## Facts

- Congress created the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, with EPA as the default permit issuer and optional state administration subject to EPA approval.
- EPA approved California’s request to administer an NPDES permit program but did not approve Washington’s proposed program.
- Federal installations in states with operating NPDES programs discharged pollutants into state waters, raising questions about whether their discharge permits must be issued by the state or by EPA.
- California, Washington, and other state entities sought judicial review after EPA actions affecting state program administration and federal-facility permitting.
- The Ninth Circuit held that federal facilities were subject to state regulation, including a requirement to obtain state-issued NPDES permits.
- EPA sought Supreme Court review.

## Issues

1. Whether § 313 of the 1972 Amendments requires federal installations discharging pollutants in a state with an EPA-approved NPDES program to obtain discharge permits from the state rather than from EPA.
2. Whether Congress clearly and unambiguously authorized states to exercise permitting authority over federal facilities through state NPDES permits.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit.
- Federal installations must comply with substantive state and local water-pollution control requirements, but § 313 does not require them to obtain NPDES permits from a state administering an EPA-approved program.
- NPDES permits for federal facilities are to be obtained from EPA unless Congress unmistakably provides otherwise.
- The Court relied on constitutional limits on direct state regulation of the federal government and applied a clear-statement requirement for congressional authorization of state control over federal facilities.
- A brief dissent would have permitted a broader reading of § 313 allowing state permitting authority over federal facilities.

## Legal Principles

- Federal installations are subject to state regulation only to the extent Congress clearly and unambiguously authorizes it.
- Statutory language requiring federal facilities to comply with state “requirements” respecting pollution control covers substantive standards (such as effluent limitations), but does not necessarily include submission to state permit-issuing authority.
- Courts will not infer from ambiguous statutory text that Congress intended to allow states to control federal operations through permitting mechanisms that could delay or condition federal activities.
- The NPDES structure preserves EPA’s central permitting role for federal facilities absent an unmistakable directive transferring permit issuance to states.

## Conclusion

The Court held that § 313 subjects federal facilities to substantive state water-pollution standards but does not require them to obtain state-issued NPDES permits; absent clear congressional authorization, permitting for federal installations remains with EPA.


United States Environmental Protection Agency v. California ex rel. State Water Resources Control Bd., 426 U.S. 200 (1976)