490 F.Supp.3d 190
D.D.C.2020Background
- NRDC challenged EPA’s 2010 approval of a joint Maryland/D.C. trash TMDL, arguing it set required removals rather than a “total maximum daily load”; the D.D.C. vacated and remanded EPA’s approval in 2018 but stayed vacatur until a replacement TMDL is approved.
- The Clean Water Act places primary responsibility for developing TMDLs with states under a cooperative-federalism framework; EPA may approve, disapprove, or, if necessary, establish a federal TMDL.
- In 2018 the Court declined to impose a deadline, leaving EPA discretion to cooperate with Maryland and D.C. or disapprove the states’ work and issue a federal TMDL.
- EPA chose to coordinate with Maryland and D.C.; progress updates were submitted intermittently (every six months), and NRDC contends development has been too slow.
- NRDC moved under Rule 54(b) to reconsider the 2018 decision and impose a one-year deadline; limited discovery revealed an EPA official revised her time estimate for completion upward.
- EPA argued the states are actively developing the replacement TMDL, the discovery does not show extraordinary circumstances or a controlling change in facts, and the Court should adhere to the prior ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court should reconsider its 2018 interlocutory ruling under Rule 54(b) and impose a one‑year deadline on EPA to produce a replacement TMDL | NRDC: passage of ~2.5 years plus new discovery about pacing and EPA’s revised time estimate constitute "new information" and justify imposing a one‑year deadline | EPA: law‑of‑the‑case controls; states lead development; documented progress continues; discovery does not show controlling change or extraordinary circumstances | Denied — Court refuses to reconsider or impose a deadline; law of the case stands, but Court orders increased reporting |
| Whether the constructive‑submission doctrine requires EPA to set a federal TMDL now | NRDC: prolonged delay by states equates to constructive submission, triggering EPA’s nondiscretionary duty | EPA: states have not clearly and unambiguously refused to submit a TMDL; they are actively working; doctrine doesn’t apply | Denied — doctrine does not apply because states haven’t clearly declined to submit a TMDL |
| Whether weaknesses in EPA official’s declaration (revised estimate) justify reconsideration | NRDC: declaration is inaccurate/unreliable; initial 3–5 year estimate increased to 5–7 years, showing prior estimate was flawed | EPA: the estimate was an opinion based on states’ processes; EPA cannot control state timetable; estimate alone doesn’t change the legal posture | Denied — Court notes deficiencies but finds them insufficient to alter prior decision |
Key Cases Cited
- PUD No. 1 of Jefferson Cty. v. Wash. Dep’t of Ecology, 511 U.S. 700 (1994) (cooperative‑federalism framework for state water quality programs)
- American Farm Bureau Federation v. EPA, 792 F.3d 281 (3d Cir. 2015) (explaining TMDL process and states’ primary role)
- Nat. Res. Def. Council v. EPA, 301 F. Supp. 3d 133 (D.D.C. 2018) (district court’s prior opinion vacating EPA’s 2010 approval and declining to set a deadline)
- San Francisco BayKeeper v. Whitman, 297 F.3d 877 (9th Cir. 2002) (discussing constructive‑submission doctrine when states fail to submit TMDLs)
- Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition, Inc. v. Pruitt, 893 F.3d 225 (4th Cir. 2018) (restating when constructive submission may trigger EPA’s nondiscretionary duty)
- Hayes v. Whitman, 264 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 2001) (constructive‑submission doctrine applies only when a state clearly and unambiguously decides not to submit TMDLs)
- Nat. Res. Def. Council v. Muszynski, 268 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 2001) (describing the substantive meaning of a TMDL)
- LaShawn A. v. Barry, 87 F.3d 1389 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (law‑of‑the‑case and standards for reconsideration of interlocutory rulings)
- Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1988) (discussing finality and reconsideration principles)
- Anacostia Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Jackson, 713 F. Supp. 2d 50 (D.D.C. 2010) (example of court‑imposed TMDL schedule in same watershed)