Waterkeeper Alliance v. Environmental Protection Agency
853 F.3d 527
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- EPA issued a 2008 Final Rule exempting farms from CERCLA and EPCRA reporting for air releases from animal waste, reasoning federal response would be impractical and unlikely. CAFOs (very large farms) were carved out of the EPCRA exemption after public comment.
- CERCLA §103 requires immediate federal notification to the National Response Center for releases above reportable quantities; EPCRA requires state/local notification and public disclosure for covered releases and cross-references CERCLA reporting.
- Ammonia and hydrogen sulfide—emitted by decomposing animal waste—are listed by EPA as hazardous/"extremely hazardous" with reportable quantities of 100 pounds/day; many commercial farms emit at or above those amounts.
- Environmental groups (Waterkeeper Alliance et al.) challenged the Final Rule as exceeding EPA authority and arbitrary; agricultural interests (e.g., National Pork Producers Council, U.S. Poultry and Egg Association) supported the exemption and challenged the CAFO carve-out.
- The D.C. Circuit considered jurisdiction (CERCLA provides direct review) and standing, finding informational injury because the CERCLA exemption reduced information that otherwise would trigger EPCRA disclosure obligations.
- Applying Chevron review and the de minimis/Alabama Power line, the court concluded EPA neither showed a permissible statutory interpretation nor justified a de minimis categorical exemption, vacating the Final Rule and dismissing the CAFO intervener challenge as moot.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction / Consolidated review | Waterkeeper: Court can review agency action; CERCLA grants direct review so consolidated review proper | EPA: EPCRA portions lack direct-review provision so district court is proper forum | Court: CERCLA confers direct, exclusive review and consolidated review of overlapping EPCRA claims is appropriate here |
| Standing (informational injury) | Waterkeeper: Exemption cuts off information that would be publicly disclosed under EPCRA, causing informational injury | EPA: CERCLA lacks a disclosure requirement so CERCLA exemption causes no informational injury | Court: Because EPCRA reporting/disclosure is tied to CERCLA reporting, exemption reduces statutorily required disclosure — plaintiff has informational standing |
| Statutory authority to exempt reporting | Waterkeeper: CERCLA/EPCRA require reporting of any release over reportable quantity; no authorization for the categorical exemption | EPA: Statutory text and other exemptions + general rulemaking authority create ambiguity allowing EPA to craft targeted exemptions to reduce burdens | Court: Statute sets broad reporting mandate with specific exemptions but contains no delegation to create new categorical exemptions; EPA’s interpretation conflicts with statutory text and purpose |
| De minimis exception / reasonableness | Waterkeeper: Reports provide regulatory benefits (informing response/prevention); de minimis exception inappropriate | EPA & Intervenors: Agency may apply de minimis doctrine; reporting is often pointless and costly, so exemption justified | Court: EPA did not adequately show lack of regulatory benefit; record shows potential real benefits (e.g., pit agitation releases, local response uses); de minimis exception not supportable — Final Rule vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Public Citizen v. FTC, 869 F.2d 1541 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (discusses agency de minimis exception and limits)
- Alabama Power Co. v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323 (D.C. Cir. 1979) (articulates de minimis doctrine constraints)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984) (agency statutory interpretation deference framework)
- Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (2009) (if Congress speaks directly, agency interpretation unreasonable)
- FEC v. Akins, 524 U.S. 11 (1998) (informational injury and standing doctrine)
- Fertilizer Inst. v. EPA, 935 F.2d 1303 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (CERCLA reporting context)
- New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (statutory reading of reporting requirements)
- Montrose Chem. Corp. of Cal. v. EPA, 132 F.3d 90 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (discussion of CERCLA removal/remedial authority)
- La. Pub. Serv. Comm’n v. FCC, 476 U.S. 355 (1986) (agency lacks power absent Congressional delegation)