Source: http://www.leagle.com/decision/1978930571F2d359_1861/PORTER%20CTY.%20CHAP.%20OF%20IZAAK%20WALTON%20LEAGUE%20v.%20COSTLE
Timestamp: 2017-06-28 05:24:01
Document Index: 586221342

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 125', '§ 301', '§ 1251', '§ 1342', '§ 301', '§ 1311', '§ 301', '§ 125', 'art:\n40', '§ 125', '§ 125', '§ 1369', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 1311', '§ 301', '§ 1311', '§ 301', '§ 301', '§ 1311']

PORTER CTY. CHAP. OF IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE v. COSTLE | 571 F.2d 359 (1978) | Leagle.com
571 F.2d
571 F.2d 359 (1978)
PORTER CTY. CHAP. OF IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE v. COSTLE
Citing Case 571 F.2d 359 (1978)
PORTER COUNTY CHAPTER OF the IZAAK WALTON LEAGUE OF AMERICA, INC., Save the Dunes Council, Inc., Ann Sims and Herbert P. Read, Petitioners,
Douglas COSTLE, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Respondent,
Argued October 27, 1977.
Before FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge, COWEN, Senior Judge, and CUMMINGS, Circuit Judge.
[Prior to the construction of the Harbor project the] State of Indiana shall furnish assurance satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that water and air pollution sources will be controlled to the maximum extent feasible in order to minimize any adverse effects on public recreational areas in the general vicinity of [Burns] Harbor (emphasis added).6
Congress clearly left the determination of the scope of such assurance [about control of pollution near Burns Harbor] to the discretion of the Secretary of the Army. * * *
* * * The Act on its face does not impose any obligations on parties other than those named in it. [EPA was not named]. In the absence of compelling legislative history to the contrary, I conclude that Public Law 89-298 has no applicability in establishing effluent limitations for the NPDAS permit at issue.7
With respect to appeal No. 77-1262, NIPSCO first invokes 40 C.F.R. § 125.36(l)(4)10 as providing that the October 7, 1976, initial decision of the Regional Administrator issuing the permit to NIPSCO, became the final decision of the Agency when an appeal was not taken to the Administrator following this decision. This is a correct reading of the EPA regulations. NIPSCO then argues that such an appeal was a "prerequisite to judicial review," and since petitioners did not pursue that avenue prior to appealing to this court on March 7, 1977, they have failed to exhaust their administrative remedies. NIPSCO asserts that they have not provided the Agency with an opportunity to correct its errors and to moot judicial controversy, and also that a court of appeals is entitled to the full benefit of the expertise of an administrative agency and of a complete record.
(b)(1) Review of the Administrator's action * * * (F) in issuing or denying any permit under section 1342 of this title, may be had by any interested person in the Circuit Court of Appeals * *. Any such application shall be made within ninety days from the date of such determination, approval, promulgation, issuance or denial * * *. (emphasis added).16
* * * we ask that you call for provisos specifying conformity to rigid pollution standards. At present there are only vague references to pollution in House Document 160. [The document which contained the pollution control recommendation of the Secretary of the Army]. We feel the public is entitled to better defined assurances that the irreplaceable natural qualities in the dunes will be protected. (emphasis added).22
This is the way it is done. I have no doubt this is the way it will be done. * * I ask you to recognize if you can that although you might feel a little bit better if this is all in black and white now, that indeed developments may point out as we look into the design of the port that the original plan for pollution control would not be as good as the ones which might be tailormade to meet the final plan of design.24
* * * Certain weaknesses were noted in the State's implementation of its air and water pollution control program which, in GAO's opinion, raise questions regarding the adequacy of the assurances provided. The weaknesses noted resulted primarily from a lack of adequate resources and a need to strengthen the State's laws and regulations. [App. to Petitioner's Brief, pp. 66-67].
The Department of the Army did not agree that the required assurances had not been obtained and stated that the assurances had been interpreted to mean the State's ability and intent to provide the landward facilities on a schedule that would meet the need for the developing traffic. A judgment was made by the Department that such ability and intent had been demonstrated. [App. to Pet. Brief, p. 68].
The record shows that the EPA deemed the 1965 language inapplicable and therefore never determined its meaning. In response to Porter County Isaak Walton League's challenge to the issuance of a NPDES permit to NIPSCO, the General Counsel of the EPA decided that "the [1965] Act on its face does not impose any obligations on parties other than those named in it." Thus, because Congress left the question of the sufficiency of the water pollution control assured by the state to the Secretary of the Army and because the EPA was not in existence at the time, the General Counsel concluded that "Public Law 89-298 has no applicability in establishing effluent limitations of the NPDES permit at issue." In its brief the EPA argues and the majority adopts the view that because the 1965 language is ambiguous it is not really a standard capable of enforcement. Furthermore, the EPA asserts and the majority also adopts the view that even if PL 89-298 presents a more stringent standard than that articulated in FWPCA, responsibility for implementing such standard was left solely to the discretion of the Secretary of the Army and that duty has since been fulfilled.
"If an order is valid only as a determination of policy or judgment which the agency alone is authorized to make and which it has not made, a judicial judgment cannot be made to do service for an administrative judgment. . . . [A]n appellate court cannot intrude upon the domain which Congress has exclusively entrusted to an administrative agency." Securities Comm'n v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88, 63 S.Ct. 454, 459, 87 L.Ed. 626 (1942).
FootNotes * Senior Judge Wilson Cowen of the United States Court of Claims is sitting by designation.
1. Act of October 27, 1965, title III, § 301, 79 Stat. 1073.
2. 86 Stat. 816 (codified at 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. (Supp. V 1975)).
3. 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (Supp. V 1975). Section 1342(a)(1) provides:
"Except as provided in sections 1328 and 1344 of this title, the Administrator [of EPA] may, after opportunity for public hearing, issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant, or combination of pollutants, notwithstanding section 1311(a) [which makes pollution unlawful except as in compliance with law] of this title, upon condition that such discharge will meet either all applicable requirements under sections 1311, 1312, 1316, 1317, 1318, and 1343 of this title, or prior to the taking of necessary implementing actions relating to all such requirements, such conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter."
4. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, § 301(b)(1)(A), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(A) (Supp. V 1975), provides:
"In order to carry out the objective of this chapter there shall be achieved—
5. See note 3 supra (the provision that a permit may be granted after a public hearing.)
6. Act of October 27, 1965, title III § 301, 79 Stat. 1073.
7. Decision of the General Counsel on Matters of Law Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. section 125.36(m), No. 42, at 4 (1976), (Respondent's Appendix at p. 422).
8. In re National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit For: Northern Indiana Public Service Co. Bailly Generating Station NPDES No. IN 0000132, NPDES Appeal No. 76-4, at 2-3 (August 10, 1976).
9. 40 C.F.R. § 125.36(l)(4) reads in pertinent part:
40 C.F.R. § 125.36(n)(3) reads in pertinent part:
"Any person seeking review of the initial decision of the Regional Administrator by the Administrator shall, within ten (10) days of the initial decision of the Regional Administrator file with the Administrator and mail, by certified mail, to all parties a petition for the Administrator's review. * * *"
11. 40 C.F.R. § 125.36(n)(6) provides:
12. In re National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit For: Northern Indiana Public Service Co. Bailly Generating Station NPDES No. IN 0000132, NPDES Appeal No. 76-4, at 3 (August 10, 1976).
15. The petitioners raise a further argument. They did not receive a letter notifying them of the October 7, 1976, initial decision of the Regional Administrator on the permit until October 26, 1976. The Acting Regional Hearing Clerk granted them a 10-day extension of time to file an appeal to the Administrator. This raises the question whether the 10-day time limit for appeal expired on October 18, 1976, or November 5, 1976, or whether, as petitioners contend here, the extension of time for appeal was contrary to other Agency regulations so that on the whole, the Agency made it effectively impossible for the petitioners to comply with the 10-day time limit. We need not resolve this dispute at this time because our decision that further exhaustion of administrative remedies would have been futile in No. 77-1262 moots this dispute over impossibility of exhaustion of remedies.
16. 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b)(1)(F)(Supp. V 1975).
17. Letter of Elmer B. Staats, Deputy Director, Bureau of the Budget, to Cyrus R. Vance, Secretary of the Army (September 24, 1963) (Resp. App. p. 7); letter of Cyrus R. Vance to John W. McCormack, Speaker of the House (September 24, 1963) (Resp. App. p. 13).
18. See S.Rep.No.464, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (July 19, 1965); H.R.Rep.No.973, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (September 9, 1965).
19. 88th Cong., 1st Sess. (1963) (Resp. App. p. 7).
20. S.Rep.No.464, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., at 23 (July 19, 1965); H.R.Rep.No.973, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., at 161 (September 9, 1965).
21. Act of October 27, 1965, title III, § 301, 79 Stat. 1073.
22. Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Rivers and Harbors and the Subcommittee on Flood Control of the Committee on Public Works House of Representatives, 89 Cong., 1st Sess. 655 (1965) [hereinafter cited as House Hearings.] (Respondent's Appendix p. 235). Roy B. Crockett and Thomas E. Dustin of the Indiana Division of the Izaak Walton League made a similar written plea for "rigid Federal control standards." Id. at 656. (Resp. App. p. 236).
There were very few, if any, other pleas or comments concerning explicit federal control measures. There were some complaints about the inadequacy of Indiana standards. See the statement of petitioner Herbert Read, Chairman, Engineering Committee, Save the Dunes Council, Inc., Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Flood Control—Rivers and Harbors of the Committee on Public Works United States Senate, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 374 (1965) [hereinafter cited as Senate Hearings].
23. See, e. g., House Hearings, supra note 22, at 653-54, 660, (Respondent's Appendix 233-34, 240); Senate Hearings, supra note 22, at 349, 372, 389, 393-94, (Resp. App. at 107, 130, 147, 151-52).
24. Senate Hearings, supra note 22, at 383, (Resp. App. at 141).
25. FWPCA § 301(b)(1)(A), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(A) (Supp. V 1975).
26. Id. § 301(b)(1)(C), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(1)(C) provides:
"In order to carry out the objective of this chapter there shall be achieved— * * *
Senate Public Works Committee, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1977, S.Rep.No.92-174, 92d Cong., 1st Sess., (October 28, 1971), reprinted in [1972] U. S. Code Cong. and Adm. News 3668, 3710 (Senate bill was passed in lieu of House bill).
27. Act of October 27, 1965, title III, § 301, 79 Stat. 1073.
28. The hearing record further supports our contention that all Congress intended in its Public Law 89-298 proviso was for the Secretary of the Army to satisfy himself prior to construction of the harbor that pollution would be controlled to the "maximum extent feasible." Witness the following exchange between Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana and Colonel Pinnell of the Corps of Engineers:
"Senator Bayh. I am curious as to what specific action has to be taken by the State or by the port commission to provide these assurances to the Secretary. At what time can we get an unqualified statement saying that Bethlehem is sufficiently far along, or Midwest is sufficiently far along— pollution plans have been made? Do we need to get these assurances at this particular time, or is this part of the negotiation that goes on between the corps and the State?
29. Comptroller General of the United States, Environmental and Economic Problems Associated With The Development Of The Burns Waterway Harbor, Indiana (September 20, 1971).
30. The statute provides:
FWPCA § 301(b)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(b)(2)(A) (Supp. V 1975).
31. The report reads:
"(1) As a measure of performance * * to establish the maximum level of pollution allowable in interstate waters."
Senate Public Works Committee, Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, S.Rep.No.92-414, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. (October 28, 1971), reprinted in [1972] U. S. Code Cong. & Adm. News, 3668, 3671. (Senate bill passed in lieu of House bill).
32. House Hearings, supra note 22, at 655-56, Resp. App. at 235-36.
33. Id. at 655, Resp. App. at 235.