AS THE EPA WORLD TURNS

US EPA these days seems to be a lightning rod for controversy, and at times, a soap opera for legal drama.

For example, in January, Arizona state legislators introduced a bill proposing to nullify EPA regulations on the ground that EPA's rule making authority violates the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution. That Amendment, of course, provides that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states, or to the people.

Along similar lines, several Senators introduced a bill in the US Senate proposing the "Restoring the 10th Amendment Act" (S 1632). The bill would give state officials standing to challenge proposed regulations during any public comment period, based on assertion that a proposed rule would violate the 10th Amendment. The bill would require a federal agency to post a challenge online. The agency would have to certify that the rule would not violate the 10th Amendment, giving a supporting legal basis for such a conclusion.

It has been reported that EPA currently is working on a proposed controversial rule that would expand the definition of US waters, which is the basis for much of its scope of regulation. In other words, EPA may be defining its own jurisdiction. According to some reports, the rule could include most natural and artificial tributaries and wetlands adjacent to or near large downstream water bodies. Also, the rule could allow EPA to assess the aggregate effect of isolated wetlands and water bodies on downstream waters and regulate them, too. Indeed, the rule could include intermittent ditches, which are dry except for when it rains. Perhaps EPA regulation of birdbaths would not be a fantasy under such an expansive rule.

Farmers are challenging efforts by EPA to eliminate an exemption from Clean Water Act discharge permitting for farmyard storm water runoff. In one situation, EPA has appealed an adverse court ruling (Alt v. EPA, 4th Cir. No. 13-2534).

Meanwhile, EPA has proposed stringent carbon emission limits for power plants that many assert will preclude new coal burning plants because of high compliance costs. Such action has stimulated a proposal in the US Senate for a vote under the Congressional Review Act, which empowers Congress to overrule federal regulations by a simple majority of both houses. A presidential veto of a Congressional disapproval vote would be possible, but would confirm administration efforts to bypass Congress through agency regulation.

Finally, decades of EPA regulation have imposed billions of dollars of cost on water and wastewater utilities, and their customers, for installation of compliance treatment infrastructure. Despite this, in West Virginia, an industrial spill into a river source of water supply contaminates a water utility's system with a chemical no one seems to know about, causing a shutdown of the distribution of drinking water to the users.

And so, the EPA world turns and turns and...