511 U.S. 700 (1994), 92-1911, PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cty. v. Washington Dept. of Ecology

Docket NºNo. 92-1911
Citation511 U.S. 700, 114 S.Ct. 1900, 128 L.Ed.2d 716, 62 U.S.L.W. 4408
Party NamePUD NO. 1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY et al. v. WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY et al.
Case DateMay 31, 1994
CourtUnited States Supreme Court

Page 700

511 U.S. 700 (1994)

114 S.Ct. 1900, 128 L.Ed.2d 716, 62 U.S.L.W. 4408

PUD NO. 1 OF JEFFERSON COUNTY et al.

v.

WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY et al.

No. 92-1911

United States Supreme Court

May 31, 1994

Argued February 23, 1994

CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF WASHINGTON

Syllabus

Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires each State, subject to federal approval, to institute comprehensive standards establishing water quality goals for all intrastate waters, and requires that such standards "consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses." Under Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, the standards must also include an antidegradation policy to ensure that "[e]xisting instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect [those] uses [are] maintained and protected." States are required by § 401 of the Act to provide a water quality certification before a federal license or permit can be issued for any activity that may result in a discharge into intrastate navigable waters. As relevant here, the certification must "set forth any effluent limitations and other limitations . . . necessary to assure that any applicant" will comply with various provisions of the Act and "any other appropriate" state law requirement. § 401(d). Under Washington's comprehensive water quality standards, characteristic uses of waters classified as Class AA include fish migration, rearing, and spawning. Petitioners, a city and a local utility district, want to build a hydroelectric project on the Dosewallips River, a Class AA water, which would reduce the water flow in the relevant part of the river to a minimal residual flow of between 65 and 155 cubic feet per second (cfs). In order to protect the river's fishery, respondent state environmental agency issued a § 401 certification imposing, among other things, a minimum stream flow requirement of between 100 and 200 cfs. A state administrative appeals board ruled that the certification condition exceeded respondent's authority under state law, but the State Superior Court reversed. The State Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the antidegradation provisions of the State's water quality standards require the imposition of minimum stream flows, and that § 401 authorized the stream flow condition and conferred on States power to consider all state action related to water quality in imposing conditions on § 401 certificates.

Held:

Washington's minimum stream flow requirement is a permissible condition of a § 401 certification. Pp. 710-723.

Page 701

(a) A State may impose conditions on certifications insofar as necessary to enforce a designated use contained in the State's water quality standard. Petitioners' claim that the State may only impose water quality limitations specifically tied to a "discharge" is contradicted by § 401(d)'s reference to an applicant's compliance, which allows a State to impose "other limitations" on a project. This view is consistent with EPA regulations providing that activities—not merely discharges— must comply with state water quality standards, a reasonable interpretation of § 401 which is entitled to deference. State standards adopted pursuant to § 303 are among the "other limitations" with which a State may ensure compliance through the § 401 certification process. Although § 303 is not specifically listed in § 401(d), the statute allows States to impose limitations to ensure compliance with § 301 of the Act, and § 301 in turn incorporates § 303 by reference. EPA's view supports this interpretation. Such limitations are also permitted by § 401(d)'s reference to "any other appropriate" state law requirement. Pp. 710-713.

(b) Washington's requirement is a limitation necessary to enforce the designated use of the river as a fish habitat. Petitioners err in asserting that § 303 requires States to protect such uses solely through implementation of specific numerical "criteria." The section's language makes it plain that water quality standards contain two components and is most naturally read to require that a project be consistent with both: the designated use and the water quality criteria. EPA has not interpreted § 303 to require the States to protect designated uses exclusively through enforcement of numerical criteria. Moreover, the Act permits enforcement of broad, narrative criteria based on, for example, "aesthetics." There is no anomaly in the State's reliance on both use designations and criteria to protect water quality. Rather, it is petitioners' reading that leads to an unreasonable interpretation of the Act, since specified criteria cannot reasonably be expected to anticipate all the water quality issues arising from every activity that can affect a State's hundreds of individual water bodies. Washington's requirement also is a proper application of the state and federal antidegradation regulations, as it ensures that an existing instream water use will be "maintained and protected." Pp. 713-719.

(c) Petitioners' assertion that the Act is only concerned with water quality, not quantity, makes an artificial distinction, since a sufficient lowering of quantity could destroy all of a river's designated uses, and since the Act recognizes that reduced stream flow can constitute water pollution. Moreover, §§ 101(g) and 510(2) of the Act do not limit the scope of water pollution controls that may be imposed on users who have obtained, pursuant to state law, a water allocation. Those provisions preserve each State's authority to allocate water quantity as between

Page 702

users, but the § 401 certification does not purport to determine petitioners' proprietary right to the river's water. In addition, the Court is unwilling to read implied limitations into § 401 based on petitioners' claim that a conflict exists between the condition's imposition and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's authority to license hydroelectric projects under the Federal Power Act, since FERC has not yet acted on petitioners' license application and since § 401's certification requirement also applies to other statutes and regulatory schemes. Pp. 719-723.

121 Wash. 2d 179, 849 P.2d 646, affirmed.

O'Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Blackmun, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, and Ginsburg, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 723. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined, post, p. 724.

Howard E. Shapiro argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Michael A. Swiger, Gary D. Bachman, Albert R. Malanca, and Kenneth G. Kieffer.

Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington, argued the cause for respondents. With her on the briefs were Jay J. Manning, Senior Assistant Attorney General, and William C. Frymire, Assistant Attorney General.

Deputy Solicitor General Wallace argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Acting Assistant Attorney General Schiffer, James A. Feldman, and Anne S. Almy.[*]

Page 703

Justice O'Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioners, a city and a local utility district, want to build a hydroelectric project on the Dosewallips River in Washington State. We must decide whether respondent state environmental agency (hereinafter respondent) properly conditioned a permit for the project on the maintenance of specific minimum stream flows to protect salmon and steelhead runs.

Page 704

I

This case involves the complex statutory and regulatory scheme that governs our Nation's waters, a scheme that implicates both federal and state administrative responsibilities. The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act, 86 Stat. 816, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1251et seq., is a comprehensive water quality statute designed to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." § 1251(a). The Act also seeks to attain "water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife." § 1251(a)(2).

To achieve these ambitious goals, the Clean Water Act establishes distinct roles for the Federal and State Governments. Under the Act, the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required, among other things, to establish and enforce technology-based limitations on individual discharges into the country's navigable waters from point sources. See §§ 1311, 1314. Section 303 of the Act also requires each State, subject to federal approval, to institute comprehensive water quality standards establishing water quality goals for all intrastate waters. §§ 1311(b)(1)(C), 1313. These state water quality standards provide "a supplementary basis . . . so that numerous point sources, despite individual compliance with effluent limitations, may be further regulated to prevent water quality from falling below acceptable levels." EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 205, n. 12 (1976).

A state water quality standard "shall consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses." 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A). In setting standards, the State must comply with the following broad requirements:

"Such standards shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and

Page 705

serve the purposes of this chapter. Such standards shall be established taking into consideration their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational [and other purposes.]" Ibid.

See also § 1251(a)(2).

A 1987 amendment to the Clean Water Act makes clear that § 303 also contains an "antidegradation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
272 practice notes
  • Water pollution control: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System— Cooling water intake structures at Phase III facilities; requirements,
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 24, 2004
    • November 1, 2004
    ...that are more stringent than the Federal requirements under State law. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 705 Sections 301, 304, and 306 of the Clean Water Act require that EPA develop technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and new source per......
  • National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES): Applications and Program Updates
    • United States
    • Federal Register May 18, 2016
    • May 18, 2016
    ...policy established under this section. As the Supreme Court stated in PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 705 A 1987 amendment to the Clean Water Act makes clear that section 303 also contains an `antidegradation policy' . . . Specifically, the A......
  • Environmental Protection Agency,
    • United States
    • Federal Register December 18, 2001
    • November 9, 2001
    ...that are more stringent than the Federal requirements under state law. PUD No. I of Jefferson County v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 705 (1994). (As recognized by section 510 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1370, States may develop water quality standards more stringent than......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register July 09, 2004
    • February 16, 2004
    ...that are more stringent than the Federal requirements under state law. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 705 Sections 301, 304, and 306 of the CWA require that EPA develop technology-based effluent limitations guidelines and new source performance sta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 firm's commentaries
63 books & journal articles
  • Soundscape history and environmental law in the Supreme Court.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 45 Nbr. 4, September 2015
    • September 22, 2015
    ...Fund (EDF), 511 U.S. Minear 328(1994) 2/23/1994 PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Lawrence Fish Habitat Cnty. v. Wash. Dep't Wallace of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) 2/23/1994 Ladue v. Gilleo, 512 Paul Bender Land Use U.S. 43 (1994) Restriction 3/23/1994 Dolan v. Tigard, 512 Edwin Land Use U.S. 374 (19......
  • The two lost books in the water quality trilogy: the elusive objectives of physical and biological integrity.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 33 Nbr. 1, January 2003
    • January 1, 2003
    ...v. EPA, 612 F.2d 1232, 1236 (10th Cir. 1979). (6) See, e.g., PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Wash. Dept. of Ecology (Jefferson County), 511 U.S. 700, 703 (1994); Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 101, 105-06 (1992); United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, 474 U.S. 121, 132 (1985) (7) Se......
  • Environmental crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 34 Nbr. 2, January 1997
    • January 1, 1997
    ...preclude states from exercising other means of controlling water quality. PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) (state may regulate stream flow rates related to hydroelectric plant construction; state water quality limitations may focus on water q......
  • The sleeping giant awakens: PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 25 Nbr. 2, March 1995
    • March 22, 1995
    ...but they have taken on significantly more urgency since the Jefferson County decision. (1) The river's local diminutive. (2) 114 S. Ct. 1900 (1994). (3) Id. at 1914. (4) Federal Water Polution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. [subsections] 1251-1387 (1988 & Supp. V 1993). (5) 495 U.S. 490 (1990) ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT