On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-2 in the case of Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, choosing to end the longstanding precedent known as “Chevron deference.” For decades, Chevron deference has dictated that the courts will generally defer to the executive branch agency of expertise when a statue is ambiguous on a technical issue. In this case, a fishing company sued the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) over whether the agency can require companies to pay for the inspectors that companies are required by law to have on their boats. The law is ambiguous on who must cover that cost, so NMFS had determined that companies should do so. Lower courts applied the Chevron doctrine, ruling that NMFS has sufficient legal grounds to make that determination. In last week’s ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and vacated the Chevron doctrine entirely.
The impact of this ruling on statutes relevant to water reuse, such as the Clean Water Act, could be quite significant. That said, it is important to remember that the Court did not always defer to the Executive Branch on issues of technical ambiguity, even before this ruling. The recent Maui vs. Hawai’i Wildlife Fund case is one such example with significant implications for water recycling and groundwater recharge. In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to apply the Chevron doctrine. Instead, it ruled in favor of the plaintiff and went a step further by dictating a set of factors to be considered in determining whether a groundwater discharge is “functionally equivalent” to a surface water discharge. Moving forward, WateReuse will be keeping a close watch on cases that involve potentially ambiguous statutory language related to clean water, drinking water, and other relevant laws. |