A federal judge in North Dakota recently issued a preliminary injunction to halt the new Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule from going into effect in 24 states, ruling the new rule would cause irreparable harm to the states.
Judge Daniel L. Hovland’s order now prevents the rule from being enforced in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia and Wyoming.
Earlier in March, a district judge blocked the new WOTUS rule from going into effect in Texas and Idaho a day before the rule was supposed to be implemented nationwide. The decision came following a lawsuit from industry groups, who said the new rule would expand federal jurisdiction to water bodies that are not traditionally considered navigable waters.
Injunction
In his opinion, Hovland said, “The numerous declarations filed in this case by state officials outline in detail the specific costs of state compliance with the (Environmental Protection Agency’s, EPA) new 2023 rule, as well as the significant infringement on state sovereignty that confers standing on the named plaintiffs.”
He said the new rule causes injury to the states because they are the direct object of the requirements, and the states are also landowners with obligations under the Clean Water Act.
“There is not a mere possibility the new regulations will impact the states—it is a given,” Hovland wrote. “The irreparable harm to the states that occurs with the implementation of the new 2023 rule is clear and undisputed.”
Industry groups involved in the lawsuit celebrated the ruling.
“Once again, the courts have affirmed that the Biden administration’s WOTUS rule is overreaching and harmful to America’s beef farmers and ranchers,” said National Cattlemen’s Beef Association President Todd Wilkinson in a statement.
“Cattle producers in 26 states now have some additional certainty while this rule is being litigated and we are optimistic that the Supreme Court will provide nationwide clarity on the federal government’s proper jurisdiction over water,” he said.
The American Farm Bureau (AFBF) called the ruling a win for farmers.
“This ruling reinforces our belief that the current WOTUS Rule is a clear case of government overreach,” said AFBF President Zippy Duvall in a statement. “AFBF proudly stood with the 24 states involved and more than a dozen other organizations in this challenge and in backing the first successful court challenge on behalf of farmers and ranchers who simply want clear rules.”
EPA said they remain committed to establishing a durable WOTUS definition, and they were reviewing the decision, but still find their rule to be the best interpretation of the Clean Water Act.
“Our goal is to protect public health, the environment, and downstream communities while supporting economic opportunity, agriculture, and industries that depend on clean water,” the agency said.
In March, Congress passed a bipartisan Congressional Review Act joint resolution in an attempt to stop the rule, which President Joe Biden vetoed on April 6.
“Farmers would be left wondering whether artificially irrigated areas remain excluded or not,” Biden wrote to Congress. “Construction crews would be left wondering whether their water-filled gravel pits remain excluded or not. The resolution would also negatively affect tens of millions of United States households that depend on healthy wetlands and streams.”
AFBF expressed their disappointment with the veto, saying Biden let farmers down.
“This veto flies in the face of President Biden’s promise to support farmers and ranchers. This rule is a clear case of government overreach that leaves farmers wondering whether they can farm their own land,” Duvall said in a statement. “It’s a shame the president is standing with bureaucrats instead of with the people who stock America’s pantries.” — Anna Miller, WLJ managing editor
