In Decker V

In Decker v. Northwest Environmental Defense Center, where an environmental group sued the EPA and other parties because logging companies were not required to have pollution discharge permits for rain runoff on logging roads. The appeals court held that the rain runoff was associated with industrial activity, so discharge permits were required. The Supreme Court held that:

A) EPA's interpretation of the relevant statute concerning water pollution was arbitrary and capricious so discharge permits would be required
B) discharge permits were not necessary as EPA asserted, but the logging endangered the spotted owl, so greater regulatory oversight was required of logging operations
C) there was no violation of the Clean Water Act because it only applies to emissions from industrial facilities such as factories, not trucks on a road
D) there was no violation of the Clean Water Act
E) there was no violation of the Clean Water Act, but there was a possible violation of the Endangered Species Act