Arkansas v. Oklahoma - 503 U.S. 91, 112 S. Ct. 1046 (1992)

Rule:

If the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends changes to the standards and the state fails to comply with that recommendation, the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.S. § 1251 et seq., authorizes the EPA to promulgate water quality standards for the state. 33 U.S.C.S. § 1313(c).

Facts:

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.

Issue:

Was the EPA's action authorized by the Clean Water Act?

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The Court reversed and held that when a new permit was being issued by the source state's permit-granting agency, the downstream state did not have the authority to block the issuance of the permit if it was dissatisfied with the proposed standards. The Court further held that an affected state's only recourse was to apply to the EPA Administrator, who then had the discretion to disapprove the permit if he concluded that the discharges would have an undue impact on interstate waters, pursuant to 33 U.S.C.S. § 1342(d)(2). Finally, the Court stated that the Clean Water Act made it clear that affected states occupied a subordinate position to source states in the federal regulatory program.