33 U.S.C. § 1312

Water quality related effluent limitations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 33 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Establishment

Whenever, in the judgment of the Administrator or as identified under section 1314(l) of this title, discharges of pollutants from a point source or group of point sources, with the application of effluent limitations required under section 1311(b)(2) of this title, would interfere with the attainment or maintenance of that water quality in a specific portion of the navigable waters which shall assure protection of public health, public water supplies, agricultural and industrial uses, and the protection and propagation of a balanced population of shellfish, fish and wildlife, and allow recreational activities in and on the water, effluent limitations (including alternative effluent control strategies) for such point source or sources shall be established which can reasonably be expected to contribute to the attainment or maintenance of such water quality.

(b) Modifications of effluent limitations(1) Notice and hearing

Prior to establishment of any effluent limitation pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator shall publish such proposed limitation and within 90 days of such publication hold a public hearing.

(2) Permits(A) No reasonable relationship

The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, may issue a permit which modifies the effluent limitations required by subsection (a) of this section for pollutants other than toxic pollutants if the applicant demonstrates at such hearing that (whether or not technology or other alternative control strategies are available) there is no reasonable relationship between the economic and social costs and the benefits to be obtained (including attainment of the objective of this chapter) from achieving such limitation.

(B) Reasonable progress

The Administrator, with the concurrence of the State, may issue a permit which modifies the effluent limitations required by subsection (a) of this section for toxic pollutants for a single period not to exceed 5 years if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Administrator that such modified requirements (i) will represent the maximum degree of control within the economic capability of the owner and operator of the source, and (ii) will result in reasonable further progress beyond the requirements of section 1311(b)(2) of this title toward the requirements of subsection (a) of this section.

The establishment of effluent limitations under this section shall not operate to delay the application of any effluent limitation established under section 1311 of this title.

(June 30, 1948, ch. 758, title III, § 302, as added Pub. L. 92–500, § 2, Oct. 18, 1972, 86 Stat. 846; amended Pub. L. 100–4, title III, § 308(e), Feb. 4, 1987, 101 Stat. 39.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1987—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 100–4, § 308(e)(2), inserted “or as identified under section 1314(l) of this title” after “Administrator” and “public health,” after “protection of”.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 100–4, § 308(e)(1), amended subsec. (b) generally. Prior to amendment, subsec. (b) read as follows:

“(1) Prior to establishment of any effluent limitation pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, the Administrator shall issue notice of intent to establish such limitation and within ninety days of such notice hold a public hearing to determine the relationship of the economic and social costs of achieving any such limitation or limitations, including any economic or social dislocation in the affected community or communities, to the social and economic benefits to be obtained (including the attainment of the objective of this chapter) and to determine whether or not such effluent limitations can be implemented with available technology or other alternative control strategies.

“(2) If a person affected by such limitation demonstrates at such hearing that (whether or not such technology or other alternative control strategies are available) there is no reasonable relationship between the economic and social costs and the benefits to be obtained (including attainment of the objective of this chapter), such limitation shall not become effective and the Administrator shall adjust such limitation as it applies to such person.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 62 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1975–2025 · leading case: Loper Bright Enter. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Loper Bright Enter. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024). “, 33 U. S. C. § 1312 (a) (requiring establishment of effuent limi- tations “[w]henever, in the judgment of the [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] Administrator .”

Iowa League of Cities v. Env't Prot. Agency, 711 F.3d 844 (8th Cir. 2013). · cites it 2× “33 U.S.C. § 1312 (a). Thus, the CWA is a program of state and federal cooperation, but state discretion is exercised against a backdrop of significant EPA authority over state-run NPDES programs.”

Am. Textile Mfrs. Inst., Inc. v. Donovan, 452 U.S. 490 (1981). · cites it 2× “III); Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1312 (b) (1), (2), 1314 (b) (1) (B); Clean Water Act of 1977, 33 U.”

Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Se. Alaska Conservation Council, 557 U.S. 261 (2009). · cites it 2× “§1311 (a); CWA §302, 33 U. S. C. §1312 ; CWA §306, 33 U. S. C.”

Dep't of Fin. v. Comm'n on State Mandates, 378 P.3d 356 (Cal. 2016). · cites it 2× “§§ 1328 , 1342, 1344); (2) established effluent limitations or standards (see 33 U.S.C. §§ 1312 , 1317); or (3) established national standards of performance (see 33 U.”

Citizens Coal Council & Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 447 F.3d 879 (6th Cir. 2006). · cites it 3× “§ 1362 (11) (emphasis added); see also 33 U.S.C. § 1312 (a) (stating that “[w]henever, in the judgment of the Administrator .”

Miguel Moctezuma-Reyes v. Merrick B. Garland, 124 F.4th 416 (6th Cir. 2024). · cites it 2× “For example, the Court cited a provision of the Clean Water Act empowering the EPA to establish pollution limits that “in [its] judgment” protect “public health.”

Nw. Env't Advocates, a Non-Profit Oregon Corp. & Nina Bell v. City of Portland, 11 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 1993). · cites it 3× “7 33 U.S.C. § 1312 ; 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311 (b)(1)(C) (requiring by 1977 any more stringent standard for effluent limitations necessary to meet water quality standards); 40 C.”

Nat. Resources Def. Council, Inc. v. Costle, 568 F.2d 1369 (D.C. Cir. 1977). · cites it 2× “Section 306, 33 U.S.C. § 1316 (Supp. V 1975), instructs the EPA Administrator to promulgate standards of performance for new sources of pollution constructed after those standards are proposed.”

Ford Motor Co. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, & State of Michigan, Intervenor, 567 F.2d 661 (6th Cir. 1977). · cites it 3× “Moreover, the EPA Administrator, after issuing notice and holding a public hearing, has authority to establish more restrictive effluent limitations to “discharges of pollutants from a point source or group of point sources” which (even though the effluent limitations under §…”

Frilling v. Vill. of Anna, 924 F. Supp. 821 (S.D. Ohio 1996). · cites it 4× “§ 1345 , by its discharge of sewer sludge into Clay Creek (Count Five, sewer sludge CWA violations, against Defendant Village); Defendant Village has violated and will continue to violate state water quality standards in violation of 33 U.S.C. § 1312 , 3 as those standards are…”

Maryland Dep't of Env't v. Anacostia Riverkeeper, 134 A.3d 892 (Md. 2016). “See 33 U.S.C. § 1312 . 9 . An infiltration practice "is characterized by a depression to form an infiltration basin where sediment is trapped and water infiltrates the soil.”

Show all 62 citing cases →

— 33 U.S.C. § 1312(a) — 1 case

McClellan Ecological Seepage Situation v. Weinberger, 707 F. Supp. 1182 (E.D. Cal. 1988).

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.