IDAHO MIN. ASS'N, INC. v. Browner
90 F. Supp. 1078, 90 F. Supp. 2d 1078, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6878 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) interpretation of its own Clean Water Act (CWA) regulations, which establish a rebuttable presumption that water bodies are capable of supporting 'fishable/swimmable' uses unless a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) demonstrates otherwise, is a permissible construction of the CWA. However, the EPA's application of this presumption to specific water bodies must be rationally supported by the administrative record and cannot be arbitrary or capricious.
Facts:
- The Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a framework for states to develop water quality standards, which include designating uses for water bodies (e.g., 'fishable/swimmable') and setting criteria to protect those uses, with a preference for 'fishable/swimmable' uses wherever attainable.
- CWA regulations require states to conduct a Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) if they designate uses less protective than 'fishable/swimmable' but do not require a UAA if 'fishable/swimmable' uses are designated.
- If the EPA disapproves a state's water quality standards and the state fails to make necessary revisions within 90 days, the EPA is mandated to promulgate federal replacement standards.
- On July 11, 1994, the State of Idaho submitted a complete set of water quality standards to the EPA for review.
- On June 25, 1996, the EPA officially disapproved Idaho's designation of 53 stream segments for uses less protective than 'fishable/swimmable', notifying the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) to either conduct UAAs or adopt appropriate uses.
- Idaho failed to undertake the required revisions within the 90-day period prescribed by the CWA.
- On April 28, 1997, the EPA published a proposed rule introducing tentative revisions to Idaho's disapproved water quality standards, including new federal use designations establishing aquatic life and recreation uses for the specified water body segments, relying on a rebuttable presumption that 'fishable/swimmable' uses are attainable unless shown otherwise by a UAA.
- On July 31, 1997, the EPA published the final rule, establishing cold water biota designated uses for several Idaho waterways, including the South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River, Canyon Creek, and Shields Gulch.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Idaho Mining Association (IMA) filed a Complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, naming the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its administrators as defendants.
- The Idaho Conservation League and The Lands Council (Conservation Groups) filed a Motion to Intervene in the District Court.
- The U.S. District Court granted the Conservation Groups’ Motion to Intervene.
- Plaintiff Idaho Mining Association filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
- Defendants EPA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment.
- The Conservation Groups formally joined Defendants' motion and filed a separate brief in support of their position.
- The U.S. District Court conducted a hearing on the pending cross-motions for summary judgment.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Did the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exceed its authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) by relying on a rebuttable presumption that 'fishable/swimmable' uses are attainable for certain water bodies in Idaho when promulgating new water quality standards, and was its application of this presumption arbitrary and capricious for the specific water bodies at issue?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief United States Magistrate Judge Williams
Yes, the EPA did not exceed its statutory authority in relying upon a rebuttable presumption of attainability, and its application of the presumption was not arbitrary and capricious for the South Fork of the Coeur d'Alene River and Canyon Creek. However, its application was arbitrary and capricious for Shields Gulch. The Court found that the EPA's interpretation of its regulations at 40 C.F.R. §§ 131.10(j) and (k)—which require states to conduct a UAA when designating uses less protective than 'fishable/swimmable' but not when designating 'fishable/swimmable' uses—reasonably creates a rebuttable presumption of attainability. This interpretation is entitled to substantial deference under Udall v. Tallman and Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, as Congress did not clearly address the precise question of how to weigh competing factors in Section 303(c)(2)(A) of the CWA. The use of the term 'rebuttable presumption' was merely a clarification of existing regulatory requirements, not a new substantive rule requiring a separate notice and comment period under the APA. Regarding the specific water bodies: 1. South Fork Coeur d’Alene River: The EPA's designation of cold water biota uses was supported by biological data from fish population surveys and macroinvertebrate studies, which indicated that cold water biota uses were already being attained despite high metal concentrations. Since EPA regulations (40 C.F.R. § 131.10(i)) require states to reflect existing uses, and the EPA's scientific determination is owed deference (Baltimore Gas and Electric Co. v. Natural Resources Defense Council), the designation was not arbitrary and capricious. 2. Canyon Creek: The EPA's designation for cold water biota uses was reasonable because the upper reaches of Canyon Creek supported aquatic life, and the lower portion shared similar physical and chemical characteristics, despite no fish being observed during one specific survey. No data was submitted during the comment period to rebut the presumption for this segment. 3. Shields Gulch: The EPA's designation of cold water biota uses was arbitrary and capricious. The only data in the administrative record indicated that Shields Gulch was dry on the day of assessment, and the EPA presented no evidence to suggest seasonal water flow or suitability for aquatic life. Thus, the presumption of attainability was not reasonably supported by the record, leading to vacatur and remand for further consideration. The Court also clarified that the EPA was not required to conduct a UAA or a comprehensive cost analysis when establishing fishable/swimmable uses, as 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(d) applies primarily to preventing the downgrading of existing uses. Furthermore, any cost analysis performed for Executive Order 12866 was not subject to judicial review, and the adoption of site-specific criteria is a state option, not an EPA requirement.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the extent of the EPA's authority in establishing water quality standards under the Clean Water Act, particularly concerning the use of presumptions. It affirms that the EPA's reasonable interpretation of its own regulations, which align with Congressional intent to promote 'fishable/swimmable' waters, is entitled to substantial judicial deference. However, the ruling also sets a crucial boundary, demonstrating that even a reasonable presumption cannot be applied arbitrarily to individual water bodies if the administrative record lacks any supporting evidence or actively contradicts the presumed facts. This emphasizes the importance of a robust administrative record and meaningful opportunity for public comment to rebut agency presumptions for specific contexts.
