international
paper
ouellette
argued
november
decided
january
clean
water
act
act
prohibits
discharge
effluents
navigable
waters
unless
point
source
obtained
permit
environmental
protection
agency
epa
act
also
allows
state
point
source
located
source
state
impose
stringent
discharge
limitations
federal
ones
even
administer
permit
program
certain
requirements
met
contrast
affected
subject
pollution
originating
source
right
notice
comment
issuance
federal
source
state
permit
act
also
contains
saving
clause
consisting
provides
nothing
chapter
shall
construed
impairing
right
respect
waters
including
boundary
waters
othing
section
shall
restrict
right
person
may
statute
common
law
seek
enforcement
effluent
standard
limitation
seek
relief
petitioner
operates
paper
mill
new
york
side
lake
champlain
course
business
discharged
effluents
lake
diffusion
pipe
ended
shortly
new
border
divided
lake
respondents
property
owners
vermont
shore
filed
class
action
petitioner
vermont
state
vermont
common
law
nuisance
action
later
removed
federal
district
petitioner
moved
summary
judgment
judgment
pleadings
ground
act
respondents
suit
district
denied
motion
holding
act
saving
clause
preserves
actions
redress
interstate
water
pollution
law
state
injury
occurred
appeals
affirmed
held
act
common
law
affected
state
extent
law
seeks
impose
liability
point
source
another
state
pp
since
act
applies
point
sources
virtually
bodies
water
sets
forth
detailed
procedures
obtaining
permit
provides
elaborate
set
remedies
violation
sufficiently
comprehensive
raise
presumption
congress
intended
suits
except
specifically
preserved
act
terms
pp
act
saving
clause
read
broadly
preserve
right
bring
suit
law
affected
state
section
merely
protects
suits
act
citizensuit
provisions
purport
preclude
provisions
furthermore
read
preserve
state
authority
respect
effluent
discharges
within
state
pp
application
affected
state
nuisance
law
point
source
another
state
constitute
serious
interference
implementation
act
effectively
override
epa
permit
requirements
policy
choices
made
source
adopting
standards
engender
confusion
subjecting
point
sources
variety
often
vague
indeterminate
commonlaw
rules
established
different
along
interstate
waterways
pp
district
correctly
denied
petitioner
motion
summary
judgment
judgment
pleadings
pp
holding
leave
respondents
without
remedy
since
act
precludes
suits
require
effluent
control
standards
incompatible
established
act
procedures
since
act
saving
clause
specifically
preserves
state
actions
aggrieved
parties
bring
nuisance
claim
law
source
state
new
york
pp
act
laws
courts
nothing
provisions
prevents
sitting
affected
state
hearing
nuisance
suit
provided
jurisdiction
otherwise
proper
district
sitting
diversity
competent
apply
law
foreign
state
therefore
vermont
proper
forum
case
powell
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
scalia
joined
brennan
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
marshall
blackmun
joined
post
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
blackmun
joined
post
roy
reardon
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
albert
bader
caroline
mitchell
peter
langrock
argued
cause
respondents
brief
emily
joselson
jeffrey
amestoy
attorney
general
vermont
merideth
wright
assistant
attorney
general
deputy
solicitor
general
wallace
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
affirmance
brief
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorney
general
habicht
richard
lazarus
jacques
gelin
john
cannon
susan
wanat
ann
plunkett
sheldon
filed
brief
legal
foundation
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
state
tennessee
et
al
urging
affirmance
filed
michael
cody
attorney
general
john
knox
walkup
chief
deputy
attorney
general
frank
scanlon
deputy
attorney
general
michael
pearigen
assistant
attorney
general
attorneys
general
respective
follows
john
van
de
kamp
california
joseph
lieberman
connecticut
jim
jones
idaho
neil
hartigan
illinois
thomas
miller
iowa
william
webster
missouri
robert
spire
nebraska
michael
turpen
oklahoma
arlene
violet
rhode
island
travis
medlock
south
carolina
mark
meierhenry
south
dakota
mary
sue
terry
virginia
justice
powell
delivered
opinion
case
involves
scope
clean
water
act
stat
amended
et
seq
cwa
act
question
presented
whether
act
nuisance
suit
filed
vermont
vermont
law
source
alleged
injury
located
new
york
lake
champlain
forms
part
border
new
york
vermont
petitioner
international
paper
company
ipc
operates
pulp
paper
mill
new
york
side
lake
course
business
ipc
discharges
variety
effluents
lake
diffusion
pipe
pipe
runs
mill
water
toward
vermont
ending
short
distance
state
boundary
line
divides
lake
respondents
group
property
owners
reside
lease
land
vermont
shore
owners
filed
class
action
suit
ipc
claiming
inter
alia
discharge
effluents
constituted
continuing
nuisance
vermont
common
law
respondents
alleged
pollutants
made
water
foul
unhealthy
smelly
unfit
recreational
use
thereby
diminishing
value
property
app
owners
asked
million
compensatory
damages
million
punitive
damages
injunctive
relief
require
ipc
restructure
part
water
treatment
system
action
filed
state
superior
later
removed
federal
district
district
vermont
ipc
moved
summary
judgment
judgment
pleadings
claiming
cwa
respondents
suit
parties
consent
district
judge
deferred
ruling
motion
pending
decision
appeals
seventh
circuit
similar
case
involving
illinois
city
milwaukee
dispute
illinois
filed
nuisance
action
city
illinois
statutory
common
law
seeking
abate
alleged
pollution
lake
michigan
illinois
milwaukee
milwaukee
iii
cert
denied
appeals
ultimately
remanded
case
dismissal
illinois
claim
finding
cwa
precluded
application
one
state
law
pollution
source
located
different
state
decision
based
part
conclusion
application
different
state
laws
single
point
source
interfere
carefully
devised
regulatory
system
established
cwa
also
concluded
suits
alleging
violations
laws
polluting
source
state
ipc
argued
holding
milwaukee
iii
dispositive
case
vermont
district
disagreed
denied
motion
dismiss
supp
acknowledged
federal
law
normally
governs
interstate
water
pollution
found
however
two
sections
cwa
explicitly
preserve
rights
action
first
act
provides
except
expressly
provided
nothing
chapter
shall
construed
impairing
manner
affecting
right
jurisdiction
respect
waters
including
boundary
waters
nothing
section
shall
restrict
right
person
class
persons
may
statute
common
law
seek
enforcement
effluent
standard
limitation
seek
relief
district
therefore
adopted
third
interpretation
saving
clause
held
state
action
redress
interstate
water
pollution
maintained
law
state
injury
occurred
ibid
unpersuaded
concern
expressed
milwaukee
iii
application
law
point
source
conflict
cwa
said
interference
procedures
established
congress
state
imposition
compensatory
damage
awards
equitable
relief
injuries
caused
merely
supplement
standards
limitations
imposed
act
emphasis
original
also
found
use
state
law
conflict
ultimate
goal
cwa
since
case
objective
decrease
level
pollution
ibid
district
certified
decision
interlocutory
appeal
see
supp
iii
appeals
second
circuit
affirmed
reasons
stated
district
per
curiam
granted
certiorari
resolve
circuit
conflict
important
issue
federal
affirm
denial
ipc
motion
dismiss
reverse
decision
extent
permits
application
vermont
law
litigation
hold
considers
claim
concerning
interstate
water
pollution
subject
cwa
must
apply
law
state
point
source
located
ii
brief
review
regulatory
framework
necessary
set
stage
case
fairly
recently
federal
common
law
governed
use
misuse
interstate
water
see
hinderlider
la
plata
river
cherry
creek
ditch
water
apportionment
missouri
illinois
water
pollution
principle
called
question
context
water
pollution
suggested
dicta
interstate
dispute
state
private
company
resolved
reference
state
nuisance
law
ohio
wyandotte
chemicals
action
otherwise
cognizable
federal
district
adjudicated
state
law
citing
erie
tompkins
occasion
address
issue
first
two
cases
involving
dispute
illinois
milwaukee
milwaukee
state
moved
leave
file
original
action
seeking
enjoin
city
discharging
sewage
lake
michigan
illinois
milwaukee
opinion
case
affirmed
view
regulation
interstate
water
pollution
matter
federal
state
law
thus
overruling
contrary
suggestion
wyandotte
concerned
however
existing
version
act
sufficiently
comprehensive
resolve
interstate
disputes
likely
arise
milwaukee
therefore
held
cases
resolved
reference
federal
common
law
implicit
corollary
ruling
state
common
law
preempted
see
milwaukee
iii
noted
though
future
action
congress
regulate
water
pollution
might
federal
common
law
well
congress
thereafter
adopted
comprehensive
amendments
act
considered
impact
new
legislation
illinois
milwaukee
returned
several
years
later
milwaukee
illinois
milwaukee
ii
noted
amendments
complete
rewriting
statute
considered
milwaukee
comprehensive
far
reaching
provisions
congress
ever
passed
area
citations
legislative
history
omitted
consequently
held
federal
legislation
occupied
field
federal
common
law
left
open
question
whether
injured
parties
still
cause
action
state
law
case
remanded
consideration
result
remand
decision
appeals
seventh
circuit
milwaukee
iii
discussed
supra
one
primary
features
amendments
establishment
national
pollutant
discharge
elimination
system
npdes
federal
permit
program
designed
regulate
discharge
polluting
effluents
see
generally
epa
california
ex
rel
state
water
resources
control
board
describing
npdes
system
section
act
generally
prohibits
discharge
effluent
navigable
body
water
unless
point
source
obtained
npdes
permit
environmental
protection
agency
epa
permits
contain
detailed
effluent
limitations
compliance
schedule
attainment
limitations
amendments
also
recognize
significant
role
protecting
natural
resources
act
provides
federal
government
may
delegate
state
authority
administer
npdes
program
respect
point
sources
located
within
state
epa
administrator
determines
proposed
state
program
complies
requirements
set
forth
administrator
retains
authority
however
block
issuance
permit
objects
even
federal
government
administers
permit
program
source
state
may
require
discharge
limitations
stringent
required
federal
government
see
cfr
federal
government
may
issue
npdes
permit
administrator
must
obtain
certification
source
state
proposed
discharge
complies
state
standards
standards
cwa
therefore
establishes
regulatory
partnership
federal
government
source
state
source
strong
voice
regulating
pollution
cwa
contemplates
much
lesser
role
share
interstate
waterway
source
affected
even
though
may
harmed
discharges
affected
state
advisory
role
regulating
pollution
originates
beyond
borders
federal
permit
may
issued
affected
state
given
notice
opportunity
object
proposed
standards
public
hearing
milwaukee
iii
supra
affected
state
similar
rights
consulted
source
state
issues
permit
source
state
must
send
notification
must
consider
objections
recommendations
submitted
taking
action
significantly
however
affected
state
authority
block
issuance
permit
dissatisfied
proposed
standards
affected
state
recourse
apply
epa
administrator
discretion
disapprove
permit
concludes
discharges
undue
impact
interstate
waters
also
affected
state
may
establish
separate
permit
system
regulate
source
see
state
may
establish
permit
system
waters
within
jurisdiction
emphasis
added
lake
erie
alliance
protection
coastal
corridor
army
corps
engineers
supp
wd
aff
cert
denied
state
champion
international
cert
pending
thus
act
makes
clear
affected
occupy
subordinate
position
source
federal
regulatory
program
iii
regulatory
framework
mind
turn
question
presented
whether
act
vermont
common
law
extent
law
may
impose
liability
new
york
point
source
begin
analysis
noting
necessary
federal
statute
provide
explicitly
particular
state
laws
hillsborough
county
automated
medical
laboratories
although
courts
lightly
infer
may
presumed
federal
legislation
sufficiently
comprehensive
make
reasonable
inference
congress
left
room
supplementary
state
regulation
ibid
quoting
rice
santa
fe
elevator
addition
express
implied
state
law
also
invalid
extent
actually
conflicts
federal
statute
ray
atlantic
richfield
conflict
found
state
law
stands
obstacle
accomplishment
execution
full
purposes
objectives
congress
hillsborough
county
automated
medical
laboratories
supra
quoting
hines
davidowitz
noted
milwaukee
ii
congress
intended
act
amendments
establish
program
water
pollution
regulation
observed
congressional
views
comprehensive
nature
legislation
practically
universal
citing
legislative
history
examination
amendments
amply
supports
views
act
applies
point
sources
virtually
bodies
water
sets
forth
procedures
obtaining
permit
great
detail
cwa
also
provides
remedies
including
civil
criminal
fines
permit
violations
citizen
suits
allow
individuals
including
affected
sue
injunctions
enforce
statute
light
pervasive
regulation
fact
control
interstate
pollution
primarily
matter
federal
law
milwaukee
clear
state
suits
remain
available
specifically
preserved
act
although
congress
intended
dominate
field
pollution
regulation
saving
clause
negates
inference
congress
left
room
state
causes
action
respondents
read
language
saving
clause
broadly
preserve
state
right
regulate
waters
injured
party
right
seek
relief
statute
common
law
emphasis
added
claim
language
selected
portions
legislative
history
compel
inference
congress
intended
preserve
right
bring
suit
law
affected
state
accept
reading
act
begin
plain
language
provisions
respondents
rely
means
compels
result
seek
section
merely
says
othing
section
provisions
shall
affect
injured
party
right
seek
relief
state
law
purport
preclude
state
law
provisions
act
section
moreover
preserves
authority
state
respect
waters
including
boundary
waters
stat
language
arguably
limits
effect
clause
discharges
flowing
directly
state
waters
discharges
within
state
savings
clause
preclude
law
affected
state
given
act
speak
directly
issue
must
guided
goals
policies
act
determining
whether
fact
action
based
law
affected
state
cf
city
rome
powell
dissenting
resort
legislative
materials
congressional
mandate
unclear
face
examining
cwa
whole
purposes
history
convinced
affected
allowed
impose
separate
discharge
standards
single
point
source
inevitable
result
serious
interference
achievement
full
purposes
objectives
congress
see
hillsborough
county
automated
medical
laboratories
supra
believe
congress
intended
undermine
carefully
drawn
statute
general
saving
clause
conclude
cwa
precludes
applying
law
affected
state
source
determining
whether
vermont
nuisance
law
stands
obstacle
full
implementation
cwa
enough
say
ultimate
goal
federal
state
law
eliminate
water
pollution
state
law
also
interferes
methods
federal
statute
designed
reach
goal
see
michigan
canners
freezers
assn
agricultural
marketing
bargaining
case
application
vermont
law
ipc
allow
respondents
circumvent
npdes
permit
system
thereby
upsetting
balance
public
private
interests
carefully
addressed
act
establishing
permit
system
effluent
discharges
congress
implicitly
recognized
goal
cwa
elimination
water
pollution
achieved
immediately
realized
without
incurring
costs
epa
administrator
issues
permits
according
established
effluent
standards
water
quality
standards
turn
based
upon
available
technology
competing
public
industrial
uses
administrator
must
consider
impact
discharges
waterway
types
effluents
schedule
compliance
may
vary
widely
among
sources
state
elects
impose
standards
also
must
consider
technological
feasibility
stringent
controls
given
nature
complex
decisions
surprising
act
limits
right
administer
permit
system
epa
source
see
interpretation
saving
clause
preserved
actions
brought
affected
state
law
disrupt
balance
interests
new
york
source
liable
violations
vermont
law
law
effectively
override
permit
requirements
policy
choices
made
source
state
affected
state
nuisance
laws
subject
point
source
threat
legal
equitable
penalties
permit
standards
less
stringent
imposed
affected
state
penalties
compel
source
adopt
different
control
standards
different
compliance
schedule
approved
epa
even
though
affected
state
engaged
weighing
costs
benefits
case
illustrates
problems
rule
vermont
ruled
respondents
entitled
full
amount
damages
injunctive
relief
sought
complaint
minimum
ipc
change
methods
business
controlling
pollution
avoid
threat
ongoing
liability
suits
also
require
source
cease
operations
ordering
immediate
abatement
critically
liabilities
attach
even
though
source
complied
fully
state
federal
permit
obligations
inevitable
result
suits
vermont
indirectly
directly
regulate
conduct
sources
application
affected
state
law
source
also
undermine
important
goals
efficiency
predictability
permit
system
history
amendments
shows
congress
intended
establish
clear
identifiable
discharge
standards
see
leg
hist
noted
reading
saving
clause
proposed
respondents
source
subject
variety
commonlaw
rules
established
different
along
interstate
waterways
nuisance
standards
often
vague
indeterminate
application
numerous
laws
exacerbate
vagueness
resulting
uncertainty
appeals
milwaukee
iii
identified
problem
irrational
system
regulation
number
different
independent
plenary
regulatory
authority
single
discharge
lead
chaotic
confrontation
sovereign
dischargers
forced
meet
statutory
limitations
potentially
affected
discharges
also
common
law
standards
developed
case
law
virtually
impossible
predict
standard
lawful
discharge
interstate
body
water
permit
issued
act
rendered
meaningless
nothing
act
gives
affected
state
power
regulate
discharges
cwa
carefully
defines
role
source
affected
specifically
provides
process
whereby
interests
considered
balanced
source
state
epa
delineation
authority
represents
congress
considered
judgment
best
method
serving
public
interest
reconciling
often
competing
concerns
affected
pollution
extraordinary
congress
devising
elaborate
permit
system
sets
clear
standards
tolerate
suits
potential
undermine
regulatory
structure
conclusion
vermont
nuisance
law
inapplicable
new
york
point
source
leave
respondents
without
remedy
cwa
precludes
suits
may
require
standards
effluent
control
incompatible
established
procedures
set
forth
act
saving
clause
specifically
preserves
state
actions
therefore
nothing
act
bars
aggrieved
individuals
bringing
nuisance
claim
pursuant
law
source
state
terms
cwa
allows
new
york
impose
higher
standards
point
sources
milwaukee
ii
recognized
authority
may
include
right
impose
higher
well
higher
statutory
restrictions
suggesting
may
adopt
stringent
limitations
state
nuisance
law
apply
dischargers
see
also
committee
jones
falls
sewage
system
train
cwa
preserves
suits
filed
source
state
action
brought
ipc
new
york
nuisance
law
frustrate
goals
cwa
suit
governed
vermont
law
first
application
source
state
law
disturb
balance
among
federal
interests
act
specifically
allows
source
impose
stricter
standards
imposition
law
disrupt
regulatory
partnership
established
permit
system
second
restriction
suits
brought
nuisance
law
prevents
source
subject
indeterminate
number
potential
regulations
although
new
york
nuisance
law
may
impose
separate
standards
thus
create
tension
permit
system
source
required
look
single
additional
authority
whose
rules
relatively
predictable
moreover
expected
take
account
nuisance
laws
setting
permit
requirements
ipc
asks
go
one
step
hold
suits
also
must
brought
courts
petitioner
cites
little
authority
justification
position
find
basis
holding
vermont
improper
forum
simply
cause
action
preempted
mean
judicial
jurisdiction
claim
affected
well
act
laws
courts
absence
statutory
authority
contrary
rule
settled
district
sitting
diversity
competent
apply
law
foreign
state
iv
district
correctly
denied
ipc
motion
summary
judgment
judgment
pleadings
nothing
act
prevents
sitting
affected
state
hearing
nuisance
suit
provided
jurisdiction
otherwise
proper
district
appeals
erred
however
concluding
vermont
law
governs
litigation
application
laws
incompatible
act
delegation
authority
comprehensive
regulation
water
pollution
act
state
law
extent
state
law
applied
point
source
decision
appeals
affirmed
part
reversed
part
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
complaint
also
sought
monetary
injunctive
relief
air
pollution
allegedly
caused
ipc
mill
app
claim
decisions
illinois
milwaukee
milwaukee
milwaukee
illinois
milwaukee
ii
discussed
part
ii
infra
point
source
defined
cwa
discernible
confined
discrete
conveyance
pollutants
may
discharged
see
cfr
disputed
ipc
point
source
within
meaning
act
discussion
three
interpretations
saving
clause
see
note
city
milwaukee
illinois
demise
federal
common
law
water
pollution
rev
act
purports
regulate
navigable
waters
term
construed
expansively
cover
waters
navigable
traditional
sense
see
riverside
bayview
homes
defining
navigable
waters
waters
cong
rec
legislative
history
water
pollution
control
act
amendments
committee
print
compiled
senate
committee
public
works
library
congress
ser
hereinafter
leg
accord
north
dakota
minnesota
cf
georgia
tennessee
copper
air
pollution
see
also
milwaukee
glicksman
federal
preemption
private
legal
remedies
pollution
rev
note
although
opinion
read
distinguishing
rather
overruling
part
wyandotte
later
decision
made
clear
state
actions
survive
milwaukee
see
milwaukee
ii
see
also
glicksman
supra
milwaukee
denied
motion
file
original
action
ruled
illinois
maintain
action
federal
district
state
filed
suit
illinois
district
alleging
city
liable
creating
public
nuisance
federal
illinois
common
law
complaint
also
alleged
violation
state
environmental
protection
act
see
milwaukee
ii
supra
milwaukee
iii
detailed
description
permit
system
see
zener
guide
federal
environmental
law
one
point
ipc
operating
federal
npdes
permit
app
draft
permit
submitted
vermont
affected
state
vermont
well
interested
parties
objected
proposed
discharge
standards
thereafter
new
york
obtained
permitting
authority
administers
permit
see
rice
santa
fe
elevator
start
assumption
historic
police
powers
superseded
federal
act
unless
clear
manifest
purpose
congress
milwaukee
ii
see
also
silkwood
see
see
generally
middlesex
county
sewerage
authority
national
sea
clammers
discussing
elaborate
remedial
provisions
senate
report
accompanying
amendments
damages
shown
remedies
addition
citizen
suit
remain
available
compliance
requirements
act
defense
common
law
action
pollution
damages
leg
hist
respondents
also
note
reviewing
legislative
history
district
found
evidence
congress
intended
alter
traditional
tort
law
principle
party
may
bring
suit
state
injury
occurred
see
young
masci
noted
milwaukee
ii
fact
language
saving
clause
repeated
haec
verba
provisions
vast
array
environmental
legislation
indicates
reflect
considered
judgment
remedies
previously
available
continue
available
particular
statute
interpretation
act
adopted
courts
also
result
allowing
affected
effectively
set
discharge
standards
without
consulting
source
state
even
though
source
required
act
give
affected
opportunity
heard
chance
comment
issuing
permit
citizen
suit
provision
consistent
principles
underlying
act
development
clear
identifiable
requirements
requirements
provide
manageable
precise
benchmarks
performance
leg
hist
see
milwaukee
ii
see
also
keeton
dobbs
keeton
owen
prosser
keeton
law
torts
ed
perhaps
impenetrable
jungle
entire
law
surrounds
word
nuisance
possibility
source
meet
number
different
standards
relatively
small
case
since
vermont
state
shares
lake
champlain
new
york
consider
example
plant
discharges
effluents
mississippi
river
source
located
minnesota
theoretically
subject
nuisance
laws
nine
downstream
nothing
decision
course
affects
respondents
right
pursue
remedies
may
provided
act
also
alleged
respondents
complaint
ipc
violating
terms
permit
respondents
may
bring
citizen
suit
compel
compliance
respondents
also
opportunity
protect
interests
fact
commenting
objecting
proposed
standard
see
milwaukee
ii
supra
act
provides
ample
opportunity
affected
protect
rights
district
concluded
interference
act
insignificant
part
respondents
seeking
compensated
specific
harm
rather
trying
regulate
ipc
supp
solicitor
general
behalf
amicus
curiae
adopts
portion
view
acknowledges
suits
seeking
punitive
injunctive
relief
law
interference
cause
cwa
government
asserts
compensatory
damages
actions
however
may
brought
law
state
injury
occurred
solicitor
general
reasons
compensatory
damages
require
source
pay
external
costs
created
pollution
thus
regulate
way
inconsistent
act
government
cites
silkwood
proposition
certain
circumstances
may
find
remedies
others
decline
government
invitation
draw
line
types
relief
sought
suggestion
distinction
either
act
legislative
history
noted
silkwood
unless
evidence
congress
meant
split
particular
remedy
purposes
assumed
full
cause
action
state
law
available
case
also
think
unwise
treat
compensatory
damages
differently
facts
case
vermont
determined
respondents
entitled
requested
compensatory
relief
ipc
might
compelled
adopt
different
additional
means
pollution
control
required
act
regardless
whether
purpose
relief
compensatory
regulatory
see
perez
campbell
effect
rather
purpose
state
statute
governs
analysis
discussed
result
irreconcilable
cwa
exclusive
grant
authority
federal
government
source
state
cf
chicago
north
western
transportation
kalo
brick
tile
although
conclude
new
york
law
generally
controls
suit
note
scope
cwa
necessarily
includes
laws
inconsistent
full
purposes
objectives
congress
see
hillsborough
county
automated
medical
laboratories
therefore
agree
dissent
vermont
nuisance
law
still
may
apply
new
york
doctrine
dictates
result
post
discussed
supra
application
law
frustrate
carefully
prescribed
cwa
regulatory
system
interference
occur
course
whether
law
applies
original
matter
whether
applies
pursuant
source
state
principles
therefore
extent
law
source
state
requires
application
substantive
law
particular
issue
well
cf
citizen
suit
enforce
permit
must
brought
judicial
district
source
located
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
blackmun
join
concurring
part
dissenting
part
concur
wholeheartedly
judgment
clean
water
act
act
et
private
nuisance
suit
filed
vermont
source
alleged
injury
located
new
york
disagree
view
vermont
must
apply
new
york
nuisance
law
question
presented
whether
district
properly
denied
international
paper
company
motion
dismiss
concludes
federal
district
sitting
state
injury
occurred
may
hear
nuisance
suit
redress
interstate
water
pollution
district
must
apply
law
state
point
source
located
improperly
reaches
decide
latter
issue
far
parties
know
vermont
law
new
york
law
identical
question
private
nuisance
tr
oral
arg
moreover
vermont
state
share
lake
champlain
new
york
thus
nuisance
laws
new
york
vermont
sole
candidates
application
present
case
conflict
respondents
base
claims
particular
state
law
complaint
matter
specify
jurisdiction
common
law
invokes
make
choice
law
plaintiffs
supplemental
memorandum
law
opposition
defendant
motion
dismiss
given
facts
find
necessary
affirm
denial
international
paper
company
motion
dismiss
ii
even
reach
issue
state
law
applicable
case
interpret
act
require
sitting
state
injury
occurred
affected
state
apply
nuisance
law
state
pollution
emanates
source
state
nothing
act
usual
analysis
undertaken
federal
district
courts
determine
state
tort
law
applied
interstate
tort
suits
first
district
must
apply
rules
state
sits
see
day
zimmerman
challoner
klaxon
stentor
electric
mfg
holding
erie
doctrine
applies
rules
thus
vermont
district
apply
rules
vermont
affected
state
second
principles
must
interpreted
district
determine
whether
tort
law
source
state
affected
state
applied
today
finds
application
vermont
nuisance
law
even
vermont
rules
determine
vermont
tort
law
applied
act
provides
support
deviation
principles
rules
affected
state
nuisance
law
may
applied
purpose
tort
law
ensure
compensation
tort
victims
beyond
dispute
affected
significant
interest
redressing
injuries
actually
occur
within
state
keeton
hustler
magazine
see
also
allstate
ins
hague
huron
portland
cement
detroit
traditional
interest
affected
state
involving
health
safety
citizens
protected
providing
application
affected
state
tort
laws
suits
source
state
polluters
see
askew
american
waterways
operators
watson
employers
liability
assurance
young
masci
state
interest
applying
tort
laws
superseded
federal
act
unless
clear
manifest
purpose
congress
see
silkwood
milwaukee
illinois
milwaukee
ii
congress
preserved
rights
source
affected
alike
enforce
state
claims
section
provides
except
expressly
provided
nothing
chapter
shall
construed
impairing
manner
affecting
right
jurisdiction
respect
waters
including
boundary
waters
emphasis
added
preserving
right
seek
traditional
relief
act
draws
distinction
interstate
intrastate
disputes
nothing
section
shall
restrict
right
person
class
persons
may
statute
common
law
seek
enforcement
effluent
standard
limitation
seek
relief
provision
contains
express
restriction
normal
operation
state
law
reflecting
act
policy
recognize
preserve
protect
primary
responsibilities
rights
prevent
reduce
eliminate
pollution
contrast
congress
wanted
affect
state
rights
expressly
stated
intent
act
congress
chose
state
law
situation
warranted
based
upon
urgent
need
uniformity
section
relating
marine
sanitation
devices
legislative
history
water
pollution
control
act
committee
print
compiled
senate
committee
public
works
library
congress
ser
hereinafter
leg
find
act
plain
language
clearly
indicates
congress
wanted
leave
intact
traditional
right
affected
state
apply
tort
law
residents
injured
polluter
iii
argues
although
act
explicitly
state
affected
laws
applying
law
affected
state
source
stands
obstacle
full
implementation
act
contends
application
affected
state
common
law
contrary
subsidiary
objectives
act
establishing
right
source
set
effluent
standards
polluters
ante
establishing
clear
identifiable
discharge
standards
ante
concludes
affected
state
common
law
implication
conflicts
although
plausibly
argues
offering
better
administrative
approach
believe
congress
meant
alter
state
law
manner
threshold
matter
opinion
assumes
enacting
act
congress
valued
administrative
efficiency
highly
effective
elimination
water
pollution
yet
evidence
congress
ever
made
choice
instead
act
reflects
congress
judgment
rational
permit
system
operating
tandem
existing
state
controls
best
achieve
act
primary
goal
controlling
water
pollution
base
conclusion
four
important
considerations
first
since
congress
preserved
state
rights
xcept
expressly
provided
supra
reliance
upon
implication
justify
conclusion
cf
silkwood
supra
congress
assumed
traditional
principles
state
tort
law
apply
full
force
unless
expressly
supplanted
second
legislative
history
act
indicates
congress
saw
peril
act
permitting
application
traditional
principles
state
law
senate
committee
report
noted
congress
meant
specifically
preserve
rights
remedies
law
thus
damages
shown
remedies
remain
available
compliance
requirements
act
defense
common
law
action
pollution
damages
leg
hist
emphasis
added
majority
concern
tort
liability
might
undercut
permit
requirements
thus
shared
congress
addition
environmental
protection
agency
epa
interpretation
consistent
congress
view
state
tort
remedies
supplemental
wholly
preserved
act
regulations
promulgated
epa
recognize
meeting
source
state
minimum
effluent
limits
convey
exclusive
privilege
cfr
epa
interpret
act
modify
state
local
law
issuance
permit
authorize
injury
persons
property
invasion
private
rights
infringement
state
local
law
regulations
third
refused
state
law
even
contrary
subsidiary
objectives
concerning
administration
state
law
furthers
federal
statute
primary
purpose
consistent
act
saving
authority
area
traditionally
regulated
see
pacific
gas
electric
energy
resources
conservation
development
subjecting
polluters
state
liability
simultaneously
promotes
main
federal
goal
eliminating
water
pollution
entirely
obeys
congressional
command
leave
state
common
law
intact
congress
intended
stand
federal
regulatory
scheme
state
traditional
liability
laws
tolerate
whatever
tension
silkwood
given
statutory
scheme
congress
rethink
division
regulatory
authority
light
possible
exercise
undercut
federal
objective
courts
assume
role
system
assigns
congress
pacific
gas
electric
energy
resources
conservation
development
supra
finally
overstates
conflict
affected
state
nuisance
law
subsidiary
objectives
act
contends
applying
affected
state
law
violate
source
state
right
set
effluent
standards
polluters
traditional
rules
require
application
affected
state
nuisance
law
conflict
source
state
ability
set
minimum
standards
required
act
congress
considered
state
rights
supplementary
conflict
act
unless
embodied
less
stringent
standard
polluters
federal
effluent
standards
see
pp
leg
hist
application
affected
state
remedies
polluter
conflict
act
possible
polluter
redress
injuries
suffered
victims
pollution
obey
source
state
effluent
standards
complying
stringent
requirement
either
act
affected
state
law
polluter
necessarily
complies
lenient
standards
see
silkwood
supra
also
argues
application
affected
state
law
source
undermine
important
goals
efficiency
predictability
permit
system
congress
set
establish
clear
identifiable
discharge
standards
leg
hist
intend
reform
impenetrable
jungle
state
nuisance
law
see
ante
legislative
history
epa
regulations
indicate
compliance
effluent
standards
defense
state
tort
suits
see
ante
affected
state
nuisance
law
vague
indeterminate
source
state
nuisance
law
fact
instant
case
vermont
new
york
nuisance
law
apparently
identical
see
supra
congress
intended
impose
identifiable
federal
discharge
standards
upon
polluters
must
much
explicit
evidence
assuming
enacting
provision
congress
meant
revolutionize
state
tort
law
principles
iv
even
conclusion
new
york
law
apply
correct
logically
follow
new
york
nuisance
law
must
applied
case
haste
reach
result
assumes
imposition
new
york
nuisance
standard
required
new
york
law
suit
alleged
injury
occurred
vermont
act
specifically
allows
source
impose
stricter
standards
imposition
law
disrupt
regulatory
partnership
established
permit
system
new
york
nuisance
law
may
impose
separate
standards
ante
emphasis
added
whether
new
york
law
requires
application
new
york
vermont
nuisance
law
depends
interpretation
new
york
law
pertaining
conflict
laws
state
freedom
adopt
rules
conflict
laws
adopt
rules
law
conflict
laws
rules
adopted
become
definitely
part
law
branch
state
law
restatement
second
conflict
laws
comment
reasons
source
state
must
primary
role
regulating
pollution
discharges
logic
nothing
prevents
source
state
legislature
courts
choosing
impose
principles
affected
state
nuisance
law
case
source
state
free
adopt
affected
state
standards
standards
ante
noting
source
state
accept
advice
affected
state
district
correctly
denied
petitioner
motion
summary
judgment
judgment
pleadings
reasons
indicated
affirm
without
reaching
question
state
law
applicable
case
adopted
two
different
approaches
determine
state
tort
law
applied
traditional
rule
lex
loci
delicti
requires
application
tort
law
jurisdiction
injury
occurred
see
jur
conflict
laws
scoles
hay
conflict
law
pp
rationale
traditional
rule
affected
state
possesses
strong
interest
redressing
injuries
citizens
modern
rule
followed
majority
employs
approach
see
allstate
ins
hague
analysis
primary
purpose
tort
rule
control
tortfeasor
conduct
setting
pollution
discharge
standards
source
state
tort
law
may
applied
alternatively
main
purpose
tort
rule
compensating
victims
tort
may
apply
affected
state
tort
law
relevant
considerations
include
locations
parties
relationship
parties
centered
see
restatement
second
conflict
laws
comment
pp
dismisses
importance
section
merely
says
othing
section
provisions
shall
affect
injured
party
right
seek
relief
state
law
purport
preclude
state
law
provisions
act
ante
congress
used
language
section
act
expressly
implicates
private
suits
congress
reemphasizing
state
authority
private
suits
involving
state
common
law
affected
act
respondents
contend
new
york
vermont
principles
vermont
common
law
apply
action
brief
respondents
petitioner
contest
view
issue
need
determined
view
remanded
appeals
see
allstate
ins
hague
day
zimmerman
challoner
blackmun
concurring
klaxon
stentor
electric
mfg
sufficient
sake
argument
note
several
cases
suggest
new
york
principles
may
require
vermont
law
applied
instance
see
bing
halstead
supp
sdny
tortious
conduct
occurs
one
jurisdiction
injury
another
case
law
place
injury
applies
consins
instrument
flyers
true
lex
loci
delicti
remains
general
rule
tort
cases
displaced
extraordinary
circumstances
justice
stevens
justice
blackmun
joins
concurring
part
dissenting
part
affirming
denial
international
paper
company
motion
dismiss
concludes
nothing
clean
water
act
et
deprives
federal
district
diversity
jurisdiction
otherwise
entertain
nuisance
suit
brought
point
source
located
another
state
based
injury
allegedly
suffered
forum
state
agree
holding
find
sufficient
decide
case
however
goes
ventures
opinion
whether
district
must
apply
substantive
law
state
source
water
pollution
located
perhaps
responding
district
observation
affirmed
appeals
clean
water
act
authorizes
actions
redress
injury
caused
water
pollution
interstate
waters
common
law
state
injury
occurred
supp
since
district
yet
asked
decide
decided
substantive
law
govern
particular
suit
dispute
parties
issue
business
discussing
stage
litigation
rush
express
opinion
substantive
law
source
state
must
govern
broadly
asserts
act
preempts
state
law
extent
state
law
applied
point
source
ante
record
even
know
whether
vermont
state
law
including
rules
look
new
york
law
nuisance
govern
nuisance
suit
based
alleged
source
new
york
opinion
thus
partially
advisory
three
reasons
question
applicable
state
law
addresses
yet
arisen
litigation
arise
district
may
well
conclude
vermont
rules
require
apply
new
york
substantive
law
justice
brennan
points
ante
reason
believe
difference
relevant
new
york
vermont
law
event
one
help
wonder
happened
respected
doctrine
judicial
restraint
sit
edit
opinions
lower
courts
see
phillips
petroleum
shutts
stevens
concurring
part
dissenting
part
also
sit
draft
advisory
opinions
possible
future
guidance
courts
therefore
respectfully
dissent
part
opinion
holding
clean
water
act
requires
district
apply
nuisance
law
source
state