139 F. Supp. 3d 25
D.D.C.2015Background
- Five non-profit plaintiffs challenge EPA withdrawal of a proposed CAFO information-rule under CWA §308 and APA.
- EPA proposed two CAFO information rules in Oct. 2011 to collect basic CAFO data; in July 2012, EPA withdrew the proposals and pursued an “existing information” approach.
- EPA withdrawal relied on existing data sources (states, federal agencies) and partnerships (ACWA MOU) rather than a rule; this approach aimed to minimize burden and inform future action.
- Statutory framework: CWA aims to protect water quality; §308 authorizes information collection; CAFO definitions and NPDES permitting determine who is regulated.
- Prior related litigation (Waterkeeper, NPPC) led to a settlement requiring the EPA to propose information gathering; the withdrawal followed a detailed review of available data.
- Court reviews EPA’s decision with “enhanced deference” for withdrawals and determines whether the withdrawal is adequately explained and supported by the administrative record.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA’s withdrawal was arbitrary and capricious under the APA. | Plaintiffs argue EPA’s explanation is unclear and inconsistent with the record. | EPA reasonably explained its decision and relied on the record showing existing data could inform future action. | Yes; withdrawal adequately explained and coherent under APA review. |
| Whether EPA reasonably relied on existing information sources to obtain CAFO data. | Existing sources cannot yield a sufficient CAFO database, especially for unpermitted operations. | Record supports obtaining much of the data from existing sources and leveraging state/federal partnerships. | Yes; substantial evidence supports reliance on existing sources as a reasonable next step. |
| Whether EPA acted within its authority under §308 to gather information. | Proposed Rule was necessary to gather information; withdrawal sidesteps statutory mandate. | §308 allows reasonable information collection; the agency chose a permissible path. | Yes; EPA acted within its §308 authority. |
| Whether the “one-step-at-a-time” doctrine required a more immediate rulemaking. | Court should require a step-by-step statutory progression toward a comprehensive inventory. | §308 provides flexibility; agency may choose interim steps not mandated by statute. | Yes; doctrine not controlling here; agency’s chosen approach was acceptable. |
| Whether withdrawal conflicts with the broader CWA mandate. | Withdrawing a rule that would regulate CAFOs conflicts with enforcing the Act’s purposes. | Withdrawal aligns with the statutory mandate by prioritizing information gathering and resource allocation. | Yes; withdrawal does not contravene the CWA; agency discretion to allocate resources upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. EPA, 399 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005) (vacated permit requirement for CAFOs that did not actually discharge)
- National Pork Producers Council v. EPA, 635 F.3d 738 (5th Cir. 2011) (vacated CAFO rule requiring permits for proposed discharges; settlements on information gathering)
- Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA, 722 F.3d 401 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (one-step-at-a-time doctrine discussed in context of agency rulemaking)
- Environmental Defense Fund v. EPA, 852 F.2d 1316 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (withdrawal of rule related to clearly covered sites; statutorily mandated scope discussed)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (U.S. 2007) (standing and broad environmental rulemaking deference context)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm, 463 U.S. 29 (1983) (arbitrary-and-capricious review standard for agency decisions)
- Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 435 U.S. 519 (1978) (image of deference in agency environmental decisions)
- WildEarth Guardians v. EPA, 751 F.3d 649 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (considerations for agency timing and priorities in rulemaking)