Backcountry Against Dumps and Donna Tisdale v. Environmental Protection Agency, Muht-Hei, Inc., Intervenors
Docket: 95-1343
Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit; October 29, 1996; Federal Appellate Court
The case involves Backcountry Against Dumps and Donna Tisdale petitioning against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the approval of a solid waste permitting plan submitted by the Campo Band of Mission Indians. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) requires states to submit such plans for EPA approval but defines Indian tribes as municipalities, without stipulating their ability to submit plans for review. The EPA claimed authority to approve the tribe's plan; however, the court disagreed, ruling that the RCRA does not grant the EPA this authority. Consequently, the court granted the petition for review and vacated the EPA's decision.
RCRA establishes a federal framework for solid waste management, with Subtitle C focused on hazardous waste and Subtitle D on nonhazardous solid waste. Originally, Subtitle D mandated the EPA to set criteria differentiating "landfills" from "open dumps," with the latter being prohibited. Amendments in 1984 required updated criteria for facilities handling hazardous household wastes. The revised criteria, codified at 40 C.F.R. part 258, set minimum standards for municipal solid-waste landfills to protect health and the environment, including location and design standards, groundwater monitoring, and financial assurances. These criteria are self-implementing, meaning compliance is mandatory without regulatory oversight, with violations subject to citizen suits, EPA inspections, and enforcement actions.
Section 6945(c) of the 1984 Amendments mandates that states establish permit programs for landfill facilities to comply with updated criteria. The EPA Administrator assesses whether each state's solid waste permitting plan is adequate, categorizing states as "approved" or "unapproved." Approved states enjoy more flexible design standards compared to unapproved states, which must adhere strictly to federal regulations. For instance, landfill operators must cover disposed waste with six inches of earthen material daily to mitigate health risks. Approved states can permit alternative materials and thicknesses if they prove effective in controlling health hazards.
The term "state" includes various U.S. territories and the District of Columbia, while "municipality" encompasses entities responsible for solid waste management, including Indian tribes, which are eligible for federal funding for such programs and can be subject to citizen suits for violations of the revised criteria.
The Campo Band of Mission Indians, occupying a 23-square-mile reservation in California, is governed by a General Council. In 1990, Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. proposed a 600-acre landfill on the reservation, potentially becoming the largest solid-waste facility on an Indian reservation, with estimated revenues of $1.6 million per year for the tribe. The landfill site is adjacent to non-Indian farms and residences, raising concerns from local residents, including petitioner Donna Tisdale.
In 1990, the tribe's General Council enacted the Tribal Environmental Policy Act and a Solid Waste Management Code, establishing the Campo Environmental Protection Agency (CEPA) to oversee solid waste operations on the reservation and enforce federal environmental laws. The Campo Band Environmental Appeals Court was also created to handle appeals from CEPA decisions. In June 1993, the tribe submitted a draft solid waste program application to the EPA, seeking approval under RCRA section 6945(c), which outlines procedures for state landfill permit approvals. Although RCRA does not explicitly allow tribes to submit such plans, the EPA issued a Final Determination of Adequacy, treating the tribe similarly to a state and concluding that its regulations met or exceeded federal standards.
Petitioners contested the EPA's authority to approve the tribe's solid waste permitting process, arguing that the tribe is classified as a municipality, not a state, under RCRA. The EPA maintained that RCRA does not specify that only states may submit solid waste plans, suggesting that its interpretation of the statute is reasonable. The analysis follows Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council standards, beginning with an examination of whether the statute addresses the issue of tribal submissions. Section 6945(c) clearly refers only to states, not municipalities, indicating that the EPA's approval effectively alters the tribe's statutory classification and extends state-like status to tribes under this provision, contradicting the statute's plain language.
Congress explicitly uses clear language when designating Indian tribes as states in various environmental laws, such as the Clean Air Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and Clean Water Act, allowing for the treatment of tribes as states for regulatory purposes. This contrasts with the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which mandates that only "states" submit permitting plans to the EPA, thus excluding Indian tribes. The EPA argues that because RCRA section 6945(c) does not mention tribes, it is ambiguous, allowing for agency discretion in interpretation. However, this interpretation misapplies the Chevron framework, which requires courts to recognize that an absence of explicit terms does not grant agencies limitless authority. Similar to the ruling in Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, the statute is neither silent nor ambiguous; it clearly defines "states" and excludes tribes, which are classified as municipalities. This explicit definition in the statute negates the EPA's claim for approval of tribal plans, reaffirming that only states can submit solid waste management plans for EPA review.
EPA lacks the authority to approve the Campo Band's solid waste management plan, but this does not undermine the tribe's sovereign right to manage its affairs. The Campo Band retains the authority to create and enforce its solid waste management plan, although it must adhere to specific federal design standards for landfills, unlike states with approved plans that have more regulatory flexibility. The EPA's concern about a "regulatory gap" on reservations is unfounded, as federal regulations still apply to solid waste facility operators, and individuals can pursue citizen suits against non-compliant facilities. The EPA may also take emergency actions if there is an imminent threat to health or the environment. The discrepancy between the treatment of tribes and states may be a policy issue that requires Congressional action, not judicial or EPA intervention. However, the Campo Band can seek EPA approval for site-specific regulations to gain the flexibility necessary for landfill management, especially given the seismic risks associated with the reservation. The court grants the review petition and vacates the EPA's Notice of Final Determination.
