Saturday, October 1, 2016
1012 C Street  •  Floresville, TX 78114  •  Phone: 830-216-4519  •  Fax: 830-393-3219  • 

WCN Site Search


Preview the Paper Preview the Paper

Preview this week's Paper
A limited number of pages are displayed in this preview.
Preview this Week’s Issue ›
Subscribe Today ›

Lost & Found

Lost: White Poodle mix, "Dillon," white curly hair, Sutherland Springs area, he has been missing since the beginning of August. 210-219-7963.

VideoLost male German Shepard/Husky mix dog. Freckles on his nose, leather collar, last seen in backyard on Legacy View in La Vernia. Call 210-331-1907

VideoLost male German Shepard/Husky mix dog. Freckles on his nose, leather collar, last seen in backyard on Legacy View in La Vernia. Call 210-331-1907
More Lost & Found ads ›

Help Wanted

Your #1 Advertising Resource! Call 830-216-4519.
Smartt Move LLC now hiring CDL drivers, hourly pay, day work, benefits, insurance, etc. Call George 972-365-6326 or Todd 210-296-6272.
More Help Wanted ads ›

Featured Videos





Video Vault ›

Commentaries


EPA’s legal losing streak




E-Mail this Story to a Friend
Print this Story

Disclaimer:
The author of this entry is responsible for this content, which is not edited by the Wilson County News or wilsoncountynews.com.
July 6, 2012 | 2,233 views | 2 comments

By Josiah Neeley

Alexis de Tocqueville once noted that “scarcely any political question arises in the United States that is not resolved, sooner or later, into a judicial question.”

Nowhere is this truer than in the realm of environmental policy, where the courts are often the only refuge for those caught in the path of the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulatory steam-roller.

After more than three years of what The Wall Street Journal called “a regulatory spree unprecedented in U.S. history,” EPA’s regulatory actions are finally being tested in court. And in a mounting number of cases, they have been found wanting.

In March, the Supreme Court handed EPA a unanimous rebuke in Sackett v. EPA. The Sacketts are an Idaho couple who ran afoul of the EPA when they tried to build a house on their 2/3 acre lot. EPA claimed that the land was a protected wet-land, and threatened the Sacketts with up to $75,000 per day in fines if they didn’t comply with EPA’s commands.

When the Sacketts sued, EPA sought to avoid judicial review of their actions, a position rejected by the Court. The focus of EPA’s losing streak has been in Texas.

A week after the Sackett decision, a federal appeals court threw out EPA’s rejection of Texas’ Qualified Facilities Rule.

Adopted in 1995, the rule allows plants to make physical and operational changes to their sites without having to go through the full repermitting process unless the changes either increase emissions or result in the release of new contaminants.

After taking no action for more than a decade, in 2010 EPA rejected Texas’ rule on the novel grounds that it was inconsistent with Texas state law. The court saw things differently, vacating EPA’s disapproval and instructing the agency to confine itself to deciding whether a proposed rule is consistent with federal law (as the Clean Air Act requires).

Just days later, EPA agreed to settle an action it had brought against Range Resources, a Texas natural gas company. EPA initially claimed that Range’s use of hydraulic fracturing (commonly known as “fracking”) had caused methane contamination of the local water supply.

Once it was proven that the methane in the aquifer had migrated naturally from an entirely different geological formation than the one from which Range was pumping gas, EPA shifted ground, claiming that the law didn’t require it to prove or even allege any connection between Range and the contamination.

Given the decided anti-EPA tenor of oral arguments, one can only assume that the agency opted to cut its losses, rather than suffer another legal defeat that could have significant implications for future cases.

EPA also suffered a major setback last December, when a court stayed the agency’s Cross-State Air Pollution Rule less than two days before it was set to go into effect.

The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule is supposed to regulate emissions from one state that drift downwind into other states, imperiling the latter’s ability to meet EPA air quality standards. While that sounds sensible, the reality is that EPA’s new rules are based not on what is happening today but on what its computer models predict may happen in the future.

Unfortunately for EPA, these decisions represent just
the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the agency’s potential legal woes.

Over the last three years, EPA has aggressively advanced an environmentalist agenda on a whole host of issues ranging from global warming to ozone. Many of these actions are now also being challenged in court, and involve the same flaws that led to the recent court losses.

If these first decisions are any sign of what is to come, EPA’s legal losing streak may be only just beginning.

Josiah Neeley is a policy analyst for the Armstrong Center for Energy & the Environment at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.
 
‹ Previous Blog Entry
 

Your Opinions and Comments

 
elizabeth riebschlaeger  
Cuero, TX  
July 6, 2012 3:36pm
 
It is a good bet that Mr. Neely and his associates at the Armstrong Center for Energy and the Environment are one a few of the many PR entities assigned to argue negatively with regard to the EPA's role in the energy industry.... More ›

 
Elaine K.  
Floresville  
July 6, 2012 2:33pm
 
New post.

Share your comment or opinion on this story!


You must be logged in to post a comment.




Not a subscriber?
Subscriber, but no password?
Forgot password?

Commentaries Archives


Commentaries
Commentaries page govtrack.us
Commentaries who represents me?
Friesenhahn Custom WeldingTriple R DC ExpertsHeavenly Touch homeVoncille Bielefeld homeAllstate & McBride Realty

  Copyright © 2007-2016 Wilson County News. All rights reserved. Web development by Drewa Designs.