839 F. Supp. 2d 366
D. Me.2012Background
- Participants challenge Maine’s Alewife Law (2008) as preempted by the Clean Water Act (CWA).
- Alewives migrate to Maine rivers; Grand Falls Dam blocks upstream passage; a 1995 law and a 2008 amendment restricted passage at Grand Falls Dam.
- Plaintiffs allege the Alewife Law alters Maine water quality standards and violates CWA procedures (UAA/EPA review).
- Defendants move to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); court excludes extrinsic matters and does not convert to summary judgment.
- Court finds plaintiffs fail to state a claim and grants dismissal; summary judgment motion denied.
- Statutory background centers on cooperative federalism under the CWA and EPA/state standard-setting processes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Alewife Law is express preemption under the CWA. | Plaintiffs contend CWA preempts the law. | Defendants argue no express preemption; CWA allows state amendments. | No express preemption. |
| Whether Alewife Law is implied field preemption. | Plaintiffs claim CWA field preemption due to comprehensive scheme. | Defendants emphasize cooperative framework; states may supplement. | No field preemption. |
| Whether Alewife Law is implied conflict preemption. | Alewife Law conflicts with CWA objectives and anti-degradation policy. | CWA permits state amendments; no direct conflict shown. | No conflict preemption. |
| Whether EPA review/UAAs alter preemption analysis under CWA. | Alewife Law may require EPA review as an effective amendment. | EPA review may occur; not a basis to dismiss state action. | EPA review process remains available; not a basis to state a claim. |
| Whether the claims may proceed given the procedural posture. | Plaintiffs seek declaratory judgment and injunctive relief. | Claims fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. | Plaintiffs’ claims fail; motion to dismiss granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schatz v. Republican State Leadership Committee, 669 F.3d 50 (1st Cir.2012) (12(b)(6) pleading standard guidance (Twombly/Iqbal))
- Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88 (Supreme Court 1992) (two general types of preemption; congressional intent guides)
- Grant’s Dairy—Maine, LLC v. Comm’r of Maine Dep’t of Agric., Food, and Rural Res., 232 F.3d 8 (1st Cir.2000) (preemption discussion; strong presumption against preemption)
- Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. EPA, 105 F.3d 599 (11th Cir.1997) (EPA mandatory duty to review potential amendments to water quality standards)
- Pacific Merchant Shipping Assoc. v. Goldstene, 517 F.3d 1108 (9th Cir.2008) (distinctions between state rules and EPA authorization under CWA)
- Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. v. Board of Envtl. Prot., 595 A.2d 438 (Me.1991) (fish passage impacts on designated uses and water quality)