Opinion ID: 1269179
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Water Body-by-Water Body Approach v. Parameter-by-Parameter Approach

Text: Plaintiffs first contend that the EPA contradicted the CWA by approving Kentucky's water body-by-water body approach to antidegradation policy implementation because both the CWA and 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2) require States to adopt a parameter-by-parameter approach in designating which waters receive Tier II protection. The district court rejected a similar argument, see Kentucky Waterways, 426 F.Supp.2d at 631-33, and we likewise find the argument unpersuasive. The EPA's CWA-implementing regulations require States to ensure that waters whose quality exceed[s] levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water receive Tier II protection, i.e., their existing high water quality must be maintained and protected unless it is demonstrated that a lowering of water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development. 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2). However, as the EPA itself has publicly noted in its advance notice of proposed rule-making, the regulation does not include specific guidelines for identifying [these] high quality waters. Water Quality Standards Regulation, 63 Fed.Reg. 36,742, 36,782 (proposed July 7, 1998) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 131). [7] Instead, States and Tribes have developed various ways to identify their [T]ier [II] waters. Id. These approaches for identifying high quality waters fall into two basic categories: (1) pollutant-by-pollutant approaches, and (2) water body-by-water body approaches. Id. Under the pollutant-by-pollutant approach (which is the same as Plaintiffs' parameter-by-parameter approach), the State makes a classification for each pollutant in a given water body. Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Horinko, 279 F.Supp.2d 732, 747 (S.D.W.Va.2003). The water body is then given Tier II protection against those pollutants for which water quality is better than applicable criteria. Water Quality Standards Regulation, 63 Fed.Reg. at 36,782. [A]vailable assimilative capacity for any given pollutant is always subject to [Tier II] protection, regardless of whether the criteria for other pollutants are satisfied. Id. Thus, under this approach, the same water body could be classified as Tier II for certain pollutants and Tier I for other pollutants. See Ohio Valley, 279 F.Supp.2d at 747. Under the water body-by-water body approach (also know as the designational approach), States weigh a variety of factors to judge a water body segment's overall quality. Water Quality Standards Regulation, 63 Fed.Reg. at 36,782. Tier II classification is then based on the overall quality of the water body segment, not on individual pollutants. Ohio Valley, 279 F.Supp.2d at 747. Under this approach, assimilative capacity for a given pollutant may not be subject to [Tier II] protection if, overall, the segment is not deemed `high quality.' Water Quality Standards Regulation, 63 Fed.Reg. at 36,782. The EPA has not found either of these approaches to be compelled by the language of 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2) or the CWA. See id. On the contrary, the EPA has found that [t]here are advantages and disadvantages to each approach. Id. The pollutant-by-pollutant approach is easier to implement for some States because the need for an overall assessment considering various factors is avoided. Id. This approach might also have the benefit of generally including more waters within Tier II protection because it would cover waters that are clearly not attaining goal uses (i.e., waters which are not supporting `fishable/swimmable' goal uses but that possess assimilative capacity for one or more pollutant [sic]). Id. at 36,782-36,783. The water body-by-water body approach, on the other hand, allows for a weighted assessment of chemical, physical, biological, and other information (e.g., unique ecological or scientific attributes). Id. at 36, 783. By allowing the high quality water decision to be made in advance of the antidegradation review, this approach may facilitate implementation. Id. The approach also allows States and Tribes to focus limited resources on protecting higher-value State or Tribal waters. Id. Accordingly, the EPA has concluded that neither approach is clearly superior and that either, when properly implemented, is acceptable. Id. at 36, 782. Likewise, the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, the only court which has previously considered this issue, has also concluded that the federal statute and regulations do not require States to choose the pollutant-by-pollutant approach over the water body-by-water body approach. See Ohio Valley, 279 F.Supp.2d at 747. On the contrary, in Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition v. Horinko , that court found that the EPA's regulations permit a State to adopt a water body-by-water body approach to classification, assuming that this approach is implemented adequately. Id. Plaintiffs nevertheless contend that the language of 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a) requires a pollutant-by-pollutant approach. They emphasize the fact that the regulation speaks of protecting levels of quality rather than protecting `high quality waters.' Pl. Br. at 23. They argue that, because the regulation protects the quality of waters when that quality exceeds levels necessary to support fish and recreation, a water body with safe levels of one or more pollutant must be protected from unnecessary new loadings of that pollutant, even if the water body is suffering from excess loadings of a different pollutant. Id. at 21 (quoting 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2)). Thus, they conclude that the regulation requires Tier II protection be determined according to a pollutant-by-pollutant approach. We find Plaintiffs' argument to demonstrate only that a pollutant-by-pollutant approach is consistent with the regulation, not that it is required by the regulation. Plaintiffs' focus on the plural levels ignores the rest of the phrase in which that word appears. The regulation requires protection of water quality when the quality of the waters exceed levels necessary to support the propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. 40 C.F.R. § 131.12(a)(2). This language is susceptible to two interpretations. The first is that offered by Plaintiffs, i.e., that levels refers to the levels of various pollutants in the water body. However, the word levels here could also refer to the overall quality levels necessary to support the various water uses mentioned in the regulation. For any particular water body there could be one quality level necessary to support the propagation of fish, a different quality level necessary to support the propagation of wildlife, and finally a third quality level necessary to support recreation. Either reading seems consistent with the plain language of the regulation and neither reading seems compelled by the language. Given this ambiguity in the regulation, we defer to the EPA's interpretation, see Auer, 519 U.S. at 461, 117 S.Ct. 905, which holds that either approach is permissible. Thus, we do not find the EPA's approval of Kentucky's use of a water body-by-water body approach to be arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.