North Dakota v. United States EPA United States District Court for the District of North Dakota, Southeastern Division August 27, 2015, Decided; August 27, 2015, Filed Civil No. 3:15-cv-59 Reporter 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113831 States of North Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, For State of Montana, Plaintiff: Alan Joscelyn, LEAD Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, Montana Attorney General, and Wyoming; New Mexico Environment Department; and Helena, MT. New Mexico State Engineer, Plaintiffs, vs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regina McCarthy in her For State of Nebraska, Plaintiff: Justin [*2] D. Lavene, official capacity as Administrator of the U.S. Environmental LEAD ATTORNEY, NEBRASKA ATTORNEY Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jo Ellen GENERAL’S OFFICE, LINCOLN, NE. Darcy in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Defendants. For State of Nevada, Plaintiff: Lawrence VanDyke, LEAD ATTORNEY, NEVADA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY Prior History: Okla. ex rel. Pruitt v. United States EPA, GENERAL, CARSON CITY, NV. 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 100225 (N.D. Okla., July 31, 2015) For State of South Dakota, Plaintiff: Charles D. McGuigan, Counsel: [*1] For State of North Dakota, Plaintiff: Wayne LEAD ATTORNEY, SD Attorney General’s Office, Pierre, K. Stenehjem, LEAD ATTORNEY, Jennifer L. Verleger, SD. Attorney General’s Office, BISMARCK, ND; Margaret I. Olson, ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, CIVIL For State of Wyoming, Plaintiff: Peter K. Michael, LEAD LITIGATION, BISMARCK, ND; Paul M. Seby, HOLLAND ATTORNEY, David Patrick Ross, James C. Kaste, & HART, LLP, DENVER, CO. WYOMING ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, CHEYENNE, WY. For State of Alaska, Plaintiff: Ruth Hamilton Heese, LEAD ATTORNEY, Alaska Dept. of Law, Juneau, AK. For New Mexico Environment Department, Plaintiff: Jeffrey Melvin Kendall, LEAD ATTORNEY, Kay Ramona Bonza, For State of Arizona, Plaintiff: John R. Lopez, IV, LEAD New Mexico Environment Department, Santa Fe, NM. ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, ARIZONA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, PHOENIX, AZ. For New Mexico State Engineer, Plaintiff: Gregory Campbell Ridgley, Matthias L. Sayer, LEAD ATTORNEYS, NEW For State of Arkansas, Plaintiff: Jamie L. Ewing, LEAD MEXICO OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER, SANTA ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, ARKANSAS ATTORNEY FE, NM. GENERAL, LITTLE ROCK, AR. For U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regina For State of Colorado, Plaintiff: Frederick R. Yarger, LEAD McCarthy, in her official capacity as Administrator of the ATTORNEY, COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL’S U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of OFFICE, DENVER, CO. Engineers, Jo Ellen Darcy, in her official capacity as Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Defendants: For State of Idaho, Plaintiff: Douglas M. Conde, LEAD Daniel R. Dertke, Kristofor R. Swanson, Martha C. Mann, ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, OFFICE OF THE IDAHO U.S. Department of Justice, Environmental & Natural ATTORNEY GENERAL, NATURAL RESOURCES Resources Division, Washington, DC; Stacey [*3] M. DIVISION - ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SECTION, Bosshardt, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC. BOISE, ID. For Montana Association of Counties, Movant: Peter G. For State of Missouri, Plaintiff: John A. Hirth, LEAD Scott, LEAD ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, GOUGH, ATTORNEY, PRO HAC VICE, MISSOURI ATTORNEY SHANAHAN, JOHNSON & WATERMAN PLLP, GENERAL’S OFFICE, JEFFERSON CITY, MO. BOZEMAN, MT. Page 2 of 9 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113831, *3 For Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation, Wyoming Stock II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Growers Association, Wyoming Weed and Pest Council, Movants: Franklin J. Falen, LEAD ATTORNEY, On April 21, 2014, the United States Army Corps of BUDD-FALEN LAW OFFICES, LLC, CHEYENNE, WY. Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (″EPA″) (collectively ″the Agencies″) issued a proposed rule to For Wyoming Association of Conservation Districts, Movant: change the definition of ″Waters of the United States″ under Anne K. Wasserburger, Harriet M. Hageman, LEAD the Clean Water Act. Following a period for comment, the ATTORNEYS, PRO HAC VICE HAGEMAN LAW, P.C., Agencies promulgated a final rule (″the Rule″) on June 29, CHEYENNE, WY. 2015, which defines waters of the United States. The Rule has an effective date of August 28, 2015. Judges: Ralph R. Erickson, Chief United States District Judge. On June 29, 2015, twelve States1 and the New Mexico Environment Department and the New Mexico State Opinion by: Ralph R. Erickson Engineer (collectively ″the States″) filed a complaint against the Agencies, [*5] the EPA Administrator in her official Opinion capacity, and the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) in her official capacity.2 On August 10, 2015, the 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER States filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. A GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR hearing was held on the motion on August 21, 2015. The PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION court, having considered the entire record as now developed including evidence presented at the hearing and the I. SUMMARY OF DECISION arguments of counsel, issues this memorandum opinion and order. Original jurisdiction is vested in this court and not the court of appeals because the ″Clean Water Rule: Definition of III. ANALYSIS Waters of the United States,″ jointly promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army 1. Jurisdiction Corps of Engineers, has at best only an attenuated connection to any permitting process. If the exceptionally expansive Title 33, of the United States Code, § 1369(b)(1)4 defines view advocated by the government is adopted, it would the circumstances under which the United States Courts of encompass virtually all EPA actions under the Clean Water Appeals have exclusive jurisdiction over an action of the Act, something [*4] precisely contrary to Section EPA Administrator. Implicated here are the provisions of 1369(b)(1)(F)’s grant of jurisdiction. subsections (b)(1)(E) and (b)(1)(F) of § 1369. Section The court finds that under either standard—″substantial 1369(b)(1)(E) posits jurisdiction in the courts of appeals likelihood of success on the merits″ or ″fair chance of where the Administrator has approved or promulgated ″any success″ — the States are likely to succeed on their claim effluent limitation or other limitation under section 301, because (1) it appears likely that the EPA has violated its 302, 306, or 405,[33 USCS § 1311, 1312, 1316, or 1345]″. Congressional grant of authority in its promulgation of the ″Effluent limitations″ are defined by the act as ″any Rule at issue, and (2) it appears likely the EPA failed to restriction established by a state or the [EPA] on quantities, comply with APA requirements when promulgating the rates, and concentrations of chemical, physical, biological, Rule. Additionally, the court finds the other factors relevant and other constituents which are discharged [*6] from point to the inquiry weigh in favor of an injunction. sources into navigable waters.″5 1 States of North Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, and Wyoming. 2 Doc. #1. 3 Doc. #32. 4 Alternately known as, and commonly referred to as, § 509(b)(1) of The Federal Water Pollution Control Act. 5 33 U.S.C. § 1362(11). Page 3 of 9 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 113831, *6 The Rule itself imposes no ″effluent limitation.″ It merely of Cities, the Eighth Circuit noted, that the Supreme Court, redefines what constitutes ″waters of the United States.″6 in Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle,11 ″interpreted broadly This is made plain by the specific language of the Rule the direct appellate review provision″ of § 1369(b)(1)(F).12 itself, as it unequivocally states that it ″imposes no In Crown Simpson, the Supreme Court interpreted enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments, Subsection F ″to extend jurisdiction to those actions that or the private sector, and does not contain regulatory have ’the precise effect’ of an action to issue or deny a requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect permit.″13 The precise holding in Crown Simpson is that ″7 small governments. original jurisdiction rests in the courts of appeal ″when the The Agencies’ claim that the Rule is an ″other″ limitation is action of the Administrator is functionally similar to the ″14 equally unavailing. ″[A]n agency action is [an ’other] denial or issuance of a permit. limitation’ within the meaning of section 509(b)(1)(E) if The case at bar is much like that in Friends of the entities subject to the CWA’s permit requirements face new Everglades. The Rule ″neither issues [*8] nor denies a restrictions on their discretion with respect to discharges or permit″15 Indeed, the Rule has at best an attenuated discharge-related processes.″8 The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals has noted that this phrase ″leaves much to the connection to any permitting process. It simply defines what ″ imagination.″9 The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has waters are within the purview of the waters of the United ″16 defined an ″other limitation″ as ″a restriction on the States. This does not in itself implicate § 1369(b)(1)(F) untrammeled discretion of the industry . .[as it existed prior because it is simply not the functional equivalent or similar to the passage of the [CWA].″10 to an action of the administrator in denying or issuing a permit.17 The Rule here imposes no ″other limitation″ upon [*7] the Plaintiff States. At the hearing, the EPA argued that the Rule If the exceptionally expansive view advocated by the places no new burden or requirements on the States, a government is adopted, it would encompass virtually all position supported by the language of the Rule itself at 80 EPA actions under the Clean Water Act. It is difficult to F.R. 37102. The contention is that the States have exactly imagine any action the EPA might take in the promulgation the same discretion to dispose of pollutants into the waters of a rule that is not either definitional or regulatory.