ELR Citation: 45 ELR 20054
No(s). 8:13-cv-2084-T-23EAJ (M.D. Fla. Mar 16, 2015) (Merryday, J.)

A district court dismissed environmentalists' claim that EPA should have reviewed the entirety of Florida's impaired water rule (IWR), not just the portion that constitutes a new or revised water quality standard. States retain discretion to enact and to enforce—without EPA’s review and approval—both a method of identifying impaired waters and an antidegradation policy. In 2001, Florida adopted the IWR. In 2005, EPA determined that a portion of the IWR constituted a reviewable new or revised water quality standard. The Agency therefore reviewed that portion of the IWR and approved it in 2008. Environmental groups filed suit, arguing that EPA's statutory authority to review a new or revised water quality standard under §303(c) implies the authority to review other provisions in the same set of regulations. But the CWA does not support this argument, and the groups failed to establish that the entire IWR is either a reviewable new or revised water quality standard or a reviewable list of impaired waters. The groups also alleged that EPA should have disapproved the IWR because it lacked an antidegradation methodology. Again, the court rejected the claim, as the groups failed to explain why, under Florida’s antidegradation policy, a new or revised water quality standard must contain an "antidegradation methodology."