No. 24-1120

Ohio, ex rel. Dave Yost, Attorney General of Ohio v. Rover Pipeline, LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Ohio
Docketed: 2025-04-29
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: certification-waiver clean-water-act federal-licensing natural-gas-act state-sovereignty water-quality-laws
Key Terms:
Environmental AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2025-09-29
Question Presented (AI Summary)

To start the States' waiver timeframe under 33 U.S.C. §1341(a)(1), must an applicant submit a valid certification request that satisfies applicable legal requirements?

Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act preserves state sovereignty by giving States a “certification” role in federal licensing for proposed project s that might pollute waterways through “ any discharge into the navigable waters .” 33 U.S.C. §1341(a)(1). Before an applicant receives a license , a State must certify that the discharge will comply with water -quality laws . Id. A State waives this power if it “fails or refuses to act on a request for certification, within a reasonable period of time (which shall not exceed one year) after re-ceipt of such request.” Id. But the statute does not define a “request ” for purposes of calculating waiver . Here, t he Supreme Court of Ohio held that Ohio waived its Section 401 power by failing to act within a year of a company’s initial submission for certification, even though th at submission was not “complete” under existing law. See Ohio Rev. Code §6111.30 (A)– (B). As to waiver, t his case presents this question: To start the State s’ waiver timeframe under 33 U.S.C. §1341(a)(1), must an applicant submit a valid certification request that satisfie s applicable legal requirements? 2. This Court has he ld that the Natural Gas Act sometimes impliedly preempts state laws . But the Natural Gas Act includes a saving clause , which says, “Except as specifically provided in this chapter, nothing in this chapter affe cts the rights of States under” the Clean Water Act. 15 U.S.C. §717b(d)(3). With re-spect to preemption, this case presents this question: If a State waives its certification power under 33 U.S.C. §1341(a)(1) , does it retain other “rights … under” the Clean Water Act for pur-poses of 15 U.S.C. §717b(d)(3) ?

Docket Entries

2025-10-06
Petition DENIED.
2025-07-16
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/29/2025.
2025-07-11
Reply of State of Ohio, ex rel. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General submitted.
2025-07-11
Reply of petitioner State of Ohio, ex rel. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General filed.
2025-06-30
Brief of Rover Pipeline, LLC in opposition submitted.
2025-06-30
Brief of respondents Rover Pipeline, LLC, et al. in opposition filed.
2025-05-13
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including June 30, 2025, for all respondents.
2025-05-12
Motion of Rover Pipeline, LLC for an extension of time submitted.
2025-05-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from May 29, 2025 to June 30, 2025, submitted to The Clerk.
2025-04-25

Attorneys

Pretec Directional Drilling, LLC
Benjamin Creighton SasseTucker Ellis & West LLP, Respondent
Benjamin Creighton SasseTucker Ellis & West LLP, Respondent
Rover Pipeline, LLC
William S. SchermanVinson & Elkins, Respondent
William S. SchermanVinson & Elkins, Respondent
State of Ohio, ex rel. Dave Yost, Ohio Attorney General
Mathura Jaya SridharanOhio Attorney General's Office, Petitioner
Mathura Jaya SridharanOhio Attorney General's Office, Petitioner
Thomas Elliot GaiserOffice of the Ohio Attorney General, Petitioner