Arkansas et al. v. Oklahoma et al.

United States Supreme Court
503 U.S. 91 (1992)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Clean Water Act, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has the statutory authority to require a point source of pollution in one state to comply with the water quality standards of a downstream state. The EPA's interpretation that compliance requires no 'actual detectable violation' of the downstream state's standards is a reasonable exercise of this authority.

Facts:

In 1985, the city of Fayetteville, Arkansas, applied to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a permit to operate a new sewage treatment plant.
The proposed permit would allow the plant to discharge treated effluent into a stream in northwestern Arkansas.
This stream flows for approximately 17 miles before entering the Illinois River.
The Illinois River then flows for 22 miles from that point across the state line into Oklahoma.
Oklahoma's state water quality standards designated its portion of the Illinois River as a 'scenic river' and stipulated that 'no degradation shall be allowed' in such waters.
At the time of the permit application, the portion of the Illinois River in Oklahoma was already considered 'degraded' and in violation of certain state water quality standards.

Procedural Posture:

Oklahoma and other parties challenged the EPA-issued permit for the Fayetteville plant in an administrative proceeding.
An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially affirmed the permit after a hearing.
On review, the EPA's Chief Judicial Officer (CJO) remanded the case, instructing the ALJ to determine whether the discharge would cause an 'actual detectable violation' of Oklahoma's standards.
On remand, the ALJ made detailed factual findings and concluded the discharge would not cause a detectable violation, a decision affirmed by the CJO.
Arkansas and Oklahoma both sought judicial review of the EPA's final action in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
The Court of Appeals reversed the EPA's decision, holding that the Clean Water Act prohibits issuing a permit for any discharge into a river that is already in violation of water quality standards.
Arkansas and the EPA (petitioners) sought and were granted a writ of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Under the Clean Water Act, does the Environmental Protection Agency have the authority to issue a pollution discharge permit to a source in an upstream state on the condition that the discharge does not result in a detectable violation of the downstream state's water quality standards?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Stevens

Yes. The Clean Water Act grants the EPA the authority to issue a permit for an upstream pollution source conditioned on its compliance with the water quality standards of a downstream state. The EPA has broad statutory discretion to establish conditions for such permits to achieve the Act's objective of restoring the nation's waters. The EPA's long-standing regulation requiring permits to ensure compliance with the standards of all affected states is a reasonable exercise of this authority. The Court of Appeals erred by creating a categorical rule that no new discharge can be permitted into a water body already in violation of quality standards; the Act contains no such prohibition. Furthermore, the EPA's interpretation of Oklahoma's 'no degradation' standard to mean no 'actual detectable or measurable' change in water quality is a reasonable and permissible construction entitled to judicial deference. The role of a reviewing court is to uphold an agency's factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence, not to substitute its own findings or policy judgments for those of the agency.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the EPA's authority to regulate interstate water pollution, establishing that an upstream state's activities can be conditioned on the environmental standards of a downstream state. It reinforces the principle of judicial deference to an administrative agency's reasonable interpretation of a statute it administers and its own regulations, particularly in technically complex areas. The case clarifies that courts should not invent new, stricter environmental rules not found in the statute, nor should they re-weigh evidence considered by the agency. This ruling prevents downstream states from having an absolute veto over upstream development but ensures their water quality standards are a mandatory consideration in the federal permitting process.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Arkansas et al. v. Oklahoma et al. (1992)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"