Sierra Club v. Ruckelshaus
344 F. Supp. 253, 2 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20262, 4 ERC 1205 (1972)
Rule of Law:
The Clean Air Act of 1970 implies a policy of non-degradation, prohibiting the EPA Administrator from approving state implementation plans that allow air quality in regions with clean air to deteriorate down to national secondary standards.
Facts:
- Congress enacted the Clean Air Act of 1970 with the stated purpose to 'protect and enhance' the nation's air resources.
- The EPA Administrator established national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards to regulate pollution levels.
- Many regions of the country already possessed air quality that was superior to (cleaner than) these national secondary standards.
- The Administrator promulgated a regulation (40 C.F.R. § 51.12(b)) guiding states on how to create their implementation plans.
- This regulation permitted states to allow pollution levels in clean air regions to rise until they reached the national secondary standard limit.
- The Administrator publicly testified before Congress that he believed he lacked the legal authority to require states to prevent significant deterioration of existing clean air.
- States began formulating implementation plans based on this regulation to submit to the EPA for approval.
Procedural Posture:
- Four environmental groups, including the Sierra Club, filed a civil action against the EPA Administrator in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order to enjoin the Administrator from approving state air pollution control plans.
- The District Court denied the temporary restraining order upon learning that approval was not imminent.
- The District Court scheduled and held a hearing on the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction.
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 Clean Air Act of 1970 authorize the EPA Administrator to approve state implementation plans that permit the significant deterioration of existing air quality in regions where the air is cleaner than the established national secondary standards?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge John H. Pratt
No, the Clean Air Act's mandate to 'protect and enhance' air quality precludes the Administrator from approving plans that allow the degradation of existing clean air. The Court found that the statutory language 'protect and enhance' clearly indicates a Congressional intent to prevent the deterioration of air quality, regardless of how pure it currently is. This interpretation is supported by the legislative history of both the 1967 and 1970 Acts, as well as prior administrative guidelines, which emphasized that significant deterioration in clean air regions would subvert the law's purpose. The Court noted that the Administrator's position was self-contradictory, as one regulation prohibited deterioration while another allowed it. Consequently, the regulation permitting degradation to the secondary standard was declared invalid as contrary to legislative policy.
Analysis:
This is a landmark environmental law decision that established the 'Prevention of Significant Deterioration' (PSD) doctrine. By ruling that national standards are a floor for air quality rather than a ceiling for pollution, the court ensured that industrial development could not automatically degrade rural and pristine environments down to urban pollution levels. This decision forced the EPA to overhaul its regulatory approach, requiring strict safeguards for areas with air quality better than the national standards, such as national parks. It illustrates the power of the judiciary to enforce statutory purpose ('protect and enhance') over an agency's narrower interpretation of its own authority.
