Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 California opinions name it 3 courts 2005–2017 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by California courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Building Industry Ass'n v. State Water Resources Control Boardgreen2 sentences2016(See Building Industry Assn. of San Diego County v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 866, 889 (Building Industry Assn.) [explaining that ―the maximum extent practicable standard is a highly flexible concept that depends on balancing numerous factors, including the particular control‘s technical feasibility, cost, public acceptance, regulatory compliance, and effectiveness‖].) It also suggests a lack of understanding of two interrelated matters on which the Regional Board likely has expertise: the consequences of the measures included as permit conditions relative to any 2016(See Building Industry Assn. of San Diego County v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 866, 889 [ 22 Cal.Rptr.3d 128 ] (Building Industry Assn.) [explaining that “the maximum extent practicable standard is a highly flexible concept that depends on balancing numerous factors, including the particular control’s technical feasibility, cost, public acceptance, regulatory compliance, and effectiveness”].) It also suggests a lack of understanding of two interrelated matters on which the Regional Board likely has expertise: the consequences of the measures included as permit con | 1 | 3 |
Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Board of Equalizationgreen2 sentences2016(See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 7 [explaining that ―the binding power of an agency‘s interpretation of a statute or regulation is contextual: Its power to persuade is both circumstantial and dependent on the presence or absence of factors that support the merit of the interpretation‖].) In this case, the Regional Board informed localities that, in its view, the various permit conditions it imposed would satisfy the maximum extent practicable standard. 2016(See Yamaha Corp. of America v. State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4th 1, 7 [ 78 Cal.Rptr.2d 1 , 960 P.2d 1031 ] [explaining that “the binding power of an agency’s interpretation of a statute or regulation is contextual: Its power to persuade is both circumstantial and dependent on the presence or absence of factors that support the merit of the interpretation”].) In this case, the Regional Board informed localities that, in its view, the various permit conditions it imposed would satisfy the maximum extent practicable standard. | 1 | 1 |
Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club v. Collinsgreen2 sentences2006The Cities say they disagree with BIA, but they develop no argument revealing any flaw in the opinion. “[P]arties are required *1429 to include argument and citation to authority in their briefs, and the absence of these necessary elements allows this court to treat appellant’s . . . issue as waived.” (Interinsurance Exchange v. Collins (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1448 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 126 ].) The Cities’ reliance on Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1159 , for the proposition that municipalities, unlike private companies, may not be required to strictly comply with num 2006The Cities say they disagree with BIA, but they develop no argument revealing any flaw in the opinion. “[P]arties are required *1429 to include argument and citation to authority in their briefs, and the absence of these necessary elements allows this court to treat appellant’s . . . issue as waived.” (Interinsurance Exchange v. Collins (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1448 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 126 ].) The Cities’ reliance on Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1159 , for the proposition that municipalities, unlike private companies, may not be required to strictly comply with num | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in California. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
cluster 783666
green
2 sentences2013In Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A. (9th Cir. 2003) 344 F.3d 832 (Environmental Defense Center), the Ninth Circuit considered a challenge to a ―Phase II‖ EPA rule for small municipal storm sewer systems. 2005Council, Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A., supra, 966 F.2d at p. 1308 ; Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A. (9th Cir. 2003) 344 F.3d 832 .) Neither of these decisions addressed the issue of the scope of a regulatory agency’s authority to exceed the maximum extent practicable standard in issuing NPDES permits for municipal storm sewers. 14 Because we are not presented with a proper appellate challenge, we do not address the trial court’s factual determinations in this case concerning whether it is possible or practical for a Municipality to achieve any specific Permit requirement. 15 The Clean | 3 | 2005–2013 |
Arkansas v. Oklahoma
green
2 sentences2013(See Arkansas v. Oklahoma, supra, 503 U.S. at p. 101 .) The EPA gives the states guidance in drafting water- quality standards and ―state authorities periodically review water quality standards and secure the EPA‘s approval of any revisions in the standards.‖ (Ibid.) 32 Finally, the maximum extent practicable standard is designed to require states to meet their Clean Water Act obligations. 2013(See Arkansas v. Oklahoma, supra, 503 U.S. at p. 101 .) The EPA gives the states guidance in drafting water- quality standards and ―state authorities periodically review water quality standards and secure the EPA‘s approval of any revisions in the standards.‖ (Ibid.) 32 Finally, the maximum extent practicable standard is designed to require states to meet their Clean Water Act obligations. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
County of Los Angeles v. California State Water Resources Control Board
green
2 sentences2013Finally, the Department of Finance argued the Regional Board‘s findings regarding what was necessary to implement the maximum extent practicable standard had previously been litigated in County of Los Angeles v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 985 and previously upheld by Division Five. 2013Finally, the Department of Finance argued the Regional Board‘s findings regarding what was necessary to implement the maximum extent practicable standard had previously been litigated in County of Los Angeles v. State Water Resources Control Bd. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 985 and previously upheld by Division Five. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates
green
2 sentences2013Federal Mandates and “Maximum Extent Practicable” The County contends that the trial court erred in finding that the Permit obligations were federal mandates because (1) the court in County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th 898 , previously determined the mandate issue; (2) the trial court erred in finding that the Commission failed to consider the maximum extent practicable standard; and (3) the Commission‘s decision is supported by substantial evidence. 2013Federal Mandates and “Maximum Extent Practicable” The County contends that the trial court erred in finding that the Permit obligations were federal mandates because (1) the court in County of Los Angeles v. Commission on State Mandates, supra, 150 Cal.App.4th 898 , previously determined the mandate issue; (2) the trial court erred in finding that the Commission failed to consider the maximum extent practicable standard; and (3) the Commission‘s decision is supported by substantial evidence. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Boeken v. PHILIP MORRIS USA, INC.
green
2 sentences2013(See Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 797 .) 37 As our discussion of the federal mandate issue demonstrates, the Permit, although issued by a state agency under enabling Water Code provisions, is a federal permit that implements federal law in the form of the maximum extent practicable standard. 2013(See Boeken v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.4th at p. 797 .) 37 As our discussion of the federal mandate issue demonstrates, the Permit, although issued by a state agency under enabling Water Code provisions, is a federal permit that implements federal law in the form of the maximum extent practicable standard. | 2 | 2013–2013 |
Department of Finance v. Commission on State Mandates
green
2 sentences2017Instead, ... the [Los Angeles] Regional Board had discretion to fashion requirements which it determined would meet the CWA's maximum extent practicable standard." ( Department of Finance , supra , 1 Cal.5th at pp. 767-768, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 44 , 378 P.3d 356 , original italics.) *859 The State contended the Commission decided the existence of a federal mandate on grounds that were too rigid. 2017Instead, ... the [Los Angeles] Regional Board had discretion to fashion requirements which it determined would meet the CWA's maximum extent practicable standard." ( Department of Finance , supra , 1 Cal.5th at pp. 767-768, 207 Cal.Rptr.3d 44 , 378 P.3d 356 , original italics.) *859 The State contended the Commission decided the existence of a federal mandate on grounds that were too rigid. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
cluster 766202
green
1 sentence2006The Cities say they disagree with BIA, but they develop no argument revealing any flaw in the opinion. “[P]arties are required *1429 to include argument and citation to authority in their briefs, and the absence of these necessary elements allows this court to treat appellant’s . . . issue as waived.” (Interinsurance Exchange v. Collins (1994) 30 Cal.App.4th 1445, 1448 [ 37 Cal.Rptr.2d 126 ].) The Cities’ reliance on Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner (9th Cir. 1999) 191 F.3d 1159 , for the proposition that municipalities, unlike private companies, may not be required to strictly comply with num | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Battery Council International, Respondents-Intervenors
green
1 sentence2005Council, Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A., supra, 966 F.2d at p. 1308 ; Environmental Defense Center, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A. (9th Cir. 2003) 344 F.3d 832 .) Neither of these decisions addressed the issue of the scope of a regulatory agency’s authority to exceed the maximum extent practicable standard in issuing NPDES permits for municipal storm sewers. 14 Because we are not presented with a proper appellate challenge, we do not address the trial court’s factual determinations in this case concerning whether it is possible or practical for a Municipality to achieve any specific Permit requirement. 15 The Clean | 1 | 2005–2005 |
cluster 759542
green
2 sentences2005(See Texas Oil & Gas Ass’n v. U.S. E.P.A. (5th Cir. 1998) 161 F.3d 923, 928 .) If the maximum extent practicable standard is generally “less stringent” than another Clean Water Act standard that relies on available technologies, it would be unreasonable to conclude that anything more stringent than the maximum extent practicable standard is necessarily impossible. 2005(See Texas Oil & Gas Ass’n v. U.S. E.P.A. (5th Cir. 1998) 161 F.3d 923, 928 .) If the maximum extent practicable standard is generally “less stringent” than another Clean Water Act standard that relies on available technologies, it would be unreasonable to conclude that anything more stringent than the maximum extent practicable standard is necessarily impossible. | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.