Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 11

8 

ENTERGY CORP. v. RIVERKEEPER, INC. 

Opinion of the Court 

language to mean the technology that achieves the great-
est  reduction  in  adverse  environmental  impacts  at  a  cost
that  can  reasonably  be  borne  by  the  industry.    475  F. 3d, 
at  99–100.   That  is  certainly  a  plausible interpretation  of 
the  statute.    The  “best”  technology—that  which  is  “most 
advantageous,”  Webster’s  New  International  Dictionary 
258 (2d ed. 1953)—may well be the one that produces the 
most  of  some  good,  here  a  reduction  in  adverse  environ-
mental  impact.  But  “best  technology”  may  also  describe
the  technology  that  most  efficiently  produces  some  good. 
In  common  parlance  one  could  certainly  use  the  phrase
“best technology” to refer to that which produces a good at 
the lowest per-unit cost, even if it produces a lesser quan-
tity of that good than other available technologies. 

Respondents  contend  that  this  latter  reading  is  pre-
cluded  by  the  statute’s  use  of  the  phrase  “for  minimizing 
adverse  environmental  impact.”  Minimizing,  they  argue, 
means  reducing  to  the  smallest  amount  possible,  and  the 
“best  technology  available  for  minimizing  adverse  envi-
ronmental  impacts,”  must  be  the  economically  feasible 
technology that achieves the greatest possible reduction in 
environmental harm.  Brief for Respondents Riverkeeper, 
Inc. et al. 25–26.  But “minimize” is a term that admits of 
degree  and  is  not  necessarily  used  to  refer  exclusively  to
the “greatest possible reduction.”  For example, elsewhere 
in the Clean Water Act, Congress declared that the proce-
dures  implementing  the  Act  “shall  encourage  the  drastic
minimization  of  paperwork  and  interagency  decision
procedures.”  33  U. S. C.  §1251(f).    If  respondents’  defini-
tion of the term “minimize” is correct, the statute’s use of 
the modifier “drastic” is superfluous. 

Other  provisions  in  the  Clean  Water  Act  also  suggest 
the  agency’s  interpretation.    When  Congress  wished  to
mandate the greatest feasible reduction in water pollution,
it  did  so  in  plain  language:  The  provision  governing  the 
discharge  of  toxic  pollutants  into  the  Nation’s  waters