Lexplug logoLexplug

Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
20 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 21372, 915 F.2d 1314, 31 ERC (BNA) 2089 (1990)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a statute's language is plain and unambiguous, a court must give effect to the expressed intent of Congress and must not defer to a contrary agency interpretation. A section's caption cannot create an ambiguity in otherwise clear statutory text.


Facts:

  • In 1987, Congress amended the Clean Water Act by passing the Water Quality Act, which included a new provision, Section 304(l).
  • Section 304(l) required each state to develop and submit several lists of waters that were not expected to meet water quality standards due to toxic pollutants.
  • These included two broad 'A lists' and a narrower 'B list' of waters polluted 'entirely or substantially' by discharges from specific 'point sources' like factories.
  • Following the listing requirement, subsection (C) of the statute mandated that for 'each segment of the navigable waters included on such lists,' the state must identify the specific point sources discharging the toxic pollutant.
  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated a final rule interpreting the plural phrase 'such lists' in subsection (C) to mean only the single 'B list'.
  • As a result of the EPA's rule, states were only required to identify specific toxic polluters for the narrowest category of polluted waters and were not required to do so for waters on the 'A lists'.

Procedural Posture:

  • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued a final rule interpreting § 304(l) of the Clean Water Act, codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 123.46, 130.10.
  • The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) petitioned the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for review of the final rule.

Locked

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's regulation, which limits the requirement for states to identify toxic point source polluters under Clean Water Act § 304(l)(1)(C) to only one of the required lists of polluted waters, violate the plain language of the statute which refers to 'lists' in the plural?


Opinions:

Majority - Fletcher

Yes, the EPA's regulation violates the plain language of the statute. Under the Chevron framework, the court must first determine if Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. Here, the statute's use of the plural word 'lists' in § 304(l)(1)(C) is an unambiguous expression of Congress's intent to require the identification of point sources for all waters on all the lists created under subsections (A) and (B). The EPA's argument that the singular 'List' in the section's caption creates ambiguity is unpersuasive, as a caption cannot create ambiguity where the statutory text is clear. Furthermore, the EPA incorrectly assumed that the information-gathering purpose of subsection (C) must be perfectly coextensive with the control-strategy requirements of subsection (D); Congress could have intended for the information-gathering to be broader. Because the statute is unambiguous, the EPA’s contrary interpretation is not entitled to deference and its regulation is invalid.



Analysis:

This case is a straightforward application of the first step of the Chevron deference framework, reinforcing the principle that an agency cannot contravene the clear text of a statute. The decision underscores that statutory interpretation begins and often ends with the plain meaning of the words Congress chose. By rejecting the EPA's attempt to narrow its statutory mandate, the court affirmed that different subsections of a law can serve different, non-interlocking purposes, such as broad information-gathering versus more targeted regulatory action. This ruling expanded the scope of states' obligations to identify toxic polluters, creating a more comprehensive database for future regulatory efforts under the Clean Water Act.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (1990)

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