By Noah Rothman
Friday, January 24, 2020
The Trump administration is at it again. To hear New
York Times reporter Coral Davenport tell it, this White House is engaged in
yet another nihilistic assault on the environment.
This week, the administration “finalized a rule to strip
away environmental protections for streams, wetlands, and groundwater,” the Times
notes. The rollback of the “Waters of the United States” allows disreputable
landowners to “dump pollutants” “directly into hundreds of thousands of
waterways.” The move will prove a boon to farmers, land developers, fossil-fuel
producers, and, conspicuously, golf course owners. Moreover, these weakened
environmental protections provide the president with “a major policy
achievement to bring to his political base while his impeachment trial
continues.”
Without being stated plainly, a clearer portrait of
nefarious self-dealing could not be more clearly implied. There’s a reason the
author limits herself to implication, though, and it isn’t reportorial
standards of impartiality. The truth of the matter isn’t nearly as lopsided as
the Times suggests.
In May 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency
unilaterally announced its intention to expand its capacity to regulate
navigable waterways and their tributaries. This new rule allowed the agency to
block the development of privately owned lands with a “significant nexus” to a
waterway, a definition so expansive it included streams that ran only
seasonally or underground, bone-dry 100-year floodplains, any parcel within
1,500 feet of a highwater mark, or even topographical features that could “in
combination” impact a water source.
This wasn’t the first time the EPA had overstepped its
remit when it comes to the nation’s waterways. The 2006 Supreme Court plurality
opinion in Rapanos v. United States struck down the regulatory agency’s
expansion of the definition of what constitutes a waterway. That definition
went beyond what Justice Antonin Scalia said were only those “relatively
permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water ‘forming geographic
features’” like streams, lakes, rivers, and oceans. But the EPA was undeterred
and, in 2015, the agency tried again.
Landowners understandably feared that this permissive new
definition of what constitutes a waterway could apply to almost any soggy plot.
And if affected landowners wanted special dispensation, they would have to appeal
to the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for permits, which were to be
considered only on an individual basis. In practice, a rancher and farmers
seeking the permission of the federal government to level a road through
private property or even plow and plant crops would have to spend tens of
thousands of dollars on compliance costs alone. That’s not a hypothetical; it
was the experience of Arizona rancher Jim Chilton.
In testimony before Congress, Chilton noted efforts to
seek a permit to grade a “small ranch road” through his land took three years
and cost him $40,000 dollars, even though the nearest body of water on which
anything substantial could float was over 250 miles from his property. The
process involved surveyors, assessors, permit-writing consultants,
environmental engineers, and, of course, lawyers. Ultimately, the effort became
so time-consuming and expensive that the project was abandoned.
The predictable effect of this rule was to make the land
in private hands far less useful and, therefore, less valuable. The prohibitive
burdens placed on landowners were, in the not undue estimation of this
regulation’s critics, the point of the exercise.
Chilton’s experience was not unique. Before 2006, as one
study found, “the average applicant for an individual Clean Water Act permit
spends 788 days and $271,596 in complying with the current process…” That
absurd burden on landowners and developers is of little concern to
environmental enthusiasts and activist bureaucracies, but the judiciary takes a
dimmer view of this infringement on property rights.
Several state attorneys general immediately sought an
injunction against the EPA’s new rule, which they claimed violated the
Administrative Procedure Act, the Clean Water Act, the Commerce Clause, and the
10th Amendment. That August, a federal judge granted that injunction to 13 of
the 31 states that sought it, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed
that decision in October, extending the stay nationwide. That court found that
“the rulemaking process by which the distance limitations were adopted is
facially suspect.” The agency cited no “specific scientific support
substantiating” this regulation’s rationality. Finally, the EPA had failed to
craft a rule that could produce consistent and predictable results.
The Trump administration sought the Supreme Court’s
guidance on the matter but, in 2018, the Court determined that such cases
should be limited to federal district courts. So, last September, in response
to an executive order, the EPA proposed a new regulatory structure over
waterways that conforms with the plurality decision in Rapanos. All this
backstory would come as a surprise to a reader of the Times’ version of
events. Nor is the move likely to result in a new flood of poisons into
America’s waterways, as the EPA’s 2015 rule was never fully implemented.
Necessary environmental protections will often come into
conflict with the equally necessary preservation of private-property rights.
That balance is a delicate one, and environmentalists have every reason to
believe that this administration errs too frequently on the side of property
owners and business interests. But the last administration’s over-reliance on
unresponsive bureaucratic agencies to achieve that which the political process
could not infringed on the rights of U.S. citizens in a way the courts would
not abide. Opponents of the Trump administration should take stock in how
soundly their overreach was rebuffed. To judge from the Times coverage
of the administration’s actions, though, that kind of self-reflection is not in
the cards.
No comments:
Post a Comment