Environmental Protection Agency v. California ex rel State Water Resources Control Board

PETITIONER: Environmental Protection Agency
RESPONDENT: California ex rel State Water Resources Control Board
LOCATION: United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare: Social Security Division

DOCKET NO.: 74-1435
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1975-1981)
LOWER COURT: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

CITATION: 426 US 200 (1976)
ARGUED: Jan 13, 1976
DECIDED: Jun 07, 1976

ADVOCATES:
Daniel M. Friedman - for petitioners
Roderick E. Walston - for respondent California
Roderick Eugene Walston -
Slade Gorton - for respondent Washington

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Environmental Protection Agency v. California ex rel State Water Resources Control Board

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - January 13, 1976 in Environmental Protection Agency v. California ex rel State Water Resources Control Board

Audio Transcription for Opinion Announcement - June 07, 1976 in Environmental Protection Agency v. California ex rel State Water Resources Control Board

Warren E. Burger:

Mr. Justice White has four opinions, judgments and opinions to announce for the court and will identify each of them with his announcement.

Byron R. White:

First two cases, I have for 74-220 Hancock, the Attorney General of Kentucky against Train, the administrator of the environmental protection agency and 74-1435, Environmental Protection Agency against California State Water Resources Control Board.

These cases are related one to the other and they arise under recent amendments to the Clean Air Act and to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

The issue in both cases is whether Federal installations and facilities must not only comply with pollution standards set by a state plan that has been approved by the Environmental Protection Agency but whether the facilities must also secure a permit which the state plan requires.

In the Hancock case the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that it was not sufficiently clear how the Clean Air Act that the Federal installations must secure permits and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit arrived at just a contrary conclusion under the Federal Water Act.

We agree with the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and affirm his judgment and we disagree with the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and reverse its judgment.

The reasons for our conclusions are set out in rather long opinions which we have filed today.

Mr. Justice Stewart and Mr. Justice Rehnquist dissent for the reasons stated by the respective Courts of Appeals.