- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
EPA says Tucson’s drinking water is contaminated but air force claims agency lacks authority to order cleanup
The US air force is refusing to comply with an order to clean drinking water it polluted in Tucson, Arizona, claiming federal regulators lack authority after the conservative-dominated US supreme court overturned the “Chevron doctrine”. Air force bases contaminated the water with toxic PFAS “forever chemicals” and other dangerous compounds.
Though former US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials and legal experts who reviewed the air force’s claim say the Chevron doctrine ruling probably would not apply to the order, the military’s claim that it would represents an early indication of how polluters will wield the controversial court decision to evade responsibility.
It appears the air force is essentially attempting to expand the scope of the court’s ruling to thwart regulatory orders not covered by the decision, said Deborah Ann Sivas, director of the Stanford University Environmental Law Clinic.
“It’s very odd,” she added. “It feels almost like an intimidation tactic, but it will be interesting to see if others take this approach and it bleeds over.”
The article spells out what I’m talking about pretty clearly. I work with the CWA literally on a daily basis. Congress hasn’t made the CWA more clear or specific since the Water Quality Act of 1987. Congress could literally fix this dispute between federal agencies tomorrow, but we elected Republicans to control the House, which means it has a snowball’s chance in hell of ever happening.
The CWA as of 1987 is plenty clear under any reasonable standard. The relevant problem here is that SCOTUS has ordained an unreasonable standard. Yes, Democratic control of both houses of Congress could “fix” that issue, but the point is it shouldn’t need to because the EPA should be allowed to do its job (which, contrary to the illegitimate tyrannical stooges’ diseased opinions, does include interpreting the law!).
Glad we agree.