




Perhaps Judge Rambo spoke too soon.  The American Farm Bureau, the original plaintiff, appealed.  Now, a group of 21 states has filed an amicus brief in support of the AFB.  The opening paragraph of the brief asserts that the TMDL:

defies the limits of the Clean Water Act and strips States of their traditional right to make the land-use decisions necessary to comply with federal water quality standards.

Frankly, I’m a little confused.  Of the 21 states filing the amicus brief, only one, West Virginia, is one of the six states (Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New York) that are subject to the TMDL.  As to West Virginia, why did they not appeal the TMDL directly, rather than merely participating as an amicus?

As to the other five states, a fair inference is that Judge Rambo is correct.  Correcting the pollution problems in the Chesapeake Bay is a difficult and complicated endeavor.  The states affected presumably did not think that the TMDL was perfect, but they were prepared to live with it.

Do the states filing the amicus brief recognize the irony in complaining that the TMDL ignores the proper role of the states in the TMDL process when those states that will actually be affected by the TMDL participated in the process and did not themselves file suit?


Topics:  Clean Water Act, Environmental Policies, EPA, Pollution Control, TMDL



© Foley Hoag LLP - Environmental Law | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:



Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »