The Environmental Protection Agency is taking solace in a federal appeals court saying that the Clean Water Rule is necessary, although the court blocked the regulation Friday.
The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals voted to stay the Clean Water Rule, which was finalized Aug. 28, effectively blocking its implementation nationwide. The court stopped the rule from taking effect while it considers whether it has jurisdiction and if the rule constitutes federal overreach.
The Cincinnati-based court also said in its 2-1 decision that clarification of the Clean Water Act is needed. The Clean Water Rule was established to clarify the law.
EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said the agency looks forward to arguing its case in court.
“The Clean Water Rule was developed by the agencies to respond to an urgent need to improve and simplify the process for identifying waters that are and are not protected under the Clean Water Act, and is based on the latest science and the law,” Harrison said.
“The Clean Water Rule represents the agencies’ continuing commitment to protecting and restoring the nation’s water resources that are vital for our health, environment and economy.”
The EPA says the rule would protect streams and wetlands that affect water quality and would more precisely define waters protected by the Clean Water Act. But ranchers, farmers and many states argue it gives the federal agency unprecedented authority over drainage ditches and nearly anything else that can contain water.
The League of Conservation Voters criticized the decision, calling it “irresponsible” and saying it would allow pollution to continue to enter the country’s drinking water.
“Time and again the public has demonstrated that it overwhelmingly supports restoring these safeguards for the water our children and grandchildren drink, swim and play in,” said Madeleine Foote, legislative representative for the league.
“For too long, legal uncertainties have created an unworkable status quo that jeopardizes the clean water our families, economy and communities depend on.”
While the EPA and environmental groups were disappointed, many of the agency’s critics in Congress rejoiced in at the court’s decision.
Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, took a break from his run for House speaker to say he thinks the rule should be withdrawn immediately.
“The EPA’s attempt to regulate puddles and ditches is a disaster for landowners and farmers across the country,” said Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. “Under President Obama, the EPA has a history of rushing out rules despite significant opposition, even from other executive branch agencies.”
Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said the ruling is a necessary check on the EPA, which he believes runs as a “super-legislature.”
“This ruling brings us one step closer to having the American people — not unelected bureaucrats — setting important agriculture and conservation policy,” he said.
Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt, one of the 18 attorneys general who filed the lawsuit to stop the rule, called the rule a “devastating blow to private property rights.”
He said the decision to block the rule while the lawsuit is pending is appropriate, and he’s anticipating much litigation in the coming months.
“The [Waters of the United States] rule … is an unlawful power grab by the EPA over virtually all bodies of water in the United States,” he said.
