## Facts

- Champion International Corporation operated a pulp and paper mill in Canton, North Carolina, discharging treated effluent into the Pigeon River, which flows into Tennessee.
- Tennessee officials alleged Champion’s discharges caused excessive color in Tennessee waters and violated Tennessee water quality standards, and they complained to North Carolina about the existing permit.
- North Carolina, Tennessee, and EPA negotiated over a revised NPDES permit; North Carolina issued a revised permit for Champion.
- EPA formally objected to the state-issued permit, asserting it inadequately addressed Tennessee’s downstream concerns, failed to satisfy federal color-control requirements, and did not clearly require compliance with applicable color standards.
- North Carolina did not modify the permit to satisfy EPA’s objections.
- EPA notified Champion that it would assume permitting authority and issue the permit itself under the Clean Water Act amendments.
- Champion sued in federal district court for declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing EPA lacked authority to displace North Carolina’s permitting authority.

## Issues

1. Whether the Clean Water Act authorizes EPA to object to a state-issued NPDES permit and assume permitting authority when the state does not resolve EPA’s objections implicating interstate water-quality impacts.
2. Whether a district court may review the merits of EPA’s objections to a state-issued permit before EPA takes final permitting action (issuance or denial of a federal permit).

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit held that EPA acted within its statutory authority in objecting to North Carolina’s permit and assuming permitting authority after the state failed to revise the permit.
- The court held the district court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction to review the merits of EPA’s objections because EPA had not yet taken final agency action on the permit.
- The court vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction to the extent the case sought premature merits review.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Clean Water Act, as amended in 1977, EPA may object to a state-issued NPDES permit and, if the state does not cure the objections, assume authority to issue the permit itself, including where downstream interstate effects are alleged.
- EPA’s objection authority is not limited to circumstances where a state permit is “clearly” unlawful; Congress provided EPA broader supervisory discretion to prevent unduly lenient state permitting in interstate pollution disputes.
- An EPA objection to a state-issued permit, coupled with assumption of permitting authority, is not “final agency action” for purposes of immediate merits review.
- Judicial review of the merits of EPA permitting determinations must await final EPA action (permit issuance or denial) and proceeds in the court of appeals under Clean Water Act § 509(b), not in district court.

## Conclusion

The court upheld EPA’s power to object to a state NPDES permit and take over permitting when interstate water-quality concerns remain unresolved, but required regulated entities to wait for EPA’s final permit decision before obtaining judicial review of the substance of EPA’s objections.


Champion Int’l Corp. v. U.S. Env’t Prot. Agency, 850 F.2d 182 (4th Cir. 1988)