City of Guyton v. Barrow
305 Ga. 799
| Ga. | 2019Background
- City of Guyton applied for and EPD issued (2013) a permit for a land application system (LAS) to spray treated municipal wastewater onto a tract in Effingham County with operational limits and monitoring requirements.
- Craig Barrow III, owner of adjacent property, challenged the permit claiming it violated Georgia's antidegradation rule because EPD did not perform an antidegradation analysis.
- An ALJ and the Superior Court upheld the permit, concluding LAS is a nonpoint source and the antidegradation analysis applies only to point sources.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, reading the antidegradation rule as requiring analysis for any permit that allows lowering water quality, including nonpoint sources.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider (1) the appropriate deference to EPD’s interpretation and (2) whether the rule requires antidegradation review for nonpoint sources.
- The Supreme Court held the rule is unambiguous in context and, construing it against the Clean Water Act framework, ruled antidegradation analysis is required only for point sources; it reversed the Court of Appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Barrow) | Defendant's Argument (City/EPD) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Georgia's antidegradation rule requires an antidegradation analysis for nonpoint source permits | Rule's plain text mentions both point and nonpoint sources; therefore EPD must perform the analysis before issuing a permit that lowers water quality | Rule must be read in statutory and regulatory context (CWA/NPDES framework and EPA minimum rule); antidegradation findings are tied to point‑source (NPDES) permitting; nonpoint sources are addressed via best management practices, not the same antidegradation analysis | Held: Antidegradation analysis is required only for point sources, not nonpoint sources (EPD did not need to perform the analysis for the LAS) |
| Whether courts must defer to EPD's contrary interpretation of the antidegradation rule | Barrow argued the agency interpretation is inconsistent with plain language and should not control | EPD argued its longstanding interpretation that the rule targets point sources warrants deference | Court: Did not decide the broader deference question because it found the regulation unambiguous in its legal context and resolved the case on that basis |
Key Cases Cited
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (agency interpretation of its own regulation may control unless plainly erroneous or inconsistent)
- Atlanta Journal & Constitution v. Babush, 257 Ga. 790 (Ga. 1988) (adopting Auer‑type deference in Georgia)
- Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576 (clarifying that Auer deference applies only when regulation is ambiguous)
- PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Dept. of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (antidegradation policies part of state water quality standards under CWA)
- S. Fla. Water Mgmt. Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe of Indians, 541 U.S. 95 (water quality standards affect NPDES permitting)
- Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (CWA distinguishes regulation of point sources and state water quality standards)