New State Rule Can Be a Change to Water Quality Standards Triggering EPA’s Review Despite State’s View and EPA’s Initial Contention

Despite substantial victory some issues still remain unclear regarding what constitutes a change in water quality standards.

MAELC represents the Florida Public Interest Research Group, Save Our Suwannee, Inc, and the Friends of Saint Sebastian River in a federal court action against EPA for its failure to review and either approve or disapprove changes that the State of Florida made to its water quality standards through the promulgation of the Impaired Waters Rule. In June 2003, the Court ruled in EPA’s favor, and Plaintiffs appealed that decision to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In late 2004, the 11th Circuit ruled in favor of Plaintiffs and remanded the case back to the District Court to determine whether the Impaired Waters Rule (“IWR”) is a change to water quality standards triggering EPA’s mandatory duty to review. On remand, EPA reviewed the Rule and determined that several provisions were in fact changes to standards and disapproved them during its review under the CWA. In regard to the provisions of the IWR that EPA found were not changes to water quality standards, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Summary Judgment arguing that the application of the 11th Circuit’s “effects test” to these remaining provisions demonstrates a change.

In February 2007, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion, and accepted EPA’s determination that the remaining provisions were not changes. Despite this limited setback, the Center’s action has been a success.  Florida is currently in the process of enacting a revised version of the IWR for EPA review and approval.

(Florida Public Interest Research Group v. EPA, Civil Action No. 02-408. (N.D. Fla. 2002))