Pronsolino ex rel. Pronsolino v. Nastri
291 F.3d 1123 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act requires states to identify water bodies that fail to meet water quality standards and to establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for those waters, even if they are polluted exclusively by nonpoint sources.
Facts:
- The Garcia River in California is polluted by sediment run-off from timber harvesting and other non-discrete sources, known as nonpoint source pollution.
- The river has no pollution from point sources, such as industrial discharge pipes.
- In 1960, Betty and Guido Pronsolino purchased 800 acres of timber land within the Garcia River watershed.
- In 1998, the Pronsolinos applied to the California Department of Forestry for a permit to harvest timber on their property.
- As a condition of the permit, and in order to comply with a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) established for the Garcia River, California authorities required the Pronsolinos to implement specific mitigation measures.
- These measures included restricting the removal of certain large trees and limiting harvesting to dry periods, which the Pronsolinos' forester estimated would cost them $750,000.
- Other landowners in the Garcia River watershed, including Larry Mailliard and Bill Barr, also faced significant financial costs due to similar restrictions on their timber harvesting permits imposed to comply with the TMDL.
Procedural Posture:
- In 1992, the EPA disapproved California's list of impaired waters for failing to include the Garcia River.
- After California declined to amend the list, the EPA formally added the Garcia River, which is polluted only by nonpoint sources, to California's § 303(d)(1) list.
- When California subsequently failed to establish a TMDL for the river, the EPA established the Garcia River TMDL pursuant to a consent decree in a separate lawsuit.
- The Pronsolinos, along with farming and forestry associations (plaintiffs), sued the EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, challenging the agency's statutory authority to impose a TMDL on a river impaired only by nonpoint source pollution.
- The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the EPA.
- The Pronsolinos (appellants) appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
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 Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act authorize the Environmental Protection Agency to require states to identify and establish Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for rivers polluted exclusively by nonpoint sources?
Opinions:
Majority - Berzon, Circuit Judge.
Yes. The Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA to require states to identify and establish TMDLs for rivers polluted exclusively by nonpoint sources. The statutory language of § 303(d)(1)(A), which requires listing waters for which specified 'effluent limitations... are not stringent enough' to achieve water quality standards, applies to all waters that do not meet those standards. Where effluent limitations do not apply at all (as with nonpoint source pollution), they are, as a matter of law, 'not stringent enough.' This interpretation is consistent with the CWA's overall structure, which establishes water quality standards for all waters regardless of pollution source, and is supported by precedent holding that TMDLs are required for pollutants not subject to the specific effluent limitations mentioned in the statute. The court also gives substantial deference to the EPA's long-standing and consistent interpretation of the statute. Finally, this requirement does not impermissibly intrude on state authority over land use, as TMDLs are informational tools and the CWA leaves implementation methods to the states.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the EPA's authority to use the TMDL program as a primary tool for addressing nonpoint source pollution, which is the leading cause of water impairment in the United States. It confirms that the CWA's water quality-based approach is not limited to point sources, significantly broadening the regulatory reach over activities like agriculture and forestry. This precedent ensures that states must account for all pollution sources when developing plans to clean up impaired waterways, potentially leading to more stringent land-use regulations at the state and local levels to meet federal water quality goals.
