Attorney General Jim Hood issued the following press release:
Attorney General Jim Hood has joined in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Army Corps of Engineers
Challenging the legality of their new rule defining "Waters of the United States"
under the Clean Water Act
Jackson, MS- Attorney General Jim Hood has joined Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Louisiana Attorney General James D. "Buddy" Caldwell in a lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) challenging the legality of their new rule defining "waters of the United States" under the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Currently, the CWA gives the federal government limited authority to regulate the discharge of certain materials into "navigable waters," which is defined as "the waters of the United States, including the territorial seas."
Attorney General Jim Hood stated, "The new rule has the potential of shifting primary regulatory responsibility over traditional state lands and waters from the states to the federal government. It gives unlawful federal power over the states, their citizens and property owners."
The States of Mississippi, Texas, and Louisiana seek a declaration from the federal district court that the rule exceeds CWA authority and is not in accordance with the law.
The new EPA/Corps rule redefines "waters of the United States" expanding CWA jurisdiction by an estimated 4.65 percent. The rule purports to clarify the meaning of "waters of the United states." However, in effect, the new rule broadly increases federal authority, decreases state control, and subjects broad categories of water features to federal regulation. For example, the rule's definition of "tributaries" is broad enough to include dry ponds, ephemeral streams, intermittent channels, and ditches so long as these features are "characterized by the presence of the physical indicators of a bed and bank and an ordinary high water mark."
Attorney General Jim Hood concluded, "the rule's broad definitions and complicated standards make it unrealistic to expect that the rule will be applied consistently across the nation. The resulting expansion of federal authority will require the states to establish water quality standards for miles of newly regulated waters, and force state agencies to devote more resources to permitting activities. Landowners, farmers in particular, will have to seek permits or face substantial fines and criminal enforcement actions."
This litigation is not the first time in which the Mississippi Attorney General's Office has participated in lawsuits challenging regulatory actions taken by the current EPA administration.
•
In 2012, the Mississippi Attorney General's Office joined other states
in challenging the EPA's new Clean Air Act regulations.
On June 29, 2015, the United States Supreme Court agreed with the
position advocated by Mississippi and other states by finding that the
EPA interpreted the Clean Air Act unreasonably when it deemed cost
irrelevant to the decision to issue new regulations.
See State of Michigan, et al. v. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, - U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1541, 191 L.Ed.2d 558 (2014).
• In 2008 the Mississippi Attorney General's Office filed suit
challenging the EPA's primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for ozone. See Mississippi
v. E.P.A., 744 F.3d 1334, 1341 (D.C. Cir. 2013).
Attorney General Hood will continue to advocate on behalf of Mississippi citizens against federal overreach.
9 comments:
Interesting that Mr. Hood is concerned about a federal overreach on this issue, but Gay Marriage was not considered, in his esteemed opinion, worth the battle of State's Rights. Guess he just chooses which "state's rights" he feels have been violated and federal overreach has occurred. Might be a tough election for him. Hurst has my support -- just because he's against Hood.
Hood = Obama
Had he not done this, it would be a "hot" campaign issue. But, whatever the reason, I am glad we are standing for state's rights over their own water.
Oh yes, we do not want States to have to meet clean water standards. They should be able to dump as much industrial and human waste into our waters as possible. Cities can't afford updating sewage systems and industry should be able to kill the eco-system with impunity.
It doesn't matter if there is more bacteria that can make us sick or eat our flesh or our food from the sea is either reduced or makes us sick over time.
Money and control is all that matters in life. A person is an island and doesn't have any responsibilities to anyone else. One State should be able to damage other States, it's their right.
Though I am definitely NOT a Democrat, I agree with Jim Hood here. He is trying to prevent federal government overreach and protecting Mississippi's rights. What we don't need is more federal government overreach, and their attempt to re-define waters contrary to our state's interests is not a good thing.
If you think the government is here to help you, you are already in the Kool-Aid line. The government is a corporation. It's main goal is to perpetuate it's own interests. Our federal government is NO different.
Yeah, and notice how Hood used the federal Heller decision as a basis for his opinion on government agencies in MS "legally" banning open carry of firearms in the absence of any MS law or constitutional provision for such a ban. The Heller ruling said the District of Columbia COULD ban some carry in some places, but the State of MS, except for Hood, has not done so, and the MS Constitution says they can't.
6:50, you might want to check your "facts" on that.
@at 7:47 PM
Clearly, you do not understand how our system of government operates. The SCOTUS legalized gay marriage. There is no avenue for redress for the AG to contest that fact. He has a duty to enforce the law. What would Hurst have done differently? Nothing. His little paid advertisement was full of criticism; however, he failed to say what he would have done differently. Why? Because,he himself knows that there is nothing to be done, except pull the wool over the eyes of the easily misguided among us.
Just one problem: SCOTUS does not have authority to "legalize" anything, and Congress won't impeach anyone for anything, so what to do....
Post a Comment