Supreme Court rules EPA can overrule state in clean air case

SFGate.com ^ | 1/21/04 | Anne Gearan - AP

[NormsRevenge]

The Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the federal Environmental Protection Agency can override state officials and order some anti-pollution measures that may be more costly.

The 5-4 decision, a victory for environmentalists, found the EPA did not go too far when it overruled a decision by Alaska regulators, who wanted to let the operators of a zinc and lead mine use cheaper anti-pollution technology for power generation.

[Old Professer]

The blame for this rests with Richard Nixon.

[Destructor]

"When, not IF, the revolution comes, certain folk are gonna be REAL surprised as to where they stand..."

Others will be even more surprised to find themselves kneeling before the victorious militia begging for their miserable lives!

[Old Professer]

Maybe when you get your hydrogen-fueled car, you can do away with the converter.

[sergeantdave]

The federal government has the power to legislate environmental law - the power of the gun. But it's not legitimate.

Pollution problems should be addressed by those affected by pollution. If a person is affected by pollution, he needs to go to a civil court and file a trespass complaint. In the court he can present evidence that the pollution is trespassing on his property, causing harm, and he can get a cease and desist order and monetary damages. Or he could sign a contract with the polluter allowing the trespass for a sum of money.

In this case, the EPA presented itself as the aggrieved party without presenting proof that the trespass caused anyone harm. It simply said the industry is not following our petty rules and it must. The fascists on the SC agreed.

None of this is "legitimate."

[Old Professer]

Boy, you surely live up to your screen name, don't you?

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

---

If this is taxes with reprsentation
Give me taxes without representation
I much prefer a tax on tea!
Instead of everything else.

[oceanview]

I don't think direct hydrogen fueling is going to work. they are going to have to develop a cost effective reformer that can strip the hydrogen from the fuel (still hydrocarbon based) for use in combustion. instead of spending billions flying to Mars, this is what we should be investing in.

[oceanview]

actually, it should be a level playing field. if some kooks in california mandate higher pollution controls that would essentially either wreck the auto industry, or mean that no new cars could be sold in CA, the EPA ought to be able to stop that also.

I am not sure where that stands, but given this ruling, I see no reason why the EPA couldn't toss the "california" auto emission rules.

[AAABEST]

Figures you'd take the communist point of view, as usual.

These out of control agencies are anything but constitutional or American. They're full of agenda driven hacks that invent hair brained junk science "rules" which have enormous impact on communities. These "ministers" have way more power than any prince did during the middle ages for crying out loud.

The people affected have no redress, no check and balances,nobody to un-elect and no democratic process with which to stop them. Agencies like the EPA and FWS to name 2 are plundering autonomous machines. Then the little pinkos amongst us justify it.

I'll be sure to put you in the leftist Ginsburg/O'conner pinko cabal and treat your posts as such from now on

[oceanview]

Bush and the Congress could rein in whatever EPA rules they wanted to tomorrow, so there is certainly a set of elected officials who can check their power. They lack the will, and fear the media response, and therefore do nothing.

[E.G.C.]

BTTT!!!!!!

[steve8714]

Are some Eastern states not suing the EPA over a change of rules? This may be a Pyrrhic victory for enviros.

[Sandy]

It is surprising to find this before the Court at all. Environmental laws would be thrown out the window should the rules be different as states would compete in a race to the bottom to lower standards more than their neighbors. That would also be tantamount to saying the federal government has no legitimate power to legislate environmental laws.

You really have no idea what you're talking about. The Clean Air Act specifically gives the states the authority and discretion to determine BACT for any particular source, with the the states of course being required to follow the standards promulgated by the EPA. Duh, nobody in this case was arguing in favor of your "race to the bottom" bogeyman; it wasn't even at issue. The state's decision complied 100% with EPA standards.

[justshutupandtakeit]

EPA limits could be met through many different means and States have the choice between them. However, in this case there was a big difference between a technology which achieved 30% reduction and one with a 90% reduction. This is why the Court rejected it. Had it been the difference between 30% and 35% it probably would not have done so.

[justshutupandtakeit]

States are allowed to adopt MORE stringent standards under the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. EPA just says your standards must be AT LEAST blah, blah, blah.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Uh, it is the Law (Congress) which requires the regulations be developed to implement the Law.

[reelfoot]

Congress won't rein them in, nor will the president. All three branches have been aggrandizing power to Washington in derogation of the constitutional rights of the States for decades. No state official has the guts to stand up to them. (I guess they remember Lincoln's invasion to enforce Washington's will.) Federalism is dead. The central government has long ago drawn all power unto itself.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since the method you propose rarely (if ever) worked because the chances you would have vs. US Steel are microscopically small, the federal government stepped in. This does not prevent civil cases from being filed even when federal ones are. Localities (and even States) were often, if not always, intimidated by the large corporations to ignore pollution by politically connected companies. Such as was the situation under Gov. William Jefferson Clinton in Arkansas when he ignored the damage done by Tyson Chicken to the streams of the state.

You should talk to some of those who have had a huge hog farm open up next door about the viability of your method. A method which works only in a dream world. In this one the ordinary person is powerless when going up against gigantic companies with legions of lawyers.

Pollution is an external dis-economy never considered in profit/loss calculations. Standard economic theory never dealt with such things because of its assumption of "free disposal" of waste products. Such costs will no longer be passed off to the general population without compensation.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Look in the dictionary under "irony" for a clue.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No states can adopt MORE stringent limits as per the CAA and the CWA.