Nationwide stay to allow suspension of 2015 rule overturned by South Carolina judge.
A South Carolina federal judge ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers improperly suspended the Obama Administration-era waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule. The ruling is now allowed to take effect in 26 states where the WOTUS rule has not been blocked in a court order.
This case arose out of the promulgation of a rule by the Trump Administration that suspended the 2015 clean water rule for two years. The Clean Water Act prohibits discharge of pollutants from a point source into “navigable waters” without a permit.
Previously, EPA’s WOTUS Applicability Date Rule, or suspension rule, prevented the 2015 WOTUS rule from going to effect until Feb. 6, 2020. The remaining 24 states are protected by other federal court injunctions against the 2015 rule (one in North Dakota that covers 13 states, and one in Georgia that covers 11 states).
The suspension rule was put in place to give the new Administration time to repeal and re-propose a more workable definition. On the same day that the suspension rule went into effect, environmental plaintiffs filed suit against the manner in which the suspension rule was enacted, saying it violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because there was an insufficient public notice and comment period.
In his ruling, U.S. district Judge David Norton wrote, “The agencies refused to engage in a substantive re-evaluation of the definition of the ‘waters of the United States,’ even though the legal effect of the suspension rule is that the definition of ‘waters of the United States’ ceases to be the definition under the WOTUS rule and reverts to the definition under the 1980s regulation. The definition of ‘waters of the United States’ is drastically different under these two regulations.”
The ruling concluded, “As administrations change, so do regulatory priorities, but the requirements of the APA remain the same. The court finds that the government failed to comply with these requirements in implementing the suspension rule.”
Agricultural groups said the ruling reinforces why the Administration needs to take quick actions to limit the impact of this ruling.