## Facts

- Georgia had identified waters needing pollution limits under the Clean Water Act (CWA) but had developed very few total maximum daily loads (TMDLs).
- Environmental organizations sued the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to compel action regarding Georgia TMDLs.
- The parties entered a 1997 consent decree setting a timetable for EPA to establish 124 TMDLs for Georgia waters, with completion by 2004.
- EPA established TMDLs on the decree’s schedule, but implementation measures lagged; Georgia’s progress toward meeting water quality standards remained limited.
- The plaintiffs moved to reopen and enforce the decree, seeking an order requiring EPA to develop TMDL implementation plans or ensure the adequacy of state-developed plans.
- The district court concluded the decree required EPA to develop implementation plans or ensure Georgia’s plans were adequate, and ordered EPA to do so.
- EPA appealed, arguing the district court had imposed obligations not found in the consent decree or the CWA.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court’s order was a permissible interpretation of the consent decree or an appealable modification of it.
2. If the order was a modification, whether the district court abused its discretion by requiring EPA to develop or ensure TMDL implementation plans for Georgia waters.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit held the district court’s order was a modification of the consent decree, not a mere interpretation, and was therefore appealable.
- The Eleventh Circuit reversed, holding the district court abused its discretion by modifying the decree to impose EPA implementation-plan duties not grounded in the decree’s text or the CWA.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate decision.

## Legal Principles

- A consent decree is construed largely as a contract; a court may interpret and enforce its terms but may not impose new substantive obligations absent a proper basis for modification.
- An order that adds duties materially beyond the decree’s terms constitutes a modification, subject to appellate review and evaluated under an abuse-of-discretion standard.
- Under the CWA’s TMDL framework, EPA must approve or establish TMDLs when required, but primary responsibility for implementation ordinarily rests with the state, absent a clear statutory directive to the contrary.
- Policy concerns about slow state implementation do not justify rewriting a decree to reallocate statutory responsibilities between state and federal actors.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit ruled that the district court improperly modified a consent decree by requiring EPA to create or ensure TMDL implementation plans for Georgia, because the decree required EPA to establish TMDLs on a schedule and the CWA generally places implementation responsibility on the state.


Sierra Club v. Meiburg, 296 F.3d 1021 (11th Cir. 2002)