Clean Water Act "guidance" faces stiff opposition
PLF’s recent unanimous Supreme Court win in the Sackett case has enlivened the debate about agency abuse and federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
In Sackett, the Supreme Court once again chastised the agency for not adopting clear, formal rules delineating federal jurisdiction over “navigable waters.” But the EPA and Corps of Engineers are in the grips of exacerbating the problem for landowners by adopting new “guidance” allegedly interpreting “navigable waters.” To avoid judicial review, this “guidance” is framed as a “nonbinding, interpretive” policy. But the “guidance” does in fact have binding effect. More importantly, it expands agency authority more than any prior interpretation of the Act. The proposed “guidance” is inconsistent with Supreme Court decisions, the statutory language and undoubtedly exceeds constitutional authority. The “guidance” is so expansive that the EPA and Corps expressly refuse to categorically exclude swimming pools and ornamental ponds, saying that these water features are only “generally exempt” from federal regulations. That leaves landowners with small water bodies on their property, like the Sacketts, guessing about whether their property will be subject to federal control.
The proposed “guidance” is now under review by OMB and could be finalized and adopted any time. We filed extensive comments on the “guidance” here
In response to the Sackett’s plight, and thousands like them, Senator Rand Paul drafted a bill, Defense of Environment and Property Act of 2012, to define “navigable waters” with bright line boundaries in an effort to provide certainty to the regulated public and establish clear limits to federal authority under the Clean Water Act. We provide a summary of the bill here. Likewise, Senator Barrasso and 25 other Senators have put forward a bill entitled Preserve the Waters of the United States Act that expressly prohibits the EPA and Corps from relying on the proposed “guidance” in any way.
These bills have garnered support among many ag and property rights groups.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.
Minnesota bans political apparel at polling places across the State. The government interprets “political” broadly: the ban applies to shirts with classic American phrases such as “Liberty” or “Don’t tread on me,” as long as those phrases appear alongside a tea party logo — no matter how small.
Sunday marks the 230th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Pacific Legal Foundation celebrates Constitution Day this year with a column about a Founding Father and signer of the Constitution who now stars in the Broadway hit musical, Hamilton. We also use the opportunity to remind our federal legislators about the importance of the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. The opinion piece will run in newspapers from coast to coast this weekend.