“The ecological and economic importance of the Chesapeake Bay is well documented. As the largest estuary in the United States, the Chesapeake Bay is essential for the well-being of many living things. While noting attempts to protect this important resource” without strong federal coordination for several years, nutrient pollution and sedimentation remain a critical concern. The court endorses the holistic, watershed approach used here. This approach receives ample support in the [Clean Water Act], its legislative history, and Supreme Court precedent.”The EPA embarked on an aggressive cleanup effort in 2010 that required Chesapeake Bay states, including Virginia and Maryland, as well as the District, to upgrade sewers to limit the amount of nutrient pollution that pours into the bay. States also were required to find ways to stop agricultural runoff from cattle feed operations, chicken houses and other farms.
filed a lawsuit in early 2011 at the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania to stop the EPA. Numerous organizations, including the Fertilizer Institute, National Pork Producers Council and National Chicken Council, joined the suit. The Farm Bureau said the bay’s cleanup is the sole responsibility of states and the EPA lacked authority to establish a “pollution diet” costing taxpayers and farmers billions by its full implementation in 2025.
The lobby argued further that the EPA did not give the public adequate time to consider the plan in the run-up to its implementation in December 2010, saying that a 45-day comment period was too short.
Rambo rejected those arguments. “The court does not find the 45-day public comment period to be unreasonable. For one, it exceeds the statutory minimum requirement of a 30-day period.”
In a statement Friday, the EPA called the ruling “a victory for the 17 million people in the Chesapeake Bay watershed” and said its partners can refocus on achieving clean-water goals, “building on the progress already happening.” (Wash Post, 9/13/2013)