August 5, 2020

Volume X, Number 218

August 05, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 04, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 03, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Replacement of the Clean Water Rule to Be a Two-Step Process

The Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers announced yesterday that the implementation of President Trump’s executive order directing EPA and the Corps to replace the Clean Water Rule will be a two-step affair.  The first step, contained in a pre-publication proposed rule issued by both agencies, will rescind the Clean Water Rule and restore the definition of “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”) that was in place before EPA and the Corps issued the Rule in 2015.  In step two, which will occur at some future date, EPA and Corps will propose a new, narrower WOTUS definition. 

An Emphasis on Certainty and Continuity

Practically speaking, the proposed rule aims to ensure that the pre-2015 definition of WOTUS—and not the Clean Water Rule—remains controlling while litigation over the Clean Water Rule plays out and the agencies develop a new definition. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued a nationwide stay of the Clean Water Rule in October 2015, but that stay may not remain in place while the administration tries to develop and defend a new definition of WOTUS.  That stay would be lifted if the Supreme Court holds, in a case to be decided next term, that the Sixth Circuit lacks jurisdiction over challenges to the Clean Water Rule.  Assuming that the administration’s proposed rule holds up to legal challenges, any dissolution of the stay would not result in the Clean Water Rule taking effect in some parts of the country.

The proposed rule offers assurances—beyond simply restoring the prior version of the WOTUS definition—that the status quo will remain in place for the time being. The preamble assures the regulated community that EPA and the Corps will continue to apply pre-Clean Water Rule guidance documents in making regulatory determinations under the Clean Water Act.  Notably, the guidance documents that the agencies will continue to use include 2003 and 2008 joint guidance that interpret the Supreme Court’s decisions in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001), and Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).   

Balancing the Clean Water Act’s Objectives

In addition to focusing on regulatory certainty, the agencies’ rationale for rescinding the Clean Water Rule emphasizes their focus on the role of states in regulating water pollution. Section 101(b) of the Clean Water Act recognizes “the primary responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution ….”  The proposed rule issued today argues that this policy received insufficient consideration in the development of the Clean Water Rule and will play a more central role in the development and justification of its replacement.  As a consequence, Section 101(b) will likely play a substantial role in litigation challenging yesterday’s proposed rule and any future rulemaking to redefine WOTUS along the lines of Justice Scalia’s plurality opinion in Rapanos

More to Come

The agencies’ proposed rule is just the beginning of what will be a flurry of activity over the coming months and years relating to the Clean Water Rule and its replacement. Comments on the proposed rule will be due in late July or early August 2017, depending on when EPA the and Corps publish their proposal in the Federal Register.  In addition to the current litigation over the Clean Water Rule, one can expect multiple lawsuits challenging the rescission of Clean Water Rule and any replacement that the agencies issue.

© 2020 Beveridge & Diamond PC National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 179

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Andrew C. Silton Environmental Litigation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC
Principal

Andrew C. Silton guides clients through complex regulatory issues and high stakes litigation arising under the nation's clean water laws.

His practice focuses primarily on issues arising under the nation’s water quality laws and spans regulatory counseling, enforcement defense, and litigation. He is currently the Deputy Chair of the firm’s Water Practice Group and represents clients from both the private and public sectors in matters arising under the Clean Water Act and state law. Drew advises clients in a variety of sectors, ranging from waste and stormwater utilities to companies...

202-789-6078
Richard S. Davis Clean Water Act Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC
Principal

Richard uses his 40 years of Clean Water Act experience to find cost-effective solutions for the complex regulatory challenges that his business clients face.

Since joining Beveridge & Diamond in 1981, Richard has practiced almost exclusively under the federal Clean Water Act and its state analogues, chairing or co-chairing the firm’s Clean Water Practice Group for more than 15 years, and helping direct one of the nation’s most innovative and dynamic clean water practices.

Richard has represented individual industrial dischargers and industry groups, as well as local clean water agencies, in Clean Water law matters that include permitting, pretreatment, Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs), Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs), enforcement defense of agency and citizen suits, and regulatory negotiation and strategic planning. His work for both private and public clients gives him a thorough understanding of the demands on those publicly owned treatment works and, in turn, their perspective when regulating indirect industrial dischargers.

Richard’s Clean Water Act expertise allows him to solve sophisticated regulatory challenges for his clients using the least-cost means, whether that be persuasion, commenting on rules, meetings with agency leaders, or litigation. Often, he solves issues by demonstrating why an adversary’s interpretation of a statute or regulation is mistaken.

Accomplishments of which he is particularly proud include his ongoing representation of a coastal Florida community whose incomparable natural resources were threatened by releases of contaminated water from Lake Okeechobee. Richard worked with the Corps of Engineers and other stakeholders to give his client a voice in directing those releases. Moderated releases have effectively saved the community’s signature wildlife refuge.

In another notable matter, Richard worked with the aviation industry in a multi-year effort to stave off inflexible regulation of aircraft deicing runoff at airports. As chief outside counsel to the U.S. airlines’ trade association, he developed and executed a strategy to demonstrate to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that its one-size-fits-all proposed regulation would not survive a challenge. EPA accepted that fact and in 2012 issued a final Effluent Limitation Guideline (ELG) that left regulation of aircraft deicing discharges to individual permit writers.

Richard also successfully represented the recreational boating industry when it faced having its sales decimated by a federal court decision that would have required all private boat owners to obtain federal discharge permits. He helped to lead an effort that culminated in the passage of the federal Clean Boating Act of 2008, which protects recreational vessels from permitting under a program better suited to address industrial dischargers.

Richard clerked for the Honorable H. Emory Widener, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, from 1980 to 1981. He has authored numerous articles, speaks often on cutting-edge Clean Water Act topics, and was the principal author of M. Bender’s Environmental Law Practice Guide on water pollution. He has also been a Professorial Lecturer at Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America.

202-789-6025
James M. Auslander Natural Resources & Project Development Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC
Principal

James (Jamie) M. Auslander's legal practice focuses on project development, natural resources, and administrative law and litigation.

Mr. Auslander co-chairs Beveridge & Diamond’s Natural Resources and Project Development Practice Group, including its Energy Practice. He focuses on complex legal issues surrounding the development of oil and gas, hard rock minerals, renewable energy, and other natural resources on public lands onshore and on the Outer Continental Shelf. He frequently litigates appeals before federal courts and administrative bodies regarding rulemakings, permits...

202-789-6009
Karen M. Hansen Water Regulation Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Austin, TX
Principal

Karen Hanson’s practice focuses on the Clean Water Act and state programs for regulating and permitting water discharges and water supply/use, and on environmental, health, and safety audit review and implementation. 

She has extensive experience assisting industrial and municipal clients in preparing strategies for and pursuing water permits for ongoing operations, expansions and new operations, including permit challenges. Karen also represents clients that must defend CWA and state water law enforcement actions, including claims pursued by governmental as well as third party...

512-391-8005
W. Parker Moore Environmental Attorney Beveridge & Diamond Washington, DC
Principal

Parker guides complex projects to successful completion.

His environmental law practice is an outgrowth of his love for the natural world. He co-chairs Beveridge & Diamond’s Natural Resources and Project Development Practice Group and its NEPA, Wetlands, and Endangered Species Act groups.

Parker dedicates his practice to successful project development, advising clients nationwide on activities implicating NEPA, wetlands regulation, and federal and state species protection laws, including the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and...

202-789-6028