Opinion ID: 399151
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Consistency with EPA Regulations.

Text: 19 In 1978, the EPA promulgated a regulation describing how user charge systems should apportion treatment costs of surface run-off. It provides: 20 (d) Charges for operation and maintenance for extraneous flows. The user charge system shall provide that the costs of operation and maintenance for all flow not directly attributable to users (i.e., infiltration/inflow) be distributed among all users of the grantee's treatment works system based upon either of the following: 21 (1) In the same manner that it distributes the costs of operation and maintenance among users (or user classes) for their actual use, or 22 (2) Under a system which uses one of any combination of the following factors on a reasonable basis: 23
24
25
26 (iv) Property valuation of the users, if the grantee has a user charge system based on ad valorem taxes approved under § 35.929-1(b). 27 40 C.F.R. § 929-2(d) (1980). 28 The district court ruled that the City's charge system was consistent with subsection 2(d)(1) because surface run-off treatment costs are allocated using the same formula used to apportion sewage treatment costs. HEA argues that subsection 2(d)(1) does not apply because the City's charge system apportions sewage treatment costs according to the added treatment burden attributable to each user and does not follow this general approach in apportioning the costs of treating surface run-off. This argument, however, ignores the regulation's first clause, which indicates that EPA does not consider inflow such as surface run-off 7 to be directly attributable to users. A literal reading of subsection 2(d)(1) instead appears to endorse the City's method of allocating surface run-off costs according to the same formula used to apportion sewage costs. 29 HEA also argues that if the City's charge system is consistent with the regulation, the regulation is invalid because it violates FWPCA section 204(b) (1)'s proportionality requirement. We reject this argument because HEA has failed to demonstrate that the City's method of allocating surface run-off costs is inconsistent with the statutory proportionality requirement. 30 In sum, we conclude that the district court was correct in concluding that the EPA Administrator had a rational basis for concluding that the City's charge system conformed with 40 C.F.R. § 929-2(d)(1).