Opinion ID: 1910079
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Baseline Standard for Class C Water Quality

Text: [¶ 24] In this case, the Board concluded that [t]he impoundment-to-impoundment comparison, which compares one disturbed site to a similarly disturbed site, constitutes a dramatic change in the [applicable] Class C [water quality] standard and, as such, legally requires the approval of EPA prior to implementation in accordance with provisions of the federal Clean Water Act. We have held that the Board is entitled to deference in its interpretation of the statutes it is charged with administering. See, e.g., S.D. Warren Co. v. Bd. of Envt'l Prot., 2005 ME 27, ¶ 5, 868 A.2d 210, 214; Maritime Energy v. Fund Ins. Review Bd., 2001 ME 45, ¶ 9, 767 A.2d 812, 814. Since the Board is charged with administering the water quality standards in Maine pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. § 465 (2001 & Supp.2003), we must grant deference to the Board's interpretation as long as its construction is reasonable. See Maritime Energy, 2001 ME 45, ¶ 10, 767 A.2d at 814. The rationale underlying our deference to [the Board's] interpretations is that the [Board] has greater expertise in matters of environmental concern and greater experience administering and interpreting those particular statutes. S.D. Warren Co., 2005 ME 27, ¶ 5, 868 A.2d at 214. We must, therefore, determine whether the Board's conclusion is reasonable and comports with legislative intent.
[¶ 25] The first step in statutory interpretation is to discern legislative intent from the plain meaning of the statute. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Executive Dir., Me. Revenue Servs., 2007 ME 62, ¶ 9, 922 A.2d 465, 469. Pursuant to the Clean Water Act and its implementing regulations, states are required to designate uses of waterbodies within their borders. 33 U.S.C.S. § 1313 (2001); 40 C.F.R. § 131.10 (2006). Once such designated uses have been established and approved by the EPA, states are permitted to adopt subcategories of use for specific waterbodies, requiring less stringent criteria, provided they conduct a UAA and obtain EPA approval of any subcategory. 40 C.F.R. §§ 131.10(g), (j), 131.20(c) (2006). Class C is Maine's minimum EPA-approved water quality standard for hydropower impoundments and, therefore, under federal law, Maine is not permitted to apply a less stringent standard than Class C to a hydropower impoundment unless a UAA has been conducted and EPA approval has been obtained. See 38 M.R.S.A. § 464(9) (Supp.1992); 38 M.R.S.A. § 465(4)(C); 33 U.S.C.S. § 1313; 40 C.F.R. §§ 131.10(g), (j), 131.20(c). [¶ 26] At the time FPL's certification was pending, the Class C water classification standards provided that [d]ischarges to Class C waters may cause some changes to aquatic life, provided that the receiving waters shall be of sufficient quality to support all species of fish indigenous to the receiving waters and maintain the structure and function of the resident biological community. [9] 38 M.R.S.A. § 465(4)(C) (emphasis added). The Class C standards further provided that the waters shall be of such quality that they are suitable . . . as a habitat for fish and other aquatic life. 38 M.R.S.A. § 465(4)(A). [¶ 27] The statute creates a hierarchy of standards, with Class AA standards being the highest and Class C standards being the lowest. See 38 M.R.S.A. § 465. At the time of certification, the statute provided that Class AA waters shall be characterized as free flowing and natural, [10] [t]he aquatic life, dissolved oxygen and bacteria content . . . shall be as naturally occurs, [11] and [t]here may be no direct discharge of pollutants to Class AA waters, except storm water discharges. 38 M.R.S.A. § 465(1)(A), (B), (C). [¶ 28] Based on a plain reading of the statute, it is not clear what baseline was intended for the Class C standards. However, the Board interpreted the baseline to be a natural lake standard and such a reading is reasonable based on the language of the statute. The Legislature created a hierarchy of standards, with Class AA being the highest and Class C being the lowest. Since Class AA standards require natural conditions, it is reasonable to read all other standards as measured against the Class AA baseline. We must next examine the legislative history of section 465 to determine whether the Board's interpretation is aligned with the Legislature's intent and is reasonable pursuant to the statute's history.
[¶ 29] FPL contends that there are three events in the legislative history of 38 M.R.S. § 464, which demonstrate legislative intent that the baseline standard for Class C waters be the impoundment-to-impoundment standard, rather than the natural lake standard. FPL points to the March 1992 amendment of the statute, the legislative resolve passed in May 2003, and Maine's antidegradation law. We examine each in turn.
[¶ 30] In March 1992, the Legislature amended the water classification laws by enacting 38 M.R.S.A. § 464(9) (Supp.1992) to provide that Maine's hydropower impoundments comply with the certification standards if [t]he existing impounded waters are able to support all species of fish indigenous to those waters and the structure and function of the resident biological community in the impounded waters is maintained. P.L.1991, ch. 813, § A-1 (effective June 30, 1992). According to the parties, this standard became known as the what-you-see-is-what-you-get standard because it attempted to maintain the status quo for Maine's hydropower impoundments. [¶ 31] On January 14, 1993, the EPA formally disapproved of 38 M.R.S.A. § 464(9) as amended, explaining that it is inconsistent with federal requirements because it attempts to create a new subcategory without requiring a UAA and providing for public participation. [12] As a result of the EPA's disapproval, the Legislature amended the statute to apply the what-you-see-is-what-you-get standard to only one impoundment, the Ripogenus impoundment, because a UAA had been conducted for that impoundment. See P.L. 1993, ch. 344, § 2 (effective Oct. 13, 1993) (codified at 38 M.R.S.A. § 464(9) (Supp. 1992)). The amendments made clear that Class C water quality standards apply to all other hydropower impoundments. Id. Title 38 M.R.S.A. § 464(9), effective at the time of the Commissioner's certification in this case, contained identical language to the statute as amended in 1993. [¶ 32] FPL contends that the 1992 amendments to section 464 show that the legislative intent has always been to compare hydropower impoundments to impoundments rather than natural lakes. We do not view this history as FPL does. The events in 1992 reflect an attempt by the Legislature to impose lower standards without following the proper procedures. The EPA's express disapproval of the Legislature's actions in 1992 shows that such standards were a departure from the norm. Furthermore, the standard proposed in 1992, which required a comparison between an impoundment and itself, is a different standard from the impoundment-to-impoundment standard at issue now. This history does not undermine the Board's conclusion that the impoundment-to-impoundment standard is a new standard requiring EPA approval.
[¶ 33] In May 2003, the Legislature passed a Resolve, which directed the Department to adopt rules requiring that the structure and function . . . that must be maintained in a water storage reservoir is the structure and function that would be expected to exist in a water storage reservoir with a drawdown of similar magnitude. [13] L.D. 1059 (121st Legis.2003). The Resolve defined water storage reservoir as an impoundment associated with a hydropower project. [¶ 34] Pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 342(9) (2006), the Commissioner of the Department may submit to the board new or amended rules for its adoption. It is the Board, however, that has final authority to adopt a new rule pursuant to 38 M.R.S. § 341-D(1-B) (2006). [14] Following the passage of the 2003 Resolve, the Commissioner drafted an order granting water quality certification to the Flagstaff Project, using the criteria articulated in the Resolve. [¶ 35] On November 10, 2003, the EPA sent a letter to the Department disapproving of the Commissioner's use of this standard because this new legislation is not in effect for federal law purposes and cannot be relied upon for [the Clean Water Act] certification. The EPA wrote [the Department] now asserts that, rather than comparing a storage reservoir to a natural lake as it has done since 1995, [the Department] is now adopting the policy (at least orally) that storage reservoirs shall be compared to other impoundments with similar drawdowns. [¶ 36] FPL contends that the 2003 Resolve indicates clear legislative intent that the impoundment-to-impoundment standard is, and has always been, the appropriate standard to determine compliance with Class C water quality standards pursuant to 38 M.R.S.A. § 465(4). Although we agree with FPL that the Resolve indicates legislative intent that the impoundment-to-impoundment standard apply now, we see no reason why the Legislature would issue a resolve directing the Commissioner to adopt rules if such a standard already existed. The 2003 Resolve demonstrates the Legislature's intention to promulgate a new rule. However, because of the EPA's disapproval, a new rule was not adopted.
[¶ 37] Also effective in 2003 was Maine's antidegradation law, 38 M.R.S. § 464(4)(F) (2006), [15] which provides that [e]xisting instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect those existing uses must be maintained and protected. The statute defines an existing in-stream water use to include [t]he use of the water body for . . . water supply, or commercial activity that depends directly on the preservation of an existing level of water quality. 38 M.R.S. § 464(4)(F)(1)(d). The antidegradation law requires an applicant seeking protection as an existing in-stream use to demonstrate[ ] that the proposed activity would not have a significant impact on the existing use in order to obtain water quality certification pursuant to the Clean Water Act. 38 M.R.S. § 464(4)(F)(1-A)(a). [¶ 38] We do not interpret Maine's antidegradation law as exempting the Project from the requirements of the Clean Water Act simply because the Project is an existing in-stream use. Instead, 38 M.R.S. § 464(4)(F)(1-A) provides an additional requirement that must be met in order for FPL to obtain water quality certification pursuant to the Clean Water Act. [¶ 39] This history demonstrates legislative attempts to change the baseline standard against which hydropower impoundments are to be judged, however, it does not support FPL's contentions that the impoundment-to-impoundment standard has always been the applicable standard. We conclude that based on the legislative history, the Board's judgment that the impoundment-to-impoundment standard represents a dramatic change from past practice and, thus requires EPA approval, is reasonable. We, therefore, defer to the Board's expertise and affirm its conclusion.