Citations
- 90 F. Supp. 1078
Full opinion text
ORDER RULING ON CROSS-MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
WILLIAMS, Chief United States Magistrate Judge.
The following motions are currently before the Court for its consideration: (1) Plaintiff Idaho Mining Association’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket # 16), filed March 19,1999; and (2) Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket #27), filed May 10, 1999. On September 1, 1999, the Court conducted a hearing on the pending motions with counsel for all parties appearing and participating. The Court has considered the arguments of counsel and has fully reviewed the legal briefing and other pertinent documents of record and is now prepared to enter its ruling on the pending motions as follows.
I. Background
In the instant action, the Court is asked to determine whether the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) exceeded its authority under the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551, et seq., and the Clean Water Act (“CWA” or “Act”), 33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq., when it promulgated a rule establishing revised water quality standards for three (3) water body segments in Northern Idaho. Plaintiff, Idaho Mining Association, challenges the revised standards and seeks a declaration from this Court that the EPA’s rule-making was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and otherwise not in accordance with the law. Plaintiff also seeks an order vacating the challenged rule and remanding the matter back to the EPA for further proceedings in accordance with the requirements of the APA and CWA.
A. The Clean Water Act
The primary objective of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters” through the implementation of goals and policies designed to eliminate the discharge of pollutants into these waters. Section 101(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). To this end, Congress has declared that “wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water be achieved.” Section 101(a)(2), 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2). These so-called “fish-able/swimmable” uses are primarily achieved through the implementation of two mechanisms: (1) technology-based requirements, i.e. “effluent limitations guidelines;” and (2) water-quality based requirements, i.e. water quality standards. See Sections 301 and 303, 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311 and 1313.
Technology-based requirements impose stringent limitations upon the types and amounts of pollutants which may be discharged into the nation’s waters by point sources. Section 301, 33 U.S.C. § 1311. Water quality-based requirements, on the other hand, specify the desired condition of a waterway in terms of the standard (i.e. fishable/swimmable, agricultural, industrial, etc.) to be achieved. Section 303, 33 U.S.C. § 1313. Thus, water quality standards generally consist of three elements: (1) one or more designated uses for the water body at issue; (2) water quality criteria which express the concentrations or levels of pollutants which may be present in the water and still support the designated use(s); and (3) an anti-degradation policy. Section 303(c)(2), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2); Section 303(d)(4)(B), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(d)(4)(B); 40 C.F.R. § 131.3(i). As the United States Supreme Court has explained, water quality standards “supplement effluent limitations ‘so that numerous point sources, despite individual compliance with effluent limitations, may be further regulated to prevent water quality from falling below acceptable levels.’ ” Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 101, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 1054, 117 L.Ed.2d 239 (1992) (quoting EPA v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200, 205 n. 12, 96 S.Ct. 2022, 2025, n. 12, 48 L.Ed.2d 578 (1976)).
While both effluent limitations guidelines and water quality standards are useful tools in improving the condition of the nation’s waters, neither alone is sufficient to ensure compliance with the requirements of the CWA. Thus, Congress created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) as a means of enforcing the limitations and standards imposed by the Act. Section 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342. Under the NPDES, individuals must obtain a permit in order to discharge pollutants into the waters of the United States. Section 301(a), 33 U.S.C. § 1311(a) (prohibiting the discharge of any pollutant by any person except as permitted by certain provisions of the CWA, including section 402). An NPDES permit sets forth certain terms and conditions with which individual dischargers must comply and “serves to transform generally applicable effluent limitations and other standards including those based on water quality into the obligations ... of the individual discharger .... ” State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. at 205, 96 S.Ct. at 2025.
Under the CWA, individual states are primarily responsible for the prevention, reduction and elimination of pollution of waterways within their boundaries. Section 101(b), 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b). This responsibility carries with it the obligation to promulgate water quality standards consistent with the purposes and requirements of the CWA. Section 303(c), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c). Specifically, section 303(c) of the CWA requires that each state periodically undertake a public review of existing water quality standards and revise and adopt new standards as appropriate. 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(1). In adopting and/or revising water quality standards, each state is required to specify the appropriate water uses to be achieved and protected, taking into consideration the particular water body’s “use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, and also taking into consideration their use and value for navigation.” Section 303(c)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(a). Furthermore, each state is required to adopt water quality criteria, expressed in terms of numerical values or narrative criteria, to protect the designated use(s). 40 C.F.R. § 131.11.
The CWA does not impose upon states the obligation to designate any particular use(s) for water bodies. At a minimum, however, states must revise their water quality standards to reflect existing uses, i.e. those uses which are actually being attained. 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(i); 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(e). Furthermore, fisha-ble/swimmable uses are favored. Section 101(a)(2), 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2). Thus, where a state fails to designate a water body for fishable/swimmable uses, the state must conduct a use attainability analysis (“UAA”) in accordance with the provisions of the CWA. 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(j)(l). Conversely, a UAA is not required whenever físhable/swimmable uses are designated. 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(k).
Although it is the states’ responsibility to develop and/or revise water quality standards for waters within their boundaries, such new or revised standards must be submitted' to the EPA for approval. Section 303(c)(2)(A), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A). The EPA implementing regulations set forth the minimum requirements for water quality standards submissions as follows:
The following elements must be included in each state’s water quality standards submitted to EPA for review:
(a) Use designations consistent with the provisions of Sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2) of the Act.
(b) Methods used and analyses conducted to support water quality standards revisions.
(c) Water quality criteria sufficient to protect the designated uses.
(d) An antidegradation policy consistent with § 131.12.
(e) Certification by the State Attorney General or other appropriate legal authority within the State that the water quality standards were duly adopted pursuant to State law.
(f) General information which will aid the Agency in determining the adequacy of the scientific basis of the standards which do not include the uses specified in Section 101(a)(2) of the Act [i.e. fisha-ble/swimmable uses] as well as information on general policies applicable to State standards which may affect their application and implementation.
40 C.F.R. § 131.6. If the EPA rejects a state’s proposed water quality standards, it must so notify that state within ninety (90) days and specify the changes necessary to meet CWA requirements. Section 303(c)(3), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(3). If, within ninety (90) days after notification, the state fails to make such changes, the EPA is required to “promptly prepare and publish proposed regulations setting forth a revised or new water quality standard for the navigable waters involved.” Section 303(c)(4)(A), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 131.22(a). In doing so, the EPA “is subject to the same policies, procedures, analyses, and public participation requirements established for States in [the EPA] regulations.” 40 C.F.R. § 131.22(c).
B. Procedural History
Plaintiff, Idaho Mining Association, is a non-profit corporation whose members include industrial facilities that conduct mining activities in the State of Idaho. Plaintiffs members hold National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits and are authorized to discharge certain amounts of industrial wastewater to particular waters in Northern Idaho. On October 2, 1998, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in the instant action naming the United States Environmental Protection Agency and the following individuals as defendants: Carol M. Browner, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; and Charles C. Clarke, Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “EPA”). In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that the EPA failed to comply with the requirements of the APA when it promulgated revised water quality standards for certain Idaho waters in 1997. The revised standards establish new designated uses for certain stream segments in Northern Idaho and impose more stringent water quality criteria to protect the new uses. Plaintiff alleges that the new standards will significantly affect the ability of Plaintiffs members to discharge mining pollutants into the affected waters pursuant to their NPDES permits and will negatively impact the economic viability of the mining industry in Idaho. Plaintiff seeks an order vacating that portion of the EPA rule which establishes the new designated uses on the grounds that the EPA rulemaking as to the revised standards was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion and other-wise not in accordance with the law.
On December 18, 1998, the Idaho Conservation League and the Lands Council (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Conservation Groups”) filed a Motion to Intervene. (Docket # 8). The Conservation Groups are non-profit organizations which are highly active in seeking to improve Idaho water quality standards and to protect the aquatic life and human uses of Idaho’s rivers, lakes and streams. On April 19, 1999, the Court granted the Conservation Groups’ Motion to Intervene on the grounds that they have a significant interest in defending the improved water quality standards which Plaintiff now challenges. (Docket # 23).
The action is presently before the Court on Plaintiff and Defendants’ cross-motions for summary judgment. The Conservation Groups have not filed a motion for summary judgment but have formally joined in Defendants’ motion, see Docket # 32, and have filed a separate brief in support of their position.
C. Factual History
The material facts underlying this matter are not in dispute. On July 11, 1994, the State of Idaho fulfilled its obligations under section 303(c) of the CWA by submitting a complete set of water quality standards to the EPA for review. (IWQS 0784). Almost two years later, on June 25, 1996, the EPA issued an official notification approving Idaho’s 1994 water quality standards with certain exceptions. (IWQS 00021). However, this notification came only after the Conservation Groups filed a citizen suit against the EPA to compel it to comply with its mandatory duties under sections 303(c)(3) and 303(c)(4)(A) of the CWA to formally approve or disapprove Idaho’s proposed water quality standards and, if necessary, to adopt replacement standards for those state standards which it disapproved. See Idaho Conservation League v. Browner, 968 F.Supp. 546 (W.D.Wash.1997) (hereinafter “ICL v. Browner ”).
One group of standards which the EPA disapproved in its June 1996 letter concerned the designation of 53 Idaho stream segments for uses less protective than fish-able/swimmable. (IWQS 00024). Specifically, the EPA informed the IDEQ that the following disapproval issue would require immediate state action:
Stream Segments with Specific Use Designations which a,re Inconsistent with Clean Water Act Requirements EPA disapproves the classification of waters of the State listed in 16.01.02.102 through 16.01.02.160 of the Idaho 1994 Water Quality Standards which do not include uses specified in CWA § 101(a)(2) and the requirements of CWA § 303(b)(2) and 40 C.F.R. § 131.10....
(IWQS 00024). In a separate memorandum, the EPA further explained its disapproval decision as to the classification of waters which did not include uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the CWA. (IWQS 00027-00030). That memorandum stated in part:
The goals and requirements of the Act, are that wherever attainable, water quality shall provide for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provide for recreation in and on the water. Where the State designates or has designated uses that do not include the uses specified in CWA § 101(a)(2) the federal water quality standards regulation requires States to conduct and submit to EPA a use attainability analysis.
(IWQS 00028).
Having disapproved Idaho’s use designations for the specified stream segments, and consistent with its obligations under section 303(c)(3) of the CWA, the EPA informed the IDEQ that it must undertake certain revisions in order to bring Idaho’s 1994 water quality standards in conformity with the purposes and requirements of the CWA. (IWQS 00022). In this respect, the EPA provided the IDEQ with two options, either of which it determined to be an appropriate resolution to remedy the deficient water quality standards:
The State can either a) conduct and submit to EPA acceptable use attainability analyses to justify the existing classification for the above listed water bodies, or b) adopt designated uses for each water body which provides for the protection and propagation of aquatic life and recreation in and on the water where applicable.
(IWQS 00030). However, Idaho failed to undertake either of these revisions within the ninety (90) day time period prescribed by section 303(c)(4)(A) of the CWA. Thus, it became the EPA’s responsibility to “promptly prepare and publish” replacement standards in accordance with the CWA. Section 303(c)(4)(A), 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 131.22(a).
By February, 1997, neither the IDEQ nor the EPA had promulgated new or revised water quality standards for Idaho. Consequently, the Conservation Groups took it upon themselves to seek a court order requiring the EPA to adopt replacement standards in accordance with its duties under section 303(c)(4)(A) of the CWA. On February 20,1997, the presiding judge in ICL v. Browner, granted the Conservation Groups’ motion for summary judgment and entered an order directing the EPA to act within sixty (60) days to “promulgate water quality standards for Idaho in accordance with its June 1996 letter of disapproval.” ICL v. Brouwer, 968 F.Supp. at 549. The court order was subsequently modified to allow the EPA sixty (60) days in which to propose revised standards and ninety (90) days thereafter in which to promulgate a final rule. (IWQS 07842,17843).
On April 28, 1997, the EPA published a proposed rule introducing several tentative revisions to those Idaho water quality standards which the EPA had disapproved in 1996. 62 Fed.Reg. 23,003 (April 28, 1997); (IWQS 07841-07867). Included within the proposed revisions was a new federal use designation establishing aquatic life and recreation uses for the specific water body segments whose use designations EPA had disapproved in 1996. (IWQS 07846). The EPA explained that it had previously disapproved Idaho’s regulations with respect to those waters because, in many cases, the regulations only protected the stream segments for recreation and did not provide any protection for aquatic life. (Id.). The EPA determined that Idaho’s failure to adopt water quality standards which provided protection for the fishable component of fishable/swimmable uses was inconsistent with the goals and requirements of the CWA because Idaho had not undertaken a UAA to demonstrate that such uses were unattainable. (IWQS 07844, 07846). Thus, the EPA proposed to promulgate a rule establishing aquatic life and recreation designated uses for the water body segments of concern, unless it was demonstrated to the EPA for a particular water body that such uses were unattainable. (IWQS 07846-07847). In proposing this rule, the EPA expressly stated that it was relying on a rebuttable presumption implicit in its regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 131 that fishable/swimma-ble uses are attainable unless the uses have been shown by a UAA to be unattainable. (IWQS 07844, 07846, 07853). In addition, the EPA specifically proposed that 35 of the 53 stream segments be designated for cold water biota use because “[t]he majority of native Idaho fish are classified as cold water species and the presence of the species occurs throughout the entire State.” (IWQS 07845, 07847).
The EPA held a public hearing and took comments on all aspects of the proposed rule for a period of thirty (30) days. (IWQS 04857). Many commentators complained that the comment period was too short. (Id.). However, in responding to the comments, the EPA explained that none of the commentators had demonstrated that the thirty (30) day comment period was inadequate as a matter of law. (Id.). Moreover, the EPA noted that an extension of the comment period was not feasible because the EPA was under a strict court-ordered deadline to promulgate the final rule by July 31, 1997. (Id.). In addition to raising procedural concerns, commentators also voiced general objections to the EPA’s cold water biota use designations for the water bodies at issue. (IWQS 04860). However, after reviewing the information submitted, the EPA concluded that the data did not demonstrate that the aquatic life uses — and specifically, the cold water biota uses — could not be attained.
On July 31, 1997, the EPA published the final rule establishing cold water biota designated uses for several Idaho waterways, including the South Fork of the Coeur d’Alene River and two of its tributaries, Canyon Creek and Shields Gulch (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “affected waters”). See 40 C.F.R. § 131.33(b). In doing so, the EPA again stated that it was “relying on the rebuttable presumption implicit in the CWA and EPA’s regulations at 40 C.F.R. part 131, that in the absence of data to the contrary, ‘fishable’ uses are attainable.” (IWQS 04860).
In promulgating the final rule, the EPA made clear that a discharger with an existing NPDES permit is not subject to permit conditions reflecting the heightened water quality standards for the affected waters until such time as the discharger’s permit is renewed. (IWQS 04872). However, the EPA recognized that additional data material to the attainability of the cold water biota uses might become available in the future. (IWQS 04871, 07853). Thus, the EPA rule also established a procedure by which an individual dischar-ger can obtain a variance from the water quality standards by demonstrating that the cold water biota use is unattainable due to the presence of certain chemical or physical conditions, or because compliance with the fishable use criteria would cause “substantial and widespread economic and social impact.” 40 C.F.R. § 131.33(d)(3). Pursuant to the variance procedure, application for the water quality standards variance is timed to coincide with the NPDES permit renewal process. 40 C.F.R. § 131.33(d)(4). Thus, an individual NPDES regulated discharger who establishes that the cold water biota use is unattainable for a particular water body will escape the more stringent permit limits imposed by cold water biota use designation. However, the variance applies only to the to the permit holder requesting the variance; the underlying cold water biota use designation otherwise remains in effect. 40 C.F.R. § 131.33(d)(1).
II. Legal Standards
A. Summary Judgment Standard
When reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the proper inquiry is whether “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ.P. 56(c) (1993). A moving party who does not bear the burden of proof at trial may show that no genuine issue of material fact remains by demonstrating that “there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986). Once the moving party meets the requirement of Rule 56 by either showing that no genuine issue of material fact remains or that there is an absence of evidence to support the non-moving party’s case, the burden shifts to the party resisting the motion who “must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 256, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). It is not enough for the [non-moving] party to “rest on mere allegations of denials of his pleadings.” Id. Genuine factual issues must exist that “can be resolved only by a finder of fact because they may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party.” Id. at 250, 106 S.Ct. 2505.
“When determining if a genuine factual issue ... exists, ... a trial judge must bear in mind the actual quantum and quality of proof necessary to support liability.” Id. at 249-250, 106 S.Ct. 2505. “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the [non-moving party’s] position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party].” Id.
The Ninth Circuit has consistently applied the standard for granting summary judgment. Musick v. Burke, 913 F.2d 1390 (9th Cir.1990); Pelletier v. Federal Home Loan Bank, 968 F.2d 865 (9th Cir. 1992); Bieghler v. Kleppe, 633 F.2d 531 (9th Cir.1980).
In determining whether a material fact exists, facts and inferences must be viewed most favorably to the non-moving party. To deny the motion, the Court need only conclude that a result other than that proposed by the moving party is possible under the facts and applicable law. Aronsen v. Crown Zellerbach, 662 F.2d 584, 591 (9th Cir.1981).
The Ninth Circuit has recently emphasized that summary judgment may not be avoided merely because there is some purported factual dispute, but only when there is a “genuine issue of material fact.” Hanon v. Dataproducts Corp., 976 F.2d 497 (9th Cir.1992).
In order to withstand a motion for summary judgment, the non-moving party (1) must make a showing sufficient to establish a genuine issue of fact with respect to any element for which it bears the burden of proof; (2) must show that there is an issue that may reasonably be resolved in favor of either party; and (3) must come forward with more persuasive evidence than would otherwise be necessary when the factual context makes the non-moving party’s claim implausible.
British Motor Car Distrib. Ltd. v. San Francisco Automotive Indus. Welfare Fund, 882 F.2d 371 (9th Cir.1989).
B. Administrative Review Standard
In reviewing an agency’s action overall, the Court follows the provisions of the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 551, et seq. Specifically section 706(2)(A) of the APA provides that the reviewing court shall “hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be ... arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law .... ” The United States Supreme Court has held that the ultimate standard of review under this provision is narrow, and that a court is not entitled to substitute its judgment for that, of the agency’s. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Assn. v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 31, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 2860-2861, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983). At the same time, however, the reviewing court must conduct a review that is “searching and careful.” Mt. Graham Red Squirrel v. Espy, 986 F.2d 1568, 1571 (9th Cir.1993).
In order for an agency’s decision to be upheld, a court must find that “evidence before the agency provided a rational and ample basis for its decision,” otherwise the decision could be held to be arbitrary and capricious. Northwest Motorcycle Assn. v. United States Dept. of Agriculture, 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir.1994). An agency’s own interpretation of its own regulations controls “unless it is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations.” Nevada Land Action Assn. v. U.S. Forest Service, 8 F.3d 713 (9th Cir.1993). With this standard in mind, the Court will determine whether the EPA’s decision to promulgate a rule establishing aquatic life designated uses for three water bodies in Northern Idaho based on a rebuttable presumption that such a uses are attainable was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.
III. Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff and Defendants each move for summary judgment as to the validity of that portion of the EPA rule which establishes cold water biota use designations for the South Fork Coeur d’Alene River, Canyon Creek and Shields Gulch. See 40 C.F.R. § 131.33(b). Plaintiff contends that the rule was based upon inadequate data and analysis and that the EPA impermissi-bly created and relied upon a rebuttable presumption that the designated aquatic life uses are attainable in the affected waters. Plaintiff also alleges that the EPA’s rulemaking violated the APA in that the EPA failed to consider relevant factors in determining whether aquatic life uses were in fact attainable. Defendants and Inter-venors, on the other hand, assert that the rebuttable presumption of attainability is a permissible interpretation of existing regulations governing water quality standards. Furthermore, Defendants and Tntervenors argue that the EPA rule was neither arbitrary and capricious nor contrary to law because a cold water biota designation for each of the three water bodies at issue is consistent with the purposes and requirements of the CWA. The Court will take up each of these arguments in turn.
A. Whether the EPA’s Reliance Upon a Rebuttable Presumption of Attainability to Support the Aquatic Life Use Designation was Impermissible
Plaintiff argues that the EPA acted unlawfully when it relied upon a rebuttable presumption of attainability to support a cold water biota use designation for each of the three affected waters. Plaintiff advances several arguments as to why it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law as to this issue. In the first instance, Plaintiff contends that neither the CWA nor the EPA’s implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 131 authorize a presumption that aquatic life uses are attainable unless and until such uses are proved unattainable. Additionally, Plaintiff asserts that the EPA’s adoption of the rebuttable presumption was actually the creation of a substantive rule for which the EPA failed to provide the appropriate notice and comment period as required by the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 553. Plaintiff also maintains that the EPA’s application of the rebuttable presumption was unlawful because there were insufficient facts on which to base the aquatic life use designation and because there was no meaningful opportunity to rebut the presumption. Finally, Plaintiff asserts that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority in adopting a rebuttable presumption of attainability.
In response, and in support of its own motion for summary judgment, the EPA argues that its reliance on the rebuttable presumption of aquatic life use attainability was a reasonable interpretation of the EPA’s own water quality standards regulations. Specifically, EPA contends that its regulations have always required that waters be designated for fishable/swimmable uses unless a use attainability analysis affirmatively demonstrates that fisha-ble/swimmable uses cannot be sustained. Furthermore, the EPA asserts that even if the fishable/swimmable presumption were a new interpretation of EPA regulations, it is a reasonable interpretation that was developed after the notice and comment period required by the APA. Lastly, the EPA contends that its reliance on the rebuttable presumption was not unlawful because the EPA regulations which it has interpreted as requiring fishable/swimmable use designations reasonably implement the CWA.
The Intervenors have also submitted a brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and supporting the EPA’s position. In it, they argue that the EPA was under both a statutory and judicial mandate to promulgate aquatic life use designations for the affected waters.
1. Whether the EPA Reasonably Interpreted Its Own Regulations as Requiring a Rebuttable Presumption in Favor of Aquatic Life Use Designations
It is undisputed that one of the primary goals of the CWA is to achieve water quality that provides for fishable/swimma-ble uses wherever such uses are attainable. Section 101(a)(2), 38 U.S.C. § 1251(a)(2). It is further undisputed that when establishing new or revised water quality standards, states are required to adopt standards that “protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes” of the CWA. Section 303(c)(2)(A), 33 U-S-C. § 1313(c)(2)(A). While these provisions plainly express a preference for fishable/swimmable use designations, all parties agree that the CWA does not itself create a rebuttable presumption that such uses are always attainable. Rather, the CWA directs states to consider numerous factors when adopting water quality standards, including the water body’s “use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes,” and other purposes enumerated by the Act. Id. See also, 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(a). Nevertheless, the EPA contends that a rebuttable presumption of aquatic fife attainability is clearly supported by EPA regulations implementing the CWA.
The regulatory provisions upon which the EPA relies are codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 131.10(j) and (k). Specifically, section 131.10(j) provides that a state must conduct a use attainability analysis anytime the state fails to designate a water body for fishable/swimmable uses. Section 131.10(k), on the other hand, provides that a state is not required to conduct a use attainability analysis whenever the state designates fishable/swimmable uses. According to the EPA, the net effect of these two provisions is to require that water quality standards provide for fisha-ble/swimmable uses unless those uses have been shown by a use attainability analysis to be unattainable. This position is entirely consistent with the position taken by the EPA throughout the course of the rule-making process. (IWQS 04860, 07844, 07846, 07853). In fact, the preamble to the proposed rule contains perhaps the most explicit statement to this effect. There, the EPA explained:
EPA’s regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 131 interpret and implement [sections 101(a)(2) and 303(c)(2)(A) of the CWA] through a requirement that water quality standards provide for fisha-ble/swimmable uses unless those uses have been shown to be unattainable, effectively creating a rebuttable presumption of attainability. Unless that presumption has been rebutted, a default designation of fishable/swimmable beneficial uses apply.
(IWQS 07844). Throughout the administrative process, the EPA consistently relied on the above interpretation of its own regulations to support the challenged rule.
It is well-settled that an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to substantial deference. Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 112, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 1060, 117 L.Ed.2d 239 (1992) (holding that a court sitting in review of an agency action should give “due regard” to the agency’s interpretation of its own regulations); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965) (‘When the construction of an administrative regulation rather than a statute is in issue, deference is even more clearly in order.”); Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Environmental Protection Agency, 87 F.3d 280, 283 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[W]e must give deference to the EPA’s interpretation of its own regulations, if its interpretation is not unreasonable.”). Accordingly, the threshold inquiry to be resolved on summary judgment is whether the EPA reasonably interpreted its water quality standards regulations as requiring a rebuttable presumption in favor of aquatic life use designations. Plaintiff contends that it did not.
Plaintiff argues that the EPA regulations at 40 C.F.R. Part 131 cannot reasonably be interpreted to authorize a re-buttable presumption of attainability. In support of its position, Plaintiff places much emphasis on the fact that the EPA has “admitted” that this is the first time it has ever relied on such a presumption in promulgating federal water quality standards. However, as the EPA points out, the EPA has merely admitted that this is the first time it has ever used the phrase “rebuttable presumption” in connection with a water quality standards promulgation. (IMA’s Answer, Docket #7, U 23). In fact, the water quality standards on which the EPA bases its interpretation have actually been in existence since 1983 and have always required that waters be designated for fishable/swimmable uses unless a UAA demonstrates that fishable/swimmable uses cannot be attained. See 48 Fed. Reg. 51400, 51405, 51409 (Nov. 8, 1983), codified at 40 C.F.R. §§ 131.10(j) and (k).
The EPA contends that while it has never before used the term “rebuttable presumption,” it has relied upon the concept in previous rulemaking. Specifically, the EPA draws the Court’s attention to a federal -water quality standard which it promulgated for the State of Arizona in 1996. See 61 Fed.Reg. 20686, 20687-88 (May 7, 1996). As in the present case, Arizona had previously submitted its proposed water quality standard revisions to the EPA for review. However, the EPA disapproved the proposed standards on the grounds that Arizona failed to include a “fish consumption” use for certain water bodies which it already designated for aquatic and wildlife use. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality subsequently submitted UAAs in support of its decision not to include fish consumption uses. However, the EPA was under a court order to promulgate the regulation and stated that it did not have sufficient time to review the data submitted. Consequently, the EPA promulgated a default fish consumption use designation for the water bodies at issue. The EPA explained that it would withdraw the designation if, after completing its review of the UAAs, it determined that the fish consumption use was not feasible.
In responding to comments to the Arizona promulgation, the EPA relied upon its designated use regulations and explained its rationale as follows:
EPA regulations regarding use designations provide that a State “must conduct a use attainability analysis as described in 40 C.F.R. § 131.3(g) whenever the state designates or has designated uses that do not include the uses specified in section 101(a)(2) of the Act.” 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(j)(l). Section 101(a)(2) of the CWA provides that water quality “shall provide for the protection of fish, shellfish, wildlife and recreation in and on the water”, and, in EPA’s view, the “protection” of fish, shellfish, and recreation necessarily includes ensuring that fish are not so contaminated that they are unhealthful for human consumption. Nonetheless, the State had failed to include designated uses that would protect such aquatic life for purposes of human consumption, or to perform a UAA demonstrating that this use was not attainable. EPA ... therefore appropriately concluded that the State’s standards were not “consistent with” the goals of the CWA.
61 Fed.Reg. 20686, 20688 (May 7, 1996). It is true, as Plaintiff contends, that the Arizona rulemaking did not involve a presumption that aquatic life uses were attainable. However, the quoted language above clearly evidences the EPA’s consistently held position, based on its 1983 regulations, that fishable/swimmable uses must be designated unless a UAA demonstrates that such uses are not feasible.
Despite the foregoing, Plaintiff contends that the EPA’s “presumptive use” interpretation is contrary to its own regulations. In particular, Plaintiff points to 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(d), a water quality standards regulation which it contends explicitly establishes a presumption regarding use attainability. That regulation states:
At a minimum, uses are deemed attainable if they can be achieved by the imposition of effluent limits required under section 301(b) and 306 of the Act and cost effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint source control.
Id. Plaintiff argues that this regulation explicitly creates a presumption that uses are not attainable unless they can be achieved by the imposition of technology-based point source controls and best management practices for nonpoint source controls. Thus, under Plaintiffs interpretation, the EPA would have been required to find that the imposition of point source and nonpoint source pollution controls on the affected waters would result in the attainment of fishable/swimmable uses before it actually established fishable/swimmable use designations for those waters. Because the EPA made no such finding, Plaintiff contends that the EPA was without authorization to presumptively deem fishable/swimmable uses attainable. Additionally, Plaintiff argues that because the EPA explicitly created a presumption of attainability in 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(d), it is precluded from relying on a presumption of aquatic life attainability which it now purports to be implicit in other regulations. See Oregon Natural Resources Council, Inc. v. Kantor, 99 F.3d 334, 339 (9th Cir.1996) (quoting Estate of Bell v. Commissioner, 928 F.2d 901, 904 (9th Cir. 1991) (“Congress is presumed to act intentionally and purposely when it includes language in one section but omits it in another.”)). Unfortunately, Plaintiffs argument not only misconstrues the applicability of 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(d), but it also completely ignores other pertinent water quality standards regulations.
Although not entirely clear on its face, section 131.10(d) is not a generally applicable provision defining the requirements of attainability. Rather, it is a provision which applies in the context of a UAA to prohibit states from downgrading existing designated uses when those uses can be attained by imposing pollution controls in the form of effluent limits for point sources and cost-effective and reasonable best management practices for nonpoint sources. See 47 Fed.Reg. 49234, 49236 (Oct. 29, 1982). Thus, while section 131.10(d) establishes the parameters by which states are allowed to make unattain-ability determinations, it does not impose upon states the obligation to conduct a UAA every time the state establishes a new beneficial use designation. On the contrary, 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(k) expressly provides that a state is not required to conduct a UAA so long as the state adopts water quality standards that protect fisha-ble/swimmable uses in and on the water. This is a point even Plaintiff concedes.
While Plaintiff expressly acknowledges that subsection (k) of 40 C.F.R. § 131.10 authorizes states to establish fisha-ble/swimmable use designations without performing a UAA, it nevertheless argues that the EPA does not have that same authority. However, as both Defendants and the Intervenors point out, this argument carries little force. Because Idaho failed to correct the deficiencies in its 1994 water quality standards, the EPA was under a mandatory duty pursuant to section 303(c) of the CWA to promptly adopt replacement standards for those standards which it had disapproved. Section 303(c)(4)(A); 33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(4)(A); 40 C.F.R. § 131.22(a). See also, Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91, 101, 112 S.Ct. 1046, 1054, 117 L.Ed.2d 239 (1992); Idaho Conservation League, Inc. v. Russell, 946 F.2d 717, 720 (9th Cir.1991); ICL v. Browner, 968 F.Supp. at 549. In doing so, the EPA was “subject to the same policies, procedures, analyses, and public participation requirements established for States in [the EPA] regulations.” 40 C.F.R. § 131.22(c). Thus, despite Plaintiffs assertions to the contrary, section 131.10(k) authorized the EPA to establish aquatic life uses for the affected waters without performing a IJAA.
Plaintiff next argues that the EPA’s presumptive use interpretation cannot be reconciled with the directive of 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(a) that states establish designated uses “tak[ing] into consideration the use and value of water for public water supplies, protection and propagation of fish, shellfish and wildlife, recreation in and on the water, agricultural, industrial, and other purposes including navigation.” Id. Plaintiff correctly argues that this provision neither mandates a particular use nor creates a presumption that aquatic life uses are attainable. However, the Court must agree with Defendants that section 131.10(a) is neither more nor less operative than other EPA regulations, i.e. sections 131.10(j) and (k), that do call for fisha-ble/swimmable use designations absent a IJAA.
In a final argument, Plaintiff contends that the rebuttable presumption upon which EPA relied to promulgate the challenged rule was not an interpretation of existing regulations but was rather the creation of a substantive rule in violation of the notice and comment requirements of the APA. See 5 U.S.C. § 553 (providing that general notice of proposed rulemaking must be published in the Federal Register and that interested persons must be given the opportunity to participate in the rule-making through the submission of comments). Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that even if the rebuttable presumption could be characterized as an interpretive rule or general statement of policy exempt from the APA rulemaking requirements, the EPA was still obligated to present evidence and reasoning supporting the aquatic life use designation in this ease. See Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Federal Power Commission, 506 F.2d 33, 38 (D.C.Cir.1974) (“When [an] agency applies [a] policy in a particular situation, it must be prepared to support the policy just as if the policy statement had never been issued.”). Plaintiff argues that instead of presenting such evidence, the EPA adopted the rebuttable presumption for the first time in connection with the challenged rule solely as a means of avoiding its obligation to conduct the appropriate analyses to determine whether aquatic life uses are attainable in the affected waters. Thus, Plaintiff submits that the challenged rule must be vacated as arbitrary and capricious.
Defendants take issue with Plaintiffs assertions on two grounds. In the first instance, Defendants contend that the EPA’s reliance on the rebuttable presumption in favor of fishable/swimmable uses is merely an interpretation of existing regulations and not the creation of a substantive rule. Again, Defendants acknowledge that they have never before used the term “rebutta-ble presumption” in connection with a rule-making. However, Defendants argue that the use of the term in this instance does not change the substance of the EPA’s existing regulatory requirements.
In support of their position, Defendants rely on Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. U.S. EPA (“PRASA”), 35 F.3d 600 (1st Cir.1994). In PRASA, the petitioner sought an NPDES permit modification. The EPA denied the request and ultimately rejected the petitioner’s request for an evidentiary hearing on the basis that the petitioner had failed to present a “genuine issue of material fact” with respect to the modification request. On appeal, the petitioner argued that the EPA had impermissibly adopted a Rule 56 standard with respect to the showing required of a party seeking an evidentiary hearing without affording the petitioner adequate notice or the opportunity to respond. The First Circuit rejected the petitioner’s argument, finding that the standard imposed by the EPA regulation was the “functional equivalent” of that required to overcome a Rule 56 motion. Id. at 608. The Court reasoned as follows:
We think that EPA’s regulations lawfully can be read to incorporate this binary test, featuring genuineness and materiality. What is more, we refuse to attach talismanic significance to the absence of the stock phrase “genuine issue of material fact.” The reference found in 40 C.F.R. § 124.75(a)(1) to “material” issues of “relevant” fact achieves precisely the same end. In practice, courts and agencies regularly use a variéty of terms to describe the two pillars of summary judgment.
We hasten to add that, despite this linguistic equivalency, explicitly drawing a connection to Rule 56 accomplishes three things. First, it provides a common vocabulary, easily understandable by litigants, lawyers, and adjudicators. Second, it introduces into an agency’s jurisprudence a ready-made ensemble of decisional precedents associated with Rule 56 .... Third, it carries with it certain expectations, conditioned by everyday experience in the federal courts, about the kind and degree of evidence deemed necessary to create a genuine dispute over a material fact.
Id. at 605 (internal citations omitted). Thus, the court held that in applying the Rule 56 terminology, the EPA had reasonably interpreted its own regulations governing requests for evidentiary hearings. Id. at 609.
In this case, the Court agrees with Defendants that the EPA’s use of the phrase “rebuttable presumption” did not work any change to the substantive requirements of the EPA’s existing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(j) and (k). As Defendants point out, Plaintiff was aware of the showing required by these regulations. Even in the proposed rule, the EPA consistently stated that these provisions “effectively creat[ed] a rebuttable presumption of attainability.” (IWQS 07844, 07846). Thus, as in PRASA, the only effect the new terminology had on the rulemaking was to provide a “common vocabulary” under which the EPA and commentators could operate.
Furthermore, even assuming that the rebuttable presumption in favor of fisha-ble/swimmable uses was a new interpretation of the EPA’s regulations, it was a reasonable interpretation that was made after the notice and comment period required by the APA. As the administrative record reveals, Defendants published notice of the proposed rule, including the EPA’s reliance on the rebuttable presumption, in the Federal Register on April 28, 1997, three months before the final rule was promulgated. See 62 Fed.Reg. 23003 (April 28, 1997); (IWQS 07841). Defendants also took comments as to the proposed rule for a period of thirty (30) days. (IWQS 04857). While the comment period was shorter than generally allowed, the EPA was under a court ordered deadline, and it cannot be said that a thirty (30) day comment period was a per se violation of the APA.
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the EPA reasonably interpreted its regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(j) and (k) as requiring an aquatic life use designation unless a UAA demonstrates that aquatic life uses are unattainable. Although the regulations do not explicitly contain the phrase “rebuttable presumption,” the Court finds that it was neither arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, nor contrary to law for the EPA to construe them as such.
2. Whether the EPA Exceeded Its Statutory Authority Under the CWA
Having determined that the EPA reasonably interpreted its own regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 131.10(j) and (k) as requiring a rebuttable presumption in favor of fisha-ble/swimmable uses, the next question before the Court is whether the EPA exceeded its statutory authority in promulgating those regulations. As was previously noted, the EPA promulgated sections 131.10(j) and (k) in 1983. As such, the Court’s initial inquiry must focus on whether Plaintiff’s challenge to the regulations is time-barred.
As Defendants point out, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) imposes a six-year statute of limitations for actions brought under the APA. See also, Wind River Mining Corporation v. United States, 946 F.2d 710, 713 (9th Cir.1991) (“LA] suit for review of an agency decision, commenced by filing a civil complaint in federal court, fits the explicit terms of section 2401(a).”). That statute requires that the action be filed “within six years after the right of action first accrues.” 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). It is generally held that the right of action on a procedural challenge to an agency’s decision accrues on the date the decision is rendered. Wind River, 946 F.2d at 715 (“The government’s interest in finality outweighs a late-comer’s desire to protest the agency’s action as a matter of policy or procedure.”); Shiny Rock Mining Corporation v. United States, 906 F.2d 1362, 1364 (9th Cir.1990) (“Publication in the Federal Register is legally sufficient notice to all interested or affected person regardless of actual knowledge or hardship resulting from ignorance.”). However, the Ninth Circuit has expressly held that “a substantive challenge to an agency decision alleging lack of agency authority may be brought within six years of the agency’s application of that decision to the specific challenger.” Wind River, 946 F.2d at 716.
In this case, Plaintiff has alleged that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the CWA in adopting the presumptive use interpretation. Because the presumptive use interpretation was not applied to Plaintiff until 1997, Plaintiffs challenge to that interpretation, and thus to the EPA’s 1983 regulations, is well within the six-year limitation period prescribed by 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) and Wind River. Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs challenge to the 1983 regulations is not time-barred. This having been said, the Court will now focus on the parties’ substantive positions regarding the EPA’s statutory authority.
Plaintiff argues that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority under the CWA when it adopted a rebuttable presumption in favor of fishable/swimmable use designations. Plaintiff advances essentially two arguments in support of this position. First, Plaintiff argues that the plain language of the CWA does not authorize the EPA to adopt rebuttable presumptions of use attainability in CWA rulemakings. Second, Plaintiff argues that even if the EPA did have statutory authority to adopt the rebuttable presumption, it exceeded that authority because: (1) there is no sound factual connection between the facts giving rise to the aquatic life presumption and the presumed facts; and (2) the presumption, as applied, was actually irrebuttable.
In response, Defendants argue that the EPA did not exceed its statutory authority under the CWA. Specifically, Defendants contend that the EPA regulations on which the presumptive use interpretation is based reasonably implement the applicable provisions of the CWA. Defendants further contend that the CWA is subject to multiple interpretations and that the EPA’s interpretation is therefore entitled to substantial deference. Finally, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs reliance on cases involving different types of rebutta-ble presumptions is misplaced in light of the fact that those cases do not address statutory interpretations.
a. Whether the CWA Authorizes a Rebuttable Presumption in Favor of Fishable/Swimmable Uses
The threshold issue before the Court is whether the EPA was authorized under the CWA to promulgate regulations which effectively created a rebuttable presumption in favor of físhable/swimmable uses. Resolution of this issue will require the Court to determine whether the applicable language of the statute is plain and unambiguous or whether the language is subject to multiple interpretations. The parties take entirely different positions as to this issue.
It is a well-settled canon of statutory construction that the plain and unambiguous language of a statute controls its meaning. See United States v. James, 478 U.S. 597, 603, 106 S.Ct. 3116, 3120, 92 L.Ed.2d 483 (1986) (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 756, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 1935, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975) (POWELL, J„ concurring)) (“The starting point in statutory interpretation is ‘the language of the statute itself.’ ”); American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63, 68, 102 S.Ct. 1534, 1537, 71 L.Ed.2d 748 (1982) (“[W]e assume that the legislative purpose is expressed by the ordinary meaning of the words used.”); Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470, 485, 37 S.Ct. 192, 194, 61 L.Ed. 442 (1917) (“Where the language is plain and admits of no more than one meaning, the duty of interpretation does not arise, and the rules which are to aid doubtful meanings need no discussion.”). Where the language of the statute is plain and not subject to more than one interpretation, “the sole function of the courts is to enforce it according to its terms.” Caminetti 242 U.S. at 484, 37 S.Ct. at 194. Moreover, “[i]f a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect.” I.N.S. v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 448, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 1222, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987).
It is true that when confronted with a problem of statutory construction, courts are generally required to show “great deference to the interpretation given the statute by the officer or agency charged with its administration.” Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16, 85 S.Ct. 792, 801, 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965). Nevertheless, “when Congress’s intent is clear, the courts, not the agency, are charged with the basic responsibility for statutory interpretation. A contrary agency interpretation is entitled to no deference.” Pacific Rivers Council v. Thomas, 30 F.3d 1050, 1054 (9th Cir. 1994). See also, Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984) (“If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress.”). However, when Congress’ intent is not clear, courts must defer to the agency’s reasonable interpretation of the statute:
If ... the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute, as would be necessary in the absence of an administrative interpretation. Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.
Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843, 104 S.Ct. at 2781-82.
In this case, Plaintiff argues that the plain language of section 303(c)(2)(A) of the CWA prohibits “default” use designations such as the presumptive aquatic life use designation relied upon by the EPA in this case. Section 303(c)(2)(A) provides:
Whenever the State revises or adopts a new standard, such revised or new standard shall be submitted to the Administrator. Such revised or new water quality standard shall consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses. Such standards shall be such as to protect the public health or welfare, enhance the quality of water and serve the purposes of this chapter. Such standards shall be established taking into consideration their use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other purposes, and also taking into consideration their use and value for navigation.
33 U.S.C. § 1313(c)(2)(A). As Plaintiff points out, this provision does not establish a “presumptive use” for waters of the United States. Instead, it directs the states to consider a variety of factors when establishing water quality standards, including the waters’ use and value for recreational, agricultural, industrial and aquatic life uses. Plaintiff contends that in drafting this provision, Congress expressly left it to the discretion of the each individual state to determine the appropriate use designation for each of its water bodies. Plaintiff also argues that the EPA’s presumptive use interpretation “essentially reads out of the statute the selection authority that Congress vested exclusively in the states under this section.” (IMA’s Reply Brief, Docket # 43, p. 7). Plaintiff contends that had Congress intended that all waters of the United States be designated as fishable/swimmable, it would have expressly provided for it in Section 303(c)(2)(A).
In support of its position, Plaintiff relies on Associated Industries v. Train, 9 Env’t Rep. Cases 1561 (N.D.Ala.l976), an unreported district court case out of the Northern District of Alabama. The Train case also involved a challenge by industry petitioners to an EPA rule that established a federal use designation for state waters. However, in Train, the issue was whether the EPA exceeded its authority under section 303(a)(1) of the CWA in disapproving and promulgating revised water quality standards for the state of Alabama when the State’s standards were consistent with the requirements of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1965 (“FWPCA”), the predecessor to the CWA.
Under section 10(c)(3) of the FWPCA, “state standards [were] required to take into account a body of water’s ‘use and value for public water supplies, propagation of fish and wildlife, recreational purposes, and agricultural, industrial, and other legitimate uses.’ 33 U.S.G.A. § 1160(c)(3).” Train, 9 Env’t Rep. Cases at 1564. Alabama had previously submitted state water quality standards consistent with these requirements, and the standards were approved by the EPA on September 19, 1972. However, the EPA subsequently disapproved the standards as being inconsistent with the requirements of the 1972 amendments. The EPA then promulgated a rule establishing a “blanket minimum use classification of fish and wildlife for all interstate and intrastate waters of Alabama.” Train, 9 Env’t Rep. Cases at 1566. The industry petitioners challenged the rule in federal district court, alleging that the EPA had acted arbitrarily and capriciously in disapproving Alabama’s state water quality standards and in promulgating the blanket minimum federal use designation.
The Train court ultimately invalidated the EPA rule, noting that the FWPCA did not permit the EPA to establish a blanket minimum fish and wildlife designation. Id. at 1567. The court reasoned that “[i]f Congress had intended that no waters be classified below ‘fish and wildlife,’ certainly it would have said so and expressly