DISCLAIMER: Any unofficial case summaries below are prepared by the clerk's office
as a courtesy to the reader. They are not part of the opinion of the court.
113412P.pdf 03/25/2013 Iowa League of Cities v. EPA
U.S. Court of Appeals Case No: 11-3412
Petition for Review of an Order of the Environmental Protection Administration
[PUBLISHED] [Gruender, Author, with Beam and Smith, Circuit Judges]
Petition for Review - Order of the EPA. Court finds it has jurisdiction
over a petition for review seeking direct appellate review of two letters
sent by the EPA to Senator Charles Grassley with respect to bacteria
mixing zones and blending in wastewater treatment facilities as the
EPA's letters constituted binding promulgations and effluent limitations
under Section 509(b)(1)(E) of the Clean Water Act; the matter was ripe
for judicial review because the dispute was not abstract and presented an
actual hardship to the petitioners; petitioners had Article III standing to
bring the claim; proper standard for review for these challenges to agency
procedural compliance under Sec. 706(2)(D) of the Administrative
Procedures Act was de novo review; the EPA violated the APA when it
bypassed notice and comment procedures and announced new rules
banning bacteria mixing zones in all waters designated for primary
contact recreation, and the rule is vacated; similarly, the EPA violated the
APA when it announced a new legislative rule with respect to blending
peak wet water flows, and that rule is also vacated; EPA's new mixing
zone rule is not obviously precluded by the plain meaning of any
applicable Clean Water Act regulations and should the EPA wish to
implement the rule, it may seek to do so using the appropriate procedures;
however, the blending rule clearly exceeds the EPA's statutory authority
and insofar as the rule imposes secondary treatment regulations on flows
within facilities it must be vacated as exceeding the agency's statutory
authority; petitioners' request for an award of litigation costs under Clean
Water Act Sec. 509(b)(3) is denied.