Liberty Blog readers know that the “Waters of the United States” (WOTUS) rule issued earlier this summer is not only a brazen power grab by the U.S. EPA and Army Corps of Engineers that will create additional costs, risks, and … Continue reading
Recent press coverage of PLF’s challenge to the compliance order that Andy Johnson received from the EPA has highlighted some of the Orwellian language in the Clean Water Act. As you’ll recall, EPA is threatening Andy with tens of millions … Continue reading
Wyoming farmer Andy Johnson built a stock pond with state approval. The EPA is threatening him with astronomical fines of $37,500 per day. Andy Johnson is being forced to dismantle his stock pond – even though it benefits the environment, and … Continue reading
Andy Johnson owns eight acres of land in Fort Bridger, Wyoming, where he’s made his family’s home and raises livestock. A small stream crosses his property and provides water for his livestock, as it has for prior owners going back … Continue reading
Those are EPA’s gifts to the nation under the so-called Clean Power Plan. On August 3rd, EPA unveiled the Plan as a set of Clean Air Act regulations. Among other things, the Clean Power Plan dictates the mix of fuels that may be used to generate electricity throughout the nation, heavily favoring solar and wind over coal and natural gas, thereby furthering EPA’s goal of saving the planet from carbon dioxide. The power grid will come under enormous pressure if and when the Clean Power Plan is implemented. Power outages and substantial increases in electricity costs are virtually guaranteed. Moreover, the Clean Power Plan is unconstitutional.
For decades, there has been a “bright line” divide between federal authority over wholesale sales of electricity in interstate commerce and state authority over planning, siting, and providing generation resources to local customers. According to the Supreme Court, the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from disrupting that traditional constitutional balance between state and federal authority unless it is “abundantly clear” that a federal statute “compels” the intrusion into state sovereignty. Here, just the reverse is true, It is “abundantly clear” that the Clean Air Act does not give EPA the authority to dictate to the states the specific way in which electricity must be generated within their borders. Federalism is a central component of our constitutional system of government, and the Clean Power Plan ignores it. Look for legal challenges from states (and others) against this federal attack on the 10th Amendment.
When we filed our complaint challenging the Corps and EPA’s extreme redefinition of “waters of the United States” subject to federal control under the Clean Water Act, we noted that more suits would be filed. So far, at least 10 … Continue reading
Dictionaries are apparently no match for EPA’s seemingly insatiable appetite for regulatory power. As we’ve noted, EPA has gone from exploiting ambiguous words to redefining words in a way that defies their common meaning. Only in EPA’s warped world does “navigable” … Continue reading
PLF is suing over the feds’ sweeping new definition of “waters of the United States,” which is so broad that it could impose The Clean Water Act on virtually any water – and land – anywhere. Click here to listen … Continue reading
Today’s Supreme Court decision in Michigan, et al. v. EPA (consolidated with Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA and National Mining Assoc. v. EPA) invalidated EPA’s regulation on electric power plant hazardous air pollutants for not taking its enormous costs … Continue reading
If species aren’t protected under the Endangered Species Act’s burdensome approach, they’ll receive no protection at all. This is an all too common refrain. But it’s a false choice. There are many ways to try to conserve and recover species. … Continue reading