American Rivers, Inc. v. F.E.R.C.
| Decision Date | 05 November 1997 |
| Docket Number | 1171 and 1172,D,1170,Nos. 1169,s. 1169 |
| Citation | 129 F.3d 99 |
| Parties | 28 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,258 AMERICAN RIVERS, INC., and the State Of Vermont, Petitioners, v. FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Respondent, Green Mountain Power and Trout Unlimited, Intervenors. ockets 96-4110L, 96-4112CON, 96-4116CON and 96-4118CON. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Ronald A. Shems, Assistant Attorney General, (Jeffrey L. Amestoy, Attorney General, Montpelier, VT, on the brief), for Petitioner State of Vermont.
Richard A. Allen (Scott M. Zimmerman, Zuckert, Scoutt & Rasenberger, L.L.P, Washington, DC; Margaret Bowman, American Rivers, Inc., Washington, DC; Ronald J. Wilson, Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund, Davis, CA; Richard Roos-Collins, Natural Heritage Institute, San Francisco, CA, on the brief) for Petitioner American Rivers, Inc.
Eric L. Christensen (Susan Tomasky, General Counsel, Jerome M. Feit, Solicitor, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC), for Respondent Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
(William E. Roper, Neuse, Smith, Roper & Venman, P.C., Middlebury, VT, Mona Janopaul, Trout Unlimited, Arlington, VA), for Intervenor Trout Unlimited.
(Maureen F. Leary, Assistant Attorney General, New York State Department of Law, Environmental Protection Bureau, Dennis C. Vacco, Attorney General, Peter H. Schiff, Deputy Solicitor General, Albany, NY; Jeff Sessions, Attorney General, Craig Kneisel, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Alabama, Montgomery, AL; Bruce M. Botelho, Marie Sansone, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Alaska, Juneau, AK; Grant Woods, Attorney General, C. Tim Delaney, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Arizona, Phoenix, AZ; Winston Bryant, Attorney General, Royce O. Griffin, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas, Little Rock, AR; Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Thomas F. Gede, Office of the Attorney General of the State of California, Sacramento, CA; Richard Blumenthal, Attorney General, Joseph Rubin, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Connecticut, Hartford, CT; M. Jane Brady, Attorney General, Kevin P. Maloney, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Delaware, Wilmington, DE; Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Jonathan Glogau, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Florida, Tallahassee, FL; Margery S. Bronster, Attorney General, Dorothy D. Sellers, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI; Alan G. Lance, Attorney General, Clive Strong, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Idaho, Boise, ID; Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, David R. Sheridan, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Iowa, Des Moines, IA; Carla J. Stovall, Attorney General, John W. Campbell, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Kansas, Topeka, KS; Albert Benjamin Chandler, III, Attorney General, James Grawe, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Kentucky, James E. Bickford, Secretary of Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, Katheryn M. Hargraves, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet, Frankfort, KY; Richard P. Ieyoub, Attorney General, David C. Kimmel, Office of the Attorney
General of the State of Louisiana, Baton Rouge, LA; Andrew Ketterer, Attorney General, Thomas A. Harnett, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Maine, Augusta, ME; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Nancy W. Young, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Baltimore, MD; Scott Harshbarger, Attorney General, Margaret Vandeusen, Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Boston, MA; Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of Michigan, Lansing, MI; Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, Richard S. Slowes, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota, St. Paul, MN; Mike Moore, Attorney General, Nicole Akins Boyd, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Mississippi, Jackson, MS; Jeremiah W. Nixon, Attorney General, James R. Layton, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Missouri, Jefferson City, MO; Joseph P. Mazurek, Attorney General, Clay R. Smith, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Montana, Helena, MT; Frankie Sue Del Papa, Attorney General, Brooke A. Nielsen, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Nevada, Carson City, NV; Jeffrey R. Howard, Attorney General, Michael J. Walls, Office of the Attorney General of the State of New Hampshire, Concord, NH; Peter Verniero, Attorney General of New Jersey, Trenton, NJ; Tom Udall, Attorney General of The State of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM; Michael F. Easley, Attorney General, Marc D. Bernstein, Office of the Attorney General of the State of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC; Betty D. Montgomery, Attorney General, Simon Karras, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Ohio, Columbus, OH; Drew Edmondson, Attorney General, Miles Tolbert, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, Oklahoma City, OK; Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Rives Kistler, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Oregon, Salem, OR; Thomas W. Corbett, Jr., Attorney General, Calvin R. Koons, Office of the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, PA; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, J. Robert Bolchoz, Office of the Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Columbia, SC; Charles W. Burson, Attorney General, Barry Turner, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee, Nashville, TN; Dan Morales, Attorney General, Javier P. Guajardo, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas, Austin, TX; Darrell V. McGraw, Jr., Attorney General, Silas B. Taylor, Office of the Attorney General of the State of West Virginia, Charleston, WV; Christine O. Gregoire, Attorney General of Washington, Olympia, WA; William U. Hill, Attorney General, Jay Woodhouse, Office of the Attorney General of the State of Wyoming, Cheyenne, WY), for Amici Curiae the States of New York, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
(Christopher M. Kilian, Harwell E. Coale, III, Vermont Natural Resources Council, Montpelier, VT), for Amicus Curiae Vermont Natural Resources Council, Inc.
(John R. Molm, Winifred D. Simpson, Clifford S. Sikora, Troutman Sanders, LLP, Washington, DC; William J. Madden, John A. Whitaker, IV, Winston & Strawn, Washington, DC; Alan M. Richardson, American Public Power Ass'n, Washington, DC; Donald H. Clarke, Wilkinson, Barker, Knauer & Quinn, Washington, DC; Henri D. Bartholomot, Washington, DC), for Amici Curiae Edison Elec. Inst., Central Vermont Pub. Serv. Corp., American Pub. Power Ass'n, and the National Hydropower Ass'n.
Before: WALKER, JACOBS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Petitioners, the State of Vermont and American Rivers, Inc., seek review of several orders issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC" or "Commission") licensing six hydropower projects located on rivers within the State of Vermont. The dispute surrounds (1) the authority of the State under § 401 of the Clean Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C. § 1341, to certify--prior to the issuance of a federal license--that such projects will comply with federal and state water quality standards and (2) the appropriate route for review of a state's certification decisions. The Commission argues that, when it determines that a state has exceeded the scope of its authority under § 401 in imposing certain pre-license conditions, it may refuse to include the ultra vires conditions in its license as it did in each of the proceedings at issue. Petitioners contend that the Commission is bound by the language of § 401 to incorporate all state-imposed certification conditions into hydropower licenses and that the legality of such conditions can only be challenged by the licensee in a court of appropriate jurisdiction. We agree with petitioners and, thus, grant the petition for review, vacate the Commission's orders, and remand.
The principal order under review in this proceeding arises from the efforts of the Tunbridge Mill Corporation ("Tunbridge") to obtain a license from FERC for the operation of a small hydroelectric facility on the First Branch of the White River in Orange County, Vermont, restoring an historic mill site in Tunbridge Village. Pursuant to § 401(a)(1) of the CWA, 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1), an applicant for a federal license for any activity that may result in a discharge into the navigable waters of the United States must apply for a certification from the state in which the discharge originates (or will originate) that the licensed activity will comply with state and federal water quality standards. See P.U.D. No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 707-09, 114 S.Ct. 1900, 1907, 128 L.Ed.2d 716 (1994). Such certifications, in accordance with § 401(d), 33 U.S.C. § 1341(d), shall
set forth any effluent limitations and other limitations, and monitoring requirements necessary to assure that any applicant for a Federal license or permit will comply with any applicable effluent limitations and other limitations, under section 1311 or 1312 of this title, standard of performance under section 1316 of this title, or prohibition, effluent standard, or pretreatment standard under section 1317 of this title, and with any other appropriate requirement of State law set forth in such certification....
The CWA further provides that the state certification "shall become a condition on any Federal license or permit...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Airport Communities Coalition v. Graves
...must incorporate any standards or effluent limitations set forth in the certification. Id. § 1341(d); see also Am. Rivers, Inc. v. FERC, 129 F.3d 99, 110-11 (2d Cir.1997) (stating that agency "does not possess a roving mandate to decide that substantive aspects of state-imposed conditions a......
-
Am. Rivers v. Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm
...in Escondido, and other circuits have extended the holding to other statutory provisions. See American Rivers, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm'n, 129 F.3d 99, 109-10 (2d Cir. 1997) (applying Escondido's reasoning to section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. S 1341); Southern Cali......
-
Sierra Club v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs
...the states." U.S. Dep’t of Interior v. F.E.R.C. , 952 F.2d 538, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (emphasis added); see also Am. Rivers, Inc. v. F.E.R.C. , 129 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 1997) (recognizing the "unequivocal" and "mandatory" language of Section 1341(d) ). Every Circuit to address this provisio......
-
Sierra Club v. State Water Control Bd., 17-2406
...a condition on any Federal license or permit subject to the provisions of this section." (emphasis added) ); American Rivers, Inc. v. FERC , 129 F.3d 99, 107 (2d Cir. 1997) (explaining that Section 401's language "leav[es] little room for FERC to argue that it has authority to reject state ......
-
Hydropower
...Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 547 U.S. 370, 374, 36 ELR 20089 (2006). 48. 33 U.S.C. §1341(d); American Rivers v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 129 F.3d 99, 28 ELR 20258 (2d Cir. 1997). 49. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Jeferson County v. Washington Dep’t of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 24 ELR 20945 (199......
-
Table of authorities
...283, 311 American Rivers v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 129 F.3d 99, 28 ELR 20258 (2d Cir. 1997) ...........................................................................................441 American Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. United States, 344 U.S. 298 (1953) ...............................
-
Deep Decarbonization and Hydropower
...Bd. of Envtl. Prot., 547 U.S. 370, 374, 36 ELR 20089 (2006). 47. 33 U.S.C. §1341(d); American Rivers v. Federal Energy Regulatory Comm’n, 129 F.3d 99, 28 ELR 20258 (2d Cir. 1997). 48. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Jeferson Cty. v. Washington Dep’t of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700, 24 ELR 20945 (1994)......
-
Permits and state permit programs
...below), the court upheld a § 401 certiication condition that required a dam operator to install a canoe portage around one end of the dam. 129 F.3d 99, 28 ELR 20258 (2d Cir. 1997). he fourth major issue is what court decides whether a contested condition is authorized by § 401? One possible......