Calkins v. Short, Cressman & Burgess

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that the “statutory exemption for agricultural return flows” reflected “the need for parity of regulation between irrigated and non-irrigated agriculture”
• agency’s interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference unless plainly erroneous, inconsistent with the regulation, or based on an impermissible construction of the governing statute
• “An agency simply may not interpret a regulation in a way that contravenes a statute.”
• “An agency simply may not interpret a regulation in a way that contravenes a statute.”
• because the CWA point source definitions are \clear and unambiguous” the court must \read the regulation to conform to the statute and to the common understanding of the difference between point source and nonpoint source pollution”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).