NFIB amicus brief asks for reversal of lower court decision
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, Nov. 6, heard oral arguments in the County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund case, which NFIB filed an amicus brief in support of reversing a lower court decision.
Writing in Real Clear Politics, Karen Harned, executive director of the NFIB Small Business Legal Center, called the decision, “a dangerous and invalid expansion of federal power, foisted on small businesses by the liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“The Ninth Circuit tried to unilaterally rewrite the Clean Water Act, ignoring the clear will of Congress. When Congress passed the law in the 1970s, lawmakers created a permitting process to regulate companies building in wetlands and limiting the discharge of pollutants into navigable waters. The system was straightforward and focused on the companies most responsible for pollution.
“If the Ninth Circuit’s decision stands, ranchers, farmers, energy prospectors, and other companies operating in completely dry areas will suffer the consequences of over-regulation.”
According to The Wall Street Journal, “At issue is whether the County of Maui must obtain a permit from the Environmental Protection Administration [Agency] to inject treated wastewater into underground wells. The county is in compliance with state law and the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, but environmental groups say it needs an EPA discharge permit.
“The Ninth Circuit’s ruling could sweep in any American who owns a septic tank. Environmentalists have filed a lawsuit to require a sewer agency in New Haven, Connecticut, to obtain an EPA permit for each basement backup. Cities and municipal water systems argue in an amicus brief that EPA permit requirements could limit disinfectants that they can apply to drinking water. Permits could also encumber groundwater storage and water reclamation projects that environmentalists favor over dams.
“Liberals want to use the federal bureaucracy and groundwater regulation to stop any economic development they oppose. The Justices can do a public and legal service by stating clearly that current law excludes groundwater, and the only way to change that is by passing a new law through Congress.”
Harned said a win for environmental groups would expand the EPA’s authority. “That means that many more people are going to have to get permits, and that means many more delays can occur,” she told Bloomberg Law.
