PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology
United States Supreme Court
511. U.S. 700 (1994)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County, Washington (PUD) (plaintiff), a local utility district, proposed to build a new hydroelectric plant on the Dosewallips River, located on federally-owned land. Pursuant to § 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), PUD was required to obtain a permit to operate the facility. The State of Washington had stringent and comprehensive water quality standards, approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which were intended to prevent degradation of its pristine streams and rivers. Consequently, the Washington Department of Ecology (WDEC) (defendant), permit issued to PUD imposed a variety of conditions, including a minimum stream-flow requirement necessary to protect salmon and trout species thriving in the river. Upon review, a state administrative appeals board concluded the WDEC had exceeded its authority in conditioning the permit issued to PUD. However, a state superior court upheld WDEC’s permit requirements as necessary to protect the fishery. PUD appealed. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s holding and concluded the antidegradation provisions of the State’s water quality standards required imposition of minimum stream flows. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the state courts regarding the issue.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Connor, J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
