In the case of Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency v. Campaign Clean Water Inc., 1974, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether or not the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) had overstepped its authority by issuing regulations that required states to adopt water quality standards for interstate waters within their boundaries. The EPA argued that it had this power under Section 303 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972. However, Campaign Clean Water Inc., a non-profit environmental organization disagreed and challenged these regulations in court. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the EPA stating that Congress intended for federal authorities to have broad powers when it came to controlling pollution levels in interstate waters. It found no evidence suggesting Congress wanted states alone to set such standards without any federal oversight or intervention as suggested by Campaign Clean Water Inc.. Therefore, according to this ruling, EPA did not exceed its statutory authority when it issued those contested regulations.

In the dissenting opinion for Train v. Campaign Clean Water, Inc., it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 304(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments was incorrect. The dissent believed that this section required technology-based standards to be set by a specific deadline and not just guidelines as interpreted by the majority. They contended that Congress intended these standards to be mandatory and enforceable, rather than merely advisory or discretionary on part of EPA Administrator. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view about legislative history being unclear in this regard; instead asserting it strongly supported their interpretation. This misinterpretation according to them could potentially undermine efforts towards water pollution control as envisioned by Congress while drafting this legislation.