Environmental Protection Agency v. California State Water Resources Control Board, No. 74-1435

CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtWHITE
Citation96 S.Ct. 2022,48 L.Ed.2d 578,426 U.S. 200
PartiesThe ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al., Petitioners, v. CALIFORNIA ex rel. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD et al
Decision Date07 June 1976
Docket NumberNo. 74-1435

426 U.S. 200
96 S.Ct. 2022
48 L.Ed.2d 578
The ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY et al., Petitioners,

v.

CALIFORNIA ex rel. STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD et al.

No. 74-1435.
Argued Jan. 13, 1976.
Decided June 7, 1976.
Syllabus

While federal installations discharging water pollutants are obliged, under § 313 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, to comply to the same extent as nonfederal facilities with state "requirements respecting control and abatement of pollution," obtaining a permit from a State with a federally approved permit program is not among such requirements. Federal installations are subject to state regulation only when and to the extent that congressional authorization is clear and unambiguous, Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167, 96 S.Ct. 2006, 48 L.Ed.2d 555, and here the Amendments do not subject federal facilities to state permit requirements with the requisite degree of clarity. Pp. 211-228.

9 Cir., 511 F.2d 963, reversed.

Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D. C., for petitioners.

Roderick Walston, San Francisco, Cal., for respondent California.

Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., Olympia, Wash., for respondent

Page 201

Washington.

Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.

The issue in this case which arises under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 (Amendments), 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 Et seq. (1970 ed., Supp. IV), is whether federal installations discharging water pollutants in a State with a federally approved permit program are to secure their permits from the State, or from the Environmental Protection

[Amicus Curiae Information from page 201 intentionally omitted]

Page 202

Agency (EPA). As with the related Clean Air Act issue decided this day in Hancock v. Train, supra, 426 U.S. 167, 96 S.Ct. 2006, 48 L.Ed.2d 555, decision of the specific statutory question whether obtaining a state permit is among those "requirements respecting control and abatement of pollution" with which federal facilities must comply under § 313 of the Amendments1 is informed by constitutional principles governing submission of federal installations to state regulatory authority.

I

Before it was amended in 1972, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 2 employed ambient water quality standards specifying the acceptable levels of pollution in a State's interstate navigable waters as the primary mechanism in its program for the control of water pollution.3 This program based on water quality standards, which were to serve both to guide performance by polluters and to trigger legal action to abate pollution, proved ineffective. The problems stemmed from the character of the standards themselves, which focused on the tolerable effects rather than the preventable causes of water pollution, from the awkwardly shared federal and state responsibility for promulgating such standards,4 and from the cumbrous enforcement procedures. These combined to make it very difficult to develop and

Page 203

enforce standards to govern the conduct of individual polluters.

Some States developed water quality standards and plans to implement and enforce them, and some relied on discharge permit systems for enforcement. Others did not, and to strengthen the abatement system federal officials revived the Refuse Act of 1899, § 13, 30 Stat. 1152, 33 U.S.C. § 407, which prohibits the discharge of any matter into the Nation's navigable waters except with a federal permit.5 Although this direct approach to water pollution abatement proved helpful, it also was deficient in several respects: The goal of the discharge permit conditions was to achieve water quality standards rather than to require individual polluters to minimize effluent discharge, the permit program was applied only to industrial polluters, some dischargers were required to obtain both federal and state permits, and federal permit authority was shared by two federal agencies.6

In 1972, prompted by the conclusion of the Senate Committee on Public Works that "the Federal water pollution control program . . . has been inadequate in every vital aspect," 7 Congress enacted the Amendments, declaring "the national goal that the discharge of pollutants into the navigable waters be Eliminated by 1985." 8

Page 204

For present purposes the Amendments introduced two major changes in the methods to set and enforce standards to abate and control water pollution. First, the Amendments are aimed at achieving maximum "effluent limitations" on "point sources," as well as achieving acceptable water quality standards. A point source is "any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance . . .from which pollutants are or may be discharged."9 An "effluent limitation" in turn is "any restriction established by a State or the Administrator on quantities, rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, and other constituents which are discharged from point sources . . .including schedules of compliance."10 Such direct restrictions on discharges facilitate enforcement by making it unnecessary to work backward from an overpolluted body of water to determine which point sources are responsible and which must be abated. In addition, a discharger's performance is now measured against strict technology-based11 effluent limitations specified levels of treatment to which it must conform, rather than against limitations derived from [water

Page 205

quality standards to which it and other polluters must collectively conform.12 ]

Second, the Amendments establish the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 13 as a means of achieving and enforcing the effluent limitations. Under the NPDES, it is unlawful for any person to discharge a pollutant without obtaining a permit and complying with its terms.14 An NPDES permit serves to transform generally applicable effluent limitations and other standards including those based on water quality into the obligations (including a timetable for compliance) of the individual discharger, and the Amendments provide for direct administrative and judicial enforcement of permits. §§ 309 and 505, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1319 and 1365 (1970 ed., Supp. IV). With few exceptions, for enforcement purposes a discharger in compliance with the terms and conditions of an NPDES permit is deemed to be in compliance with those sections of the Amendments on which the permit conditions are based. § 402(k), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(k) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). In short, the permit defines, and facilitates compliance with, and enforcement of, a preponderance of a discharger's obligations under the Amendments.

Page 206

NPDE permits are secured, in the first instance, from the EPA, which issues permits under the authority of § 402(a)(1), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(a)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). Section 402(a)(3) requires the EPA permit program and permits to conform to the "terms, conditions, and requirements" of § 402(b).15 Consonant

Page 207

with its policy "to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent,

Page 208

reduce, and eliminate pollution," 16 Congress also provided that a State may issue NPDES permits for discharges into navigable waters within its jurisdiction," but only upon EPA approval of the State's proposal to administer its own program. The EPA may require modification or revision of a submitted program but when a plan is in compliance with the EPA's guidelines under § 304(h)(2), 33 U.S.C. § 1314(h) (2) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), and is supported by adequate authority to achieve the ends of §§ 402(b)(1)-(9), n. 15, supra, and to administer the described program, the EPA shall approve the program and "suspend the issuance of permits under (§ 402(a) ) as to those navigable waters subject to such program."17

The EPA retains authority to review operation of a State's permit program. Unless the EPA waives review for particular classes of point sources or for a particular permit application, §§ 402(d)(3), (e), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(d)(3), (e) (1970 ed., Supp. IV), a State is to forward a copy of each permit application to the EPA for review, and no permit may issue if the EPA objects that issuance of the permit would be "outside the guidelines and requirements" of the Amendments. §§ 402(d)(1), (2), 33 U.S.C. §§ 1342(d)(1), (2) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). In addition to this review authority, after notice and opportunity to take action, the EPA may withdraw approval of a state permit program which is not being administered in compliance with § 402. § 402(c)(3), 33 U.S.C. § 1342(c)(3) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).

Page 209

The Amendments also sought to enlist "every Federal agency . . . to provide national leadership in the control of water pollution in (its) operations."18 To do so, 33 U.S.C. § 1171(a), which required federal agencies, "consistent with the paramount interest of the United States as determined by the President (to) insure compliance with applicable water quality standards," was amended by adding § 313,19 providing that federal installations must "comply with Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements respecting control and abatement of pollution to the same extent that any person is subject to such requirements." 33 U.S.C. § 1323 (1970 ed., Supp. IV).

II

On May 14, 1973, the Acting EPA Administrator approved the State of California's request to administer its own NPDES permit program and, effective that date, suspended EPA issuance of all permits for "all discharges in the State of California, other than those from agencies and instrumentalities of the Federal government." App. 18. Soon after this first approval of a state program and after correspondence exchanging views on a State's authority to issue permits to federal installations, the EPA informed the State of Washington that it "does not have the prerogative to delegate permit issuance for Federal facilities to any state." Id., at 6. Shortly

Page 210

thereafter the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
347 practice notes
  • Texas Oil & Gas Ass'n v. U.S. E.P.A., Nos. 97-60042
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 10, 1998
    ...a timetable for compliance) of the individual discharger.") (quoting EPA v. California Ex Rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 205, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 2025, 48 L.Ed.2d 578 NPDES permits are the CWA's implementation mechanism; they are the instrument by which ELGs are made bindi......
  • United States Public Interest Research Grp. v. Heritage Salmon, Civil No. 00-150-B-C (D. Me. 2/19/2002), Civil No. 00-150-B-C.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Court (Maine)
    • February 19, 2002
    ...of a pollutant is prohibited unless an NPDES permit has been obtained. See, e.g., EPA v. Cal. ex rel. State Water Res. Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 205, n. 14 (1976); Int'l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 489 (1987) ("Section 301(a) of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a), generally prohibits t......
  • Voices of Wetlands v. State Water Res. Bd., No. H028021.
    • United States
    • California Court of Appeals
    • December 14, 2007
    ...in its program for the control of water pollution." (Environmental Protection Agency v. State Water Resources Control Board (1976) 426 U.S. 200, 202, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 48 L.Ed.2d 578, fns. omitted.) Under that system, it was "very difficult to develop and enforce standards to govern the conduc......
  • Granite Rock Co. v. California Coastal Com'n, No. C-83-5137-WWS.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • May 21, 1984
    ...Hancock v. Train, 426 U.S. 167, 179, 96 S.Ct. 2006, 2012, 48 L.Ed.2d 555 (1976). See also EPA v. State Water Resources Control Board, 426 U.S. 200, 211, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 2027, 48 L.Ed.2d 578 Plaintiff does not, and cannot, assert, however, that its mining operations on federal land somehow co......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
336 cases
  • Monongahela Power Co. v. Marsh, Nos. 81-1201
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • January 13, 1987
    ...than that state standards of water quality were to be preserved under the Clean Water Act, see EPA v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 219, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 2031, 48 L.Ed.2d 578, 591 (1976); United States Steel Corp. v. Train, 556 F.2d 822, 830 (7th Cir.1977), and supports no ......
  • Decker v. Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr., Nos. 11–338
    • United States
    • U.S. Supreme Court
    • March 20, 2013
    ...into the navigable waters of the United States. See §§ 1311(a), 1362(12); EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 205, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 48 L.Ed.2d 578 (1976). The Act defines “point source” as “any discernible, confined and discrete conveyance, including but......
  • Pud No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dep't of Ecology, 921911
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 23, 1994
    ...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, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 2025, n. 12, 48 L.Ed.2d 578 (1976). A state water quality standard "shall consist of the designated uses of the nav......
  • Texas Oil & Gas Ass'n v. U.S. E.P.A., Nos. 97-60042
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
    • December 10, 1998
    ...a timetable for compliance) of the individual discharger.") (quoting EPA v. California Ex Rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 205, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 2025, 48 L.Ed.2d 578 NPDES permits are the CWA's implementation mechanism; they are the instrument by which ELGs are made bindi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 books & journal articles
  • Sovereign Immunity and State Regulation of Federal Facilities and Tribes
    • 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
    ...(9th Cir. 1975); Minnesota v. Calloway, 401 F. Supp. 524, 526-30, 5 ELR 20703 (D. Minn. 1975). 32. 426 U.S. 167, 6 ELR 20555 (1976). 33. 426 U.S. 200, 6 ELR 20563 (1976) [hereinafter California II ]. 34. Id . at 212. 35. Id . at 212-13. 36. Id . at 214. ch04.indd 82 4/30/09 10:09:57 AM sove......
  • Pollutant
    • United States
    • Plain meaning, precedent, and metaphysics: interpreting the elements of the clean water act offense
    • October 24, 2017
    ...events leading up to the enactment of the CWA, see Environmental Prot. Agency v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd. , 426 U.S. 200, 203-06, 6 ELR 20563 (1976). 106 Plain Meaning, Precedent, & Metaphysics ing that it is a pollutant arrogates to courts a task that Congress d......
  • Table of authorities
    • United States
    • Introduction to environmental law: cases and materials on water pollution control - 2d Edition
    • July 23, 2017
    ...Pipeline Servs. Co., 836 F.2d 443, 18 ELR 20491 (9th Cir. 1988) ..... 589 EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 6 ELR 20563 (1976) ....................................................................................................... 760 EPA v. City of ......
  • Plain Meaning, Precedent, and Metaphysics: Interpreting the 'Pollutant' Element of the Federal Water Pollution Offense
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 44-11, November 2014
    • November 1, 2014
    ...events leading up to the enactment of the CWA, see Environmental Prot. Agency v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd. , 426 U.S. 200, 203-06, 6 ELR 20563 (1976). 164. As the Eighth Circuit said in Minnehaha Creek Watershed Dist.v. Hofman , 597 F.2d 617, 627, 9 ELR 20334 (8th......
  • 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