Appeals Court Blocks Obama's Attempt To Expand EPA Reach Over Wetlands

[HTFOff]

The Obama administration’s effort to accomplish through regulation what it can’t do through legislation suffered another setback today as a federal appeals court slapped a nationwide injunction on the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water Rule, which would have placed hundreds of millions of acres of additional land under federal wetlands regulations.

In a 6-page decision, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said 18 states suing over the rule stood a substantial likelihood of winning their lawsuit claiming the administration exceeded its authority and engaged in improper rulemaking. In what has become a pattern with this administration, EPA officials added specific distance limits after the proposed rule was published, probably to mollify critics, an act the court said could make it vulnerable to attack as being “arbitrary and capricious.”

It was the second time a federal court has issued an injunction against the Clean Water Rule, which defines “waters of the U.S.” to include virtually any wet area — even a rain-fed temporary pool — that is close to any other body of water with a physical connection to a navigable waterway. Last month, a federal judge in North Dakota halted the implementation of the rule in 13 states that had sued over it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2015/10/09/appeals-court-blocks-wetlands-plan/

tl;dr The sixth circuit issues nationwide stay, likely headed to the supreme court.

 

[dainthomas]

Birds that live or breed in wetlands are just about the only group of birds increasing in population. Obviously this situation is unacceptable and must be dealt with swiftly.

 

[TheSlamma]

Birds that live or breed in wetlands are just about the only group of birds increasing in population. Obviously this situation is unacceptable and must be dealt with swiftly.

They need to fall in!

Zoo, Circus or food production, it is the only way you are allowed to share this planet with the almighty human.

 

[Jhhnn]

Will it be "overreach" if the SCOTUS rules in favor of the EPA?

Right now, it's just a holding action until that determination is made.

 

[glenn1]

Will it be "overreach" if the SCOTUS rules in favor of the EPA?

Right now, it's just a holding action until that determination is made.

Seems like even if SCOTUS sides with the EPA on whether they have legal authority to implement the rule, the way they went about the rulemaking still wouldn't pass muster as you can't propose one thing and then completely change it when you issue the Final Rule. Based on that even if SCOTUS ruled in the EPA's favor I'd presume they'd still need to do through the entire public notice and comment period again.

 

[Jhhnn]

Seems like even if SCOTUS sides with the EPA on whether they have legal authority to implement the rule, the way they went about the rulemaking still wouldn't pass muster as you can't propose one thing and then completely change it when you issue the Final Rule. Based on that even if SCOTUS ruled in the EPA's favor I'd presume they'd still need to do through the entire public notice and comment period again.

I just know it'll be "overreach" only if & when the SCOTUS says it is.

Until then, the OP's characterization is just push-propaganda.

 

[IGBT]

yes..the epa must be the defenders of mud puddle maggots and mosquito larva.

 

[Jhhnn]

yes..the epa must be the defenders of mud puddle maggots and mosquito larva.

I don't pretend to understand the issues. I doubt that you do, either, but that obviously hasn't blunted your derision.

I mean, the EPA is just part of that amorphous Libruhl enemy, right?

 

[MovingTarget]

I don't pretend to understand the issues. I doubt that you do, either, but that obviously hasn't blunted your derision.

I mean, the EPA is just part of that amorphous Libruhl enemy, right?

Yeah, anyone with an eighth grade understanding of how an ecosystem works is an "ECO-KOOK" now. :whiste:

All hyperbole aside, wetlands are extremely valuable ecosystems. This is just an attempt to take the teeth out of the EPA by preventing it from fulfilling its core mission - environmental protection.

 

[michal1980]

I don't pretend to understand the issues. I doubt that you do, either, but that obviously hasn't blunted your derision.

I mean, the EPA is just part of that amorphous Libruhl enemy, right?

you keep claiming you dont understand an issue, but yet you always double down on defending the administration.

 

[ivwshane]

you keep claiming you dont understand an issue, but yet you always double down on defending the administration.

Can you quote where he was defending the administration?

 

[HTFOff]

I just know it'll be "overreach" only if & when the SCOTUS says it is.

Until then, the OP's characterization is just push-propaganda.

What characterization would that be? The thread title is the name of the article. :hmm:

Why you feel the need to commence defcon 1 whenever something that aligns with your ideology is questioned is beyond me.

 

[bozack]

What characterization would that be? The thread title is the name of the article. :hmm:

Why you feel the need to commence defcon 1 whenever something that aligns with your ideology is questioned is beyond me.

its not even with his ideology as I highly doubt he even knew about this before reading the article, rather it is any time "his team" doesn't get their way he acts like a big baby...which is funny as "these guys" are quick to proclaim the same about the other side.

Two courts said take a hike, if the SCOTUS sides with the EPA you tell me if that is over-reach when again two other courts said el no ha.

regardless nothing out of the ordinary with this administration, can't get their way going through legislature then run it through the courts or ram it down everyone's throat via executive order.

 

[theeedude]

Last month, a federal judge in North Dakota halted the implementation of the rule in 13 states that had sued over it.

Good Timing

 

[PokerGuy]

Ruling by executive decree and unelected agencies expanding their control over everything is not a good thing. Seems like a good ruling.

 

[glenn1]

Yeah, anyone with an eighth grade understanding of how an ecosystem works is an "ECO-KOOK" now. :whiste:

All hyperbole aside, wetlands are extremely valuable ecosystems. This is just an attempt to take the teeth out of the EPA by preventing it from fulfilling its core mission - environmental protection.

Yes, but it still needs to fulfill its core mission within the framework of the law that authorized it and other related laws. Since "navigable waterways" are the main thing the law in question authorizes the EPA to protect, there is some understandable and valid concerns about how the definition of a waterway could be expanded via this rulemaking. I certainly don't think it should include a large pool of standing water in someone's backyard following a rainstorm for example, or some farmer's irrigation ditch.

 

[thraashman]

We haven't destroyed nearly enough of the environment lately. Let's put Republicans back in charge and ramp up this war on nature they're trying to wage. <GOP>FUCK THE ENVIRONMENT!</GOP>

 

[UberNeuman]

yes..the epa must be the defenders of mud puddle maggots and mosquito larva.

Someone has to protect your home.

 

[glenn1]

We haven't destroyed nearly enough of the environment lately. Let's put Republicans back in charge and ramp up this war on nature they're trying to wage. <GOP>FUCK THE ENVIRONMENT!</GOP>

No one is saying that. But after things like Kelo v. New Haven everyone including those who support the EPA should be cautious about the powers we give to government to impair the use of personal property. Would you really want an EPA regulator to declare your driveway part of a "navigable waterway" and forbid you to use it without any "taking" compensation whatsoever?

 

[werepossum]

Yeah, anyone with an eighth grade understanding of how an ecosystem works is an "ECO-KOOK" now. :whiste:

All hyperbole aside, wetlands are extremely valuable ecosystems. This is just an attempt to take the teeth out of the EPA by preventing it from fulfilling its core mission - environmental protection.

Absolutely know one is arguing against that. The question is whether the EPA can arbitrarily choose to dictate use of land on the basis of standing water, no matter how ephemeral. Given that every piece of land at some point qualifies as a wetland under that description, this is not a trivial point.

We haven't destroyed nearly enough of the environment lately. Let's put Republicans back in charge and ramp up this war on nature they're trying to wage. <GOP>FUCK THE ENVIRONMENT!</GOP>

Thanks for making conservatives look like bright, sane, reasonable people with literally every post you make.

 

[thraashman]

Thanks for making conservatives look like bright, sane, reasonable people with literally every post you make.

Oh, I'm perfectly sane and reasonable, and I'm probably the smartest individual you've ever had the glorious luck of interacting with. But over the last several years I've realized that trying to interact with conservatives online is impossible to do in a reasonable fashion.

 

[Ken g6]

As I understand it, this isn't about birds, or mosquito-infested swamps. This is about protecting the watersheds for your drinking water. So unless you like poison in your tap water you should probably support this rule.

 

[glenn1]

As I understand it, this isn't about birds, or mosquito-infested swamps. This is about protecting the watersheds for your drinking water. So unless you like poison in your tap water you should probably support this rule.

See werepossum's post above. The new definition is so broadly written that pretty much anything can qualify as a wetland, inlcuding an otherwise dry gully that sees precipitation one time a year. There is no way you can conceivably say that ditches that “look and act” like tributaries should be considered part of a navigable waterway for example. And expanding the EPA authority to any "body of water" within 1,500 feet of another water body already covered by the rule gives wayyyyyyy too much room for abuse.