Court rules for EPA on Chesapeake Bay, Farm Bureau disappointed
September 16, 2013 | 05:40 PM
A federal court judge on Friday upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority over the Chesapeake Bay cleanup, rejecting arguments by farm groups that EPA lacked authority under the Clean Water Act to impose a “total maximum daily load” standard for pollutants and had acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner and violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
The American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau had filed the case and were later joined by other farm groups.
The U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled Friday that the plaintiffs had failed to reach the burden of proof.
“Notwithstanding the expansive administrative record, and the complexity of the numerous issues implicated herein, the court’s scope of review in this case is relatively narrow,” Judge Sylvia Rambo ruled.
“In accordance with the deferential standards applicable to a court’s review of an agency’s actions, this court must give EPA’s interpretation of the CWA and its use of scientific models and data due deference in light of EPA’s scientific and technical expertise,” Rambo wrote.
“Plaintiffs are charged with the heavy burden of showing that the issuance of the bay TMDL [Total Maximum Daily Load] was arbitrary and capricious, and that EPA’s use of modeling and data bore no rational relationship to the realities they purport to represent.
“Having carefully considered plaintiffs’ arguments, and the applicable portions of the administrative record related thereto, the court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to meet this burden. The court further concludes that the procedures established to ensure public participation in the TMDL drafting process were sufficient to withstand scrutiny under the APA.”
Rambo added a vigorous defense of the federal role in the bay in her closing.
“The ecological and economic importance of the Chesapeake Bay is well-documented. As the largest estuary in the United States, the Chesapeake Bay is essential for the well-being of many living things. The record demonstrates extensive efforts on behalf of the Bay Partnership to protect this important resource.
“And yet, nutrient pollution and sedimentation remain a critical concern. Relevant to the legal challenges sub judice, the record reveals that the Partnership undertook significant efforts to preserve the framework of cooperative federalism, as envisioned by the CWA, and that EPA did not unlawfully infringe on the Bay states’ rights because the CWA is an ‘all-compassing’ and ‘comprehensive’ statute that envisions a strong federal role for ensuring pollution reduction.
“Indeed, considering the numerous complexities of regulating an interstate water body, EPA’s role is critical to coordinating the Bay Jurisdictions’ efforts to ensure pollution reduction. In short, the court concludes that the framework established by the Bay Partnership in developing the Bay TMDL is consistent with the provisions of the CWA and APA.
“Accordingly, the court will grant defendant EPA’s and defendant-intervenor Municipal Associations Group’s cross-motions for summary judgment and will deny plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.”
EPA’s reaction was short.
“This is a victory for the 17 million people in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,” EPA said in a statement. “We can all now as partners refocus our work on achieving clean water goals, building on the progress already happening, and reaping the benefits of restoring local waters and the bay. We remain committed and open to all input in revitalizing this national treasure.”
Ocean Champions, an environmental group, welcomed the ruling.
“This important decision reinforces the challenging work ahead to restore a healthy Chesapeake Bay,” said Dave Wilmot, president and co-founder of the group.
“It will take all involved parties to make this decision work and bring the bay back with plentiful crabs, fish and wildlife," Wilmot said. “Working together to restore the bay will benefit watermen, farmers, and bay communities.”
Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman said his group is “deeply disappointed.”
“We believe the ruling is incorrect and has huge implications for farmers and many others in the bay area and nationwide,” he said.
“Win or lose in this lawsuit, farmers care deeply about our natural environment and want to do our part to improve water quality,” Stallman added. “But Congress did not authorize EPA to dictate how farmers, builders, homeowners, and towns would share the responsibility of achieving clean water. That is the states’ job. We believe EPA’s approach wrongly puts federal agency staff in charge of intensely local land use decisions.”
“AFBF and our allies in this case are reviewing the decision and evaluating next steps,” Stallman concluded.
The American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau had filed the case and were later joined by other farm groups.
The U.S. District Court of the Middle District of Pennsylvania ruled Friday that the plaintiffs had failed to reach the burden of proof.
“Notwithstanding the expansive administrative record, and the complexity of the numerous issues implicated herein, the court’s scope of review in this case is relatively narrow,” Judge Sylvia Rambo ruled.
“In accordance with the deferential standards applicable to a court’s review of an agency’s actions, this court must give EPA’s interpretation of the CWA and its use of scientific models and data due deference in light of EPA’s scientific and technical expertise,” Rambo wrote.
“Plaintiffs are charged with the heavy burden of showing that the issuance of the bay TMDL [Total Maximum Daily Load] was arbitrary and capricious, and that EPA’s use of modeling and data bore no rational relationship to the realities they purport to represent.
“Having carefully considered plaintiffs’ arguments, and the applicable portions of the administrative record related thereto, the court concludes that plaintiffs have failed to meet this burden. The court further concludes that the procedures established to ensure public participation in the TMDL drafting process were sufficient to withstand scrutiny under the APA.”
Rambo added a vigorous defense of the federal role in the bay in her closing.
“The ecological and economic importance of the Chesapeake Bay is well-documented. As the largest estuary in the United States, the Chesapeake Bay is essential for the well-being of many living things. The record demonstrates extensive efforts on behalf of the Bay Partnership to protect this important resource.
“And yet, nutrient pollution and sedimentation remain a critical concern. Relevant to the legal challenges sub judice, the record reveals that the Partnership undertook significant efforts to preserve the framework of cooperative federalism, as envisioned by the CWA, and that EPA did not unlawfully infringe on the Bay states’ rights because the CWA is an ‘all-compassing’ and ‘comprehensive’ statute that envisions a strong federal role for ensuring pollution reduction.
“Indeed, considering the numerous complexities of regulating an interstate water body, EPA’s role is critical to coordinating the Bay Jurisdictions’ efforts to ensure pollution reduction. In short, the court concludes that the framework established by the Bay Partnership in developing the Bay TMDL is consistent with the provisions of the CWA and APA.
“Accordingly, the court will grant defendant EPA’s and defendant-intervenor Municipal Associations Group’s cross-motions for summary judgment and will deny plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.”
EPA’s reaction was short.
“This is a victory for the 17 million people in the Chesapeake Bay watershed,” EPA said in a statement. “We can all now as partners refocus our work on achieving clean water goals, building on the progress already happening, and reaping the benefits of restoring local waters and the bay. We remain committed and open to all input in revitalizing this national treasure.”
Ocean Champions, an environmental group, welcomed the ruling.
“This important decision reinforces the challenging work ahead to restore a healthy Chesapeake Bay,” said Dave Wilmot, president and co-founder of the group.
“It will take all involved parties to make this decision work and bring the bay back with plentiful crabs, fish and wildlife," Wilmot said. “Working together to restore the bay will benefit watermen, farmers, and bay communities.”
Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman said his group is “deeply disappointed.”
“We believe the ruling is incorrect and has huge implications for farmers and many others in the bay area and nationwide,” he said.
“Win or lose in this lawsuit, farmers care deeply about our natural environment and want to do our part to improve water quality,” Stallman added. “But Congress did not authorize EPA to dictate how farmers, builders, homeowners, and towns would share the responsibility of achieving clean water. That is the states’ job. We believe EPA’s approach wrongly puts federal agency staff in charge of intensely local land use decisions.”
“AFBF and our allies in this case are reviewing the decision and evaluating next steps,” Stallman concluded.
