Monday, November 12, 2012

Post Argument Briefs on Deference Submitted in AFBF v. EPA


On October 9, 2012 in the case of American Farm Bureau Foundation (AFBF) v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Court granted a request for additional briefing on the issue of whether the Court should defer to EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act. Plaintiffs AFBF, defendants EPA, and intervenor-defendants Chesapeake Bay Foundation (CBF) have submitted their briefs on deference. Plaintiffs AFBF filed a reply brief on November 2, 2012 and the Court is now in the process of making its final decision in the case.
Click on the links below to read the full briefs filed by the parties:
 
Written by Anna Leonenko, Research Fellow
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center
November 12, 2012

1 comment:

  1. The court deferred to EPA’s interpretation that the Clean Water Act term “total maximum daily load” is ambiguous and allows the agency to set detailed “allocations” setting pollution caps for sources throughout a watershed, including poultry, livestock and row crop farms, builders, and towns. The court also upheld EPA’s demand of “reasonable assurances” that EPA’s caps will be achieved on EPA’s timeline – without regard to cost, technical feasibility, or whether the Bay’s water quality goals are even achievable. The court also deferred to EPA’s technical expertise in the modeling that served as a basis for its “allocations,” despite AFBF’s demonstration that EPA arbitrarily relied on admittedly false data.

    ReplyDelete