California v. Wheeler - 467 F. Supp. 3d 864 (N.D. Cal. 2020)

Rule:

In Chevron, this Court held that ambiguities in statutes within an agency's jurisdiction to administer are delegations of authority to the agency to fill the statutory gap in reasonable fashion. Filling these gaps, the Court explained, involves difficult policy choices that agencies are better equipped to make than courts . . . . If a statute is ambiguous, and if the implementing agency's construction is reasonable, Chevron requires a federal court to accept the agency's construction of the statute, even if the agency's reading differs from what the court believes is the best statutory interpretation.

Facts:

Congress enacted the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act) in 1972. The Act's stated objective is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." 86 Stat. 816, 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). The Act further declares, "[i]t is the policy of Congress to recognize, preserve, and protect the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources, and to consult with the Administrator in the exercise of his authority under this chapter." § 1251(b). By its terms, the Act applies only to "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas." The Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers (the Agencies or defendants) both have responsibilities under the Act for regulating activities that may affect the waters of the United States. The rule being challenged in this litigation is The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United States," 85 Fed. Reg. 22,250 (April 21, 2020) (2020 Rule or Rule), which is scheduled to take effect on June 22, 2020. While the parties dispute how much acreage of wetlands and how many miles of waterways will be removed from regulation under the CWA by adoption of the 2020 Rule, there is no quarrel that it represents a substantial pullback from the scope of jurisdiction the Agencies have historically asserted.

Issue:

Was the assertion that the 2020 Rule was arbitrarily inconsistent with the Agencies' prior findings, and contrary to the meaning and objectives of the CWA meritorious?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court found that the phrase, "waters of the United States" in the Clean Water Act, is indisputably ambiguous. As a result, the court is compelled to apply Chevron deference when evaluating whether the Agencies' interpretation of it is lawful. The court held that Plaintiffs' argument  that the 2020 Rule does not survive review even under Chevron was erroneous. In the absence of precedent construing what must be included as "waters of the United States," plaintiffs are left with little more than policy arguments that the narrowness of the 2020 Rule serves poorly to carry out the objectives of the CWA. As compelling as those arguments may be, they do not provide a sufficient basis for a court to substitute its judgment for the policy choices of the Agency. Furthermore, plaintiffs’ contention that the Agencies have not adequately justified the fundamental change in policy and their discounting of the scientific evidence they previously marshaled in support of the 2015 Rule was not tenable. The court explained that Agencies are not precluded from reversing course "since the whole point of Chevron is to leave the discretion provided by the ambiguities of a statute with the implementing agency."  Indeed, a policy change may be permissible simply because there has been a "change in administrations."