Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center
133 S. Ct. 1326
| SCOTUS | 2013Background
- Clean Water Act requires permits for discharges from point sources; EPA defines “associated with industrial activity” and excludes logging road runoff under pre-2012 rule; Silvicultural Rule classifies logging-related discharges as point sources unless exempt; Congress amended §1342(p) in 1987 to retain permits for stormwater “associated with industrial activity”; NEDC sued Oregon logging operations for discharges from channeled stormwater; Ninth Circuit held discharges were point sources under the rule, prompting certiorari and later amendment by EPA in 2012.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §1369(b) bars the suit in district court | NEDC jurisdiction under §1365; argued §1369(b) not applicable | Petitioners argue §1369(b) exclusive review applies | No; §1369(b) not a jurisdictional bar here |
| Whether the cases are moot after the 2012 amendment | Amendment divests ongoing liability | Cases remain live for past conduct under prior rule | Cases not moot; live controversy regarding past violations under earlier rule |
| Whether pre-amendment rule required NPDES permits for these discharges | Discharges were from a point source and “associated with industrial activity” | Discharges fall outside “industrial activity” as designed by the rule and logging is outdoor, not at an industrial plant | Pre-amendment rule does not require permits; logging runoff not associated with industrial activity under that reading |
| How to interpret “associated with industrial activity” and “at an industrial plant” in §122.26(b)(14) | Logging is a category within SIC 24 and thus covered | Regulation limited to traditional industrial sites; “at an industrial plant” narrows scope | EPA’s interpretation is permissible under Auer deference; discharges not required to have permits under pre-amendment rule |
Key Cases Cited
- Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency interpretation of statutes given deference when ambiguous)
- Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997) (agency interpretation of its own regulations given deference)
- Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945) (initial deference to agency interpretations of regulations)
- Say v. Talk America, Inc., 564 U.S. 50 (2011) (limits to Auer deference; concurring stance in Talk America)
- United States v. Larionoff, 431 U.S. 864 (1977) (textual interpretation principles; regulation versus statute)
- Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 U.S. 49 (1987) (standing and jurisdictional principles in environmental enforcement)