Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

859 F.2d 156 (1988)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 30,900+ case briefs...

Natural Resource Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

859 F.2d 156 (1988)

Facts

An important element of the Clean Water Act (CWA) was the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Congress empowered states to become authorized as the primary implementers of the NPDES permit program as a means to protect the primary responsibilities of states to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution and encourage state autonomy. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) approved of states’ applications for authorizations. Contrasting with Congress’s desire to preserve state autonomy, the CWA encouraged uniformity of the permit program out of concern that a lack of homogeneity in standards would cause dischargers to move their operations to areas that have lower pollution standards and less effluent limitations. The CWA required public participation in the development, revision, and enforcement of NPDES permits. Although the CWA governed citizen suits in federal court, it did not address state-level citizen suits. The CWA also encouraged the imposition of substantial penalties for permit violations. The act specified that at the federal level, civil penalties for permit violations can reach a maximum of $25,000 per day of the violation. The CWA did not require states to impose the same maximum federal penalties. The EPA promulgated regulations that established minimum requirements for states to meet to obtain authorization, including requirements for public participation in the permit-issuing process and minimum enforcement requirements. The EPA administrator required states to provide for public participation by allowing intervention as of right in any civil or administrative actions or by providing assurances that complaints will be investigated, and intervention would not be opposed. The EPA administrator also required states to have authority to impose penalties for violations and impose a minimum fine of $5,000 per day for a violation. Citizens for a Better Environment (CBE) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (plaintiffs) argued that the EPA administrator’s regulations on state requirements of public participation and enforcement were insufficient and should mirror the federal requirements.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 551,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 30,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 551,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 30,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership