(plaintiffs, several environmental groups, sued the defendant in 2008, seeking to compel the defendant to adopt new standards for Florida’s water quality under the Clean Water Act; specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that Florida’s narrative standards were insufficient and that the defendant was required to issue numeric standards for the state; in 2009, the defendant ordered Florida to issue numeric standards and determined that if Florida failed to do so, the defendant would set those standards; the court then issued a consent decree approving an agreement among the parties stating that the defendant would be required to impose numeric standards only if Florida failed to do so; in 2012, Florida submitted to the defendant for approval a set of nutrient criteria, including numeric criteria for some waters and narrative criteria for others; the defendant approved the proposal and then amended its 2009 determination to conform to the new standards; the defendant then filed a motion to modify the consent order to conform with these amendments; the plaintiffs protested, arguing that the decree could not be modified; in granting the EPA’s motion, the court ruled that underRufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992), the consent decree could be modified because there had been a “significant change in the factual conditions and law”; studies showed that appropriate numeric criteria for streams had proven elusive).