Arkansas v. Oklahoma Environmental Protection Agency v. Oklahoma, Nos. 90-1262

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtSTEVENS
Citation117 L.Ed.2d 239,503 U.S. 91,112 S.Ct. 1046
Decision Date26 February 1992
Docket Number90-1266,Nos. 90-1262
PartiesARKANSAS, et al., Petitioners, v. OKLAHOMA et al. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA et al

503 U.S. 91
112 S.Ct. 1046
117 L.Ed.2d 239
ARKANSAS, et al., Petitioners,

v.

OKLAHOMA et al. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Petitioner, v. OKLAHOMA et al.

Nos. 90-1262, 90-1266.
Argued Dec. 11, 1991.
Decided Feb. 26, 1992.
Syllabus

The Clean Water Act provides for two sets of water quality measures: effluent limitations, which are promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency), and water quality standards, which are promulgated by the States. The Act generally prohibits the discharge of effluent into a navigable body of water unless the point source obtains a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from a State with an EPA-approved permit program or from the EPA itself. A Fayetteville, Arkansas, sewage treatment plant received an EPA-issued permit, authorizing it to discharge effluent into a stream that ultimately reaches the Illinois River upstream from the Oklahoma border. Respondents, Oklahoma and other Oklahoma parties, challenged the permit before the EPA, alleging, inter alia, that the discharge violated Oklahoma water quality standards, which allow no degradation of water quality in the upper Illinois River. The EPA's Chief Judicial Officer remanded the initial affirmance of the permit by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), ruling that the Act requires an NPDES permit to impose any effluent limitations necessary to comply with applicable state water quality standards, and that those standards would be violated only if the record shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the discharge would cause an actual detectable violation of Oklahoma's water quality standards. The ALJ then made detailed findings of fact, concluding that Fayetteville had satisfied the Chief Judicial Officer's standard, and the Chief Judicial Officer sustained the permit's issuance. The Court of Appeals reversed, ruling that the Act does not allow a permit to be issued where a proposed source would discharge effluent that would contribute to conditions currently constituting a violation of applicable water quality standards. It concluded that the Illinois River was already degraded, that the Fayetteville effluent would reach the River in Oklahoma, and that the effluent would contribute to the River's deterioration even though it would not detectably affect the River's water quality.

Page 92

Held: The EPA's action was authorized by the Clean Water Act. Pp. 98-114.

(a) Where interstate discharge is involved, both federal common law of nuisance, Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304, 101 S.Ct. 1784, 68 L.Ed.2d 114, and an affected State's common law, International Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 493, 107 S.Ct. 805, 812, 93 L.Ed.2d 883, are pre-empted. Affected States may not block a permit, but must apply to the EPA Administrator, who may disapprove a plan if he concludes that the discharge will have an undue impact on interstate waters. Id., at 490-491, 107 S.Ct., at 809. Pp. 98-101.

(b) The EPA has construed the Act as requiring that EPA-issued permits comply with the requirements for a permit issued under an approved state plan and with § 401(a) of the Act, which appears to prohibit the issuance of a federal permit over the objection of an affected State unless compliance with the affected State's water quality requirements can be insured. Pp. 1054-1056.

(c) The EPA's requirement that the Fayetteville discharge comply with Oklahoma's water quality standards is a reasonable exercise of the substantial statutory discretion Congress has vested in the Agency. There is no need to address the question whether the Act requires compliance with affected States' standards, for it clearly does not limit the EPA's authority to mandate such compliance. EPA regulations, which since 1973 have required that an NPDES permit not be issued when compliance with affected States' water quality standards cannot be insured, are a reasonable exercise of the Agency's discretion and are a well-tailored means of reaching the Act's goal of achieving state water quality standards. The EPA's authority is not constrained by the limits in Ouellette, supra, concerning an affected State's direct input into the permit process, does not conflict with the Act's legislative history and statutory scheme, and is not incompatible with the balance among competing policies and interests that Congress struck in the Act. Pp. 104-107.

(d) Contrary to the Court of Appeals' interpretation, nothing in the Act mandates a complete ban on discharges into a waterway that is in violation of existing water quality standards. Instead, the Act vests in the EPA and the States broad authority to develop long-range, area-wide programs to alleviate and eliminate existing pollution. Pp. 107-108.

(e) The Court of Appeals exceeded the legitimate scope of judicial review of an agency adjudication when it invalidated the EPA's issuance of the permit on the ground that the Agency misinterpreted Oklahoma's water quality standards. It substituted its own reading of the law for the EPA's. Thus, it failed to give substantial deference to the Agency's reasonable, consistently held interpretation of its own regulations, which incorporate the Oklahoma standards. It also disregarded well-

Page 93

established standards for reviewing factual findings of agencies by making its own factual findings when the ALJ's findings were supported by substantial evidence. See generally Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 71 S.Ct. 456, 95 L.Ed. 456. As a result, the court's conclusion that the River's degradation was an important and relevant factor which the EPA failed to consider was based on its own erroneous interpretation of the controlling law. Had it been properly respectful of the EPA's permissible reading of the Act—that what matters is not the River's current status, but whether the proposed discharge will have a detectable effect on that status—it would not have adjudged the Agency's decision arbitrary and capricious. Pp. 109-114.

908 F.2d 595 (CA10 1990), reversed.

STEVENS, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.

Lawrence G. Wallace, Washington, D.C., for petitioner, Environmental Protection Agency.

Edward W. Warren, Washington, D.C., for petitioners, Arkansas, et al.

Robert A. Butkin, Oklahoma City, Okl., for respondents.

Page 94

Justice STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court.

Pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 86 Stat. 816, as amended, 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq., the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a discharge permit to a new point source in Arkansas, about 39 miles upstream from the Oklahoma state line. The question presented in this litigation is whether the EPA's finding that discharges from the new source would not cause a detectable violation of Oklaho-

Page 95

ma's water quality standards satisfied the EPA's duty to protect the interests of the downstream State. Disagreeing with the Court of Appeals, we hold that the Agency's action was authorized by the statute.

I

In 1985, the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas, applied to the EPA, seeking a permit for the City's new sewage treatment plant under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). After the appropriate procedures, the EPA, pursuant to § 402(a)(1) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1), issued a permit authorizing the plant to discharge up to half of its effluent (to a limit of 6.1 million gallons per day) into an unnamed stream in northwestern Arkansas.1 That flow passes through a series of three creeks for about 17 miles, and then enters the Illinois River at a point 22 miles upstream from the Arkansas-Oklahoma border.

The permit imposed specific limitations on the quantity, content, and character of the discharge and also included a number of special conditions, including a provision that if a study then underway indicated that more stringent limitations were necessary to ensure compliance with Oklahoma's water quality standards, the permit would be modified to incorporate those limits. App. 84.

Respondents challenged this permit before the EPA, alleging, inter alia, that the discharge violated the Oklahoma water quality standards. Those standards provide that "no degradation [of water quality] shall be allowed" in the upper Illinois River, including the portion of the River immediately downstream from the state line.2

Page 96

Following a hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) concluded that the Oklahoma standards would not be implicated unless the contested discharge had 'something more than a mere de minimis impact' on the State's waters. He found that the discharge would not have an 'undue impact' on Oklahoma's waters and, accordingly, affirmed the issuance of the permit. App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 90-1262, pp. 101a-103a (emphasis deleted).

On a petition for review, the EPA's Chief Judicial Officer first ruled that § 301(b)(1)(c) of the Clean Water Act 'requires an NPDES permit to impose any effluent limitations necessary to comply with applicable state water quality standards.'3 Id., at 116a-117a. He then held that the Act

Page 97

and EPA regulations offered greater protection for the downstream State than the ALJ's 'undue impact' standard suggested. He explained the proper standard as follows:

"[A] mere theoretical impairment of Oklahoma's water quality standards—i.e., an infinitesimal impairment predicted through modeling but not expected to be actually detectable or measurable—should not by itself block the issuance of the permit. In this case, the permit should be upheld if the record shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the authorized discharges would not cause an actual detectable violation of Oklahoma's water quality standards." Id., at 117a (emphasis in original).

On remand, the ALJ made detailed findings of fact and concluded that the City had satisfied the standard set forth by the Chief Judicial Officer. Specifically, the ALJ found that there would...

To continue reading

Request your trial
542 practice notes
  • Part IV
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 30, 2006
    • June 30, 2006
    ...of treatment technologies or the costs that dischargers would incur to meet those water quality-based limits. (See Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 1054 (1992); Westvaco v. EPA, 899 F.2d 1383 (4th Cir. The environmental petitioners claimed that the 2003 CAFO rule violated both the Clea......
  • Part II
    • United States
    • Federal Register November 20, 2008
    • November 20, 2008
    ...or effectiveness of treatment technologies or the costs that discharges would incur to meet such limits. Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (1992); Westvaco v. EPA, F.2d 1383 (4th Cir. 1990). The environmental petitioners challenged the 2003 rule as violating both the CWA and the Administrat......
  • Water pollution control: National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System— Concentrated animal feeding operations; permitting requirements and effluent limitations guidelines; court order response,
    • United States
    • Federal Register June 30, 2006
    • June 30, 2006
    ...of treatment technologies or the costs that dischargers would incur to meet those water quality-based limits. (See Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 1054 (1992); Westvaco v. EPA, 899 F.2d 1383 (4th Cir. The environmental petitioners claimed that the 2003 CAFO rule violated both the Clea......
  • New Mexico ex rel. N.M. Env’t Dep't v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 16–CV–465 MCA/LF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • February 12, 2018
    ...marks and citation omitted). After Ouellette , the Court reiterated that federal law controls water pollution in Arkansas v. Oklahoma , 503 U.S. 91, 110, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 117 L.Ed.2d 239 (1992), repeating 310 F.Supp.3d 1269much of the history of the regulation of water law which was laid out......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
518 cases
  • New Mexico ex rel. N.M. Env’t Dep't v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, No. 16–CV–465 MCA/LF
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 10th Circuit. District of New Mexico
    • February 12, 2018
    ...marks and citation omitted). After Ouellette , the Court reiterated that federal law controls water pollution in Arkansas v. Oklahoma , 503 U.S. 91, 110, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 117 L.Ed.2d 239 (1992), repeating 310 F.Supp.3d 1269much of the history of the regulation of water law which was laid out......
  • State of Mont. v. U.S. E.P.A., No. CV 95-56-M-CCL.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Montana
    • March 27, 1996
    ...impact on the Tribes' health and welfare. Such fact finding by the EPA is entitled to substantial deference. Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 112, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 1060, 117 L.Ed.2d 239 (1992); Central Arizona Water Cons. Dist. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 990 F.2d 1531, 1539-40 (9t......
  • Pud No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 921911
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1994
    ...standards is a reasonable interpretation of § 401, and is entitled to deference. See, e.g., Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. ----, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 1061, 117 L.Ed.2d 239 (1992) (slip op., at 18-19); Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 104 S.Ct. ......
  • Home Builders, Chicago v. U.S. Army Corps, Engin., No. 02-2155.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • July 10, 2003
    ...a partnership between the States and the Federal Government, not the ICA. See 33 U.S.C. § 1251(g); see also Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 101, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 117 L.Ed.2d 239 (1992). The Clean Water Act explicitly contemplates more stringent regulation of the discharge of effluent mate......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
14 books & journal articles
  • Permits and state permit programs
    • United States
    • Introduction to environmental law: cases and materials on water pollution control - 2d Edition
    • July 23, 2017
    ...with state water quality standards is a reasonable interpretation of § 401, and is entitled to deference. See, e.g., Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 110 (1992); Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). Although § 401(d) authorizes the State to ......
  • The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption of State Water Quality Law
    • United States
    • The Clean Water Act and the Constitution. Legal Structure and the Public's Right to a Clean and Healthy Environment Part I
    • April 20, 2009
    ...North Dakota complained that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ (the Corps’) operations 108. 33 U.S.C. §1341(a). 109. Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 110 (1992). 110. See 33 U.S.C. §1342(b) (laying out the criteria for state assumption of the NPDES permitting program). 111. 16 U.S.C. §153......
  • Plain Meaning, Precedent, and Metaphysics: Interpreting the 'Addition' Element of the Clean Water Act Offense
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 44-9, September 2014
    • September 1, 2014
    ...judgment. See §402(a). 271. Section 301(b)(1)(C) (emphasis added). 272. Section 402(b)(3) & (5). 273. See Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 22 ELR 20552 (1992). 274. Section 402(d). 275. See, e.g. , Ohio v. U.S. EPA, 784 F.2d 224, 16 ELR 20447 (6th Cir. 1986), in which the court held that ......
  • Table of authorities
    • United States
    • Introduction to environmental law: cases and materials on water pollution control - 2d Edition
    • July 23, 2017
    ...........243 Appalachian Power v. Train, 566 F.2d 461 (4th Cir. 1977) .......................................386 Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 22 ELR 20552 (1993) ....................................... 318 Ashkenazi v. U.S. Attorney Gen. of the United States, 246 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. ......
  • 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