Judge blocks WOTUS rule one day before scheduled implementation

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction stopping the Obama administration's Clean Water Rule from going into effect on Friday, a sizable victory for agricultural interests who brought lawsuits to halt the rule. In his opinion, Judge Ralph Erickson, a District Court judge for the District of North Dakota, said it appears the EPA “has violated its Congressional grant of authority in its promulgation of the Rule at issue.” He went on to say that the states who brought the lawsuit - North Dakota, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, South Dakota, Wyoming and two state agencies in New Mexico - “have demonstrated that they will face irreparable harm” if the rule were to go into effect Aug. 28.  Many in the agricultural community saw the Clean Water Rule - also known as Waters of the U.S., or WOTUS - as an expansion of EPA authority over new bodies of water, such as smaller waterways and wetlands, that are not currently subject to Clean Water Act protections...more

From the decision: 

                                                             SUMMARY OF DECISION

Original jurisdiction is vested in this court and not the court of appeals because the “Clean Water Rule: Definition of Waters of the United States,” jointly  promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, has at best only an attenuated connection to any permitting process. If the exceptionally expansive view advocated by the government is adopted, it would encompass virtually all EPA actions under the Clean Water Act, something precisely contrary to Section 1369(b)(1)(F)’s grant of jurisdiction.

The court finds that under either standard – “substantial likelihood of success on the merits” or “fair chance of success” – the States are likely to succeed on their claim because (1) it appears likely that the EPA has violated its Congressional grant of authority in its promulgation of the Rule at issue, and (2) it appears likely the EPA failed to comply with APA requirements when promulgating the Rule. Additionally, the court finds the other factors relevant to the inquiry weigh in favor of an injunction.