Opinion ID: 382652
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: EPA's Obligation to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement

Text: 37 The District further contends that the Agency had a duty to prepare an environmental impact statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4347 (1976). The District cites as support for its contention 33 U.S.C. § 1371(c), 13 which states in part that the issuance of a (NPDES) permit . . . for the discharge of any pollutant by a new source can be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Id. Such major Federal action requires an environmental impact statement. 42 U.S.C. § 4332(2)(C). 38 We disagree with the District's fundamental premise that the EPA issued the permit for the Rock Creek plant. After the study under the joint review program was completed, the EPA elected not to veto the project under 33 U.S.C. § 1342(d)(2). It was the state of Maryland that approved and issued the permit. As a district court considering the same question stated, the determination of the federal government not to object . . . 'cannot realistically be classified as Federal action much less major Federal action' . . . . Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. Virginia State Water Control Board, 453 F.Supp. 122, 125 (E.D.Va.1978) (quoting Molokai Homesteaders Cooperative Association v. Morton, 506 F.2d 572, 580 (9th Cir. 1974)). See generally McGarity, The Courts, the Agencies, and NEPA Threshold Issues, 55 Tex.L.Rev. 801, 837-38 & n.139, 851 (1977). These being no major Federal action, the Agency was not required to prepare an environmental impact statement. 14