§Why CasetextPricing

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE v. COMMISSION ON STATE MANDATES (COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES)

Real Parties in Interest, City of Bellflower, City of Carson, City of Commerce, City of Covina, City of Downey, City of Signal Hill, and County of Los Angeles, Petition for Review

36 Cited authorities

  1. Arkansas v. Oklahoma

    503 U.S. 91 (1992)   Cited 600 times
    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"

  2. International Paper Co. v. Ouellette

    479 U.S. 481 (1987)   Cited 455 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Clean Water Act does not preclude aggrieved individuals from bringing a "nuisance claim pursuant to the law of the source State"

  3. Pud No. 1 of Jefferson County v. Washington Department of Ecology

    511 U.S. 700 (1994)   Cited 162 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, to achieve goals of CWA, EPA is required to “establish and enforce technology-based limitations on individual discharges into the country's navigable waters from point sources”

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

    344 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2003)   Cited 169 times   5 Legal Analyses
    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”

  5. Voices of Wetlands v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

    52 Cal.4th 499 (Cal. 2011)   Cited 111 times   4 Legal Analyses
    In Wetlands, the trial court concluded that the agency's decision was "not sufficiently supported by the original administrative record.

  6. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc. v. Cnty. of L.A.

    725 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2013)   Cited 70 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an NPDES permit must include compliance monitoring measures

  7. City of Burbank v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

    35 Cal.4th 613 (Cal. 2005)   Cited 59 times
    Noting that "[u]nder the federal Clean Water Act, each state is free to enforce its own water quality laws so long as its effluent limitations are not `less stringent' than those set out in the Clean Water Act." The court also noted that in California, wastewater discharge requirements established by the regional boards are the equivalent of the NPDES permits required by federal law for enforcing effluent limitations and standards under the CWA.

  8. City of Arcadia v. State Water Resources Control Bd.

    135 Cal.App.4th 1392 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 43 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding sufficient consideration of economic effect of total daily maximum loads for trash restriction imposed in 2001 permit

  9. Building Industry Ass'n v. State Water Resources Control Board

    124 Cal.App.4th 866 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)   Cited 42 times
    Rejecting arguments that “under federal law the ‘maximum extent practicable’ standard is the ‘exclusive’ measure that may be applied to municipal storm sewer discharges and a regulatory agency may not require a Municipality to comply with a state water quality standard if the required controls exceed a ‘maximum extent practicable’ standard”

  10. City v. Regional Water Quality Control Bd.

    135 Cal.App.4th 1377 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 32 times
    Dismissing claim against State Board because the plaintiff's "allegations did not articulate any improper State Board conduct"

  11. Section 1251 - Congressional declaration of goals and policy

    33 U.S.C. § 1251   Cited 3,543 times   61 Legal Analyses
    Designating the Administrator of the EPA to "administer this chapter"

  12. Section 1401 - Definitions

    20 U.S.C. § 1401   Cited 2,871 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining such plans

  13. Section 1311 - Effluent limitations

    33 U.S.C. § 1311   Cited 1,969 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Imposing general prohibition on "the discharge of any pollutant by any person"

  14. Section 1342 - National pollutant discharge elimination system

    33 U.S.C. § 1342   Cited 1,477 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Granting EPA the authority to require a permit for such discharges

  15. Section 1362 - Definitions

    33 U.S.C. § 1362   Cited 1,163 times   101 Legal Analyses
    Defining “pollutant” to include “rock”

  16. Section 1313 - Water quality standards and implementation plans

    33 U.S.C. § 1313   Cited 545 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Requiring a State to submit new or revised water regulations for EPA's review

  17. Section 1370 - State authority

    33 U.S.C. § 1370   Cited 162 times
    Stating that "nothing in this chapter shall preclude or deny the right of any State or political subdivision thereof . . . to adopt or enforce any standard or limitation respecting discharges of pollutants" unless the standard is less stringent than an existing standard

  18. Section 122.2 - Definitions

    40 C.F.R. § 122.2   Cited 192 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Defining a person as, among other things, a "State or Federal agency"

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

    40 C.F.R. § 122.26   Cited 183 times   39 Legal Analyses
    Requiring permits for discharges from oil and gas activities that contribute to a violation of a water quality standard

  20. Section 123.1 - Purpose and scope

    40 C.F.R. § 123.1   Cited 36 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) This part specifies the procedures EPA will follow in approving, revising, and withdrawing State programs and the requirements State programs must meet to be approved by the Administrator under sections 318, 402, and 405(a) (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System-NPDES) of the CWA. This part also specifies the procedures EPA will follow in approving, revising, and withdrawing State programs under section 405(f) (sludge management programs) of the CWA. The requirements that a State sewage

  21. Section 124.10 - Public notice of permit actions and public comment period

    40 C.F.R. § 124.10   Cited 35 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth specific public notice and comment requirements for the EPA

  22. Section 123.44 - EPA review of and objections to State permits

    40 C.F.R. § 123.44   Cited 33 times

    (a) (1) The Memorandum of Agreement shall provide a period of time (up to 90 days from receipt of proposed permits) to which the Regional Administrator may make general comments upon, objections to, or recommendations with respect to proposed permits. EPA reserves the right to take 90 days to supply specific grounds for objection, notwithstanding any shorter period specified in the Memorandum of Agreement, when a general objection is filed within the review period specified in the Memorandum of Agreement

  23. Section 124.6 - Draft permits

    40 C.F.R. § 124.6   Cited 24 times

    (a) (Applicable to State programs, see §§ 123.25 (NPDES), 145.11 (UIC), 233.26 (404), and 271.14 (RCRA).) Once an application is complete, the Director shall tentatively decide whether to prepare a draft permit (except in the case of State section 404 permits for which no draft permit is required under § 233.39 ) or to deny the application. (b) If the Director tentatively decides to deny the permit application, he or she shall issue a notice of intent to deny. A notice of intent to deny the permit

  24. Section 122.34 - Permit requirements for regulated small MS4 permits

    40 C.F.R. § 122.34   Cited 19 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Mandating compliance with the requirements, standards and conditions "developed consistent with the provisions of §§ 122.41 through 122.49"

  25. Section 124.8 - Fact sheet

    40 C.F.R. § 124.8   Cited 17 times
    Requiring the EPA or state authority to issue a fact sheet for every draft permit setting forth "the principal facts and the significant factual, legal, methodological and policy questions considered in preparing the draft permit"

  26. Section 123.63 - Criteria for withdrawal of State programs

    40 C.F.R. § 123.63   Cited 11 times
    Listing circumstances for which the Administrator may withdraw program approval

  27. Section 123.64 - Procedures for withdrawal of State programs

    40 C.F.R. § 123.64   Cited 9 times

    (a) A State with a program approved under this part (or, in the case of a sewage sludge management program, 40 CFR part 501 ) may voluntarily transfer program responsibilities required by Federal law to EPA by taking the following actions, or in such other manner as may be agreed upon with the Administrator. (1) The State shall give the Administrator 180 days notice of the proposed transfer and shall submit a plan for the orderly transfer of all relevant program information not in the possession