Injunction granted for 13 states
Injunction granted for 13 states

Injunction granted for 13 states

Injunction granted for 13 states
Last week, a Supreme Court judge blocked a new ruling from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Judge Ralph Erickson granted an injunction in favor of 13 states that filed a lawsuit against the EPA, saying the Clean Water Rule (CWR) would cause an overreach of government expansion.

The states were left with the burden of proving they would be harmed if the courts did not make a decision. Although the injunction prevents the rule from going into effect, the injunction only applies in the states that filed the lawsuit.

Once the court decision was finalized last Thursday, the EPA immediately released a statement saying the rule would go into effect on Friday. Only the 13 states that received the injunction would be excused from the rule.

“There is well-established precedent that the federal court’s order yesterday enjoining the rule applies to all 50 states, not just to the 13 states involved in that case,” said Wisconsin Attorney General Bill Schimel, whose state was not involved in the case. “We expect Wisconsin and the other states challenging the rule to seek clarification that the injunction issued by the district court in North Dakota applies nationwide.”

According to the EPA, the Clean Water Rule will provide protection for about 60 percent of the nation’s streams and millions of acres of wetlands. The agency says the Clean Water Rule would:

· Clearly define and protect tributaries that impact the health of downstream waters.
· Provide certainty in how far safeguards extend to nearby waters.
· Protect the nation’s regional water treasures.
· Focus on streams.
· Maintain the status of waters within Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems.
· Reduces the use of case-specific analysis of waters.

Opponents of the rule, however, believe agriculture and farming are being harmed by the rule. “The so-called Clean Water Rule is yet another example of [the] EPA’s reckless and unlawful behavior in the face of science, economics and the law,” said Bob Stallman, president of the American Farm Bureau Federation. “Whether you’re a farmer, a rancher, a homebuilder or a landowner of any stripe, the evidence is clear: this rule simply has to be stopped.”

Politicians on both sides of the aisle have come out in opposition of the rule, saying it creates mass confusion for business owners and puts an unnecessary burden on small farmers and ranchers.

Senators John Barasso (R-Wyoming), Joe Donnelly (D-Indiana), Heidi Heitkamp (D-North Dakota) and Jim Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) believe the rule is well intentioned but it has serious consequences for the average American farmer.

The 13 states that filed the injunction include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Additional lawsuits from farm and business groups are currently in the works.

Check Also

New climate resilience bond heads to November ballot

California voters will decide in November if the $10 billion climate resilience bond is worth …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *