Term: 2012
Docket: 11-338
Doug Decker, In His Official Capacity As Oregon State Forester, Et Al., Petitioners v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center;
- Pro
11-338 DECKER, ET AL. V. NORTHWEST ENVTL. DEFENSE CENTER DECISION BELOW: 640 F3d 1063 CONSOLIDATED WITH 11-347 FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT. JUSTICE BREYER TOOK NO PART. CERT. GRANTED 6/25/2012 QUESTION PRESENTED: (1) Congress has authorized citizens dissatisfied with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) rules implementing the Clean Water Act's (CWA's) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting program to seek judicial review of those rules in the Courts of Appeals. See 33 U.S.C. § 1369(b). Congress further specified that those rules cannot be challenged in any civil or criminal enforcement proceeding. Consistent with the terms of the statute, multiple circuit courts have held that if a rule is reviewable under 33 U.S.C. § 1369, it is exclusively reviewable under that statute and cannot be challenged in another proceeding. Did the Ninth Circuit err when, in conflict with those circuits, it held that a citizen may bypass judicial review of an NPDES permitting rule under 33 U.S.C. § 1369, and may instead challenge the validity of the rule in a citizen suit to enforce the CWA? (2) In 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p), Congress required NPDES permits for stormwater discharges "associated with industrial activity," and delegated to EPA the responsibility to determine what activities qualified as "industrial" for purposes of the permitting program. EPA determined that stormwater from logging roads and other specified silvicultural activities is non-industrial stormwater that does not require an NPDES permit. See 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(14). Did the Ninth Circuit err when it held that stormwater from logging roads is industrial stormwater under the CWA and EPS’s rules, even though EPA has determined that it is not industrial stormwater? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 07-35266
The U.S. Supreme Court case Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center (2012) revolved around the interpretation of the Clean Water Act and its application to logging roads in Oregon. The Northwest Environmental Defense Center argued that runoff from these roads, channeled into systems of ditches, culverts, and channels, should be considered a point source of pollution under the act and therefore require a permit. However, Doug Decker as Oregon State Forester contended that this was not necessary due to an exemption for 'natural runoff'. The Supreme Court ruled 7-1 in favor of Decker stating that such stormwater discharges do not constitute industrial activity requiring permits under National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). This decision upheld EPA's interpretation which had been changed during litigation but applied retroactively by court ruling.
In the dissenting opinion for the case between Doug Decker and Northwest Environmental Defense Center, Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Clean Water Act regulations. He argued that logging roads should not be considered point sources of pollution under these rules. According to him, this classification would lead to an overreach by federal agencies into state affairs and could potentially burden local industries with unnecessary regulation. Furthermore, he criticized his colleagues' reliance on a recent EPA rule change which was made after the original lawsuit had been filed. In his view, this decision allowed administrative bodies too much power in shaping legal outcomes without proper judicial review or legislative oversight.
