The court opinion stated that under the federal
Clean Water Act (CWA) Congress has required the establishment of TMDLs for
certain waters. According to the court,
though undefined in CWA, EPA has interpreted the term TMDL “to require
publication of a comprehensive framework for pollution reduction in a given
body of water.” Accordingly, EPA’s Chesapeake Bay TMDL provided for
“allocations of permissible levels of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment among
different kinds of sources of these pollutants.”
According to the court, one of AFBF’s primary
assertions was that the correct reading of the “total load” in TMDL represented
a single number, “like the ‘total’ at the bottom of restaurant receipt,” and
did not permit specific allocations of permissible levels of nitrogen,
phosphorous, and sediment. The court
disagreed that CWA only permitted one number, stating that “a plausible
understanding of ‘total’ is that it means the sum of the constituent parts of
the load.”
In addition to finding that “total” allowed for
allocations of permissible levels of nitrogen, phosphorous, and sediment, the
court found that EPA had not overstepped its statutory authority in requiring
both TMDL target dates and state assurances that TMDL objectives would be
fulfilled.
Significantly, the court opinion stated that any
solution to the Chesapeake Bay problem “will result in winners and losers.”
According to the court, the winners include “environmental groups,”
“fishermen,’ and “urban centers,” while the losers are “rural counties with
farming operations,” and “the agricultural industry.”
Written by M. Sean High - Staff Attorney
No comments:
Post a Comment