Document: 503 U.S. 91 112 S.Ct. 1046 117 L.Ed.2d 239 ARKANSAS, et al., Petitioners,v.OKLAHOMA al. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA Nos. 90-1262, 90-1266. Argued Dec. 11, 1991. Decided Feb. 26, 1992. Syllabus The Clean Water Act provides for two sets of water quality measures: effluent limitations, which are promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency), and standards, States. generally prohibits discharge into a navigable body unless point source obtains National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from State with an EPA-approved program EPA itself. A Fayetteville, Arkansas, sewage treatment plant received EPA-issued permit, authorizing it to stream that ultimately reaches Illinois River upstream Oklahoma border. Respondents, other parties, challenged before EPA, alleging, inter alia, violated allow no degradation in upper River. EPA's Chief Judicial Officer remanded initial affirmance Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), ruling requires NPDES impose any limitations necessary comply applicable state those standards would be only if record shows preponderance evidence cause actual detectable violation Oklahoma's standards. ALJ then made detailed findings fact, concluding Fayetteville had satisfied Officer's standard, sustained permit's issuance. Court Appeals reversed, does not issued where proposed contribute conditions currently constituting It concluded was already degraded, reach Oklahoma, River's deterioration even though detectably affect quality. Held: action authorized Act. Pp. 98-114. (a) Where interstate is involved, both federal common law nuisance, Milwaukee Illinois, 451 304, 101 1784, 68 114, affected State's law, International Paper Co. Ouellette, 479 481, 493, 107 805, 812, 93 883, pre-empted. Affected States may block but must apply Administrator, who disapprove plan he concludes will have undue impact on waters. Id., at 490-491, S.Ct., 809. 98-101. (b) has construed as requiring permits requirements under approved § 401(a) Act, appears prohibit issuance over objection compliance can insured. 1054-1056. (c) requirement reasonable exercise substantial statutory discretion Congress vested Agency. There need address question whether States' clearly limit authority mandate such compliance. regulations, since 1973 required when cannot insured, Agency's well-tailored means reaching Act's goal achieving constrained limits supra, concerning direct input process, conflict legislative history scheme, incompatible balance among competing policies interests struck 104-107. (d) Contrary Appeals' interpretation, nothing mandates complete ban discharges waterway existing Instead, vests broad develop long-range, area-wide programs alleviate eliminate pollution. 107-108. (e) exceeded legitimate scope judicial review agency adjudication invalidated ground misinterpreted substituted its own reading EPA's. Thus, failed give deference reasonable, consistently held interpretation incorporate also disregarded wellestablished reviewing factual agencies making ALJ's were supported evidence. See Universal Camera Corp. NLRB, 340 474, 71 456, 95 L.Ed. 456. As result, court's conclusion important relevant factor consider based erroneous controlling law. Had been properly respectful permissible Act—that what matters current status, effect status—it adjudged decision arbitrary capricious. 109-114. 908 F.2d 595 (CA10 1990), reversed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., petitioner, Edward W. Warren, petitioners, Robert A. Butkin, City, Okl., respondents. Justice STEVENS 1 Pursuant 86 Stat. 816, amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251, seq., (EPA) new about 39 miles line. presented this litigation finding duty protect downstream State. Disagreeing Appeals, we hold statute. 2 * In 1985, City applied seeking City's (NPDES). After appropriate procedures, pursuant 402(a)(1) 1342(a)(1), up half (to 6.1 million gallons per day) unnamed northwestern Arkansas.1 That flow passes through series three creeks 17 miles, enters 22 Arkansas-Oklahoma 3 imposed specific quantity, content, character included number special conditions, including provision study underway indicated more stringent ensure modified limits. App. 84. 4 Respondents Those provide "no [of quality] shall allowed" River, portion immediately line.2 5 Following hearing, (ALJ) implicated contested 'something than mere de minimis impact' He found 'undue waters and, accordingly, affirmed permit. Pet. Cert. No. pp. 101a-103a (emphasis deleted). 6 On petition review, first ruled 301(b)(1)(c) 'requires standards.'3 116a-117a. regulations offered greater protection standard suggested. explained proper follows: 7 "[A] theoretical impairment standards—i.e., infinitesimal predicted modeling expected actually measurable—should itself case, should upheld standards." 117a original). 8 remand, fact set forth Officer. Specifically, there components 127a-143a. 145a-153a. 9 Both petitioners 90-1262 (collectively Arkansas) respondents sought review.4 Arkansas argued did require determination produce 10 accept either these arguments. court agreed statute see 595, 602-615 disagree 631-633. Nevertheless, relying theory neither party advanced, reversed "where effluents [a] permitted." 620. Then "already degraded," could "be ongoing scenic [Illinois R]iver" 621-629. 11 importance novelty persuaded us grant certiorari. 499 ----, 111 1412, 113 465 (1991). We now reverse. II 12 Interstate font controversy founding Nation. E.g., Gibbons Ogden, Wheat. 1, 23 (1824). This frequently resolved disputes between separated river, see, e.g., Ohio Kentucky, 444 335, 100 588, 62 530 (1980), border same water, New York Jersey, 256 296, 41 492, 65 937 (1921), fed river basin, Jersey York, 283 336, 51 478, 75 1104 (1931). 13 Among cases controversies introduces pollutants objects. See, Missouri 200 496, 26 268, 50 572 (1906). cases, principles tempered respect sovereignty Compare id., 521, 270, Georgia Tennessee Copper Co., 206 230, 237, 27 618, 619, 1038 (1907). forging "may improperly called law," Milwaukee, 406 91, 105-106, 92 1385, 1393-1394, 31 712 (1972) (Milwaukee I ), however, remained aware "that laws time pre-empt field nuisance." 107, 1395. 14 114 (1981) 1972 Amendments Federal Control just that. addressing Illinois' claim Milwaukee's Lake Michigan constituted comprehensive regulatory regime created pre-empted remedy. observed addressed many problems identified providing opportunity hearing permitting agency, latter explain failure recommendations State, discretion, veto another affected. II, U.S., 325-326, 1796-1797. 15 supplanted remedies well 310, n. 4. 510 1370, expressly preserved right adopt enforce rules standards.5 accepted 510, section save jurisdiction regulate activity occurring within confines boundary waters." 731 403, 413 (CA7 1984), cert. denied, 469 1196, 105 979, 83 981 (1985). 16 subsequently endorsed analysis 883 (1987), Vermont property owners claimed pollution discharged Champlain paper company located nuisance taken "as whole, purposes history" "the located." 487, Moreover, 402(b) pointed out being permit-granting "does dissatisfied An recourse 1342(d)(2). . Thus makes clear occupy subordinate position program." 811.6 Unlike foregoing involves State-issued federally To significance distinction, comment further scheme issues raised parties. III 18 anticipates partnership Government, animated shared objective: "to restore maintain chemical, physical, biological integrity Nation's 1251(a). Toward end, measures. "Effluent limitations" restrict quantities, rates, concentrations specified substances sources. §§ 1311, 1314. "[W]ater standards" are, general, establish desired condition waterway. 1313. These supplement "so numerous sources, despite individual regulated prevent falling below acceptable levels." California ex rel. Resources Board, 426 200, 205, 12, 96 2022, 2025, 48 578 (1976). 19 guidance drafting 40 CFR pt. 131 (1991) (setting model standards). 303 requires, authorities periodically secure approval revisions If recommends changes fails recommendation, authorizes promulgate 1313(c). 20 primary enforcing (NPDES), enacted critical part Congress' "complete rewriting" 317, 1793. Section 301(a) 1311(a), obtained 402 establishes regime, describes types systems: satisfy administered EPA. 21 each "its jurisdiction." 1342(b). procedural protections discussed Ouellette II. 1342(b)(3), (5).7 Although provisions do authorize Administrator retains state-issued "is outside guidelines requirements" 1342(d)(2).8 absence program, issue 402(a) (In example, because completed, itself.) subject "same terms, program. 1342(a)(3). Notwithstanding general symmetry, 401(a). section, predates NPDES, applies category licenses, "[a]ny applicant license conduct including, limited to, construction operation facilities, result 1341(a). 401(a)(2) insured.9 IV parties analytically distinct questions First, crafting issuing one States? Second, much, compliance? Third, provide, held, once meet yields degraded permitted? 24 nor prudent resolve questions. assumed obligated violate 116a-117a, 14. discuss below, assumption therefore much. much argument briefs relies govern 402(a), 402(b). seems unwise evaluate arguments case one, 25 Our determine obligations our resolution second question, concerns authority. Even Since 1973, provided "[w]hen imposition all States."10 122.4(d) (1991); 38 Fed.Reg. 13533 (1973); 122.44(d) regulations—relied upon permit—constitute permits. 402(a)(2) "[t]he prescribe assure [§ ] deems appropriate." 1342(a)(2) supplied). Similarly, oversee programs: 28 "No objects writing chapter." 29 relied perfectly discretion. application context wholly consistent purpose, noted above, 301(b)(1)(C) identifies achievement central objectives. conditioning goal. 30 apparent reasonableness, argues description role process characterization "subordinate," 810-811, indicates error. disagree. statement concerned process; plain language Limits participation decisions, way constrain odds established agree intended his oversight permits,11 find indicate preclude establishing conditioned 32 careful interests, balance. Congress, protected certain sovereign interest States; allows demanding pollution-control emphasizes preserves regulating assuming Arkansas's correct, cf. sources For reasons, Cf. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. Natural Defense Council, Inc., 467 837, 842-845, 104 2778, 2781-2783, 81 694 (1984). V 34 standards.12 support reading. 35 adopted advanced during proceedings. candidly acknowledged "has apparently never court." F.2d, 620, 39. cited legal 402(h), 633, merely (or program) publicly owned violating accepting additional until corrected. 1342(h). 36 contains several directing 1311(b)(1)(C), does, contain designed remedy violations allocate burden reducing undesirable 1313(d). rather categorical announced Appeals—which might frustrate plants improve 1288(b)(2). 37 extent reverse decision, reliance misplaced. VI capricious difference13 derives read containing believe text supports (indeed, note Appeals), reject fundamental reason—namely, adjudication. emphasize point, briefly assess soundness specifically approach. "with States." regulation effectively incorporates reasonably determines "applicable." situation, then, standards—promulgated EPA14 Agency—are control. Two features governing conclusion. thoroughly long recognized controlled ----. Recognizing system constitutes principle. treating accords purpose create manage uniform regulation. Because recognize that, least insofar they character, entitled deference. INS Center Immigrants' Rights, 502 ---, 551, 556, 116 546 degradation" River—would effected "actually measurable" change p. 117a. 42 certainly noted, "unless some method measuring compliance, compliance." 118a, (internal quotation marks omitted; citation omitted). eminent sense context: every interpreted "degrading" waters, wield effective discharges. 43 sound. scrutinized explicit regarding four measures standards: eutrophication,15 aesthetics,16 dissolved oxygen,17 metals.18 lead evidence, conclude 44 committed mutually compounding errors. 45 due regard Instead voiced out, sat afforded level Chevron, 842-844, 2781-2782. 46 well-established instead findings. troubling nature face itself: times, "there support" particular thought appropriate, contrary ALJ. 625, 627, 629. "substantial evidence" administrative turned head. agency's adjudicative whole. 456 (1951). supplant identifying alternative 47 incorrectly error derivative Having Agency's, having findings, erred considering fact—namely, (by assessment) degraded. often recognized, "arbitrary entirely aspect problem." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. United States, Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance 463 29, 43, 103 2856, 2867, 77 443 (1983). However, status "important aspect" novel Under "detectable effect" status. reason. 49 sum, policy choice make. Arguably, suggested, wise adverse But surely conclude—given benefits increased relatively clean water19 achieved allowing operate designed—that wiser. role, decide better entrusted decisions Accordingly, judgment Reversed. remainder White Oklahoma; litigation. provides: "All streams bodies designated prohibition wastes load except described 3. 'scenic areas,' tributaries so designated. Best management practices control nonpoint initiated feasible." 46-47. line "scenic river." Okla.Stat., Tit. 82, 1452(b)(1) (Supp.1989); 54. provides, part: "The intent Anti-degradation Policy degradation. Existing instream uses maintained protected. No interfere become injurious allowed. constitute valuable resource protected, improved benefit citizens. allowed high outstanding exceptional recreational ecological significance. include national parks, Wildlife Refuges, 'Scenic Rivers' Appendix A." 27-28. part, achieved— "(C) later July 1977, limitation, implement 1311(b)(1)(C) filed Eighth Circuit transferred Tenth consolidated "Except [Act], [Act] (1) deny political subdivision thereof (A) limitation respecting pollutants, (B) abatement [with exceptions]; (2) impairing manner affecting (including waters) 1370 time. Government's amicus curiae brief stated neighboring [has] advisory formulation limitations. try persuade government increase requirements, possesses compel adversely out-of-state 1341 (a)(2), 1342(b)(3) (5). ." Brief Amicus Curiae, O.T. 1986, 85-1233, supplied; footnote "(3) [t]o insure receive notice public application; "(5) (other State), whose submit written (and Administrator) notify together reasons doing." focuses permits, 402(a)(3) follow procedures programs. 1342(a)(3); 1341(a)(2). 402(d)(2) "(2) ninety days date notification subsection (b)(5) transmittal chapter. Whenever paragraph Administrator." "Whenever affect, determined licensing applicant. If, sixty after receipt notification, sixty-day period notifies requests objection, hearing. evaluation agency. Such any, requirements. permit." restriction 123.25 Legislative History (Committee Print compiled Senate Committee Public Works Library Congress), Ser. 93-1, 322, 388-389, 814 1342(d)(3). "[W]e granting circumstances (i.e., violated) Basin." 616 1990). "Congress presumed exclude CWA's 'all-encompassing program,' 318 [101 1793] arising case. unfathomable fashioned elimination pollution,' sanctions continued minimum transgressed. More likely, simply contemplated circumstances. ascribe gaping loophole irrational uphold case." 632 (footnotes errors correctly 4.10(c) phosphorus lakes, lakes "perennial intermittent streams." 617 harmless Francis undisputed produced threat slow-moving rapid flaw mistaken 1982 version, Officer, error, portions versions "do differ materially." 150a. Therefore, harmless. harmless, focused major difference readings provision. closely track 35.1550(e)(1) (1981). Eutrophication "normally slow aging lake evolves bog marsh. During eutrophication becomes rich nutritive compounds (especially nitrogen phosphorus) algae microscopic life superabundant, thereby 'choking' lake. 57-58. With eutrophication, pounds day, Arkansas/Oklahoma border, small amount eutrophication. aesthetics, compound aesthetics again, substance crossing aesthetic oxygen, experience oxygen recovery" levels 140a. metals, metals low Holmes potential years ago: "There pretence simple kind known older detected unassisted senses—no visible filth, smell. contrary, proved great volume pure mixed start respects noticeable extent. Formerly sluggish ill smelling. Now comparatively edible fish returned. Its drunk fisherman, said, without evil results." 522,

Category: 7