Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle

Background

A group of companies that operate bleached kraft pulpmills near Eureka, California sought state permits to discharge wastewater into the Pacific Ocean. The California regional board proposed permits that would have granted variances from national limits for BOD (biochemical oxygen demand) and pH. EPA objected, denied the variances, and vetoed the permits to the extent they exempted the mills from those BOD and pH limits. The mills asked the federal Court of Appeals for direct review, but that court dismissed their petitions for lack of jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The key question was whether an EPA veto or denial of a state-issued pollution permit can be reviewed directly in a federal Court of Appeals under the statute that covers “issuing or denying” permits. The Ninth Circuit said no, relying on earlier decisions that treated a state-issued permit veto differently from an EPA-issued denial. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that EPA’s veto functionally amounts to a denial under the law, and that treating similar cases differently depending on whether a State issues permits would create an irrational, split review system and cause delays.

Real world impact

The ruling sends the case back to the Ninth Circuit for review and means companies, states, and EPA will generally use the federal appeals courts to challenge EPA vetoes of state permits. The decision is about where cases are heard, not the merits of the pollution limits themselves, and the Court did not decide on later statutory amendments that affect EPA’s issuing power.

Dissents or concurrances

A Ninth Circuit judge had urged rehearing en banc, arguing the earlier precedent was wrong and urging review to ensure prompt resolution of such disputes.