United States v. Espinoza-Martinez

How courts have described this case

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

• emphasizing that the Clean Water Act gives EPA only 30 days to approve or disapprove a state’s impaired waters list
• finding that the Clean Water Act provides EPA only a “limited” role in reviewing states’ Section 303(d) lists
• finding that the Clean Water Act provides EPA only a “limited” role in reviewing states’ Section 303(d) lists
• emphasizing that the Clean Water Act gives EPA only 30 days to approve or disapprove a state’s impaired waters list
• deferring to EPA’s discretion when EPA found that a state “reasonably considered existing and readily available water quality-related data and information and reasonably identified waters required to be listed”
• deferring to EPA’s discretion when EPA found that a state “reasonably considered existing and readily available water quality-related data and information and reasonably identified wa ters required to be listed”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).