Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Pronsolino v. Nastri

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
291 F.3d 1123 (2002)


Facts

Pursuant to provisions in the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) required the State of California to (1) identify the Garcia River as having insufficient pollution controls and (2) set “total maximum daily loads” (TMDLs) for pollution entering the River. A TMDL defined the maximum amount of a pollutant that could be discharged into a body of water from all sources. Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to identify all waters for which certain “effluent limitations” are “not stringent enough” to implement applicable water quality standards. The phrase “effluent limitations” applies only to point sources of pollution under the CWA. However, the Garcia River was polluted only by nonpoint sources of pollution. Guido and Betty Pronsolino and others (plaintiffs) filed suit in federal court against Wayne Nastri, in his official capacity as regional administrator of the EPA, and others (defendants), challenging the EPA’s authority under the CWA to apply the identification and TMDL requirements to the River. The district court concluded the EPA had the statutory authority to act. Defendants appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Berzon, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

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 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read 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. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 174,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 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.