WASHINGTON DC — Efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay scored a big win this week in the highest court in the land.
The US Supreme Court denied the request of the American Farm Bureau Federation to take up the case challenging the legality of the Chesapeake Bay clean-up plan known as the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint.
The decision means that the unanimous ruling made by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2015 that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) did not exceed its authority and its efforts to restore the bay and local rivers and streams are entirely legal.
“We applaud the court’s decision to let the lower courts’ affirmation of the Chesapeake Bay Blueprint stand,” said National Wildlife Federation President and CEO Collin O’Mara. “Today is a great day for the Chesapeake’s fish, crabs, and other wildlife. Now, it’s time for all parties to come together, roll up their sleeves and work collaboratively to restore the bay.”
To fully understand this case, you have to go back to 2010, when the EPA issued the Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). Essentially, the TMDL is a “pollution diet” that would help restore clean water in the 64,000-square-mile watershed. The “diet” called for a 25% reduction in nitrogen, a 24% reduction in phosphorous and a 20% reduction in the sediment entering the watershed on an annual basis. The EPA claimed that the TMDL was required under the Clean Water Act.
Soon after the TMDL was issued, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau filed a complaint challenging the pollution limits, and the AFBA and the PFB’s efforts were joined by several other groups in opposition including the National Association of Home Builders.
In 2011, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation joined the National Wildlife Federation and a number of other groups to support the EPA’s efforts.
“For five years, we have fought in the courts for a commonsense solution to reducing pollution, a solution borne of a cooperative relationship between the states, the federal government and the citizens of the Bay Region,” said Chesapeake Bay Foundation Vice President of Litigation John Mueller.
The EPA had long contested that the rules outlined in the Blueprint wouldn’t impact agriculture, but critics claimed the Blueprint expanded federal authority to regulate land-use activities around waterways which eventually channel into the Chesapeake Bay.
Opponents considered the move a major restriction on a farmer or a homeowner’s land usage, and the EPA called it a practical and balanced policy to ensure that all states that contribute to the polluting of the Chesapeake Bay were held accountable.
Pennsylvania is often named as one of the states that isn’t held accountable for pollution that channels into the Bay, but according to the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau, the court’s decision is a big negative for farmers.
“The economic viability of farm families could be place in jeopardy if the EPA’s plan forces them to stop growing food on 600,000 acres of fertile farmland in the watershed,” said Rick Ebert, PFB President.
Opponents are also concerned that this ruling could set a precedent in regulating land use to protect watersheds in other parts of the country.
Twenty-two states, led by Kansas, Indiana and Missouri, and 92 members of Congress backed the American Farm Bureau’s belief that the EPA had overreached.
Locally, Dave Wilson, a former executive director of the Maryland Coastal Bays Program and current co-principal of Conservation Community Consulting LLC, said that while the ruling is a big win for the bay, the impacts will be felt the most in other states.
“Finally, it’s a fair game now,” said Wilson, “just because you don’t have a watershed in your state doesn’t mean that you aren’t polluting someone else’s. This will make a big difference in holding those accountable for creating pollution in Pennsylvania, Delaware and Virginia that ends up in the Chesapeake Bay.”
The court’s refusal to hear the case may have been indirectly impacted by the recent death of Justice Antonin Scalia. Scalia was historically one of the most skeptical judges when it came to environmental regulations, but his death leaves open the possibility for a 4-4 split, and some believe the court could be reluctant to take on new cases that could split it on ideological lines. Such a split would simply uphold the lower court ruling without setting new precedent.