NAMA Shortcuts
Member Directory
Best of NAMA 2015
Upcoming Events
Chapters
Agri-Marketing Conf
More NAMA












"WOTUS" LAWSUIT PUT ON HOLD WHILE SUPREME COURT DECIDES JURISDICTION
Source: National Pork Producers Council news release

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the 6th Circuit in Cincinnati this week granted a motion from NPPC and dozens of other agricultural organizations, businesses and municipalities to hold in abeyance its decision on a lawsuit against a Clean Water Act regulation until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on a jurisdictional issue related to the case. The high court last week agreed to consider whether jurisdiction rests with the federal district or appellate courts to hear the lawsuit over the Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule.

The regulation, which took effect Aug. 28, 2015, was proposed in April 2014 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to clarify the agencies' authority over various waters. That jurisdiction - based on several Supreme Court decisions - had included "navigable" waters and waters with a significant hydrologic connection to navigable waters.

But the WOTUS rule broadened that to include, among other water bodies, upstream waters and intermittent and ephemeral streams such as the kind farmers use for drainage and irrigation. It also covered lands adjacent to such waters. The 6th Circuit in October 2015 issued a stay on implementation of the regulation pending disposition of numerous lawsuits filed in U.S. district courts around the country.

Last year, the appeals court consolidated the suits under its jurisdiction. NPPC and other groups in November submitted briefs to the 6th Circuit, arguing that the agencies promulgated the WOTUS rule without following federal rulemaking procedures, the regulation is arbitrary and capricious or contrary to law and the agencies exceeded their authority under the Clean Water Act and the U.S. Constitution. (With just days left in the administration, the Obama EPA filed its brief in defense of the rule with the 6th Circuit.)

The groups also argued that EPA and the Corps of Engineers failed to reopen the public comment period after making fundamental changes to the proposed rule and withheld until after the comment period closed the scientific report on which the rule rested. The agencies also refused to conduct required economic and environmental analyses, engaged in a propaganda campaign to promote the regulation and to rebuke its critics and illegally lobbied against congressional efforts to stop implementation of the rule.


Search News & Articles























Proudly associated with:
American Business Media Canadian Agri-Marketing Association National Agri-Marketing Association
Agricultural Relations Council National Association of Farm Broadcasters American Agricultural Editors' Association Livestock Publications Council
All content © 2017, Henderson Communications LLC. | User Agreement