Just in the nick of time.  A federal judge today blocked the Obama administration’s water pollution rule mere hours before it was set to begin implementation.  Under the new EPA/Obama regulations puddles, ditches and all rain accumulation geographies come under the jurisdiction of the EPA and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Any area subject to rain water transit would have to meet strict EPA rules and compliance standards.  Yes, that means your driveway, puddles upon your property, the ditch in front of your house, or the transverse area around your guttered downspouts would be subject to the inspection and authority of the EPA.

Potential child terrorist caught in the act of polluting an EPA regulated water transference system.
Potential child terrorist caught in the act of polluting an EPA regulated water transference system.

WASHINGTON DC – A federal judge in North Dakota acted late Thursday to block the Obama administration’s controversial water pollution rule, hours before it was due to take effect.
Judge Ralph Erickson of the District Court for the District of North Dakota found that the 13 states suing to block the rule met the conditions necessary for a preliminary injunction, including that they would likely be harmed if courts didn’t act and that they are likely to succeed when their underlying lawsuit against the rule is decided.
The decision is a major roadblock for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers, who were planning Friday to begin enforcing the Waters of the United States rule, expanding federal jurisdiction over small waterways like streams and wetlands.
But the Obama administration says it will largely enforce the regulation as planned, arguing that the Thursday decision only applies to the 13 states that requested the injunction.
Pictured: "Environmental Extremist" violating EPA rules and regulations.
Pictured: “Environmental Extremist” violating EPA rules and regulations.

“Once the rule takes effect, the states will lose their sovereignty over intrastate waters that will then be subject to the scope of the Clean Water Act,” Erickson wrote in his order.
“While the exact amount of land that would be subject to the increase is hotly disputed, the agencies admit to an increase in control over those traditional state-regulated waters of between 2.84 to 4.65 percent. Immediately upon the rule taking effect, the rule will irreparably diminish the states’ power over their waters,” he continued, calling the Obama administration’s interpretation of its jurisdiction “exceptionally expansive.”
The states and the federal government argued over how to judge the likelihood opponents of the rule would win their case. But Erickson decided that the regulation is not “likely” to stand up to full court consideration.
In a statement shortly after the ruling, the EPA was defiant and said that the injunction only applies in the thirteen states that filed for it: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.
“In all other respects, the rule is effective on August 28,” EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said in the statement. “The agencies are evaluating these orders and considering next steps in the litigation.”
The EPA’s interpretation appears to conflict with responses from most stakeholders, lawmakers and others.
The water rule quickly became one of the most controversial regulations from Obama’s EPA, opposed by most states and many business, agriculture and development interests, among others.
They argue that the regulation greatly expands the federal government’s authority over water and land.
The Obama administration says the rule is necessary to protect small waterways from pollution or harm, as called for under the Clean Water Act.
As a preliminary injunction, Erickson’s ruling is designed only to last as long as the litigation persists, and can be overturned.  (read more)
[scribd id=276560509 key=key-IeZdidce9IXFL9fqFVDz mode=scroll]
puddle 3

Share