Natural Resources Defense Council v. United States Environmental Protection…

Background

The Safe Drinking Water Act requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish drinking-water standards for a contaminant when statutory conditions are met. Those conditions include a finding that the contaminant may harm health, occurs in public water systems at levels of public-health concern, and presents a meaningful opportunity to reduce health risks.

In 2011, the EPA decided that perchlorate should be regulated. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) later sued, claiming that the EPA had failed to perform its mandatory duties to propose and finalize a maximum contaminant level goal and a national primary drinking-water regulation. In 2016, the parties entered a consent decree, which is a court-approved agreement. It required the EPA to propose standards by a specified date and publish final standards by December 19, 2019. The decree also allowed the court to enforce its terms and allowed modification for good cause.

The EPA proposed standards in June 2019 but also sought comments on withdrawing its 2011 decision. On June 18, 2020, the EPA withdrew that decision and determined that perchlorate did not occur frequently or at levels of public-health concern and did not present a meaningful opportunity for health-risk reduction. NRDC challenged that determination in the D.C. Circuit in a related case, Wheeler.

Motions and jurisdiction

The EPA moved to terminate the consent decree based on the changed circumstances. NRDC moved to enforce the decree, or alternatively to require the EPA to issue final standards while delaying their effective dates until after the D.C. Circuit ruled. The EPA alternatively asked this court to stay, or pause, the proceedings until Wheeler was decided.

The court explained that the Safe Drinking Water Act gives this district court authority to hear claims that the EPA failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty. Challenges to the substance of decisions establishing drinking-water standards must instead be filed in the D.C. Circuit. The court stated that both pending motions depended on the validity of the EPA’s 2020 determination, an issue outside this court’s authority under the Act.

Ruling

The court stayed the case, including its decision on the EPA’s motion to terminate the consent decree and NRDC’s motion to enforce it, pending the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Wheeler. It reasoned that deciding Wheeler first would promote judicial efficiency and was necessary to determine the proper result in this case. The court also denied NRDC’s request to direct the EPA to issue final drinking-water standards while the D.C. Circuit proceedings were pending.

The opinion does not decide whether the EPA lawfully withdrew its 2011 determination, whether the consent decree should be terminated, or whether the EPA must issue final standards.