September 9, 2015
www.gfb.org
Vol. 33 No. 32
NORTH DAKOTA JUDGE LIMITS WATER RULE INJUNCTION In a Sept. 4 ruling, Judge Ralph Erickson of the U.S. District Court of North Dakota declined a nationwide application of his injunction stopping the water rule established by the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. On Aug. 27, Erickson granted the injunction in a case filed by 13 states against the EPA and the Corps, blocking them from enforcing the Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule that went into effect on Aug. 28. The order was issued in response to a suit filed by North Dakota and 12 other states, and left open the question of whether the injunction would apply nationwide or only in the states that sued in the North Dakota District Court. Erickson received additional briefs on scope of the injunction last week. In his ruling, Erickson cited a respect for decision-making authority for other courts that have ruled on the issue as well as respect for the states that desire the implementation the WOTUS rule. His ruling halts implementation of the WOTUS rule in Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming. The Sept. 4 ruling leaves the agencies free to proceed with implementation of the rule in the other 37 states. District Court judges in four other districts – including Southern Georgia – denied similar preliminary injunction requests in suits filed by other states. Multiple states filed lawsuits in multiple district courts in an attempt to have the agencies withdraw the rule. In the case filed by Georgia and eight other states in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, Judge Lisa Godbey Wood found that her court had no jurisdiction since the various cases around the country had been consolidated into one cast to be heard by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Georgia’s lawsuit asks for the rule to be declared unlawful, that the court order the agencies to set aside the rule in its entirety, issue an injunction that prohibits its enforcement and send the rule back to the agencies to issue a rule that complies with the Clean Water Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Georgia Farm Bureau has opposed the rule since it was initially proposed by the agencies in April 2014.