American Farm Bureau Federation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
792 F.3d 281 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Clean Water Act's provision for establishing a "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) of pollutants is ambiguous, granting the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to interpret it as a comprehensive regulatory framework. This framework may permissibly include specific allocations of pollution loads among different sources, target dates for compliance, and a requirement for reasonable assurances from states that the pollution-reduction goals will be met.
Facts:
- For decades, the Chesapeake Bay, North America's largest estuary, has suffered severe pollution from nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment.
- This pollution, originating from both discrete 'point sources' and diffuse 'nonpoint sources' like agricultural runoff, created large 'dead zones' unable to support aquatic life.
- Despite the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, efforts by the states within the Bay's watershed to remedy the pollution were largely unsuccessful for decades.
- The seven jurisdictions in the Chesapeake Bay watershed agreed that the EPA would establish the required TMDL for the Bay in the first instance, rather than submitting their own plans for EPA approval.
- In 2010, the EPA promulgated the Chesapeake Bay TMDL, a comprehensive framework for pollution reduction.
- The TMDL set specific pollution limits and allocated those limits among point sources and various nonpoint source sectors (e.g., agriculture, urban runoff) across the watershed.
- The TMDL established a timeline for implementation, with a goal of having all necessary pollution control measures in place by 2025.
- In developing the TMDL, the EPA required 'reasonable assurance' from the watershed states that they had developed credible plans to achieve the allocated pollution reductions.
Procedural Posture:
- The American Farm Bureau Federation and other trade associations (collectively, 'Farm Bureau') sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- Farm Bureau alleged that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the Clean Water Act in promulgating the Chesapeake Bay TMDL.
- The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the EPA, upholding the TMDL.
- Farm Bureau, as appellant, appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with the EPA as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exceed its statutory authority under the Clean Water Act when it establishes a "total maximum daily load" (TMDL) that includes specific pollutant allocations among different sources, sets target dates for pollution reduction, and requires reasonable assurances of implementation from states?
Opinions:
Majority - Ambro, J.
No. The EPA did not exceed its statutory authority because the phrase 'total maximum daily load' in the Clean Water Act is ambiguous, and the EPA's interpretation of it as a comprehensive framework is a reasonable one entitled to deference. The court applied the two-step Chevron framework. At Step One, the court found the statutory phrase 'total maximum daily load' is not defined in the Act and is ambiguous; it does not plainly forbid the EPA from including allocations, deadlines, and assurances. The court reasoned that the Act's structure, which requires TMDLs only when point-source controls are insufficient, necessitates accounting for nonpoint sources, making source-based allocations a logical component. At Step Two, the court held that the EPA's interpretation was a reasonable policy choice. Given the decades of failure to clean the Bay, a comprehensive, coordinated approach including specific allocations, target dates, and assurances of state implementation is a rational and permissible method to achieve the Act's statutory goal of restoring the nation's waters. The court also dismissed federalism concerns, finding the TMDL does not impermissibly regulate land use but rather serves as an informational tool that preserves state flexibility in implementation.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the EPA's authority to use TMDLs as powerful, comprehensive planning tools rather than merely setting a single aggregate pollution number. It affirms a broad interpretation of EPA power under the Clean Water Act's 'cooperative federalism' framework, giving the agency significant leverage to guide and compel state action on water pollution. The ruling provides a strong precedent for the EPA to develop similarly detailed, watershed-wide cleanup plans for other major impaired water bodies across the country. It reinforces the application of Chevron deference to complex environmental statutes, allowing expert agencies flexibility in interpreting ambiguous terms to achieve statutory goals.
Unlock the full brief for American Farm Bureau Federation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency