FACTS: Petitioner commission brought an action against respondents EPA and corporation after respondent EPA issued a permit to respondent corporation which authorized the construction of an oil refinery. Petitioners sought review on grounds that respondent EPA's actions violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C.S. § 4321 et seq., the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C.S. § 1531 et seq., and the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.S. § 1251 et seq. On appeal, the court vacated the issuance of the permit and held that nothing in NEPA authorized a federal agency to review any effluent limitation or other requirement established pursuant to NEPA. The court held that the Clean Water Act § 401(a) empowered a state to certify that a proposed discharge would comply with the Clean Water Act and with any other appropriate requirement of state law and that any such requirement became a condition on any federal permit. The court held that the proper forum to review a state's certification was the state court, and that federal agencies were without authority to review the validity of requirements imposed under state law.
CONCLUSION: The court vacated respondent EPA's decision to issue a permit to respondent corporation because nothing in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) could have been deemed to authorize a federal agency to review any effluent limitation or other requirement established pursuant to NEPA.
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?