40 C.F.R. § 131.13

General policies

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

States may, at their discretion, include in their State standards, policies generally affecting their application and implementation, such as mixing zones, low flows and variances. Such policies are subject to EPA review and approval.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases, 1989–2020 · leading case: Iowa League of Cities v. Env't Prot. Agency, 711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Iowa League of Cities v. Env't Prot. Agency, 711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013). · cites it 4× “See 40 C.F.R. § 131.13 (“States may, at their discretion, include in their State standards, policies generally affecting their application and implementation, such as mixing zones.”

Florida Pub. Interest Rsch. Grp. Citizen Lobby, Inc. v. Env't Prot. Agency, 386 F.3d 1070 (11th Cir. 2004). · cites it 3× “§ 1313 or 40 C.F.R. § 131.13 . It then granted final summary judgment to the defendants.”

Am. Wildlands v. Browner, 260 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2001). · cites it 3× “” 40 C.F.R. § 131.13 . Mixing zones are “areas where an effluent discharge undergoes initial dilution and are extended to cover the secondary mixing in the ambient water body.”

Riverkeeper, Inc. v. New York State Dep't of Env't Conservation, 2017 NY Slip Op 5778 (N.Y. App. Div. 2017). “3; see also 40 CFR 131.13), and such a zone will pass muster so long as it is defined in scope, does “not interfere with spawning areas, nursery areas and fish migration routes” (6 NYCRR 704.”

Waterkeepers N. California v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 126 Cal. Rptr. 2d 389 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002). “( 40 C.F.R. § 131.13 (2002).) Under this authority, the State Board drafted the Toxics Standards Implementation Policy to establish comprehensive, statewide implementation procedures for priority pollutant criteria contained in the California Toxics Rule, the National Toxics…”

Nw. Env't Advocates v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1199 (D. Or. 2012). “See 40 C.F.R. § 131.13 (“[Pjolicies generally affecting [the] application and implementation” of water quality standards “such as mixing zones, low flows, and variances” are subject to EPA review and approval).”

City of Dover, New Hampshire v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 956 F. Supp. 2d 272 (D.D.C. 2013). “See 40 C.F.R. § 131.13 (“States may, at their discretion, include in their State standards, policies generally affecting their application and implementation, such as mixing zones, low flows and variances.”

Miners Advocacy Council, Inc. v. State, Dep't of Env't Conservation, 778 P.2d 1126 (Alaska 1989). “032; 40 C.F.R. § 131.13 . TFA also states in its brief: "While not conceding that the use of mixing zones is legal, we do not raise this argument here.”

Catskill Mountains Chapter of Trout Unlimited, Inc. v. City of New York, 451 F.3d 77 (2d Cir. 2006). “40 C.F.R. § 131.13 ; N.Y. Comp.Codes R. & Regs.”

Am. Wildlands v. Browner, 94 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (D. Colo. 2000). “” 40 C.F.R. § 131.13 (1999). Montana’s code defines “interested person” as “a person who has a real property interest, a water right, or an economic interest that is or may be directly and adversely affected by the department’s preliminary decision regarding degradation of state…”

Upper Missouri Waterkeeper v. United States Env't Prot. Agency (D. Mont. 2020). “See 40 C.F.R. §§ 131.13 ; 131.14. Congress directed a state to submit its WQS package to EPA in the second step of WQS development for a round of cooperative review and development.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.