US SUPREME COURT IN KEY ENDANGERED SPECIES RULING-NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS ET AL V DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE ET AL

     In a major 5-4 ruling announced today, the Court ruled that federal delegation of water pollution authority to States under the Clean Water Act is governed solely by the criteria in Section 402 of the statute and not by the added, extra-statutory consideration of the delegation's potential effect on endangered species.  While this case has garnered lots of attention, the best summary of the issues I have seen today is on the website of Sen. James Inhofe (R.-Oklahoma).  While Sen. Inhofe has strong views which side with the Court majority, his website's description of the issues in the case is factual and is set forth here (also see the link above to his site, which provides his favorable opinion of the ruling):

Under section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, EPA is required to transfer permitting authority to a state if that state meets nine statutory requirements.  In the case, Defenders of Wildlife argued that compliance with section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, effectively adds a 10^th statutory requirement, thus preventing the state of Arizona from having the authority to manage of its own water pollution control program.  Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to consult the Department of Commerce or the Department of Interior to assure that a proposed agency action is unlikely to jeopardize an endangered or threatened species. 

The Court held that this requirement applies only to discretionary actions by the agencies and because “the transfer of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting authority is not discretionary, but rather is mandated once a State has met the criteria set forth in section 402(b) of the Clean Water Act, it follows that a transfer of NPDES permitting authority does not trigger section 7(a)(2)’s consultation and no-jeopardy requirements.” 

The Justices went on to note that, “[r]ead broadly, the Ninth Circuit’s construction would also partially override every federal statute mandating agency action by subjecting such action to the further condition that it not jeopardize listed species.”

Comments

[Alexandra]

It seems as Mr. Veksler has made the rounds on all the blogs of falimies with children that have Down syndrome too. Mr. Veksler, its unfortunate you have chosen to spew your views on each parents site and others that support the right to be educated about Down syndrome before a choice is made. Maybe you should get more original with each post instead of cut and pasting so that your view isn't ignored by all- which indeed it has been.

[Creative Recreation]

Great! How wonderful write-up! Some impression:For those who add some pictures, it could be easiler to comply with!