Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/08pdf/07-588.pdf/07-588.pdf
Page Number: 38

Cite as:  556 U. S. ____ (2009) 

9 

STEVENS, J., dissenting 

see 2 id., at 1183; id., at 1132.  The Senate view ultimately
prevailed in the final legislation, resulting in a BAT stan-
dard that was “not subject to any test of cost in relation to
effluent  reduction  benefits  or  any  form  of  cost/benefit
analysis.”  3 Legislative History of the Clean Water Act of 
1977:  A  Continuation  of  the  Legislative  History  of  the 
Federal  Water  Pollution  Control  Act  (Committee  Print 
compiled  for  the  Senate  Committee  on  Environment  and
Public Works by the Library of Congress), Ser. No. 95–14, 
p. 427 (1978).

The  third  and  strictest  regulatory  tier  was  reserved  for
new  point  sources—facilities  that  could  incorporate  tech-
nology improvements into their initial design.  These new 
facilities  were  required  to  adopt  “the  best  available  dem-
onstrated control technology,” or “BADT,” which Congress 
described  as  “a  standard  . . .  which  reflect[s]  the  greatest
degree of effluent reduction.”  §1316(a)(1).  In administer-
ing BADT, Congress directed the EPA to consider “the cost 
of achieving such effluent reduction.”  §1316(b)(1)(B).  But 
because  BADT  was  meant  to  be  the  most  stringent  stan-
dard  of  all,  Congress  made  no  mention  of  cost-benefit 
analysis.  Again, the silence was intentional.  The House’s 
version  of  BADT  originally  contained  an  exemption  for 
point  sources  for  which  “the  economic,  social,  and  envi-
ronmental  costs  bear  no  reasonable  relationship  to  the 
economic,  social,  and  environmental  benefit  to  be  ob-
tained.”  1  Leg.  Hist.  798.    That  this  exemption  did  not 
appear in the final legislation demonstrates that Congress 
considered,  and  rejected,  reliance  on  cost-benefit  analysis
for BADT. 

It  is  in  this  light  that  the  BTA  standard  regulating 
water intake structures must be viewed.  The use of cost-
benefit  analysis  was  a  critical  component  of  the  CWA’s 
structure and a key concern in the legislative process.  We 
should therefore conclude that Congress intended to forbid 
cost-benefit analysis in one provision of the Act in which it