(Press Release)
SUMMARY:
A Federal Court has affirmed that the pollution limits that EPA established in December 2010 for the Chesapeake Bay are within the Agency’s purview and based on sound science and that the Farm Bureau and Homebuilders had ample time to review and comment on the proposed limits. In terms of the Chesapeake Bay, there could be no better outcome. Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, Chesapeake Bay Foundation and our other partners, respectfully salute the thoughtful legal decision making by Judge Sylvia H. Rambo, the presiding federal judge in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
BACKGROUND:
Less than two weeks after EPA established pollution limits for the Bay, as required by the Clean Water Act for any body of water not meeting specific water quality standards, The American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau filed a complaint in federal court to throw out the limits – known legally in the Clean Water Act as a Total Maximum Daily Load or TMDL. Not long after the original complaint was filed, the two initiating groups were joined by the National Association of Home Builders, the National Chicken Council, the National Corn Growers Association, the National Pork Producers Council, the National Turkey Federation, The Fertilizer Institute, and the U.S. Poultry & Egg Association.
Five months after the original complaint was filed, a motion to intervene in the case in support of EPA and, specifically, the pollution limits, was filed by six organizations: Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Midshore Riverkeeper Conservancy, Citizen’s for Pennsylvania’s Future, Defenders of Wildlife, Jefferson County (WV) Public Service District, and the National Wildlife Federation. The intervenors were represented by Jon Mueller, chief counsel of CBF. We filed a response to the Farm Bureau’s and Homebuilder’s motions and offered oral arguments in October 2011.
GENERAL FINDINGS:
In the case, known as American Farm Bureau et al v. EPA, the plaintiffs made three complaints: (1) that the pollution limits or TMDL exceeded EPA’s authority, (2) that they were based on faulty science, and (3) that the plaintiff did not have adequate time to participate in the comment process. Judge Rambo’s decision clearly rejected all three of the complaints. Her ruling removed any ambiguity and clarified what EPA and the states have to do. Now the six states in the Bay watershed and the District of Columbia have the clear direction that they should continue –even accelerate – the specific plans to meet the pollution limits by 2025 that they have begun to implement in their jurisdictions.
In a thorough and meticulous 99 page opinion, the Court has affirmed that pollution limits that EPA established in 2010 are within the Agency’s authorities and based on sound science. The decision further affirmed that the litigants had ample time to review and comment. Judge Rambo’s ruling repeatedly noted the cooperative nature of the Blueprint, clarifying that EPA simply allocated pollution limits, while the states determined how best to achieve those limits.
Midshore Riverkeeper’s Director, Tim Junkin comments: We are grateful for the fine work of our counsel, Jon Mueller, in representing the intervening parties, and we are very pleased with this successful outcome. But now we must re-double our efforts toward meeting the pollution reduction goals that have been set, and we must do so with renewed vigor and commitment. We call on the agriculture lobby and other plaintiffs to re-direct their resources toward this positive goal. We must all recognize the urgency of the threats that confront us. The time is now if we are to effectively restore our grand rivers and Bay.
Ken Noble says
Editor,
As expected, but their models are still wrong from this scale of analysis prior to summation and error smoothing. Still, the only people who make any sense to me on this are our farmers, who have been farming our place for close to 50 of the 160+ years it’s been ours. At least we know what the model inputs should be (acres, land use type) but aren’t. Truth trumps false black box inputs.
Please provide a link to the 90 page findings of the court.
Thank you.
Steve Payne says
Editor,
The ruling goes into some detail about the land use, acreage calculation and the reasoning behind the decision it came to.
It’s a very thorough and well written opinion IMHO.
https://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/pdf/pdf_chesbay/BayTMDLCourtDecision91313.pdf
Grenville Whitman says
Editor,
According to Will Baker, president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, within hours after this welcomed-by-many ruling, “an American Farm Bureau Federation senior regulatory affairs director said to ‘expect an appeal,'” so it’s not over yet.