In respondent's action to compel petitioner Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency to allot among the States the full
sums authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1973 and 1974
by § 207 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of
1972 for municipal waste treatment plants, the District Court held
that the Administrator had abused his discretion by allotting only
45% of the authorized sums. The Court of Appeals, on the premise
that there was discretion to control or delay allotments, concluded
that further proceedings were essential to determine whether that
discretion had been abused.
Held: Since the holding in
Train v. City of New
York, ante, p.
420 U. S. 35, that
the Administrator has no authority to allot less than the full
amounts authorized to be appropriated under § 207, is at odds with
the Court of Appeals' premise, that court's judgment is vacated and
the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with
Train v. City of New York.
489 F.2d 492, vacated and remanded.
Page 420 U. S. 137
PER CURIAM.
On January 16, 1973, respondent filed a complaint in the
District Court seeking to compel the petitioner, as Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency, to allot among the States
the full sums authorized to be appropriated for fiscal years 1973
and 1974 by § 207 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as
added by the Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 839, 33 U.S.C. § 1287
(1970 ed., Supp. II), for federal grants to municipalities for
construction of publicly owned waste treatment works. Although
conceding in the trial court that the Administrator had a measure
of discretion in making the allotments
Page 420 U. S. 138
authorized by § 205 of the Act, 86 Stat. 837, 33 U.S.C. § 1285
(1970 ed., Supp. III), respondent asserted that the Administrator
had abused his discretion by allotting only 45% of the sums
authorized to be appropriated by § 207. In sustaining respondent's
position, the District Court rejected the holding by the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia in
City of
New York v. Ruckelshaus, 358 F.
Supp. 669 (1973), that the Administrator has no discretion to
allot less than the full amounts authorized by the Act. The Court
of Appeals proceeded on the premise that there was discretion to
control or delay allotments, but concluded that further proceedings
were essential to determine whether the Administrator's discretion
had been abused. The Administrator petitioned for certiorari,
asserting that the exercise of his discretion to allot funds under
§ 205 is not subject to judicial review.
* We granted
certiorari, 416 U.S. 969 (1974), and heard the case with
Train
v. City of New York, ante, p.
420 U. S. 35.
We held in
Train v. City of New York that the
Administrator has no authority under § 205 to allot less than the
full amounts sought to be appropriated under § 207. Because that
holding is at odds with the premise underlying the judgment of the
Court of Appeals, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals
and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this
opinion and with the opinion in
Train v. City of New
York.
So ordered.
MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS concurs in the result.
* The petition also asserted that the doctrine of sovereign
immunity foreclosed ordering the Administrator to allot funds that
he had withheld in the course of exercising his discretion under
the Act. In light of
Train v. City of New York, ante, p.
420 U. S. 35, and
our disposition of the instant case, we need not address this
question.
