William J. Scott v. City of Hammond, Indiana, et al.
741 F.2d 992 (1984)
Rule of Law:
A state's prolonged failure to submit a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) proposal under the Clean Water Act can be treated as a "constructive submission" of no TMDL, which triggers the EPA's nondiscretionary duty to either approve or disapprove this submission.
Facts:
- During the summer of 1980, Chicago was forced to close its beaches on Lake Michigan.
- The closures were due to pollution from "raw and inadequately treated human fecal material" discharged into the lake from the Hammond, Indiana area.
- The fecal matter contained hazardous biological pollutants, including viruses and pathogenic bacteria.
- The Clean Water Act required the states of Illinois and Indiana to submit Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for pollutants in Lake Michigan by a statutory deadline of June 26, 1979.
- Years after this deadline, neither Illinois nor Indiana had submitted any TMDL proposals to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Procedural Posture:
- William J. Scott filed a citizen suit against the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
- Scott's complaint alleged the EPA failed to perform nondiscretionary duties under the Clean Water Act regarding water quality standards and Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for Lake Michigan.
- The district court granted the EPA's motion to dismiss Scott's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- Scott, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, with the EPA as appellee.
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's citizen suit provision, does a state's prolonged failure to submit a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) proposal trigger a nondiscretionary duty for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to act as if the state had submitted a proposal of no TMDLs?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A state's prolonged inaction can be considered a 'constructive submission' of no TMDLs, which in turn triggers the EPA's nondiscretionary duty under the Clean Water Act to either approve or disapprove that submission. The court reasoned that Congress could not have intended for states to frustrate an important federal pollution control scheme simply by refusing to act. The short statutory deadlines for both state submission and EPA review demonstrate Congress's intent for prompt action. By treating prolonged state inaction as a 'constructive submission,' the statutory scheme is given effect, forcing the EPA to perform its mandatory oversight duty. If the EPA disapproves this 'submission' of no TMDLs, it is then required to establish its own TMDLs. The court distinguished this failure to perform a mandatory act from a challenge to the substantive content of an agency action, which is discretionary and must be challenged under the Administrative Procedure Act.
Analysis:
This decision establishes the 'constructive submission' doctrine, a significant judicial tool that prevents states from derailing the Clean Water Act's regulatory scheme through passive refusal to act. By creating a legal fiction that state inaction is an official submission, the court empowers citizens to sue the EPA to compel it to fulfill its oversight duties even when states fail to take the initial step. This holding strengthens the CWA's citizen suit provision and ensures that federal environmental goals are not rendered ineffective by state non-cooperation, setting a precedent for future cases where federal agency action is contingent upon initial state action.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: William J. Scott v. City of Hammond, Indiana, et al. (1984)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"