A federal judge in North Dakota on Thursday blocked a new controversial Obama administration rule that would give the Environmental Protection Agency more regulatory oversight over some small bodies of water and wetlands to ensure cleaner drinking supplies.
Just hours before the rule was set to go into effect on Friday, U.S. District Judge Ralph Erickson in Fargo said that North Dakota and the other 12 states suing met the conditions for a temporary injunction, stating, "The risk of irreparable harm to the states is both imminent and likely," reported the Associated Press. He added that the EPA's attempt is "inexplicable, arbitrary and devoid of a reasoned process."
The Clean Water Act rule, finalized on May 27, would give the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers authority to protect some streams, ditches, wetlands and tributaries - about three percent more waterways throughout the U.S. than currently under federal jurisdiction. A federal permit would be required to pollute those waters, and access could be restricted altogether. Most major rivers, lakes and waterways are already protected and wouldn't be affected. The rule would safeguard drinking water for some 117 million Americans.
The 13 states suing asked Erickson to halt its implementation, claiming the rule is an unnecessary power grab and would infringe on state sovereignty, according to Fox News. Officials in North Dakota said that the rule would cost the state millions of dollars and jeopardize more important programs.
Erickson agreed, saying that the EPA had exceeded its authority. He noted that the rule suffered from a "fatal defect" that would allow regulation of ditches and streams that were far removed from the navigable waters that federal authorities have jurisdiction over, according to The Wall Street Journal.
"It appears likely that the EPA has violated its Congressional grant of authority in its promulgation of the rule," Erickson wrote in his 18-page order. "Once the rule takes effect, the states will lose their sovereignty over intrastate waters that will then be subject to the scope of the Clean Water Act."
He continued: "While the exact amount of land that would be subject to the increase is hotly disputed, the agencies admit to an increase in control over those traditional state-regulated waters of between 2.84 to 4.65 percent. Immediately upon the rule taking effect, the rule will irreparably diminish the states' power over their waters," adding that the Obama administration's interpretation of its jurisdiction "exceptionally expansive," according to The Hill.
Erickson said that the rule would also require "jurisdictional studies" of every proposed oil, natural gas or water pipeline project in North Dakota, a significant burden for a state at the heart of an energy exploration boom.
The other states involved in the lawsuit are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, South Dakota and Wyoming.
North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem, who filed the injunction request, said that he interpreted the ruling as applying to all 50 states rather than just the 12 that sued. However, the EPA disputed that, saying it only applied to the 13 states and it would begin enforcing the rule on Friday in all other states, according to The Hill.
"In all other respects, the rule is effective on August 28," EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said in the statement. "The agencies are evaluating these orders and considering next steps in the litigation."
In all, at least nine additional lawsuits - involving 29 states along with a number of business interests representing energy, farmers and developers - have been filed against the rule.
