American Farm Bureau Federation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11548
3rd Cir.2015Background
- EPA published the Chesapeake Bay TMDL in 2010 to reduce nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment in the Bay under the Clean Water Act.
- Farm Bureau and related associations sued EPA, challenging use of deadlines, load allocations, and reasonable assurance in the TMDL as beyond EPA's statutory authority.
- District Court ruled for EPA; Farm Bureau appealed, arguing TMDL amounted to impermissible federal overreach into land use and nonpoint-source regulation.
- Chesapeake Bay TMDL involved allocations between point and nonpoint sources, with deadlines and a 'reasonable assurance' requirement tied to Watershed Improvement Plans.
- EPA drafted the TMDL after approving states’ Watershed Improvement Plans and providing backstop adjustments for New York and others, then finalized the document after notice-and-comment rulemaking.
- Case proceeded on whether the term 'total maximum daily load' is unambiguous or ambiguous, allowing EPA to include allocations, timelines, and assurances within the TMDL.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TMDL can include allocations among sources | Farm Bureau says 'total' is a single number; allocations exceed authority. | EPA may express load allocations between point and nonpoint sources as part of the TMDL. | Ambiguous term; EPA may include allocations. |
| Whether deadlines/target dates are permissible in a TMDL | Deadlines are beyond a simple numeric load and improperly constrain states. | Timelines are consistent with restoring water quality and watershed dynamics. | Ambiguity allows inclusion of deadlines. |
| Whether 'reasonable assurance' from states is permissible | EPA cannot require or rely on state assurances to meet TMDL targets. | Reasonable assurance ensures the TMDL will be implemented and standards met. | Reasonable assurance within EPA's framework is permissible. |
| Chevron Step One applicability and scope in the CWA context | Statute unambiguously forecloses EPA's broad interpretation. | Statute is ambiguous; EPA fills gap with allocations, timelines, and assurances. | Step One: ambiguous; Step Two: reasonable policy choice within EPA's gap-filling authority. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (establishes Chevron deference framework)
- Brand X Internet Services, 545 U.S. 967 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (deference for reasonable interpretation within Chevron space)
- United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (re-grounded Chevron in congressional intent and gap-filling authority)
- Friends of Earth, Inc. v. EPA, 446 F.3d 140 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (addressed the daily vs. other timeframes for TMDLs)
- Sierra Club v. Hankinson, 939 F. Supp. 865 (N.D. Ga. 1996) (early push for timely development of TMDLs)
- Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (U.S. Supreme Court 1992) (context on cooperative federalism and water regulation)
- Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (U.S. Supreme Court 2006) (discussed federalism and scope of EPA/ Corps jurisdiction)
- SWANCC v. Army Corps, 531 U.S. 159 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (concerns limits of federal jurisdiction under federalism concerns)
- City of Arlington v. FCC, 133 S. Ct. 1863 (U.S. Supreme Court 2013) (Congressional delegation and statutory interpretation methodology)