Alaska Eskimo Whaling Comm'n v. EPA, No. 13-70633 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
AEWC petitioned for review of the Beaufort Permit issued by the EPA under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1342, 1343, which authorizes the discharge by oil and gas exploration facilities of 13 waste streams into the Beaufort Sea. The court remanded, in light of EPA's acknowledged error, to the EPA for a determination regarding whether the discharge of non-contact cooling water (alone or in combination with other authorized discharges) into the Beaufort Sea will cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment because of the effect of such discharge on bowhead whales, including deflection from their migratory paths. The court denied the petition in all other respects because the EPA’s issuance of the Permit is otherwise supported by the record evidence, does not reflect a failure to consider an important aspect of the problem, and is not otherwise arbitrary or capricious.
.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel granted in part and denied in part a petition for review brought by the Alaska Eskimo Whaling Commission, challenging the Beaufort Permit issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System provisions of the Clean Water Act, authorizing the discharge of oil and gas exploration facilities of 13 waste streams into marine waters of the Beaufort Sea in accordance with conditions set forth in the Permit. The panel granted the petition on one issue on which the EPA admitted error in the record, and remanded to the EPA for a determination regarding whether the discharge of non- contact cooling water (alone or in combination with other authorized discharges) into the Beaufort Sea will cause unreasonable degradation of the marine environment because of the effect of such discharge on bowhead whales, including deflection from their migratory paths. The panel denied the petition in all other respects because the EPA’s issuance of the Permit was otherwise supported by the record evidence, did not reflect a failure to consider an important respect of the problem, and was not otherwise arbitrary or capricious. ALASKA ESKIMO WHALING COMM’N V. EPA 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.