Except as expressly provided in this chapter, nothing in this chapter shall (1) preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision thereof or interstate agency to adopt or enforce (A) any standard or limitation respecting discharges of pollutants, or (B) any requirement respecting control or abatement of pollution; except that if an effluent limitation, or other limitation, effluent standard, prohibition, pretreatment standard, or standard of performance is in effect under this chapter, such State or political subdivision or interstate agency may not adopt or enforce any effluent limitation, or other limitation, effluent standard, prohibition, pretreatment standard, or standard of performance which is less stringent than the effluent limitation, or other limitation, effluent standard, prohibition, pretreatment standard, or standard of performance under this chapter; or (2) be construed as impairing or in any manner affecting any right or jurisdiction of the States with respect to the waters (including boundary waters) of such States.
Notes of Decisions
City of Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U.S. 304 (1981).
· cites it 12× “Milwaukee is evident in §§ 510 and 505 (e) of the statute, 33 U. S. C. §§ 1370 , 1365 (e). [19] Section 510 provides that nothing in the Act shall preclude States from adopting and enforcing limitations on the discharge of pollutants more stringent than those adopted under the…”
Int'l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481 (1987).
· cites it 6× “" 33 U. S. C. § 1370 . In addition, § 505(e) states: "Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which any person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or common law to seek enforcement of any effluent standard or limitation or to seek any other relief .”
Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 v. Dep't of Ecology, 146 Wash. 2d 778 (Wash. 2002).
· cites it 3× “§ 1251 (g)) and § 510(2) ( 33 U.S.C. § 1370 (2)) of the Clean Water Act, deferring to state law on water allocation, a condition that may affect the quantity of water available to one who holds an existing water right must be authorized by state law.”
City of Burbank v. State Water Resources Control Bd., 108 P.3d 862 (Cal. 2005).
· cites it 3× “) Under the federal Clean Water Act, each state is free to enforce its own water quality laws so long as its effluent limitations are not "less stringent" than those set out in the Clean Water Act.”
Arkansas v. Oklahoma, 503 U.S. 91 (1992).
· cites it 2× “On remand, Illinois argued that § 510 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U. S. C. § 1370 , expressly preserved the State’s right to adopt and enforce rules that are more stringent than federal standards.”
Dep't of Fin. v. Comm'n on State Mandates, 378 P.3d 356 (Cal. 2016).
· cites it 2× “( 33 U.S.C. § 1370 .) The CWA created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), authorizing the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a permit for any pollutant discharge that will satisfy all requirements established by the CWA or the EPA…”
Pub. Util. DIST. v. State, Dept. of Ecology, 51 P.3d 744 (Wash. 2002).
· cites it 2× “" 33 U.S.C. § 1370 . The District reasons that under § 101(g), conditions affecting the right to use water under a state water right, i.”
State of Minnesota, by Its Attorney Gen., Warren Spannaus, & Its Pollution Control Agency v. Martin R. Hoffman, as Sec'y of the Army, 543 F.2d 1198 (8th Cir. 1976).
· cites it 5× “IV), and § 510, 33 U.S.C. § 1370 (Supp. IV). The former, § 313, requires that: Each department, agency, or instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the Federal Government (1) having jurisdiction over any property or facility, or (2) engaged in any…”
United States v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 965 F. Supp. 769 (E.D. Va. 1997).
· cites it 6× “In defendants’ response, filed March 26, 1997, they address the issues in the United States’ Motion, and also argue that the United States is not entitled to summary judgment with regard to the phosphorus claims because Section 510 of the Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1370 , bars federal…”
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.