Top Court Rules EPA May Overrule States

[leftchick]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=10&u=/nm/20040121/sc_nm/court_environment

<snip>

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled on Wednesday that the federal government can overrule state decisions on environmental rules in a dispute over additional power capacity at an Alaskan zinc mine operated by Canada's Teck-Cominco Ltd. (Toronto:TEKA.TO - news).

The 5-4 decision said the Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites) can stop construction of a major pollutant-emitting facility permitted by a state authority when EPA finds the state's decision on pollution control technology was unreasonable.

In 1999, the company, the world's largest zinc supplier, submitted a request to the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation to build a diesel-fired generator at its Red Dog Mine located in northwest Alaska about 100 miles from the Arctic Circle.

The company wanted to increase zinc production by 40 percent. Besides building a new generator, it also wanted to use different, less-expensive technology on six existing generators to cut nitrogen oxide emissions.

[prolesunited]

1. Ummm...

What happened to states rights?

The cognitive dissonance that goes on in the Republican Party is simply astounding!

They say they are for state's rights, but apparently not when it comes to the environment or gay marriage?

They say they want smaller government, yet they want to interject themselves into churches and bedrooms?

They they value privacy and individual freedoms, yet they want to peak into your reading habits and take away a women's right to control her own body?

I

[baby_bear]

2. Another link

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040121/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_pollution_2

Your link didn't work for me, leftchick, but I found this other one. Thanks for the post. This is important. And the vote, 5-4, was the typical grouping, showing us once again how important it is that we not allow another conservative - especially a far-right-wing-conservative that the Bush administration would like - to be appointed to this court.

<snip>
The Clean Air Act allows state officials to make some decisions involving facilities within their borders, but still gives the EPA wide authority to enforce the anti-pollution law passed by Congress in 1970. "We fail to see why Congress, having expressly endorsed an expansive surveillance role for EPA," elsewhere in the law, "would then implicitly preclude the agency from verifying substantive compliance," with the portion of the law at issue in this case, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.


Ginsburg's usual allies on the court's ideological left joined her in the ruling: Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter and Stephen Breyer. The crucial fifth vote came from Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who usually votes with the court conservatives in states' rights cases.


The four dissenters argued that the decision undercuts states' power to control their environmental policies. "This is a great step backward in Congress' design to grant states a significant stake in developing and enforcing national environmental objectives," wrote Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
</snip>

This is very, very important.

s_m

[leftchick]

3. Thank you sierra moon...

I don't know what happened but here is the original story from Reuters link....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=1895&e=10&u=/nm/20040121/bs_nm/court_environment_dc


.....you are right this is very important!

[ahimsa]

4. So if the state is TOO strict...

the EPA can force them to allow the increased pollution?

Are California's stricter emission standards at risk now?

Well, if Scalia and Thomas are not happy about it, maybe it's a good thing.

[pfitz59]

5. My take as well.....

backdoor to over-ruling TIGHTER state restrictions. BS-ometer pegged.

[Clovis Sangrail]

6. Not enough information....

The state says the plan they OK'ed would reduce pollution output by 30%
The feds say there is little, if any, evidence to support this claim.

I'm tending to side with the SC over this just based on the fact that the company also sued to have the EPA injunction lifted... and I don't think they were suing for the right to pollute less.

I don't want to see the feds enforce lower enviromental standards, nor do I want to see states to have absolute control.

-Base standard :Federal EPA
-State standard: anything they want above and beyond that

[ahimsa]

7. That's the status quo

Did the court just rule that that will remain the status quo?

[baby_bear]

8. I'm not sure I understand your question, ahimsa

Ginsburg's writings indicated that Congress intended for EPA oversight to control states' compliance. If by status quo, you mean that the EPA ruling stands, I would say yes.

One thing I don't know is how the Justice Dept argued - or didn't - on this.

Anyone know?

s_m

[ahimsa]

9. Lower standards?

C_S said:

-Base standard :Federal EPA
-State standard: anything they want above and beyond that

I think that's the status quo prior to this ruling. I'm wondering if the ruling changed that so the EPA can mandate LOWER standards than the state requires. I hope not!