CALIFORNIA STATE WATER RESOURC V. FERC, No. 20-72432 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
In three FERC orders, FERC found that the State Board had engaged in coordinated schemes with the Nevada Irrigation District, the Yuba County Water Agency, and the Merced Irrigation District (“Project Applicants”) to delay certification and to avoid making a decision on their certification requests. According to FERC, the State Board had coordinated with the Project Applicants to ensure that they withdrew and resubmitted their certification requests before the State’s deadline for action under Section 401 in order to reset the State’s one-year period to review the certification requests. FERC held that, because of that coordination, the State Board had “fail[ed] or refuse[d] to act” on requests and therefore had waived its certification authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. Section 1341(a)(1).
The Ninth Circuit granted petitions for review, and vacated orders issued by FERC. The court held that FERC’s findings of coordination were unsupported by substantial evidence. Instead, the evidence showed only that the State Board acquiesced in the Project Applicants’ own unilateral decisions to withdraw and resubmit their applications rather than have them denied. The court held that even assuming that FERC’s “coordination” standard was consistent with the statute, the State Board’s mere acquiescence in the Project Applicants’ withdrawals and resubmissions could not demonstrate that the State Board was engaged in a coordinated scheme to delay certification. Accordingly, FERC’s orders could not stand. The court remanded for further proceedings.
Court Description: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The panel granted petitions for review, and vacated orders issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (“FERC”) in which FERC held that the California Water Resources Control Board (the “State Board”) had waived its authority to ensure that certain hydroelectric projects complied with state water quality standards. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires states to provide a water quality certification before a federal license or permit can be issued for activities that may result in any discharge into intrastate navigable waters. Under Section 401, states may impose conditions on federal licenses for hydroelectric projects to ensure that those projects comply with state water quality standards. States must act on a request for water quality certification within one year of * The Honorable Carol Bagley Amon, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. CAL. STATE WATER RES. CONTROL BD. V. FERC 5 receiving it to avoid waiving their Section 401 certification authority. In three FERC orders, FERC found that the State Board had engaged in coordinated schemes with the Nevada Irrigation District, the Yuba County Water Agency, and the Merced Irrigation District (“Project Applicants”) to delay certification and to avoid making a decision on their certification requests. According to FERC, the State Board had coordinated with the Project Applicants to ensure that they withdrew and resubmitted their certification requests before the State’s deadline for action under Section 401 in order to reset the State’s one-year period to review the certification requests. FERC held that, because of that coordination, the State Board had “fail[ed] or refuse[d] to act” on requests and therefore had waived its certification authority under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. See 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1). The panel held that FERC’s findings of coordination were unsupported by substantial evidence. Instead, the evidence showed only that the State Board acquiesced in the Project Applicants’ own unilateral decisions to withdraw and resubmit their applications rather than have them denied. The panel held that, even assuming that FERC’s “coordination” standard was consistent with the statute, the State Board’s mere acquiescence in the Project Applicants’ withdrawals-and-resubmissions could not demonstrate that the State Board was engaged in a coordinated scheme to delay certification. Accordingly, FERC’s orders could not stand. The panel remanded for further proceedings. 6 CAL. STATE WATER RES. CONTROL BD. V. FERC
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.