Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center
568 U.S. (2013)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A court must defer to a federal agency's interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation unless that interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation. This deference is warranted even if the agency's interpretation is not the only possible reading or the best one.
Facts:
- Georgia-Pacific West, along with other companies, contracted with the State of Oregon to harvest timber from the Tillamook State Forest.
- The companies used a network of logging roads to conduct these harvesting operations.
- The area receives heavy rainfall, averaging over 100 inches per year in some parts.
- When it rained, stormwater runoff from the graded roads was collected into a system of ditches, culverts, and channels.
- This channeled runoff, containing large amounts of sediment from the roads, was then discharged into nearby rivers and streams.
- There was evidence that this sediment-laden runoff could be harmful to fish and other aquatic organisms.
- The logging companies did not obtain National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits for these discharges.
Procedural Posture:
- Northwest Environmental Defense Center (NEDC) filed a citizen suit against Georgia-Pacific West and state officials in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon.
- NEDC alleged the defendants violated the Clean Water Act by discharging pollutants from logging roads without an NPDES permit.
- The District Court, a trial court, dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim.
- NEDC, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- The Ninth Circuit, an intermediate appellate court, reversed the District Court's decision, holding that the discharges did require a permit.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's decision.
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 channeled stormwater runoff from logging roads constitute a discharge 'associated with industrial activity' under the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Industrial Stormwater Rule, thereby requiring a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit under the Clean Water Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Kennedy
No. Channeled stormwater runoff from logging roads does not require an NPDES permit because the EPA's interpretation of its own ambiguous Industrial Stormwater Rule to exclude such discharges is a permissible one entitled to deference. The Clean Water Act requires permits for stormwater discharges 'associated with industrial activity.' The EPA's implementing regulation, while referencing the 'Logging' industrial classification, also defines the term to cover discharges 'directly related to manufacturing, processing or raw materials storage areas at an industrial plant.' The EPA reasonably interpreted this language to exclude temporary, outdoor logging operations and to apply only to more traditional, fixed industrial facilities like sawmills. Because the regulation is ambiguous and the EPA's interpretation is not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the rule, the Court must defer to the agency's view under the precedent of Auer v. Robbins.
Concurring - Chief Justice Roberts
This opinion agrees with the majority's application of existing precedent but notes that the underlying principle of Auer deference raises serious questions. The issue of whether to reconsider Auer was not properly raised or argued by the parties in this case. Therefore, it is appropriate to await a future case where the issue is fully briefed and argued before considering whether to overrule that precedent.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice Scalia
No. This opinion agrees with the majority that the case is not moot and the court has jurisdiction, but it dissents from the merits analysis, arguing that the Court should not have deferred to the EPA's interpretation. The principle of Auer deference is an unjustified abdication of judicial power that allows agencies to effectively write and interpret their own laws, violating separation of powers. The fairest reading of the regulations, without deference, indicates that the channeled runoff from logging roads is a point source discharge associated with industrial activity (specifically, 'Logging,' Standard Industrial Classification 24) and therefore requires a permit. The text of the regulation is not ambiguous, and the court should have enforced its plain meaning rather than deferring to the agency's 'unnatural' reading.
Analysis:
This case serves as a strong affirmation of the Auer deference doctrine, which grants significant power to administrative agencies to interpret their own regulations. The decision underscores that as long as a regulation is ambiguous, an agency's interpretation will likely be upheld if it is reasonable, even if it is not the most textually sound. However, the powerful dissent by Justice Scalia, joined by a concurrence from the Chief Justice questioning the doctrine's validity, signaled a potential shift and invited future legal challenges to Auer deference, making its long-term stability uncertain. In the short term, the ruling kept certain logging-related stormwater discharges outside the federal NPDES permitting scheme, leaving their regulation primarily to state-level best management practices.
Unlock the full brief for Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center