Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
279 F.3d 1180 (2002)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Under the Clean Water Act (the act), log-transfer facilities (LTFs) were required to obtain a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (defendant) to place cut logs in United States waters. The act allowed states to set their own water-quality standards, and an EPA permit was required to comply with such standards. Alaska defined a “zone of deposit” for woody debris deposited by LTFs as a one-acre area. The EPA issued notice and took comment on a proposed rule that would create a single general permit for LTFs. The EPA noted in the proposed rule that Alaska proposed to grant a one-acre zone of deposit for LTFs that qualified under the proposed permit. Ultimately, the EPA issued an order granting general permits and approving a different Alaska definition of zone of deposit. In the final decision, Alaska defined zone of deposit as an LTF’s entire project area. The EPA’s notice did not seek comment on Alaska’s new definition of zone of deposit or whether Alaska’s change to the definition complied with Alaska law. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) (plaintiff) appealed the EPA’s order in federal court, challenging the agency’s notice-and-comment process.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
