Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193 (1980). · Go Syfert
Search
Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193 (1980). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 4× by 2 distinct cases · …functionally similar to its denial of a permit in states which do not administer an approved permit-issuing program. ✓
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1986 · 2 courts · …absent a far clearer expression of congressional intent, we are unwilling to read the act as creating such a seemingly irrational bifurcated system. ✓
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases · …would best comport with the congressional goal of ensuring prompt resolution of challenges to epa's actions. ✓
341 citation events (142 in the last 25 years) across 23 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management (scotus, 1985-03-20) · Strongest negative: United States v. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (alnd, 1999-06-08)
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 32 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited "but see" United States v. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (3×)
N.D. Ala. · 1999 · signal: but see · confidence high
But see Crown Simpson Pulp Company v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193 , 197 n. 9, 100 S.Ct. 1093 , 63 L.Ed.2d 312 (1980), holding that § 1369(b)(1) does confer jurisdiction upon a circuit court of appeals to hear a challenge to an EPA’s decision under 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (d)(2) to veto the issuance of a state NPDES permit, and indicating that Save the Bay was distinguishable. 15 .
examined Cited as authority (verbatim quote) Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management (2×)
SCOTUS · 1985 · quote attribution · 2 verbatim quotes · confidence high
absent a far clearer expression of congressional intent, we are unwilling to read the act as creating such a seemingly irrational bifurcated system
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Waterkeeper Alliance v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
9th Cir. · 2025 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
This “rule ensures that an appellate court will review the Administrator’s decision whether the ultimate challenge is to a failure to revise or to a decision to revise.” Id.; cf. Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193, 197 (1980) (rejecting construction of Section 509(b)(1)(F) that would “creat[e] . . . a seemingly irrational bifurcated system” of review “at different levels of the 1040, 1048 (9th Cir. 2010) (“The reviewing court should not attempt itself to make up for [an agency’s] deficiencies: We may not supply a reasoned basis for the agency’s action that the age…
cited Cited as authority (rule) San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission
9th Cir. · 2024 · confidence medium
Id. at 742 (quoting Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193, 197 (1980)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Waterkeeper Alliance v. EPA
6th Cir. · 2016 · confidence medium
In Crown Simpson Pulp Company v. Costle, for example, the Supreme Court blessed jurisdiction in the courts of appeals when the EPA’s action—there, vetoing California’s proposal to grant permits for pulp mills to discharge pollutants into the Pacific Ocean—had the “precise effect” of denying a permit. 445 U.S. 193, 196 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) States of New York, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court has interpreted section 1369(b)(1)(F) to extend jurisdiction to those actions that have “the precise effect” of an action to issue or deny a permit, Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193, 196, 100 S.Ct. 1093, 1095 , 63 L.Ed.2d 312 (1980), but the water-transfer rule has no such effect.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
11th Cir. · 2012 · confidence medium
The Supreme Court has interpreted section 1369(b)(1)(F) to extend jurisdiction to those actions that have “the precise effect” of an action to issue or deny a permit, Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193, 196 , 100 S. Ct. 1093, 1095 (1980), but the water-transfer rule has no such effect.
examined Cited as authority (rule) Northwest Env v. Epa (5×) also: Cited "see"
9th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Section 509(b)(1)(F) [4] Section 509(b)(1)(F) provides for review by a court of appeals of EPA actions “in issuing or denying any permit under section 1342 of this title.” See 33 U.S.C. § 1369 (b)(1)(F) (referring to section 402 of the CWA). [5] In Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193, 196 (1980), the Supreme Court held that section 509(b)(1)(F) also covers EPA actions “functionally similar” to the denial of permits.
examined Cited as authority (rule) American Paper Institute, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (6×) also: Cited "see"
7th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Crown v. Simpson, 445 U.S. at 196 , 100 S.Ct. at 1094 (EPA objection "functionally similar" to denying a proposed permit).
examined Cited as authority (rule) American Paper Institute, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (3×) also: Cited "see"
7th Cir. · 1989 · confidence medium
Crown v. Simpson, 445 U.S. at 196 , 100 S.Ct. at 1094 (EPA objection “functionally similar” to denying a proposed permit).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2×)
6th Cir. · 1986 · confidence medium
Crown Simpson Pulp v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193, 196 (1980); Republic Steel Corp. v. Costle, 581 F.2d 1228 , 1230 n.1 (6th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 909 (1979); Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 567 F.2d 661, 668 (6th Cir. 1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion (2×)
SCOTUS · 1985 · confidence medium
The locus of judicial review would thus depend on the "fortuitous circumstance" of whether an interested person *742 requested a hearing, see Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U. S. 193, 196-197 (1980).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aminoil v. California State Water Resources Control Board
9th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Thus, allowing joinder of the EPA in a state court action could create substantial practical impediments to the EPA's exercise of its supervisory responsibility. 35 Therefore, this is not a case in which construing the Act to preclude state court review of federal agency action "creat(es) ... a seemingly irrational bifurcated system." Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, supra, 445 U.S. at 197 , 100 S.Ct. at 1095 (footnote omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Aminoil U. S. A., Inc. v. California State Water Resources Control Board (2×)
9th Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Therefore, this is not a case in which construing the Act to preclude state court review of federal agency action “creat[es] ... a seemingly irrational bifurcated system.” Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, supra, 445 U.S. at 197, 100 S.Ct. at 1095 (footnote omitted).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) American Industrial Health Council v. Marshall
S.D. Tex. · 1980 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
Cf. Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193, 194-197 , 100 S.Ct. 1093, 1094-95 , 63 L.Ed.2d 312, 315-16 (1980) (per curiam) (when 33 U.S.C. § 1639 (b)(1)(F) vests review of EPA issuance or denial of permit in courts of appeals, EPA objection to state-issued permit also must be reviewable in courts of appeals pursuant to that provision, rather than in district courts; otherwise permits would be reviewable at different levels of federal courts depending on fortuitous circumstance of whether the state in which the case arose was authorized to issue permits, a construction of the Act which…
discussed Cited "see" National Assn. of Mfrs. v. Department of Defense (2×)
SCOTUS · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
See 445 U. S., at 196 .
examined Cited "see" Southern California Alliance of Publicly Owned Treatment Works v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (5×)
9th Cir. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 599 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 1979) (Crown Simpson I), rev’d in part, 445 U.S. 193 , 100 S.Ct. 1093 , 63 L.Ed.2d 312 (1980) (per curiam) (Crown Simpson II).
examined Cited "see" Marquette County Road Commission v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (3×)
W.D. Mich. · 2016 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costie, 445 U.S. 193, 196 , 100 S.Ct. 1093 , 63 L.Ed.2d 312 (1980); Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 567 F.2d 661, 668 (6th Cir.1977).
discussed Cited "see" North Dakota v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2×)
D.N.D. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
See Friends of the Everglades, 699 F.3d at 1287 (citing Crown Simpson Pulp Co., 445 U.S. at 196 , 100 S.Ct. 1093 ). .
examined Cited "see" Hall v. Thomas (3×)
N.D. Ala. · 2010 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193, 196-197 , 100 S.Ct. 1093 , 63 L.Ed.2d 312 (1980) (per curiam) ("Absent a far clearer expression of congressional intent, we are unwilling to read the Act as creating such a seemingly irrational .... system.").
examined Cited "see" Northwest Environmental Advocates v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (8×)
9th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 194-95 , 100 S.Ct. 1093 .
discussed Cited "see" Narragansett Electric Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2×)
1st Cir. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See id. at 196 , 100 S.Ct. 1093 .
examined Cited "see" Florida Power & Light Co. v. United States (3×)
Fed. Cl. · 2005 · signal: see · confidence high
See Tennessee v. Herrington, 806 F.2d 642, 649 (6th Cir.1986) (holding that Congress’ intent of timely implementation of the nuclear waste program would be frustrated by the “seemingly irrational bifurcated system” of reviewing certain portions of the Act in the district courts (those regarding MRS facilities, in Title I, Part C, which the Act also omits from Section 119), and others in the circuit courts, and that the Act should not be so interpreted, lacking clear Congressional intent to the contrary (citing Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193, 197 , 100 S.Ct. 1093 , 63 L.Ed…
examined Cited "see" Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Ass'n v. Horinko (7×)
D.D.C. · 2003 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193, 196 , 100 S.Ct. 1093 , 63 L.Ed.2d 312 (1980) (accepting, implicitly, EPA Region X’s objection to state-issuance of a permit as final agency action).
examined Cited "see" Kitlutsisti v. Arco Alaska, Inc. (3×)
D. Alaska · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193, 197 , 100 S.Ct. 1093, 1095 , 63 L.Ed.2d 312 (1980); National Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 673 F.2d 400 , 405 n. 15 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 879 , 103 S.Ct. 175 , 74 L.Ed.2d 143 (1982); Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 599 F.2d 897 , 905 (9th Cir.1979) (Renfrew, J., concurring), rev’d, 445 U.S. 193 , 100 S.Ct. 1093 , 63 L.Ed.2d 312 (1980) (per curiam decision adopting J.
examined Cited "see" Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (9×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.C. Cir. · 1982 · signal: see · confidence high
See generally Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193 , 100 S.Ct. 1093 , 63 L.Ed.2d 312 (1980) (per curiam).
examined Cited "see" Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. Virginia State Water Control Board (3×)
E.D. Va. · 1980 · signal: see · confidence high
See Crown Simpson Pulp Company v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193 , 100 S.Ct. 1093 , 63 L.Ed.2d 312 (1980) (per curiam); DuPont, supra. While the dicta is persuasive in another context, see infra, the Court is of the view that it does not preclude the jurisdictional basis claimed by the plaintiffs.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Champion International Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2×)
4th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Republic Steel Corp. v. Costle, 581 F.2d 1228 , 1230 n. 1 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 909 (1979), also approved in Crown Simpson, 445 U.S. at 197 n. 9, 100 S.Ct. at 1095 n. 9.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Champion International Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (2×)
4th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Republic Steel Corp. v. Costle, 581 F.2d 1228 , 1230 n. 1 (6th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 909 (1979), also approved in Crown Simpson, 445 U.S. at 197 n. 9, 100 S.Ct. at 1095 n. 9.
examined Cited "see, e.g." National Wildlife Federation v. Consumers Power Co. (3×)
W.D. Mich. · 1987 · signal: see also · confidence low
See District of Columbia v. Schramm, 631 F.2d 854, 859-63 (D.C.Cir. 1980) (holding that the EPA’s decision not to veto a state permit is not reviewable in federal court and that “[t]he state courts are the proper forums for resolving questions about state NPDES permits”); see also Crown Simpson Pulp Co. v. Costle, 445 U.S. 193 , 197 n. 9, 100 S.Ct. 1093 , 1095 n. 9, 63 L.Ed.2d 312 (1980) (indicating agreement with cases holding that “the EPA’s failure to object to a state-issued permit is not reviewable in the courts of appeals under § 509”).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (2×)
6th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 , 105 S.Ct. 1598, 1606 , 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985) (quoting Crown Simpson Pulp Co., 445 U.S. at 197 , 100 S.Ct. at 1095 ).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Tennessee v. Herrington (2×)
6th Cir. · 1986 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729 , 105 S.Ct. 1598, 1606 , 84 L.Ed.2d 643 (1985) (quoting Crown Simpson Pulp Co., 445 U.S. at 197 , 100 S.Ct. at 1095 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
CROWN SIMPSON PULP CO. Et Al.
v.
COSTLE, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
79-797.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 17, 1980.
445 U.S. 193
1980 U.S. LEXIS 28
Per Curiam.
Cited by 65 opinions  |  Published
Per Curiam.

Pursuant to § 301 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Act), as added by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 844, and amended by the Clean Water Act of 1977, 91 Stat. 1582, 33 U. S. C. § 1311 (1976 ed. and Supp. II), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [1] promulgates regulations limiting the amount of. effluent that can be discharged into navigable waters from a category or class of point sources of pollution. Requirements for particular plants or mills are implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)[*194] permits. EPA issues NPDES permits directly except in those States authorized by EPA to issue permits through their own programs. §§ 402 (b), 402 (c) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1342 (b), 1342 (c) (1976 ed. and Supp. II). EPA is notified of the actions taken by state permit-issuing authorities and may veto the issuance of any permit by state authorities by objecting in writing within 90 days. § 402 (d)(2), 33 U. S. C. § 1342 (d)(2) (1976 ed., Supp. II). This case presents the question of whether the EPA’s action denying a variance and disapproving effluent restrictions contained in a permit issued by an authorized state agency is directly reviewable in the United States Court of Appeals under § 509 (b) of the Act, 86 Stat. 892, 33 U. S. C. § 1369 (b). [2]

Petitioners operate bleached kraft pulpmills which discharge pollutants into the Pacific Ocean near Eureka, Cal. In 1976, they sought NPDES permits from the California Regional Water Resources Board, North Coast Region (Regional Board). [3] The Director of EPA’s Region IX Enforcement Division objected to the permits proposed by the Regional Board. Petitioners sought direct review of the EPA’s action in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Those direct review proceedings were stayed pending action by the California State Water Resources Control Board (State Board). The State Board set aside the orders of the Regional Board and proposed to issue new permits in their stead. App. to Pet. for Cert. 54. It granted petitioners’ re[*195] quests for variances from EPA’s effluent limitations [4] for Biochemical Oxygen' Demand (BOD) and pH, but established alternative effluent limitations for BOD and pH to apply in case ÉPA disapproved the variances in the proposed permits. EPA denied the requested variances and vetoed the permits to the extent that they exempted petitioners from full compliance with the BOD and pH effluent limitations. Petitioners brought a direct review action in the Ninth Circuit, which was consolidated with the actions which they had individually filed earlier. [5]

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petitions for lack of jurisdiction. 599 F. 2d 897 (1979). It concluded that it had no jurisdiction under § 509 (b)(1)(E) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1369 (b)(1)(E), which provides for review in the courts of appeals of actions “approving or promulgating any effluent limitation or other limitation. . . .” The Court of Appeals found this subsection inapplicable since EPA did not approve or promulgate anything when it rejected a proposed permit. 599 F. 2d, at 902. Further, the court found that the subsection applied to effluent limitations affecting categories of point sources rather than to decisions affecting particular plants only. Ibid.

The court also found jurisdiction lacking under § 509 (b) (1) (F) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1369 (b)(1)(F), which provides for review in the courts of appeals of EPA actions “in issuing or denying any permit under [§ 402 of the Act]. . . .” [6] The court recognized that in States where EPA itself admin[*196] isters the permit program, this subsection unquestionably provides for direct review in the courts of appeals. 599 F. 2d, at 903. However, because California administers its own permit-issuing program, EPA in the present case did no more than veto an NPDES permit proposed by the state authority. The Court of Appeals found that under its decision in Washington v. EPA, 573 F. 2d 583 (1978) (Scott Paper), EPA’s veto of a state-issued permit did not constitute “issuing or denying” a permit and therefore did not clothe the court with jurisdiction.

District Judge Renfrew, sitting by designation, concurred in the majority’s analysis of § 509 (b)(1) (E), and also agreed that the § 509 (b) (1) (F) question was foreclosed by Scott Paper. 599 F. 2d, at 905. However, Judge Renfrew, believing that Scott Paper was wrongly decided, urged the Court of Appeals to take the present case en banc in order to consider overruling that decision. He argued that vesting jurisdiction in the courts of appeals under § 509 (b)(1)(F) would best comport with the congressional goal of ensuring prompt resolution of challenges to EPA’s actions and would recognize that EPA’s veto of a state-issued permit is functionally similar to its denial of a permit in. States which do not administer an approved permit-issuing program.

We agree with the concurring opinion and hold that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over this action under § 509 (b) (1) (F). [7] When EPA, as here, objects to effluent limitations contained in a state-issued permit, the precise effect of its action is to “den[y]” a permit within the meaning of § 509 (b)(1)(F). Under the contrary construction of the Court of Appeals, denials of NPDES permits would be reviewable at different levels of the federal-court system depending on the fortuitous circumstance of whether the State[*197] in which the case arose was or was not authorized to issue permits. [8] Moreover, the additional level of judicial review in those States with permit-issuing authority would likely cause delays in resolving disputes under the Act. Absent a far clearer expression of congressional intent, we are unwilling to read the Act as creating such a seemingly irrational bifurcated system. [9] We therefore grant the petition for cer-tiorari, reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

So ordered.

1

We refer to the Administrator of EPA and to the Agency itself as EPA.

2

Section 402 was amended in 1977, after the permits in the present case were vetoed, to give EPA the power, which it did not then have, to issue its own permit if the State fails to meet EPA’s objection within a specified time. § 402 (d) (4) of the Act, as added, 91 Stat. 1599, 33 U. S. C. § 1342 (d)(4) (1976 ed., Supp. II). We do not consider the impact, if any, of this amendment on the jurisdictional issue presented herein.

3

The EPA has authorized the State of California to administer the NPDES program through the State Water Resources Control Board. The Regional Board exercises power delegated by the latter agency.

4

EPA’s national effluent limitations for the bleached segment of the American paper industry were substantially upheld in Weyerhaeuser Co. v. Costle, 191 U. S. App. D. C. 309, 590 F. 2d 1011 (1978).

5

The petitions challenging the actions of the Regional Board became moot once the State Board set aside the Regional Board’s orders. The only live administrative decision under review at the time of the Court of Appeals’ decision would appear to be that of the State Board.

6

State-proposed NPDES permits are issued under authority of § 402 (b) of the Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1342 (b) (1976 ed. and Supp. II).

7

Because we find that the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction over this action under § 509 (b) (1) (F), we do not decide whether it might also have had jurisdiction under § 509 (b) (1) (E).

8

Cf. E. I. du Pent de Nemours & Co. v. Train, 430 U. S. 112, 127-128, n. 18 (1977).

9

Our holding is consistent with the approach taken by the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, Republic Steel Corp. v. Costle, 581 F. 2d 1228, 1230, n. 1 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 909 (1979); Ford Motor Co. v. EPA, 567 F. 2d 661, 668 (1977), and with dicta in the Second and Ninth Circuits, Mianus River Preservation Comm. v. Administrator, EPA, 541 F. 2d 899, 909 (CA2 1976); Shell Oil Co. v. Train, 585 F. 2d 408, 412 (CA9 1978). The Court of Appeals in the present case relied on decisions holding that the EPA’s failure to object to a state-issued permit is not reviewable in the courts of appeals under § 509. Save the Bay, Inc. v. Administrator, EPA, 556 F. 2d 1282 (CA5 1977); Mianus River Preservation Comm., supra. However, those cases may be distinguishable because EPA’s failure to object, as opposed to its affirmative veto of a state-issued permit, would not necessarily amount to “Administrator’s action” within the meaning of §509 (b)(1).