Opinion ID: 440158
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Failure to Disapprove Water Quality Standards

Text: 5 Scott alleges in his complaint that the EPA has approved state water quality standards which fail to protect the public health. The first alleged failing is that there is no prescribed standard for viruses even though viruses are a health hazard. The other alleged shortcoming of the existing regulations is that the method of computing allowable concentrations of bacteria permits extremely high one-day discharges of bacteria into Lake Michigan. Scott alleges that failure to correct this situation is a violation of CWA Sec. 303, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1313 (1976). 6 To understand fully the trust of the allegations, we shall briefly review the statutory framework. CWA Sec. 303(c) places the primary reliance for developing water quality standards on the states. 5 The EPA reviews a water quality standard promulgated by a State to ensure that it protect[s] the public health or welfare, enhance[s] the quality of water and serve[s] the purposes of [the] Act. CWA Sec. 303(c)(2), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(c)(2). If the Administrator determines that the state-submitted standard meets the requirements of the Act, he or she approves it and it becomes the state standards. If, however, the Administrator determines that the state standard is inconsistent with the Act, he or she must disapprove the standard and specify the changes necessary for compliance. 6 If a state does not make these specified changes, the Administrator is to issue a substitute standard. CWA Sec. 303(c)(3), 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1313(c)(3). 7 Water quality standards are not themselves directly enforced by the EPA. Rather, permits prescribing conditions are issued for individual sources of pollutants. CWA Sec. 402, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1342. If the conditions of a permit are violated, the EPA may issue a compliance order or bring a civil action against the violator. CWA Sec. 309, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1319. 7 As noted, Scott's complaint charges that CWA Sec. 303, 33 U.S.C. Sec. 1313, imposes upon the defendants a nondiscretionary duty to ensure that water quality standards adopted under the federal Act protect the public health and welfare. Complaint p 27(a). This duty has been violated, it is alleged, by the EPA's approval of an inadequate standard for bacteria and by the EPA's failure to require the adoption of a standard for viruses. 8 We believe, however, that the content of water quality standards cannot ordinarily be challenged through a citizen's suit. An administrator's duty to approve or promulgate some water quality standards might be nondiscretionary within the meaning of Sec. 1365(a)(2), but the content of the standards is certainly at least somewhat discretionary with the EPA. 8 The only recognized avenue for challenge to the substance of EPA's actions taken with respect to state submissions is a suit for judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (the APA). United States Steel Corp. v. Train, 556 F.2d 822, 836-37 (7th Cir.1977). Apparently recognizing this defect in his original mode of attack, Scott has on appeal abandoned his nondiscretionary duty theory and argues instead that his complaint seeks judicial review of EPA's response to Illinois' and Indiana's water quality standard submittals. Brief for Appellant at 23. 9 While acknowledging the liberal rules of notice pleading in the federal courts, the defendants argue that we should not construe Scott's complaint as one for APA review of the EPA's approval of the state-submitted standards. The allegations against the EPA, which are at issue, are contained in Count III. That count is entitled failure to perform nondiscretionary acts under the FWPCA [the Federal Water Pollution Control Act]. The defendants point out that every one of the allegations in Count III refer to failures to perform nondiscretionary acts. The only suggestion of a claim under the APA is a reference to the Court's power under the Administrative Procedure Act to compel agency action unlawfully withheld. Complaint p 30. 10 We agree with the defendants and with the district court that this complaint is insufficient to state a claim for judicial review of agency action. A complaint seeking judicial review would allege, for example, that some agency action was arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion or that a factual finding by an agency was erroneous or not supported by substantial evidence. See APA, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 706(2). The complaint before us does not inform the court or the parties as to what agency action is to be reviewed. We are not told whether a legal or factual error has been made or whether Scott seeks substantial evidence review or perhaps a trial de novo in the district court. The complaint is drafted as a citizen's suit to require performance of a nondiscretionary duty; such a suit cannot be employed to challenge the substance or content of an agency action. See United States Steel Corp. v. Train, 556 F.2d at 836-37. 9