Associated Industries of Alabama, Inc. v. Train, 75-2624
| Decision Date | 13 December 1976 |
| Docket Number | No. 75-2624,75-2624 |
| Citation | 9 E.R.C. 1561,543 F.2d 1159 |
| Parties | , 7 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,146 ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES OF ALABAMA, INC., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Russell E. TRAIN, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, et al., Defendants, State of Alabama, Movant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
William J. Baxley, Atty. Gen. of Ala., Henry H. Caddell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Chief Environmental Prot. Div., David E. Dunn, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., Montgomery, Ala., for movant-appellant.
L. Murray Alley, Fournier J. Gale, III, Kibry Sevier, Birmingham, Ala., for Associated Ind.
Robert G. Tate, J. Ross Forman, III, Birmingham, Ala., for U. S. Steel Corp.
Wayman G. Sherrer, U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., Patrick A. Mulloy, John J. Zimmerman, Land & Natural Resources, Lawrence E. Shearer, Wallace H. Johnson, Jacques B. Gelin, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for other interested parties.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.
Before RIVES, * GEWIN and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
The genesis of this litigation is a suit against officials of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by several Alabama industrial water-using companies. The plaintiffs in the underlying action sought inter alia an order invalidating certain EPA-promulgated water quality standards for Alabama. The State of Alabama, acting through its Attorney General, filed a motion to intervene in behalf of the federal agency defendants, 1 which the district court denied. After carefully considering the record, the briefs, and oral argument of counsel, we affirm.
A brief review of the procedural and factual underpinning of this case points out the correctness of the district court's order. Moreover, such review is necessary to place Alabama's motion to intervene in its proper perspective. The gravamen of plaintiff's action can be succinctly stated as alleging that the EPA acted in a manner that was "arbitrary, capricious, not otherwise in accordance with law, contrary to the requirements and policies of the (Federal Water Pollution Control) Act, and in excess of EPA's statutory authority" 2 when it disapproved certain water quality standards promulgated by the Alabama Water Improvement Commission, and substituted stricter standards for those rejected. The Attorney General moved for intervention "because the citizens of Alabama will be directly affected by the disposition of this action and because the interests of the State of Alabama are not adequately represented by existing parties." 3 The district court held contra to Alabama's motion: "For all that appears in the motion the positions of Alabama and the United States are identical; and there are no distinctions found by the Court which would either be enhanced by the presence of Alabama or cause Alabama harm if it were not permitted to intervene." 4
On appeal, the Attorney General argues two points in asserting that the interests of the State of Alabama are not adequately represented herein. 5 He first alleges that the effect of a plaintiff's victory in this suit will be greater upon the State than upon the EPA. Secondly he points out his involvement in a permit case now pending before this court, the disposition of which will as a practical matter be greatly affected by the outcome of the present suit. In that case, State of Alabama v. EPA, No. 75-4435 (), the Attorney General apparently attacks EPA's interpretation and implementation of its own standard. It is contended without detail or supporting pleadings or proof that the EPA's position in the permit case demonstrates a "lack of commitment" to the strict federal standard which it promulgated. 6
In the judgment of this court, neither of these alleged inadequacies reflects upon the vigor or effectiveness of the defense of the EPA standards being offered on behalf of defendants by the U. S. Department of Justice. The fact that the Attorney General of Alabama may disagree with the EPA's interpretation of its own standard does not cast doubt upon the will of EPA to defend the legality of the promulgation of the standard, which is the only issue in this case. 7 On the contrary, this court finds that the position of Alabama and of the EPA defendants regarding this litigation are identical. 8 No claim or defense on behalf of Alabama has been suggested which is not or will not be asserted by the EPA defendants. This court finds no aspect of the case that would be illuminated by Alabama's presence in the suit, and no way in which its absence can harm the State. Simply stated the appellant has failed to demonstrate to this court that error was committed by the trial court.
AFFIRMED.
* Judge Rives was a member of the panel that heard oral argument but due to illness did not participate in this decision. The case is being decided by a quorum. 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
1 The Attorney General does not contend on this appeal that the district judge abused his discretion in denying permissive intervention, Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2), and the record is devoid of anything to support such a claim; rather he asserts that the State should have been permitted to intervene as of right under Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2):
(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action . . . (2) when the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and he is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing parties.
2 Plaintiff's complaint, App. pp. 12, 13.
3 Appellant's motion to intervene, App. p. 20.
4 District Court order denying motion to intervene, App. p. 29.
5 The State also...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ford Motor Co. v. U.S. E.P.A.
...and/or an opportunity for a public hearing, are not proper procedures for EPA to enforce the FWPCA. See Associated Indus. of Alabama v. Train, 9 ERC 1561, 1568-69 (N.D.Ala. Dec. 6, 1976). Cf. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Train, supra, 166 U.S.App.D.C. at 326-27, 510 F.2d at If......
-
Sierra Club, Inc. v. Leavitt
...from the EPA's in the district court.9 A similar situation was addressed by the Fifth Circuit in Associated Industries of Alabama, Inc. v. Train, 543 F.2d 1159 (5th Cir.1976).10 In Train, the Attorney General of Alabama sought to intervene as a defendant in a case challenging as arbitrary a......
-
Homestake Min. Co. v. US ENVIRON. PROTECTION
...industrial, agricultural and other use classifications. In support of this argument, plaintiff cites Associated Industries of Alabama v. Train, 543 F.2d 1159, 9 E.R.C. 1561 (N.D. Ala.1976). In that case, EPA disapproved Alabama's water quality standards because they did not meet EPA's "nati......
-
Athens Lumber Co., Inc. v. Federal Election Com'n
...represented. International Tank Terminals Ltd. v. M/V Acadia Forrest, 579 F.2d 964, 967 (5th Cir. 1978); Associated Industries of Alabama, Inc. v. Train, 543 F.2d 1159 (5th Cir. 1976); Ordinance Container Corp. v. Sperry Rand Corp., 478 F.2d 844 (5th Cir. Nevertheless, IAM urges that the Su......
-
CHAPTER 3 THE TOXICS PROGRAM UNDER THE NEW CLEAN WATER ACT
...Court likened the role of the state to that of a zoning board in deciding land use matters. In Associated Industries of Alabama v. Train, 543 F.2d 1159 (5th Cir. 1976), the court stated that there is no blanket fish protection classification across the nation, rather, such classification is......