In re Operation of Missouri River System Lit., 04-2204.

• Decision Date: 16 August 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-2204.,04-2204.
• Citation: 418 F.3d 915
• Parties: In re: OPERATION OF THE MISSOURI RIVER SYSTEM LITIGATION State of North Dakota, through the North Dakota Department of Health, an Agency of the State of North Dakota; John Hoeven, Governor; Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota Attorney General, Ex. Rel. State of North Dakota; North Dakota Department of Health, Appellants, v. United States Department of the Army, the Corps of Engineers, a Federal Agency; David Fastabend, General Commander, Nw Division, Portland, Oregon, United States Army Corps of Engineers; Kurt F. Ubbelohde, Lt. Colonel, District Engineer, Omaha District, Appellees, State of Nebraska, Appellee, State of Missouri, Intervenor on Appeal. State of South Dakota, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant, The Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

Page 915

418 F.3d 915

In re: OPERATION OF THE MISSOURI RIVER SYSTEM LITIGATION

State of North Dakota, through the North Dakota Department of Health, an Agency of the State of North Dakota; John Hoeven, Governor; Wayne Stenehjem, North Dakota Attorney General, Ex. Rel. State of North Dakota; North Dakota Department of Health, Appellants, v. United States Department of the Army, the Corps of Engineers, a Federal Agency; David Fastabend, General Commander, Nw Division, Portland, Oregon, United States Army Corps of Engineers; Kurt F. Ubbelohde, Lt. Colonel, District Engineer, Omaha District, Appellees,

State of Nebraska, Appellee, State of Missouri, Intervenor on Appeal.

State of South Dakota, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant, The Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara Nation, Amicus on Behalf of Appellant.

No. 04-2204.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: April 11, 2005.

Filed: August 16, 2005.

Lyle G. Witham, argued, Assistant Attorney General, Bismarck, ND, for appellants.

Robert H. Oakley, argued, U.S. Dept., of Justice, Environment & Natural Resources Division, Washington, DC, (Fred R. Disheroon and Danile W. Pinkston of the Environment & Natural Resources Division, on brief), for appellees Ubbelohde, Fastabend and U.S. Dept. of the Army, et al.

Before WOLLMAN, BEAM, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

GRUENDER, Circuit Judge.

North Dakota appeals the district court's¹ dismissal of its suit to enjoin the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("the Corps") from releasing water from Lake Sakakawea to support downstream navigation on the Missouri River. North Dakota's complaint alleges that the releases violate water quality standards for Lake Sakakawea established pursuant to the Clean Water Act. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

I. BACKGROUND

Lake Sakakawea is a reservoir in North Dakota formed by the enclosure of the Garrison Dam, part of the Missouri River main stem reservoir system established by the Flood Control Act of 1944 ("FCA"). The FCA assigns to the Corps the task of managing the main stem reservoir system. The Corps releases water from Lake Sakakawea into the Missouri River to support downstream navigation in accord with the goals of the FCA.² North Dakota filed suit to enjoin the releases from Lake Sakakawea on the grounds that lowering the level of the lake would violate state-law water-quality standards established pursuant to the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251 et seq. ("CWA"). The states of Nebraska and South Dakota also filed complaints as intervenors.

The CWA is a federal law that directs the states to adopt state-law water-quality standards. Id. at § 1313. The state water-quality standards must incorporate a designated use for each navigable body of water, as well as water-quality criteria based on the designated use. Id. at § 1313(c)(2)(A). "Such standards shall be established taking into consideration their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, and also taking into consideration their use and value for navigation." Id. Pursuant to the CWA, North Dakota designated Lake Sakakawea as a "cold water fishery," requiring the water to support the growth of salmonid fishes and associated water life. In accord with that designation, North Dakota instituted certain water-quality standards. North Dakota contends that the Corps' releases of water from Lake Sakakawea violate these water-quality standards because they reduce the volume of cold-water habitat in the lake below that needed to support a viable cold-water fishery ecosystem.

The district court dismissed the North Dakota complaint under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), holding that the CWA preserves sovereign immunity from suit for the Corps when the Corps' authority to maintain navigation is at issue. The district court also dismissed the appeals of the intervenors as moot. North Dakota appeals, arguing that the CWA waives the Corps' sovereign immunity in this case.

II. DISCUSSION

"We review de novo a district court's order granting a motion to dismiss, viewing the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Casazza v. Kiser, 313 F.3d 414, 418 (8th Cir.2002). "Like the District Court, we must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and dismiss the case only when `it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of [its] claim which would entitle [it] to relief.'" Id. (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)). The district court's interpretation of the CWA is reviewed de novo. United States v. Templeton, 378 F.3d 845, 849 (8th Cir.2004).

North Dakota cannot enforce its state water quality standards against the Corps, a federal agency, unless Congress has unequivocally waived the federal government's sovereign immunity from suit. United States Dep't of Energy v. Ohio, 503 U.S. 607, 615, 112 S.Ct. 1627, 118 L.Ed.2d 255 (1992). "Waivers of immunity must be construed strictly in favor of the sovereign...." Id. (quotations omitted). The CWA contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity:

Each department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government (1) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or (2) engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result, in the discharge or runoff of pollutants ... shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, and local requirements, administrative authority, and process and sanctions respecting the control and abatement of water pollution in the same manner, and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity ....

33 U.S.C. § 1323(a). This waiver of sovereign immunity is further limited by 33 U.S.C. § 1371(a), which states: "[The CWA] shall not be construed as ... affecting or impairing the authority of the Secretary of the Army ... to maintain navigation."

"Unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise, when we find the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete." Neosho R-V Sch. Dist. v. Clark,

315 F.3d 1022, 1032 (8th Cir.2003) (quoting Burlington Northern Railroad Co. v. Okla. Tax Comm'n, 481 U.S. 454, 461, 107 S.Ct. 1855, 95 L.Ed.2d 404 (1987)). On its face, § 1371(a) exempts the Corps, which operates under the authority of the Secretary of the Army, from complying with the CWA when its authority to maintain navigation would be affected. It is also clear from the face of North Dakota's complaint that North Dakota is attempting to use its state water-quality standards to affect the Corps' authority to release water from Lake Sakakawea to support navigation. There are no exceptional circumstances here to indicate that Congress would not have intended the § 1371(a) "navigation exception" to the waiver of sovereign immunity to apply in this case.³

The CWA was amended in 1977 to emphasize that it applies to discharges from the Corps' channel-dredging operations. North Dakota argues that the legislative history from the 1977 amendment evidences Congress' intent for the Corps to comply with the CWA in all its operations, in spite of the navigation-based limitation in § 1371(a). This argument fails because the 1977 amendment, while emphasizing that the limited waiver of sovereign immunity in § 1323(a) applied to the Corps, left the clearly worded navigation exception in § 1371(a) intact. "Absent some ambiguity in the statute, we have no occasion to look to legislative history." Clark, 315 F.3d at 1032. There is nothing ambiguous about the admonition of § 1371(a) that the CWA "shall not be construed as... affecting or impairing the authority of the Secretary of the Army ... to maintain navigation." As a result, we do not reach the legislative history in this case.⁴

North Dakota also argues that whether compliance with its CWA water-quality standards would affect the Corps' authority to maintain navigation is a factual question. For example, Lake Sakakawea was constructed so that water releases siphon water from near the bottom of the lake. North Dakota suggests that the construction of new outflow structures at Garrison Dam to siphon warmer water from the top of Lake Sakakawea, rather than colder water from the bottom, might allow the Corps to comply with North Dakota's water-quality standards for a cold-water fishery while still providing the requisite water releases to maintain navigation. If we allowed North Dakota to enforce its water-quality standards on this basis, there is no discernible limit to the new structures and new operational plans that other states with main-stem reservoirs could demand to force the Corps to comply with their own water-quality standards. If each state is allowed to use its reservoir water-quality standards as a tool to control how the Corps must release water from the main stem reservoirs, the "authority of the Secretary of the Army ... to maintain navigation" will obviously be affected, in violation of § 1371(a).

As the district court noted, the above result is also supported by the principles of preemption. Implied conflict preemption arises "where state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress." Nordgren v. Burlington Northern Railroad Co., 101 F.3d 1246, 1248 (8th Cir.1996) (quoting Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 287, 115 S.Ct. 1483, 131 L.Ed.2d 385 (1995) (internal citations omitted)). "In determining whether state law `stands as an obstacle' to the full implementation of a federal law, `it is not enough to say that the ultimate goal of both federal and state law' is the same." Forest Park II v. Hadley, 336 F.3d 724, 733 (8th Cir.2003) (quoting Int'l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 494, 107 S.Ct. 805, 93 L.Ed.2d 883 (1987)). "A state law also is pre-empted if it interferes with the methods by which the federal statute was...