Burlington v. Dague

Holding that the contingency aspect of a case cannot be considered when determining a statutory fee award

TRW Inc. v. Andrews

Holding a cardinal principal of statutory interpretation is that “no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant”

Arkansas v. Oklahoma

Holding that when using the substantial evidence standard, courts of appeals "should not supplant [an] agency's findings merely by identifying alternative findings that could be supported by substantial evidence"

Milwaukee v. Illinois

Holding that amendments to the Clean Water Act displaced the nuisance claim recognized in Milwaukee I

Andrus v. Glover Construction Co.

Declining to recognize an additional exception where statute recites explicitly enumerated exceptions to a general prohibition, even where no other exception would be rendered superfluous by the addition

South Fla. Water Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe

Holding that the transfer of polluted water between “two parts of the same water body” does not constitute a discharge of pollutants under the CWA

Environmental Defense Ctr., Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A.

Holding that the compelled disclosure of educational materials about the hazards of stormwater discharges and the proper disposal of waste “involve[d] no compelled recitation of a message and no affirmation of belief” because “[i]nforming the public about safe toxin disposal is non-ideological,” and nothing prohibited a regulated entity “from stating its own views about the proper means of managing toxic materials”

Piney Run Pres. v. County Com. of Carroll Cty

Holding that while a Clean Water Act permit provision "makes clear that compliance with a permit constitutes an exception to the general strict liability of the CWA," that provision is ambiguous because it "does not explicitly explain the scope of permit protection"

U.S. v. Phillips

Holding that the PROTECT Act amendments to the standard of review apply retroactively

Dague v. City of Burlington

Holding ISE citizen suit under Section 6972(B), which was more general than a citizens suit under Section 6972 and not dependent upon a specific provision in Subtitle C, was not superseded by state's own hazardous waste program

Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Section 1251 - Congressional declaration of goals and policy

Designating the Administrator of the EPA to "administer this chapter"

Section 1365 - Citizen suits

Granting Administrator right to intervene in citizen suits

Section 1311 - Effluent limitations

Imposing general prohibition on "the discharge of any pollutant by any person"

Section 1342 - National pollutant discharge elimination system

Granting EPA the authority to require a permit for such discharges

Section 1362 - Definitions

Defining “pollutant” to include “rock”

Section 13260 - Report of waste discharge

Section 122.2 - Definitions

Defining a person as, among other things, a "State or Federal agency"

Section 122.26 - Storm water discharges (applicable to State NPDES programs, see Section 123.25)

Requiring permits for discharges from oil and gas activities that contribute to a violation of a water quality standard

Section 122.4 - Prohibitions (applicable to State NPDES programs, see Section 123.25)

Prohibiting NPDES permits for a new source or new discharger "if the discharge . . . will cause or contribute to the violation of water quality standards."

Section 401.15 - Toxic pollutants

Listing copper, arsenic, lead and zinc under Clean Water Act § 307