Roosevelt Campobello
International Park Commission v. EPA case brief
---
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?
684 F.2d 1041 (1st
Cir. 1982)
CASE SYNOPSIS: Petitioner
Commission sought review of a decision by respondent Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), which issued a permit to respondent
corporation pursuant to the Clean Water Act § 402, 33 U.S.C.S. §
1342.
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.
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?
No comments:
Post a Comment