Appe lle es ’ Br . a t 29
. H ow ev er , w e be lie ve that the E PA ’ s r ev ie wof the G ro up O ne Upda te c an not

vit ia te the pla int if

fs ’ c iti ze n su it, w hic h is ba se d pr ec ise ly on the EP A’ s failure to re view the I m paired W aters Rule. 18 In the first place, the EP A’ s reviewof the G roup One Update has several not ab le dif

fe re nc es f ro m the kin d of

r ev ie wr equir ed

by se ct ion303 (c ) of

the statut e. S ec tio n 30 3( c) r equir es ar igo ro us e xa m inatio n of m an y f ac tor s, inc lud ing , int er a lia , ( 1) w he the r the state ’ s c ri te ri a pr ote ct the de sig na te d w at er

use s; ( 2)
w he the r the state f

oll ow ed it s own le ga l pr oc ed

ur es f or r ev isi ng o r ad opt ing standard s; ( 3) w he the r the state standard s are ba se d onappr opr ia te te ch nic al a nd33

sc ie nti fi c da taa nd ana ly se s; and ( 4) w he the r the r ev isi on i s c onsi ste nt w iththe st at e’s an ti de gr ad at io n p ol ic y . See 3 3 U.S.C. § 13 13 (d )(4 )(B) , 40 C.F.R. § 13 1.5
. It is pla in f ro m the E PAD ec isi on D oc um en t tha t the E PA ’ s r ev ie wof the G ro up O ne Upda te w as not a s c om pr eh en siv e as the r ev ie wm an da te d by se ct ion 303( c) f or ne wor r ev ise d w at er

qua lity standard s. I n th e G ro up O ne Upda te , the EP A never

determ ined whether F lorida’ s Surfa ce W ater Q uality Standards w ere properly am ended according to Florida’ s own legal requirem ents, and the E PA sim ply a ssu m ed that the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule w as not

ac hange in w at er

qua lity standards. H aving th us assum ed as a given the answer to the very

question at iss ue he re , the E PAm er el y e xa m ine d th e Im

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule f or

“ re as ona ble ne ss, ” rathe r than su

bj ec tin g it

to the se ar ch ing r ev ie wm an da te d by section 303 (c). T he E PA ’ s r ev ie wof

F lor ida ’ s I m

pa ir ed W at er s L ist

not onl y inv olv ed the application o f a m ore forgiving stand ard than the proper re view of the I m paired Wat er s Ru l e u n d ers ec t i o n 3 0 3 (c ), b u ti to cc u rr ed at a l at ers t ag e i n Fl o ri d a’s pr oc es s of

ide nti fy ing im

pa ir ed w at er bodi es . A s ar es ult , the E PA ’ s su bse que nt re vie wof F lor ida ’ s I m

pa ir ed W at er s L ist

w oul d no t e ra dic at e an y

harm the
wa terbodies sus tained in the int erim period, af

ter Florida le ft the w aterbodies off th e Im pa ire d Water s Li st , bu t b efo re t he EPA rev ie wedth e upd at edli st .34

Moreover, notably , the inj uries alleged by plaintiffs go bey ond th ose caused by F lor ida ’ s li sti ng d ec isi ons in the G ro up O ne Upda te . T he inj ur ie s m ay r ec ur ea chti m e the I m

pa ir ed W at er s L ist

is update d, a s F lor ida

r e- ex am ine s dataf

or the
re m ai nin g f

our w at er ba singr oups ( an d su

bm its upd at es f

or G ro ups T w o th ro ugh Fi ve ). T hus, goi ng f

or w ar d, the pot en tia l f

or r ea l and c onc re te inj ur

y c ont inu es , and injunctive relief m ay be appropriate. Sim

ply put, the controversy

has not been
m ooted bythe EP A’ s reviewof the G roup One Update. In addition , F lorida’ s reliance on the E PA ’ s reviewof its Im paired W aters L ist is ina ppr opr ia te be ca

use it e lim inate s on e lay er

of pr ote ct ione nvi sio ne d by the Cl ean W at er

A ct . U nde r the A ct , state s are c harg ed , in the f ir st i nst an ce , w ith ide nti fy ing tho se w at er s th at a re im pa ir ed , or a re ove r- pol lut ed

a cc or din g to the state s’ w at er

qua lity standard s. I f Fl or ida

c oul d r el y

on the E PA ’ s r ev ie wof

it s Im pa ir ed W at er s L ist

to en sur e that the m ethods in the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule
correc tly ref lected the existing water quality standards, then, f

or all practica l purpos es, the pow er to enforc e com pliance would reside solely with the fe deral ag en cy . Y et

the Cl ean W at er

A ct pla inl y e nvi sio ns a

j oin t e ff ort b etw ee n th e fe de ra l and s ta te gov er

nm en ts to e nf

or ce pol lut ionc ontro ls. S ee A rk an sa s, 503 U . S. a t 10 1, 112 S
. Ct
. a t 10 54.35

Inspi te of

the se c onc er

ns, the E PAsay s th at

thi s c as e is m oot

be ca use the
re lie f the pla int if

fs se ek - - re vie wof

the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule by the E PAf

or co nsi ste nc y

w iththe Cl ean W at er

A ct - - is n o lo nge r m eanin gf

ul, a nd c an not re dr es s any

le ga lly c ogni za ble inj ur y . A cc or din g to the E PA , onc e it de ci de d on June 11, 200 3 to appr ove F lor ida ’ s G ro up O ne Upda te in part , dis ap pr ove it in part , a nd a dd c er

ta in w at er bodi es to the li st, “ an y

c onse que nc e that the F lor ida [Im paired W aters Rule] m ay have had to the interests of any m em ber of the public,
suc h a s th e pla int if

fs , m er ge d in to the que sti on o f the pr opr ie ty of E PA ’ s a ct ion ultim ately

placing certain Florida w aters on the [Im paired W aters L ist.] ” Fe deral Appe lle es ’ Br . a t 31 -3 2. Ag ai n , we re m ai n u np er s u ad ed . F i rs t , a s we h av e a l re ad y n o t ed , t h e E PA ’s
re vie wof the G ro up O ne Upda te w as not a s c om pr eh en siv e as am an da te d se ct ion 303( c) r ev ie wof

the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule w oul d be
. S ec ond, the re is no g u a r a n t e e t h a tt h e EP A wi l l c o n du c tt h o r o u g h r e v i e w s o f f u tu r e up d a t e s . F i n a l l y, w e can f ind no p re ce de nt s ugge sti ng tha t the E PAm ay sa tis fy aspe ci fi c duty unde r one se ct ionof

the Cl ean W at er

A ct ( 33 U
. S. C. § 13 13( c) (2 )- (4 )) sim ply by fo ll owi ng th e m an da te of a no th er s ect io n o f th e Cl ean W at er Act(33 U.S.C. § 1313 (d )( 2) ). I nde ed , our

c as e lawsug ge sts that, a t l ea st f or the pur pose of
ev al ua tin g m ootne ss, the onl y w ay in w hic h th e E PAc ansa tis fy am an da tor

y dutyTh e El e ve nth Cir c uit ha s a do pte d a s b ind ingpr e c e de nt a ll d e c isi on s o f t he fo rm e r F if

th 19 Cir c uit re nd e re d p ri or

to O c tob e r 1 , 1 98 1. B onne r v . Ci ty of Pr ic ha rd , 6 61 F .2 d 1 20 6, 12 09 (1 1th Cir.1981) (en ba

nc). 36 is b y a ct ua lly dis ch ar gin g th at

obl igatio n inthe m an ne r spe ci fi ca lly r equir ed by the statute. Se e Sier

ra C lub v. Tr ain, 557 F. 2d 48 5, 488 (5th Cir. 1977). L ikewise, 19 in this c as e, w e co nc lud e that the “ re as ona ble ne ss” r ev ie wof

the G ro up O ne Upda te c ondu ct ed

by th e E PAdid

not sa tis fy the duty , if

it e xis ts, to re vie wthe Im paired W aters Rule in the fir st instan ce to deter m ine whether the Rule com plies wit h t he req ui rem en ts of t he Cle an W at er Act
. Q uit e sim ply , the c ontro ve rs y

be tw ee n th e part ie s r em ai ns a liv e, the pla int if fs sti ll ha ve ale ga lly

c ogni za ble int er es t i n th e out co m e, a nd m eanin gf ul
re lie f m ay

sti ll be a w ar de d to the m . A s w e se e it, the pla int if fs ’ c la im s w er e not
m oot ed by the E PA ’ s r ev ie wof

the I m pa ir ed W at er s L ist
. C. W e turn then to the plain tiffs’ argum ent on the m erits -- that the district
co urt e rr one ousl y

gr an te d su m

m ar y j udgm en t b as ed

on the c onc lus ionthat the Im pa ir ed W at er s R

ule did not c re at e ne wor

r ev ise d w at er

qua lity standard s. T he pla int if fs say , f ir st, that the dis tr ic t c ourt f ai le d to c ondu ct

the pr ope r re vie wof

the Im pa ir ed W at er s R

ule to de te rm ine w he the r it ha d th e ef fe ct of m odi fy ing Fl or ida ’ s S ur fa ce W at er

Q ua lity S tandard s. T he pla int if

fs a lso c la im

that, ha d th e37

dis tr ic t c ourt do ne so, it

w oul d have de te rm ine d th at the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule act ua ll y ch an ge d F lo rid a’s Su rfac e Water Qu al it y Sta nd ard s i n a t l eas t t wo principal way s. A ccording to th e plaintiffs, the I m paired W aters Rule m odified the existing standards by

cre ating nu m eric nutrient standards wher e none had previousl y

existed, and by

requiring m ore than one exceedance before w aterbodies
ar e cl as sif

ie d a s im pa ir ed , w hil e a sin gle e xc ee danc e suf fi ce d un de r the pr ev iou s st an da rd s. W e agre e w ith the plain tiffs that the district court erre d by failing to condu ct
a tho ro ugh re vie wof

the e ff ec t of the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule on the w at er

qua lity standard s of

F lor ida
. T he dis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d have de te rm ine d whe the r the practical im

pact of the Im

paired W aters Rule w as to revise Florida’ s Surfac e W at er Q ua lity S tandard s. I n or de r to d o so , the dis tr ic t c ourt w as r equir ed to loo k be y ond the F lor ida

D ep ar tm en t of E nvi ro nm en ta l P ro te ct ion ’ s c hara ct er iz at ionof the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule a s am ethodo log y

or “ sc re en ing m ea sur e” that di d no t ch an ge th e st an da rd s. Be cau se th e d is tri ctco ur t d idno t co nd uc t a f ul l an al y si s, we are constrained to vacate its order of sum m ary j udgm ent and rem and for further pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. In Miccosukee, we considered a sim ilar situation, wher e Florida had fa iled to su bm it th e Eve rg la de s Fo rev er Act(“ EFA”), Fl a. St at . Ann . § 3 73 .45 92 (19 94 ),38

to the E PAf

or r ev ie wa nd a

ppr ova l. T he Mi cc osuk ee T ri be of I ndi an s su ed , alleging -- like the plaintiffs did in this case -- that the EPAwa s required to review th e n ewly enac te d s ta tu te be cau se itch an ge d F lo rid a’s wate r qu al it y st an da rd s. Miccosukee, 105 F. 3d at 601
. In Miccosukee, the district court initi ally held that

“ Fl or ida did not c onsi de r the E FAa s ac hange in state w at er qua lity standard s, m ad e n o s ub m i s s i o n t o t h e A d m i n i s t ra t o r a n dd i dn o tt ri g g ert h e A d m i n i s t ra t o r’s dutyto evaluate the E FA .” Id. A s a result, the district court in Miccosuk ee co nc lud ed

that i t ha d no j ur isd ic tio n to he ar the c as e an d di sm iss ed

it , j ust a s th e district court did in this case. W e he ld tha t the dis tr ic t c ourt i n M ic co suke e er re d be ca use it

“ ina ppr opr ia te ly

r el ie d onF lor ida ’ s r ep re se ntatio ns tha t the E FAdid not c hange Fl or ida ’ s w at er

qua lity standard s. ” I d. a t 60 2. A s w e ex pla ine d, “ [e ] ve n if astate fa ils to subm it ne wor

r ev ise d st an dard s, ac hange in state w at er qua lity standard s could in voke the m andatory duty im posed on the [E PA ] to reviewnew or revised standard s. ” I d a t 60 2. T he re fo re , w e co nc lud ed that “ [i ] n th e ab se nc e of

a ct ionby the [E PA ]
. . . the district court shou ld have condu cted its own fac tual finding s.” Id
. a t 60 3. B ec au se j ur isd ic tio n de pe nde d onw he the r the E FAc onst itu te d ne wor re vis ed w at er qua lity standard s, the re by

inv oki ng the E PA ’ s m an da tor y duty , “ the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d to de ci de ind ep en de ntl y the e ff ec t of the E FAon e xis tin g st at e39

standard s. ” I d. I n othe r w or ds, “ [t ] he dis tr ic t c ourt c oul d no t si m ply a cc ep t Florida’ s representations,” id. , but had to und ertake its own inquiry into th e actual effe ct of the E FA
. Beca

use an issue of fact r em ained as to “ whether the EF A changed Florida’ s wate r quality standards,” id. , and because the district court fa ile d to m ak e an y

de te rm inatio n onthe iss ue , w e re ve rs ed a nd r em an de d f

or the d i s t r i c tc o u rtt o u n d e rt a k e t h e p r o p e r i n qu i ry. As w e see it, in this case the district court m ade the sam e kind of error a s the dis tr ic t c ourt di d inMi cc osuk ee . E sse nti al ly , it a cc ep te d a t f

ac e va lue the langua ge in the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule say ing that the r eg ulatio n di d no t c hange Florida’ s wate r quality

standards. But Micc osuk ee r equires m ore of the district
co urt; rathe r than si m

ply takin g F lor ida ’ s w or d f

or it , the c ourt w as r equir ed to co nd uc t an in de pe nd en t i nq ui ry in to th e act ua l ef

fect of t he Im

pa ire d Water s R

ul e. Florida’ s decision n ot to describe its own regulations as newor revised w ater qualitystandards sim

ply cannot “ circum

vent the purpo ses of the Clean W ater Act,” if i n e ffec t t he Im

pa ire d Water s R

ul e es tabl is he d n ew orrev is edst an da rd s. Id
. a t 60 2. I f it co uld , F lor ida c oul d r ad ic al ly

m odi fy it s w at er qua lity standard s, s i m p l y d i s av o w t h at a c h an g e h ad t ak en p l ac e, an dt h e E PA co u l dre l y o n Fl o ri d a’s dis av ow al to av oid

it s m an da tor

y r ev ie wof

the m odi fi ed

standard s.40

Nor w as it proper for the district court, in concludi ng that th e Im paired W at er s R ule did not c hange the e xis tin g st an dard s, to re ly on the f ac t tha t F lor ida di d n ot fol lo w th e m an da te d p ro ced ur es to am en d i ts wate r qu al it y st an da rd s. Indeed, the ver

y fac t that Florida failed to properly am end Florida’ s Surfac e W ater Q ua lity S tandard s is one f

ac tor the E PAw oul d be r equir ed to co nsi de r in a

se ct ion 303( c) r ev ie wof

the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule
. S ee 40 C
. F. R. § 13 1. 5 ( re qui ri ng the E PAto de te rm ine “ [w ] he the r the S ta te ha s f oll ow ed it s le ga l pr oc ed

ur es f or re vis ing or

a dopt ing standard s” ). I n sh ort, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as obl ige d to “ de ci de ind ep en de ntl y

the e ff ec t” that the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule ha d on“ ex ist ing state st an da rd s.” Id . at 6 03
. T he r ec or d e sta

bli she s th at

both th e FD E P an d th e E PAappl ie d th e Impa i re dWat er s Ru l e w h en t h ey cr ea t ed an d ap p ro v ed t h e G ro up On e U p d at e’s changes to Florida’ s Im

paired W aters L ist. T hus, if w aterbodies that und er pre existing testing m ethodo logies would h ave been included on th e list wer e left off the li st b ec au se of

the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule , the n ine ff

ec t the Ru le w oul d have cr eate d ne wor

r ev ise d w at er

qua lity standard s, e ve n if

the langua ge of

the reg ul at io n s ai d o th erwi se . T his is the c ru x of

the m atte r. T he pla int if

fs m ai nta in tha t, r eg ar dle ss o f howthe de fe ndants c hara ct er iz e the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule , the Ru le ha s th eWhil e the c ontext of the obser vation is differe nt, we ar e re minded of the wor ds of 20 Fe rdinand L assalle, who wrote:

S h o wu s n o tth e a i mw i th o u tth e w ay. For ends and me ans on ea

rth are so entang led That cha ng ing one , y ou chang e the other too; Eac h differ ent path bring s other ends in view
. Fe rdinand L assalle, F ranz von Sickinge n (quoted in Arthur Koestler, D arkne ss at Noon 241 (Da phne Ha rdy trans., Mac Millan Publ ’gCo. 1987) (1941))
. 41 pr ac tic al im

pa ct of a lte ri ng F lor ida ’ s S ur fa ce W at er Q ua lity S tandard s. T his is true, the plaintiffs sug gest, beca use wate rbodies that were considered im paired under the existin g standards are not classified as im paired under the Im

paired W at er s R ule , e ve n w he n th e ove ra ll le ve ls o f pol lut iona re unc hange d. T hus, pla int if fs say , the Ru le ha s th e ef fe ct of loo se nin g F lor ida ’ s w at er qua lity standard s. E ve n if

the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule w as de sig ne d si m

ply a s am eans t o m ea sur e w hic h w at er

bodi es m et

w at er qua lity standard s and whic h di d no t, the pla int if fs m ai nta in tha t the pr ac tic al im pa ct of the se m eans n ec es sari ly

c hange s th e en ds, a s w el l. T ha t i s, if

c hangi ng the m eans u se d to m ea sur e co m pli an ce w ith standard s a lso a lte rs the li st o f w at er s de em ed c om pli an t, the c hange in m eans ef fe ct ive ly c au se s ac hange in standard s, a s w el l. 20 T he de fe ndants r es pond

that the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule is pr ope rl y understoo d as a m ethodo logy , or as a tool, w hich is us ed to assess what
wa t erb o d i es m ee t

t h e ap p l i ca b l e s t an d ar d s . Ac co rd i n g t o t h e d ef en d an t s , F l o ri d a’s42

Surfa ce W ater Q uality

Standards rem ain unchanged b y the Im paired W aters Rule, which m erely

prescribes specific techniques for m easuring whether w aterbodies
co m ply w iththe appr opr ia te standard s, or whe the r the y

a re ove r- pol lut ed
. Inthi s c as e, the dis tr ic t c ourt w as obl ige d to de te rm ine w he the r the Im pa ir ed W at er s R

ule ha d th e pr ac tic al e ff

ec t of loo se nin g F lor ida ’ s w at er qua lity standard s. T o un de rt ak e that ana ly sis in a m eanin gf ul w ay , it is ne ce ssary

to exam ine whether there w ere wa terbodies that were equally pollu ted both before
an d a ft er the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule too k e ff

ec t, but that w er e cl as sif

ie d di ff er en tly de pe nd in g o n wh et he r orno t t he Ru le was u se d. It is undis puted th at num erous wate rbodies inclu ded on th e 1998 Im paired W at er s L ist

w er e de -l ist ed

in the G ro up O ne Upda te , f oll ow ing the appl ic at ionof the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule
. A nd whil e the E PA ’ s r ev ie wof the G ro up O ne Upda te restored a portion of these waterbodies to Florida’ s Im paired W aters L ist, severa l of the de -l ist ed

w at er bodi es w er e not

r es tor ed to the li st. I f the pol lut ionin the se wa terbodies was in fac t reduced prior to the Gr oup One Update, then their delis tin g m ay

not ind ic at e a loo se nin g of

the w at er qua lity standard s. I t i s a lso poss ible, howe ver, that these waterbodies rem ained equally pollu ted, but we re delisted because the data indicating that fact w as insufficient to m eet the statistical
re qui re m en ts o f the I m

pa ir ed W at er s R

ule
. I f thi s is c or

re ct , the n th e pla int if

fs ’43

claim s m ay

be m eritorious: the practical eff ect of the I m

paired W aters Rule m ay ind ee d have be ento loo se n F lor ida ’ s S ur fa ce W at er Q ua lity S tandard s. O n th is s pare a nd i nc om

ple te r ec or d, how ev er , it

is sim ply im poss ibl e fo r us to determ ine, w ith any

confidence, whether

the de-listing o f these w aterbodies
re sul te d f ro m the appl ic at ionof

m or e ri gor ous statis tic al m ethods c ont ai ne d inthe Im pa ir ed W at er s R

ule , or w he the r the se w at er

bodi es w er e re m ove d f

ro m the Im pa ir ed W at er s L ist

be ca use the ir pol lut ionle ve ls r ea lly

did dr op. Wha t w e do thi nk i s c le ar , how ev er , is that the br ie f co nsi de ratio n th e dis tr ic t c ourt gave to the im pa ct of the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule w as ins uf

fi ci en t t o satis fy

the m an da te im po se d b y Mi cco su ke e fo r th e d is tri ctco ur t t o c on du ctan in de pe nd en t re vi ew. T he c ourt un dul y

r el ie d up on F lor ida ’ s de cl ar at ion s th at the re w er e no m o d i fi ca t i o n s t o t h e e x i s t i n g s t an d ar d s , a n di n ap p ro p ri at el y ac ce p t ed t h e E PA ’s assurances that its later re view of c hanges to th e Im paired W aters L ist m eant that t h e I m p ai re dWat er s Ru l e c o u l dn o t“ p o s s i b l y h av e t h e e ff ec to f r ev i s i n g Fl o ri d a’s
w at er qua lity standard s or

pol ic ie s a ff

ec tin g th ose standard s[
. ] ” O pin iona t 12
. A cc or din gly , w e re m an d so that the dis tr ic t c ourt m ay de te rm ine w he the r the Im pa ir ed W at er s R

ule , a s a ppl ie d, w as an e ff

ec tiv e ch an ge to the F lor ida ’ s e xis tin g wate r qu al it y

st an da rd s, as ap pl ie d.44

U lti m at el y , w he the r the dis tr ic t c ourt ha d j ur isd ic tio n to he ar the pla int if

fs ’ sui t de pe nds on whe the r the I m pa ir ed W at er s R

ule ha d th e ef

fe ct of r ev isi ng o r ad din g to F lor ida ’ s S ur fa ce W at er Q ua lity S tandard s. I n answ er ing that qu es tio n in the ne ga tiv e, the dis tr ic t c ourt di d no t f ull y e xa m ine the pr ac tic al im pa ct the Im pa ir ed W at er s R

ule m ay ha ve ha d onthe state ’ s e xis tin g w at er qua lity standard s -- an ex am in at io n n eces sa ry to th e p ro pe r res ol ut io n o f th e juri sd ic ti on al qu es ti on . W e ar e, the re fo re , c onstra ine d to va cate the f ina l or de r of

sum m ar y j udgm en t and
re m an d f or f urthe r pr oc ee din gs c onsi ste nt w iththi s op ini on. VACATED an d REMANDED.