Opinion ID: 399151
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Number of hookups or discharges to the users;

Text: 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).