Eastern Oregon Mining Assoc. v. DEQ

If there is ambiguity in the text of the Clean Water Act, courts must look to the agencies' implementing regulations and if those regulations are ambiguous, to the agencies' interpretation and application of their regulations to determine what the act means. Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 US 261, 277-78, 129 S Ct 2458, 174 L Ed 2d 193 (2009)

Petitioners appealed the Court of Appeals decision regarding suction dredge mining permits.  Petitioners assigned error to the Court of Appeals determination that the DEQ had EPA permitting authority.  Petitioners argued that "suction dredge mining was not within the EPA's [permitting] authority" and that "even if discharging material resulting from suction dredge mining adds a pollutant to the waters of the United States, the discharge is 'dredged material,' which the [Army] Corps [of Engineers] has exclusive authority to permit."  The Court found that Section 404 of the Clean Water Act specifically authorizes the Corps to issue permits for discharge of dredged or fill material while the EPA has authority over pollutants, but does not identify the point that material becomes a pollutant other than dredged material.  If there is ambiguity in the text of the Clean Water Act, courts must look to the agencies' implementing regulations and if those regulations are ambiguous, to the agencies' interpretation and application of their regulations to determine what the act means. Coeur Alaska, Inc. v. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, 557 US 261, 277-78, 129 S Ct 2458 (2009).  The Court held that regulations promulgated by the agencies did not resolve the ambiguity within the text, so it looked to the general permits for suction dredging that the EPA issued after notice and comment alongside with Corps deference to EPA permitting. Therefore, the EPA did have permitting authority and Petitioner's argument provided no basis for reversing the Court of Appeals decision.  Affirmed.