Abstract
This Note aims to evaluate the basis for general statutory interpretation to apply it to § 309(g) of the Clean Water Act. The United States Courts of Appeals have been divided on which standard for determining State law comparables under section 309(g) of the Clean Water Act is the most appropriate standard to use. So far, the First, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuit Courts have set forth an opinion on the matter. Even though each the six courts have interpreted the statute, there is still no “universally” applied standard. The First, Sixth and Ninth Circuits have each come to their own conclusion, and although there are some similarities between their evaluations and the evaluations of the other courts, they are ultimately different. The Eighth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits have all set forth their own standards to evaluate State law comparability. The Eighth Circuit has set forth the overall comparability standard, and the Tenth and Eleventh Circuits have both set forth the rough comparability standard. The Eighth Circuit’s overall comparability standard takes a broader approach when interpreting the statute, and the Tenth and Eleventh Circuit’s rough comparability standard takes a narrower approach. This Note recommends that the Supreme Court should adopt the Tenth and Eleventh Circuit’s “rough comparability standard” as the one most faithful to the statute.
Recommended Citation
Skiles, Brenna M.
(2025)
"How Closely Should We Compare?: A Statutory Analysis on State Comparability Standards Under the Clean Water Act,"
Helms School of Government Undergraduate Law Review: Vol. 4:
Iss.
2, Article 4.
Available at:
https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/helmsundergraduatelawreview/vol4/iss2/4