Legal Document

426 U.S. 200 96 Supreme Court Reporter 2022 48 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 578 The ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al., Petitioners,v.CALIFORNIA ex rel. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD al. Number 74-1435. Argued Jan. 13, 1976. Decided June 7, Syllabus While federal installations discharging water pollutants are obliged, under § 313 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments 1972, to comply same extent as nonfederal facilities with state "requirements respecting control and abatement pollution," obtaining a permit from State federally approved program is not among such requirements. subject regulation only when that congressional authorization clear unambiguous, Hancock versus Train, 167, 2006, 555, here do requirements requisite degree clarity. Pp. 211-228. 9 Cir., 511 Reporter, 2nd 963, reversed. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D. C., for petitioners. Roderick Walston, San Francisco, Cal., respondent California. Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Olympia, Wash., Washington. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered opinion Court. 1 issue in this case which arises 1972 (Amendments), 86 Statutes-at-Large 816, 33 Code KF62 1251 Et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. IV), whether secure their permits State, or Environmental Protection 2 [Amicus Curiae Information page 201 intentionally omitted] Agency (EPA). As related Clean Air decided day supra, decision specific statutory question those pollution" must Amendments1 informed by constitutional principles governing submission regulatory authority. 3 * Before it was amended Act2 employed ambient quality standards specifying acceptable levels pollution State's interstate navigable waters primary mechanism its pollution.3 This based on standards, were serve both guide performance polluters trigger legal action abate pollution, proved ineffective. problems stemmed character themselves, focused tolerable effects rather than preventable causes awkwardly shared responsibility promulgating standards,4 cumbrous enforcement procedures. These combined make very difficult develop enforce govern conduct individual polluters. 4 Some developed plans implement them, some relied discharge systems enforcement. Others did not, strengthen system officials revived Refuse 1899, 30 1152, 407, prohibits any matter into Nation's except permit.5 Although direct approach helpful, also deficient several respects: goal conditions achieve require minimize effluent discharge, applied industrial polluters, dischargers required obtain permits, authority two agencies.6 5 In prompted conclusion Senate Committee Public Works "the . has been inadequate every vital aspect,"7 Congress enacted Amendments, declaring national be Eliminated 1985."8 For present purposes introduced major changes methods set pollution. First, aimed at achieving maximum "effluent limitations" "point sources," well standards. A point source "any discernible, confined discrete conveyance .from may discharged."9 An limitation" turn restriction established Administrator quantities, rates, concentrations chemical, physical, biological, other constituents discharged sources .including schedules compliance."10 Such restrictions discharges facilitate making unnecessary work backward an overpolluted body determine responsible abated. addition, discharger's now measured against strict technology-based11 limitations specified treatment conform, derived [water collectively conform.12 ] 6 Second, establish National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)13 means enforcing limitations. Under NPDES, unlawful person pollutant without complying terms.14 NPDES serves transform generally applicable including obligations (including timetable compliance) discharger, provide administrative judicial permits. §§ 309 505, 1319 1365 IV). With few exceptions, discharger compliance terms deemed sections based. 402(k), 1342(k) short, defines, facilitates with, of, preponderance Amendments. 7 NPDE secured, first instance, EPA, issues 402(a)(1), 1342(a)(1) Section 402(a)(3) requires EPA conform "terms, conditions, requirements" 402(b).15 Consonant policy "to recognize, preserve, protect responsibilities rights prevent, reduce, eliminate pollution,"16 provided within jurisdiction," but upon approval proposal administer own program. modification revision submitted plan EPA's guidelines 304(h)(2), 1314(h) (2) supported adequate ends 402(b)(1)-(9), n. 15, described program, shall approve "suspend issuance (§ 402(a) ) program."17 8 retains review operation Unless waives particular classes application, 402(d)(3), (e), 1342(d)(3), (e) forward copy each application review, no if objects would "outside 402(d)(1), (2), 1342(d)(1), addition authority, after notice opportunity take action, withdraw being administered 402. 402(c)(3), 1342(c)(3) sought enlist "every agency leadership (its) operations."18 To so, 1171(a), agencies, "consistent paramount interest determined President (to) insure standards," adding 313,19 providing "comply Federal, interstate, local requirements." 1323 II 10 On May 14, 1973, Acting California's request and, effective date, suspended all "all California, agencies instrumentalities government." App. 18. Soon correspondence exchanging views installations, Washington "does have prerogative delegate state." Id., 6. Shortly thereafter Washington's rejected "missing important components," reaffirming position had "sole facilities." 25. 11 California filed petitions 509(b)(1), authorizes court appeals Administrator's (D) determination section 402(b)."20 argued authorized programs 402 gave suspend dischargers. Appeals agreed. Mindful "strong structural terminological similarities between Amendments" division Courts meaning 118 Act,21 found measures, thought counterpart view indicated However might resolved, concluded indications sufficiently satisfy appropriate subjecting installationto regulation, held 963 (CA9 1975). We granted petition certiorari, 422 1041, 95 2655, 45 693 (1975), reverse judgment Appeals. III 12 Our governed fundamental today 179, 2012-2013, 565: unambiguous. we subjected urged States. expressly obliging general measures pollution22 313, provides part: 13 "Each department, agency, instrumentality executive, legislative, branches Government (1) having jurisdiction over property facility, engaged activity resulting, result, runoff wi requirements, payment reasonable service charges." 875, 14 Except reference charges, virtually identical Act, 42 1857f.23 Taken alone, like states what does Nor "requirement pollution."24 15 "only legislative operating promulgated pursuant E. Pacific KF135 P2 A.-approved implementation plan," incorporated EPA-issued they "state regulations demanding permits."25 claim distinction "between 'limitations' ignores fact formulated 402."26 From States, recognizing itself programs, derive principal argument EPA-approved implied practical needs administering implication standard. view, EPA'sagreement substantive content issued empty concession; able formulate apply part source. 16 used language Act; our ante, Page indication intended emitting air makes similar becomes There are, course, significant differences Only aid abating comparison give more prominent role relation States; until All carried out EPA. developing basis conditions27 foundation emission staards plan. aggregate, these tend support event hardly contrary particularly since, Appeals' words, "certain parts history seem indicate 'requirements' refers simply solely substantive" compliance. F.2d, 969.28 17 obstacles States' mind, examine reasons led conclude contend clearly appears final phrase sentence "including language, argued, refer charges incident program: If "requirement," there reason order pay fees obtain. However, casts light clause,29 immediately face associated Indeed, term "service charges" taken recurring performing treating sewage, accepting processing application. so reads statute unreasonable construction.30 At least, satisfies rule expressed purpose. 18 textual 510 Amendments.31 patterned 116 Act,32 restrictive limitations, imposed Amendments.33 quite plainly It impose stricter absence But answers before us, higher enforced through system. nevertheless use 510, akin one made 186-187, 2016-2017, 569, 47. reject much reasons: cannot sections, scant credit "standards" "requirements" disjunctively somehow dictates embrace "standards." 19 Another contention drawing meaningless adjunct34 systecan function effectively unless therefore impliedly, programs. agree. 20 approved, dischargers, nonfederal. Since assume satisfied could nationwide translating contemplated elect nonetheless adopt otherwise apply. case, capable issuing pegged receiving translated coordinating because technology achieved depend Other primarily involving coordination numerous nonfederal, evident carrying well. 21 presence permit-issuing although securing "more stringent limitation(s), necessary meet compliance" issue.35 recognize placing disproportionate share additional effort thereby obligating undesirably predominantly private time, apprehensive officials, burden be, believe possible administration fail finding intention inherent adhering standards.36 22 arguments include permit. find none them persuasive. They assert since stems least "capricious" word 402(a), 402(b). answer 313. "requirement" stem 313; alone.37 23 Appeals, 973, 505 citizen commence civil actions district "against .) who alleged violation standard limitation ." 505(a)(1), 1365(a)(1) One definitions "a condition thereof effect requirement Act)." 505(f)(6), 1365(f)(6) 505(f) equate 402, 50f)(6) phrased: discharger)." vein, asserts "(c)itizens bring suit 402," "permits 313." Brief reasonable, however, interpret parenthetical expression 505(f)(6) referring principally "condition," "permit." Amendments' reliance See Supra, 205. 402(k) deems holder "with 301, 302, 306, 307, 403, 307 toxic injurious human health." Thus, provisions Of six subdivisions defining limitation," while 505(f)(2)-(4) suits will necessarily brought definition 505(f)(6); plaintiff can show condition, established. true accordance EPA-promulgated 510. read dischargers) sued arise State.38 accept urge 505(f)(6). 24 Finally, submits conformity then respect covered plan, agencies.39 Because inconceivable inteed operate contended anticipated difficulty obviously need conflicts law.40 said untenable attempts construe situation us. By token, think terminates purports portion seeks regime. 25 outset establishing 304(h)(2) see 37 Fed.Reg. 28391 (1972), extends program." 40 Regulations 124.2(b) (1975). implications continue soon explicit 125.2(a)(2), (b) (1975),41 cover instrumentalities. construction charged cogent intentions sustain understanding permits.42 IV 26 Should intent regulating points legislate manifest. 27 Reversed. 28 STEWART REHNQUIST dissent. agree substantially reasoning Ninth Circuit would, accordingly, affirm judgment. passed 1948, 30, 62 1155, frequently revised. annotation following codified 1151 79 907, amended, 1160(c). promulgate meeting certain criteria. 1160(c)(1), (3). cooperation officials. 1160(c)(2), (4). Exec. Order 11574, 986 (1966-1970 Comp.). 84 108, 1171(b). S.Rep.No.92-414, (1971), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 3668, Legislative History (Committee Print compiled Library Congress), Ser. 93-1, 1423 (1973) (hereafter Leg.Hist.). 3674, Leg.Hist. 1425. 101(a)(1), 1251(a)(1) IV) (emphasis added). Previously purpose enhance value resources prevention, control, pollution." 1151(a). 502(14), 1362(14) "pollutant" "discharge pollutant" defined 502(6), (12), 1362(6), (12) 502(11), 1362(11) 502(17) defines "schedule schedule remedial enforceable sequence operations leading limitation, prohibition, standard." 1362(17) Point publicly owned works requiring "best practicable currently available" July 1, 1977, available economically achievable" 1983. 301(b)(1) (A), (2)(A), 1311(b)(1)(A), (2)(A) retained supplementary sources, despite further regulated prevent falling below levels. 301(e), 303, 1311(e), 1312, 1313 1342 301(a), 1311(a) person" establishes NPDES. effect, 402(a)(4), (5), 1342(a)(4), 1342(a)(3) 402(b) provides: "At time promulgation subsection (h)(2) 304 Governor desiring submit full complete description proposes law compact. statement attorney (or independent counsel), chief officer laws compact, carry he determines exist: "(1) "(A) apply, 403; "(B) fixed exceeding five years; "(C) terminated modified cause including, limited to, following: "(i) permit; "(ii) misrepresentation, failure disclose fully relevant facts; "(iii) change either temporary permanent reduction elimination permitted discharge; "(D) disposal wells; "(2)(A) 308 inspect, monitor, enter, reports "(3) public, affected, receive public hearing ruling application; "(4) receives thereof) "(5) (other permitting State), whose affected written recommendations (and Administrator) accepted notify writing together doing; "(6) if, Secretary Army acting Chief Engineers, consultation department Coast Guard operating, anchorage navigation impaired thereby; "(7) violations criminal penalties ways enforcement; "(8) includes (A) new introductions 306 pollutants, (B) 301 (C) substantial volume introducing information quantity impact works; "(9) user 204(b), 308." 880, 1342(b) 303(e), 1313(e) 101(b), 1251(b) 402(c)(1), 1342(c)(1) Title (1975) approving "shall 67, 3733, 1485. H.R.Rep.No.92-911, Pages 118-119 805-806. 1970, 107, original measure, 70 506, admonished "insofar consistent interests appropriations, cooperate" "in preventing controlling" 466h (1964 V). Cf. 1857f(a) V) (Clean Act). 1369(b)(1)(D) challenged insofar applies 16. refusal consider "included provision resubmitted filed, suspending Government." 29. 32. 509(b)(1)(D) actions. pursued 175-178, 2011-2012, 563-564 306(b)(3), 307(d), 1316(b)(3), 1317(d) Like U.S., 182, S.Ct., 2014, L.Ed.2d, 567 41, goes authorize President, so" exempt "compliance requirement." Any exemptions reported annually Congress. grant 1316, 1317 provide, respectively, "new sources" "toxic pollutants" pretreatment "treatment works," 212(2)(A), 1292(2)(A) allows lack appropriations failed appropriation requested budgetary process. V), 19, Supra. appeared much; even comparing predecessor, "had 'applicable standards,' 'standards' referred included enactment inference 967. Petitioners 17, Respondent 5. precise "guidelines 304(b), 1314(b) degrees 1977 1983, 11, 75-978, I. du Pont de Nemours company cert. granted, 425 933, 1662, 174, bill, S. 2770, 92d Cong., 1st Sess. 1676-1677, House amendment, reported, H.R. 11896, 1040-1041, (water) (The version, enacted, bracketed word.) Report accompanying "requir(ing) Effluent pollut(i)on, facility specifically exempted President. citizens." 1485 Later, relating how "such requirements," explained controlling actual physical discharge: "The recognizes, plant required." S.Rep. 92-414, 68, 3734, 1486. limitations": "This thermal .." 118, 805. facilities' agrees "reports silent case" (Brief 40) continues Conference indicates resolved versions summarized bill amendment S.Conf.Rep.No.92-1236, 135 3776, 3812, 3813, 318. 29 969-970, clause. clause "recollection" members Committee, September 1974, nearly years litigation pending fee 24; citing 120 Cong.Rec. 31216 (1974) (remarks Sen. Baker). explains direction clarification supports position, sewers away emissions hence comparable services levied. 31 "Except nothing preclude deny right political subdivision pollution; standard, less construed impairing manner affecting boundary waters) States." 893, 1370 32 1857d-1, quoted 2016, error stated, "no counterpart" Act. 148, 331. 85, 1503; 136, 823. 34 35, Infra. 35 Through 402(a)(2), 402(b)(1)(A) "prescribe assure just conditions. 206-208, 15. 301(b) "(T)here later compliance, (Under preserved Act." 844, 1311(b)(1)(C) 36 argues obligation implies power turn, hearings entire gantlet proceedings finally itself. 32-37. defect opening assertion Individualized is, schedules. correct embodied treat way rests 301(a); his 38 13528 (1973). 301(a) "unlawful" That departments, "persons" 502(5), 1362(5) mean derives different discharger; however "unlawful." mirrors 301(a)'s differing sources. 309(a)(3), example, orders Inter alia, 309(b), 1319(b) 306(e), 505(f)(1), 1316(e), 1317(d), 1365(f)(1) explicitly distinguishing types hand, other. 972. most imposing central outlined text, salient feature embodying 39 meager, appear concentrated attention partial suspension State. 402(b), compact" (see 103, 1253 IV)), scope compact Nonetheless stated meets criteria regulations, 71, 3737, 1489. completely statement, rely, overlooks possibility submitting covering waters. referred, 1689, (a) section." "as program" 1058, inclusion 402(c)(1) discussed Reports. Given misapprehension Report, rely insufficient conclude, urge, committee understood dischargers." unpersuaded limiting withdrawing emphasized government rejection should changed withdrawal categories 854-855, reflected concern given restricted overall assuring attainment goals. 127, Leg. Hist. 814. Whether undoubtedly retains, 208, all-or-nothing offers meaningful ample 41 unpersuasive us 306(c), 308(c), 401(a)(6), 1316(c), 1318(c), 1341(a)(6) forms demonstrate knew revealed 308, 401 obvious importance goals too incidental offer guidance case.

Classification Label: 9