A federal judge has blocked Biden's clean water rule in 24 states
- A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a Biden administration rule that would expand federal protections for hundreds of thousands of rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands and other waterways in 24 states.
- Judge Daniel Hovland of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota issued a temporary preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the rule, which more broadly defines which types of waterways are eligible for federal water-quality protections under the 1972 Clean Water Act.
- In the order, Hovland wrote that the states, led by West Virginia, "have persuasively shown that the new 2023 rule poses a threat to their sovereign rights and amounts to irreparable harm."
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a Biden administration rule that would expand federal protections for hundreds of thousands of rivers, lakes, streams, wetlands and other waterways in 24 states.
Judge Daniel Hovland of the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota issued a temporary preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the "waters of the United States" rule, which more broadly defines which types of waterways are eligible for federal water-quality protections under the 1972 Clean Water Act.
The Biden administration's clean water rule, issued in 2022, repealed a Trump-era rule that federal courts rejected and that environmental groups argued left waterways open to pollution. The Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army said the revised rule is based on definitions that were in place before 2015, when the Obama administration sought to expand federal protections.
Republican-led states, along with farming groups, oil and gas producers, and real estate developers, have argued the rule is harmful to business and agriculture interests and is an example of federal overreach.
White House officials and environmental groups have argued that loosening federal water protections would harm sources of safe drinking water across the country. Federally protected waters qualify for government programs that focus on maintaining water quality and combating pollution, among other things.
The rule applies federal protections to wetlands, tributaries and other waters that have a connection to navigable waters, and it doesn't impose a specific distance for when adjacent wetlands are protected. The rule also helps clarify certain qualifications for some waters that are excluded from regulation.
West Virginia and 23 other Republican-led states sued the EPA and other federal agencies in February, alleging the rule violates the U.S. Constitution. Last month, the Senate approved a resolution to overturn the protections, a measure that President Joe Biden vetoed a week later.
In the order, Hovland wrote that the states "have persuasively shown that the new 2023 rule poses a threat to their sovereign rights and amounts to irreparable harm" and would "expend unrecoverable resources complying with a rule unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny."
A federal judge in Texas in March also paused the protections in Texas and Idaho. The regulation is now blocked in over half the country.
A Supreme Court ruling set for this year could challenge the EPA's ability to protect waterways. The case, Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, challenges the government's determination that a wetland on private land in Idaho is protected under the Clean Water Act.
The EPA and the Department of the Army are reviewing the decision and their options, and continue to believe the rule is the best interpretation of the Clean Water Act, an EPA spokesperson said.
"The agencies remain committed to establishing and implementing a durable definition of 'waters of the United States' informed by diverse perspectives," the EPA said in a statement. "Our goal is to protect public health, the environment, and downstream communities while supporting economic opportunity, agriculture, and industries that depend on clean water."
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey in a statement said the rule would upset the balance of power between the states and the federal government.
"It's a decades-long effort by the EPA to regulate purely intrastate waters without the explicit consent of lawmakers," Morrisey said. "It creates unneeded delays and costs for farmers, contractors, ranchers and anyone who cares about economic activity."
The states impacted by this week's ruling are 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.