## Facts

- The State Water Control Board, on behalf of Virginia and local governments operating publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), faced the Clean Water Act requirement that POTWs meet secondary-treatment effluent limits by July 1, 1977.
- Virginia municipalities expected to finance required upgrades largely through a federal construction grants program intended to cover up to 75% of eligible costs.
- Grant funding was slower and lower than anticipated, and many municipalities had not received sufficient grant money to start or finish needed construction by the 1977 deadline.
- The Board asserted that Congress designed the regulatory deadlines and the grants program as linked, and that enforcing the deadline without adequate grant funding was inconsistent with congressional intent and inequitable.
- The EPA Administrator and an intervening riparian landowner argued that the statutory effluent limits and deadlines applied regardless of grant availability.

## Issues

1. Whether § 301(b)(1)(B) required POTWs to comply with the July 1, 1977 secondary-treatment effluent limitations even if federal construction grants covering 75% of eligible costs were unavailable, delayed, or insufficient.
2. Whether a court could declare the 1977 deadline inapplicable until adequate federal grant funding was authorized and made available, plus additional time to complete construction.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the EPA Administrator (and the intervenor).
- POTWs were required to comply with § 301(b)(1)(B) by July 1, 1977 regardless of the receipt, timing, or adequacy of federal construction grants.
- The court rejected declaratory and injunctive relief that would have conditioned compliance on grant funding.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory effluent limitations and compliance deadlines stated in § 301(b)(1)(B) are mandatory and operate independently of Title II construction grant funding.
- Courts will not add a funding-contingency condition to a statutory deadline absent explicit statutory text.
- Legislative history and policy considerations cannot override clear statutory requirements, particularly where Congress considered and rejected funding-based conditions.
- Any adjustment of Clean Water Act compliance deadlines based on fiscal conditions is a legislative choice for Congress, not a judicial remedy.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit held that the Clean Water Act’s July 1, 1977 secondary-treatment deadline for POTWs remained enforceable even when federal construction grants were delayed or insufficient, because Congress did not condition § 301 compliance obligations on grant funding.


State Water Control Bd. v. Train, 559 F.2d 921 (4th Cir. 1977)