Case Name: The STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission and Pollution Control Coordinating Board, Save the Illinois River (STIR), a non-profit corporation of the State of Oklahoma, City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, the Beaver Water District, State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Oklahoma Wildlife Federation, Intervenor
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1992-04-27
Citations: 962 F.2d 996
Docket Number: Nos. 89-9503, 89-9507 and 89-9516
Parties: The STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission and Pollution Control Coordinating Board, Save the Illinois River (STIR), a non-profit corporation of the State of Oklahoma, City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, the Beaver Water District, State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Oklahoma Wildlife Federation, Intervenor.
Judges: Before ANDERSON and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and THEIS, District Judge.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 962
Pages: 996–996

Head Matter:
The STATE OF OKLAHOMA, Oklahoma Scenic Rivers Commission and Pollution Control Coordinating Board, Save the Illinois River (STIR), a non-profit corporation of the State of Oklahoma, City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, the Beaver Water District, State of Arkansas, Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology, Petitioners, v. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Respondent, Oklahoma Wildlife Federation, Intervenor.
Nos. 89-9503, 89-9507 and 89-9516.
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
April 27, 1992.
Before ANDERSON and BRORBY, Circuit Judges, and THEIS, District Judge.
The Honorable Frank G. Theis, Senior United States District Judge for the District of Kansas, sitting by designation.

Opinion:
BRORBY, Circuit Judge.
We originally decided this ease in an opinion found at 908 F.2d 595 (10th Cir.1990), in which this court construed the Clean Water Act as prohibiting any discharge of effluent that would reach waters already in violation of existing water quality standards.
The Supreme Court granted certiorari and in an opinion issued February 26, 1992, reversed the decision of this court. — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 117 L.Ed.2d 239 (1992).
We therefore AFFIRM the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency and REMAND this case to the Environmental Protection Agency.