|
|
|
NACWA filed an unopposed Motion to Intervene NACWA’s request for intervention argues that EPA’s denial of the 2008 activist petition was proper, and that the necessary legal basis for the imposition of federal NNC for waters in the MRB does not exist. The motion also contends that the technical and scientific basis for imposition of numeric criteria as requested by the plaintiffs is inappropriate, as it would likely end up placing a disproportionate share of the regulatory and financial burden on point source discharges – such as municipal wastewater and stormwater utilities – without addressing non-point sources. NACWA emphasizes that the Association’s members are not adverse to enhanced nutrient reduction where such additional controls are scientifically necessary, and notes that many clean water agencies have already made significant investments to install such controls where local water quality needs dictate. But the brief also argues that the approach advocated by the plaintiffs – federal imposition of NNC and the subsequent development of TMDLs without regard to site-specific water quality conditions – risks imposing scientifically unsupported load reductions on clean water utilities. Additionally, because EPA’s Clean Water Act authorities are limited, NACWA’s brief highlights that EPA approval of the 2008 petition as requested by the plaintiffs would result in an unfair and unbalanced program to control nutrients that fails to achieve any meaningful reductions in the contribution from agricultural sources -- the single largest source of nutrient impairment in the MRB. The Association’s court filings also argue that it has met the necessary legal requirements for intervention, including that NACWA and its member utilities have sufficient interest in the litigation and could be adversely impacted if the plaintiffs prevail. Furthermore, NACWA contends that none of the existing parties in the litigation can sufficiently represent or defend the unique interests of the Association and its municipal members. NACWA highlights for the court previous instances where it has been granted legal intervention in similar cases involving critical water quality issues – including federal litigation over the final total maximum daily load for the Chesapeake Bay – and emphasizes the important role the Association can play in helping the court understand and resolve the very complex and important issues involved in this case. In a related development, NACWA is continuing discussions with EPA in a companion lawsuit filed in March by the same group of environmental plaintiffs seeking to include nutrient removal as part of the national secondary treatment requirements for all wastewater treatment plants. Discussions are progressing in a positive direction, and NACWA anticipates filing for intervention in that litigation in the coming weeks. Additional information on the MRB nutrients case and all of NACWA’s ongoing litigation matters can be found on the Litigation Tracking page of the Association’s website. Anyone with questions on this case or any of NACWA’s legal activities can contact Nathan Gardner-Andrews, NACWA’s General Counsel, at This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it . |
and supporting documentation today in recent litigation seeking the imposition of federal numeric nutrient criteria (NNC) for all waterbodies in the Mississippi River Basin (MRB) and Northern Gulf of Mexico, ensuring that the interests of the municipal clean water utility community will be aggressively represented in this critical case. NACWA’s intervention papers in Gulf Restoration Network, et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), filed with U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, request participation as a defendant in the case to support EPA’s