Opinion ID: 161525
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Clean Water Act Citizen-Suit Claim

Text: 15 The district court accepted Plaintiffs' constructive submission theory, which was first established in Scott v. City of Hammond, 741 F.2d 992, 996 (7th Cir. 1984) (per curiam). Under Scott, if a state fails over a long period of time to submit proposed TMDL's, this prolonged failure may amount to the 'constructive submission' by that state of no TMDL's. 741 F.2d at 996. Neither party challenges this ruling by the district court, and we agree with Scott to this extent: 5 A state may at least theoretically act in such a way that it conveys to the EPA the message that it has affirmatively determined not to submit TMDLs for its impaired waterbodies. Such conduct could be treated by a court as a submission (a constructive submission) of no TMDLs. As a submission, it would then trigger the EPA's nondiscretionary duty under 1313(d)(2) to approve or disapprove the submission of no TMDLs within thirty days. If the EPA fails to respond within this period, it is subject to suit under the citizen-suit provision of the Clean Water Act to compel it to perform this nondiscretionary duty. 16 In Scott, the states had submitted no TMDLs, and this was enough to overcome a motion to dismiss filed by the EPA. 741 F.2d at 997. The Seventh Circuit remanded, instructing the district court to determine whether the failure to submit TMDLs was in fact a constructive submission of no TMDLs: 17 There may be reasons, wholly unknown to us at this time, which may justify the states' failure to submit TMDL's and the EPA's concomitant failure to act. However, on remand, the district court may order the EPA to proceed as if the states had submitted proposals of no TMDL's unless the EPA promptly comes forward with persuasive evidence indicating the states are, or will soon be, in the process of submitting TMDL proposals or that some factor beyond the scope of the complaint has made TMDL submissions impracticable. 18 Id. at 997 n.11 (emphasis added). Only upon this determination that the states' inaction was so clear as to constitute a constructive submission of no TMDLs would the EPA then incur a nondiscretionary duty to approve or disapprove the constructive submission. If the EPA approved the constructive submission i.e., if it determined for some reason that no TMDLs were needed then that decision would be subject to judicial review like any other final agency action, presumably under the APA. Id. at 997; cf. id. at 995 (holding that the EPA's duty to approve or disapprove a state's water quality standards might be nondiscretionary, but the content of the standards is certainly at least somewhat discretionary with the EPA and therefore ordinarily must be challenged through an APA suit rather than a Clean Water Act citizen's suit). If, on the other hand, the EPA disapproved the constructive submission, it would then be under a nondiscretionary duty to develop its own TMDLs. Id. at 997. 19 The constructive-submission theory turns on whether the state has determined not to submit a required TMDL for a given impaired waterbody. See id. at 997 (noting that the complaint raises the possibility that the states have determined that TMDLs are not needed (emphasis added)). If a state has submitted or soon plans to submit TMDLs for its impaired waterbodies, the constructive-submission analysis would be factually inapplicable. See, e.g., S.F. Baykeeper, Inc. v. Browner, 147 F. Supp. 2d 991, 1002 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (California and the EPA have both been doing something about TMDLs, albeit not as rapidly as contemplated by the passage of the CWA. . . . The record does not support plaintiffs' contention that there has been a constructive submission of no TMDLs.); Sierra Club v. Hankinson, 939 F. Supp. 865, 872 n.6 (N.D. Ga. 1996) (The Court does not find the constructive submission analysis to be appropriate for this case because Georgia has made some TMDL submissions, albeit totally inadequate. (emphasis in original)); cf. NRDC v. Fox, 93 F. Supp. 2d 531, 542 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) ([S]o long as New York continues to participate actively and meaningfully in the effort to promulgate TMDLs for the waterbodies on its . . . priority list, the Court is of the view that the State has not 'refused' to act, and EPA therefore is under no duty to declare a 'constructive submission' of inadequate TMDLs by New York.); Idaho Sportsmen's Coalition v. Browner, 951 F. Supp. 962, 968 (W.D. Wash. 1996) (noting that while Idaho had submitted only two TMDLs and its schedule for future submissions was inadequate, a 'constructive submission' has not yet occurred). 6 As a corollary, the constructive-submission theory is not designed to challenge the timeliness or adequacy of the state's TMDL submissions, which involve discretionary (rather than nondiscretionary) duties of the EPA. 20 The constructive-submission theory that we accept under the Clean Water Act's citizen-suit provision is necessarily a narrow one. It applies only when the state's actions clearly and unambiguously express a decision to submit no TMDL for a particular impaired waterbody. Here, the evidence completely fails to support Plaintiffs' constructive-submission theory. 7 The uncontradicted evidence is that Oklahoma has submitted a number of TMDLs and is making progress toward completing about 1500 TMDLs over a twelve-year period. In these circumstances, a constructive-submission claim is not viable. Because the only nondiscretionary duty that Plaintiffs can allege is predicated upon a showing that Oklahoma had made a constructive submission of no TMDLs, the district court correctly found that Plaintiffs could not proceed under the Clean Water Act's citizen-suit provision. We therefore affirm the grant of summary judgment for the EPA on this issue.