Costle

Gonzales v. Costle

Good Law
463 F. Supp. 335·12 ERC (BNA) 1321·12 ERC 1321·1978 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14698
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaOctober 26, 1978C-76-2039 RFPCalifornia3,479 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peckham, J.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This is a lawsuit brought by three individuals challenging activities of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), and the State of California in implementing the planning requirements of § 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. § 1288 . Plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss with prejudice California state defendants Edmund G. Brown, Jr. and State Water Resources Control Board, and cross motions have been brought for summary judgment by plaintiffs and defendants EPA and ABAG. The basic issue is whether defendants have violated the law by spending funds under § 208 for other than strictly water pollution planning. For the reasons given below, we grant summary judgment for defendants, finding unduly narrow the interpretation of the Water Pollution Control Act amendments urged by plaintiffs.

BACKGROUND

The lawsuit arose out of the process of selection of the “§ 208 planning agency” for the San Francisco Bay Area. Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 sets up procedures whereby the governor of a state can designate an agency to do…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.