Opinion ID: 152142
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Safe Drinking Water Act

Text: The plaintiffs also contend that the decision not to evacuate after the storm violated nondiscretionary duties imposed by the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f et seq., which sets out national drinking water regulations for public water systems in each state. Among other requirements, the Act imposes maximum permissible levels for certain drinking water contaminants. As a matter of Bureau of Prisons policy, under Program Statement 1600.08, federal prison officials are required to follow the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. We first note that the plaintiffs have not, in the district court or in this court, specified which requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act the conditions at the Penitentiary failed to meet. The plaintiffs' pleadings and briefing only allege, conclusorily, that Maldonado's decision as to whether or not to evacuate was constrained by nondiscretionary duties imposed by the Safe Drinking Water Act. They do not state which provisions of the Act, or regulations promulgated under the Act, were violated by that decision. These vague allegations, without more, arguably do not satisfy the plaintiffs' burden of pleading facts that allege conduct outside the discretionary function exception. See St. Tammany Parish, 556 F.3d at 315 n. 3. [8] In any event, the plaintiffs' contention that the Safe Drinking Water Act imposed nondiscretionary duties that were contravened by the decision not to evacuate lacks merit. The Safe Drinking Water Act delegates primary enforcement responsibility to the individual states, provided that the Environmental Protection Agency's Administrator has certified the state as meeting the conditions prescribed by 42 U.S.C. § 300g-2 and the regulations promulgated under that statute. Texas has obtained such certification. [9] Texas law provides a defense against water quality enforcement actions in circumstances of natural disasters. TEX. WATER CODE ANN. § 7.251 (West 2008) (If a person can establish that an event that would otherwise be a violation of a statute within the commission's jurisdiction... was caused solely by an act of God, war, strike, riot, or other catastrophe, the event is not a violation of that statute, rule, order, or permit.). In the aftermath of Hurricane Rita, on September 27, 2005, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality invoked § 7.251 and issued a Regulatory Guidance document, which provided that all rules and regulations that may inhibit or prevent prompt response to this threat are suspended for the duration of the incident. Because the nondiscretionary duties otherwise imposed by the Safe Water Drinking Act were suspended in the aftermath of the hurricane, the plaintiffs cannot rely on these duties as bases for constraining Maldonado's discretion.