Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Costle

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Lawsection 208Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972statewide planningnon-designated areasEPA regulations

Facts

Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act establishes areawide waste treatment management planning, including planning by local or regional organizations for designated problem areas and a residual provision stating that the state shall act as a planning agency for all portions not designated. EPA promulgated regulations taking the position that a state acting under section 208(a)(6) need not develop full section 208 plans for all non-designated areas and suggested section 303(e) planning could suffice. Because only about 5% of the nation's waterways were in designated areas, EPA's interpretation would leave roughly 95% of the country outside full section 208 planning, including many nonpoint source pollution controls. NRDC challenged that interpretation and sought regulations requiring full statewide planning for non-designated areas.

Issue

Does section 208(a)(6) require a state to carry out full section 208 planning, including the elements listed in section 208(b)(2), for all portions of the state not designated under section 208(a)(2)-(4)? Also, does that construction create a Tenth Amendment problem?

Rule

Section 208 must be interpreted as a comprehensive statewide planning scheme. Under section 208(a)(6), Congress itself designated the state to act as the planning entity for all non-designated portions of the state, and the state must prepare plans containing the same section 208(b)(2) elements required in designated areas, though the intensity of planning may be tailored to the pollution problems of particular regions. A statute should, if possible, be construed to avoid constitutional infirmities, but the absence of sanctions and the availability of funding incentives defeat the Tenth Amendment objection here.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

The federal water agency issues a rule stating that when no local or regional body has been designated for western Kansas farmland, Kansas may comply by preparing only a brief inventory of existing treatment facilities. The rule omits the statute's listed planning components for nonpoint runoff, land disposal, and residual waste in those undesignated regions.

If an environmental group challenges the rule, which argument is strongest under the controlling majority approach?

Explanation. The majority read the statute as a comprehensive statewide planning scheme. For all non-designated portions of the state, Congress itself designated the state as the planning entity, and the state must prepare plans containing the same statutory elements required elsewhere. The intensity of planning may vary with actual conditions, but the obligation to include the full statutory framework does not disappear.