A federal judge in North Dakota temporarily blocked 24 states from implementing a tax administration rule. Joe Biden that establishes protections against pollution of water for streams and seasonal wetlands, according to court documents.
Judge Daniel Hovland of the North Dakota District Court issued a temporary preliminary injunction to stop enforcement of the “waters of the United States” rule, which more broadly defines what types of waterways are eligible for federal water quality protections and ensures that the United States protects its sources of drinking waterunder the LClean Water Act of 1972.
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was one of the first and most influential modern environmental laws in the United States.
The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law in the United States governing water pollution.
Your goal is restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters; recognize the responsibilities of states to address pollution and provide assistance to states to do so, including funding publicly owned treatment works to improve wastewater treatment; and maintaining the integrity of wetlands.
The Biden administration’s clean water rule, issued in 2022, struck down a Trump-era rule that federal courts rejected and that environmental groups argued left waterways open to pollution.
I mean, it’s a rule that expands federal water protections and protects safe drinking water sources across the country. Federally protected waters qualify for government programs that focus on maintain water quality and combat pollution, among other things.
The rule applies federal protections to wetlands, tributaries and other waters that have a connection to navigable waters, and does not impose a specific distance to protect adjacent wetlands. The rule also helps clarify certain qualifications for some waters that are excluded from the regulation.
The Biden administration and environmental groups have argued that efforts to relax federal water protections would significantly harm safe drinking water sources in the US.
Several Republican-led states, along with farm groups, oil and gas producers, and real estate developers, they have argued that the rule is detrimental to business and agricultural interests and is an example of federal overreach.
West Virginia and 23 other Republican-led states sued the EPA and other federal agencies in February, alleging the rule violates the US Constitution.
The states affected 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.
Last month, the Senate passed a resolution to repeal these protections and President Joe Biden vetoed it a week later.
A Supreme Court ruling set this year could challenge the EPA’s ability to protect America’s 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.
Keep reading:
• Eating a fish from US rivers or lakes is equivalent to drinking contaminated water for 30 days: study
• West Virginia train derailment spills diesel into one of North America’s oldest rivers
• Eating a fish from US rivers or lakes is equivalent to drinking contaminated water for 30 days: study
Source: La Opinion
