EPA won’t appeal ruling on Va. storm-water regulation

RICHMOND (Mar 5 2013)— The Environmental Protection Agency will not appeal a federal district court’s ruling declaring it is illegal for the EPA to regulate storm water as a pollutant as it flows into Virginia waterways.

A federal judge ruled Jan. 3 that the EPA illegally overreached its authority in attempting to regulate water as a pollutant by imposing rules on the flow of storm water into Fairfax County’s Accotink Creek. Judge Liam O’Grady said the agency could regulate pollutants within water, like sediment, but not the water itself. The EPA notified Gov. Robert F. McDonnell’s office and the county that it would not file an appeal ahead of the Monday deadline.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II estimated that Virginia taxpayers will save nearly $300 million in costs associated with regulating the flow of water rather than regulating pollutants now that O’Grady’s ruling will stand, he said in a statement. “Besides being illegal, the EPA restrictions also would have diverted public funds that could have been spent more effectively on stream restoration for Accotink Creek and other waterways in the region,” Cuccinelli said. “This EPA mandate would have been expensive, cumbersome, and incredibly difficult to implement.”

He also said that the EPA restrictions could have resulted in the county and transportation department seizing private homes and businesses to acquire land to build retention facilities to prevent storm water from flowing into the creek. “This would have been a dangerous precedent for Virginia, as the EPA could have demanded this solution in localities across the commonwealth at an enormous price tag to Virginia and its residents, with no proof that the EPA’s solution would work,” said Cuccinelli, the likely GOP nominee in this year’s gubernatorial race.

The case was initiated over the summer by the Department of Transportation and Fairfax after months of negotiations failed to yield a compromise. In December, Cuccinelli argued on behalf of the plaintiffs in district federal court.

Washington Post article

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s