511 U.S. 700 (1994)
PUD No. 1 of Jefferson County v.
Under Clean Water Act § 401, may a state conditioning certification of a federally licensed hydropower project require minimum instream flows to protect designated uses and water quality standards, even though the condition concerns water flow and not the addition of pollutants, and do § 401 conditions apply to the entire activity rather than only to specific discharges?
Clean Water Act § 401 authorizes a state to condition or deny certification of any federally licensed or permitted activity that may result in any discharge into navigable waters to ensure compliance with the CWA and with state water quality standards. State water quality standards under § 303 include (1) designated uses of the water body, (2) water quality criteria (numeric and narrative) necessary to protect those uses, and (3) an antidegradation policy. Section 401(d) permits a state to impose conditions necessary to assure compliance with these standards and with any other appropriate requirements of state law related to water quality, and those conditions must be incorporated into the federal license. The state may condition certification to protect designated uses and narrative criteria, and may impose conditions addressing flow to the extent flow affects water quality and designated uses. The certification may address the activity as a whole, not merely the discharge component.
Yes. A state may require minimum instream flows as a condition of § 401 certification where necessary to assure compliance with state water quality standards, including protection of designated uses such as fish habitat. Section 401(d) authorizes conditions on the entire activity, not just on discrete discharges, and flow-related conditions are permissible where flow affects water quality and the maintenance of designated uses. The Washington Department of Ecology's instream flow conditions were within its § 401 authority, and the judgment upholding those conditions was affirmed.
This case is a cornerstone of environmental federalism under the CWA. It confirms that states have robust authority under § 401 to condition or deny federal licenses to protect water quality, including by imposing minimum flow requirements where flow affects water quality and designated uses. It clarifies that water quality standards are comprehensive, embracing designated uses and narrative criteria—not just pollutant-specific numeric thresholds—and that § 401 conditions may govern the licensed activity as a whole. For law students, the case illustrates statutory interpretation, deference to EPA's regulatory framework, and the practical reach of cooperative federalism in constraining federal licensing through state environmental standards.