|
:ch
<br /> Pacific Legal Foundation v. Gorsuch 18 ERC 1127
<br /> `foreover, if dam-caused pollution was PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION
<br /> in truly of major proportions, someone, be v. GORSUCH
<br /> - y
<br /> zal it EPA, the Wildlife Federation, or other
<br /> ne environmental groups, would most likely U.S. Court of Appeals
<br /> er- have brought it to Congress' attention, Ninth Circuit
<br /> PA either in 1972 or in 1977. And of course, PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, a
<br /> is the Wildlife Federation, if unhappy with nonprofit California corporation, et al.,
<br /> ble our attempt to divine .what Congress plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. JUNNE M. GOR-
<br /> for would have done about dam-caused pol- SUCH,* as Administrator of the United
<br /> ter. lution had it thought about it, is still free States Environmental Protection Agency,
<br /> 33 to seek a legislative solution.79 Unless et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 81-
<br /> !d).
<br /> t and until Congress addresses the matter, .�-}.}2; pACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION,
<br /> a
<br /> r.76
<br /> we cannot say that the Act requires EPA et al., Petitioners, vs. ANNE M. GOR-
<br /> t be to adopt the strictest possible regulatory SUCH, as Administrator of the United
<br /> ved solution. States Environmental Protection Agency,
<br /> me-
<br /> Respondent, No. 81-7060, Oct. 20, 1982
<br /> h to V. CONCLUSION AIR
<br /> ited Federal, state, and local regulation —
<br /> In closing, we emphasize the nar- Administrative agencies — Judicial
<br /> nnis rowness of our decision. It is not our review—Standing(§48.6813)
<br /> s function to decide whether EPA's inter-
<br /> ated [1] Public interest group lacks standing
<br />:rely pretation of the tern "discharge of a to challenge Environmental Protection
<br /> cord pollutant is the best one or even wheth- Agency administrators imposition of
<br /> en- er it is more reasonable than the Wildlife construction ban on California for state's
<br />;ome Federation's interpretation. We hold failure to submit state implementation
<br /> jam- merely that EPA's interpretation is rea- plan within deadline as required by Clean
<br /> and sonable, not inconsistent with 'congres- Air Act, because (1) group failed to allege
<br /> iinor sional intent, and entitled to great defer- that any of group's directors, members,
<br /> pem- ence; therefore, it must be upheld. The supporters, or contributors authorized
<br /> lu are judgment of the district court is reversed to demonstr to ate represent njuryen fact or an effect
<br /> failed
<br />>utlet
<br />-dily on group's corporate health and (3)
<br /> 1,ow group may not assert violations of consti-
<br /> •rals tuuonal guarantees held by state.
<br /> rob- For example, in constructing Russell Dam,one
<br /> of the dams at issue in the South Carolina Federal, state, and local regulation —
<br /> !n it Administrative agencies — Judicial
<br /> itrol litigation, the Corps of Engineers "agreed to 48.6813
<br /> meet the State water quality standards" and review—Standing(§ )
<br /> onger included in its cost estimate "oxygen injection (2] State legislators lack standing to
<br /> dams and a turbine aeration system" to remedy an challenge Environmental Protection
<br /> with anticipated low dissolved oxygen problem. Agency administrator's imposition of
<br /> us the
<br /> Pu&ic Worlrs for Water and Power Development and construction ban on California for state's
<br /> se n
<br /> g EwV Research Appropriation Bill, 1978: Hearings failure to submit state implementation
<br /> Before a Sub-comm. of the House Comm. on ApproPri- plan within deadline as required by Clean
<br /> ahons,95th Cong., 1st Sess.90 (1977). Air Act, because (1) group may not assert
<br /> violations of constitutional >
<br /> recog �s itutil guarantees
<br /> In 1977, at least, the Environmental
<br />)nly for Defense Fund was aware of the effects of dams held_ by state, and (2) group failed to
<br /> not for On water quality. See Tripp, Tensions and Can- allege that state authorized group to
<br /> t plants � Jbcts in Federal Pollution Control and Water Re- represent legislature or state.
<br />'ont de touri t Polio,, 14 Harv.J. Legis. 225, 254 (1977) STATUTES
<br /> 128-33 = (Ms:Trippas a to
<br />'§300- j PP wyer for EDF). It chose not Federal — Clean Air Act — Judicial
<br /> f pollu- >-= tO Pursue the matter during Congress' 1977 review(§95.0317)
<br /> '" revision of the Act. Interestingly, Mr. Tri
<br /> dustrialPP Construed.
<br /> simply apparently took it for granted in his article that
<br /> teffects �"`' the water quality problems at issue here are
<br /> ,,;�:,
<br /> nOnpoint source pollution. ' Substituted for Douglas M. Costle under
<br /> _ Fed.R.App.P. 43(c)(1).
<br />
|