McCain Thrilled About Clean Water Act Injunction, but Critics Say He’s Just

Ellis says that’s a big concern they have with the rule.

Courts in West Virginia and Georgia ruled earlier in the week that they did not have jurisdiction to rule on the lawsuits.

As previously noted, EPA released its draft WOTUS rule before the work of the Science Advisory Board was complete, thus raising questions as to the rule’s scientific objectivity. “When even the federal agencies responsible for this rule can’t agree on its constitutionality, it’s time for EPA to withdraw the rule and start this process over”, said Chip Bowling, president of the National Corn Growers Association and a farmer from Newburg, Maryland.

The judge found that the WOTUS rule is simply definitional, and neither an effluent limitation nor an “other limitation” on states’ discretion.

The judge’s decision is a major hindrance for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers, who were already beginning their plans last Friday to begin the enforcement of the Waters of the United States Rule.

Judge Ralph Erickson recognized that the new rule “suffers from the same fatal defect”.

“We see this (rule) as very hurtful to farmers and ranchers and we’re going to do everything to stop it politically”, said Don Parrish of the American Farm Bureau Federation, one of several farm and business groups that have filed suit against the regulation. The new rule upholds existing agricultural exemptions, he said. “NCGA is committed to working with the EPA, the Corps, and other stakeholders to protect America’s water resources”.

The federal ruling Thursday was in North Dakota, where officials from that state and 12 others argued the new guidelines are overly broad and infringe on their sovereignty.

What’s more, these regulations are “not genuine environmental protection”, and will “disproportionately impact Arizona farmers, cattlemen, developers, and other key sectors of Arizona’s economy historically and moving forward into the 21st century”. Opponents – largely from agricultural states – say it gives the federal government too much control over private property.

“It’s unfortunate because the real issue is that we need funding to clean these sorts of things up”, Bahr says.

“Thankfully, Judge Erickson recognized that this mandate goes well beyond the scope of the Clean Water Act”, U.S. Sen.