Johnathan H. Adler
Last night, in Texas v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, a
federal district court in Texas held that the Obama Administration
violated the Administrative Procedure Act when it adopted a revised
definition of "waters of the United States" in 2015, and remanded the
so-called WOTUS rule back to the federal agencies from whence it came. The
definition of "waters of the United States" is of particular importance
because it defines the scope of federal regulatory jurisdiction under
the Clean Water Act (CWA). In short, the CWA prohibits the discharge of
materials into "navigable waters" without a federal permit, and the Act
defines "navigable waters" as "waters of the United States." A broader
definition means that more activities that take place on or near such
"waters" are subject to federal regulation. The precise scope of CWA jurisdiction has been the subject of litigation and legal wrangling for decades.
In 2015, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection
Agency sought to bring greater certainty to CWA regulation with a new,
fairly broad definition of "waters of the United States"—the so-called
WOTUS rule. Yet because this rule adopted an expansive interpretation of
"waters of the United States," numerous states, industry organizations,
and property rights groups sued. Much
of the debate over the 2015 WOTUS rule focuses on whether the Obama
Administration asserted federal regulatory jurisdiction beyond the scope
of what the CWA authorizes or the Constitution permits. Yet Judge Hanks
did not need to reach such questions to throw out the rule. In promulgating the 2015 rule, the Army Corps and EPA failed to comply
with the basic requirements of notice-and-comment rulemaking under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Specifically, Judge Hanks noted, key
aspects of the final rule were not a "logical outgrowth" of the initial
regulatory proposal published in the Federal Register and the
public was never given the opportunity to comment on a key study that
was "instrumental" in the final regulation adopted by the EPA and Army
Corps...MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment