Recently, EPA issued an Interim OECA Guidance on EPA and state roles on managing enforcement and compliance assistance. See, Interim OECA Guidance on Enhancing Regional—State Planning and Communication on Compliance Assurance Work in Authorized States. While EPA is seeking to emphasize cooperative federalism in modifying the emphasis of the 1986 revised policy on state/EPA enforcement agreements, as provided in the first footnote of the Guidance, the policy issued on January 22, 2018, appears to make the states the primary enforcer of environmental laws and provides a secondary role for EPA in that regard.
Clean Water Act
A high-ranking Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) enforcement official in the Trump Administration recently cited a 1994 memorandum by Earl Devaney, then Director of EPA’s Office of Criminal Enforcement, as presenting guiding principles to select cases for criminal enforcement of environmental violations. The January 12, 1994, memorandum, “Exercise of Enforcement Discretion,” is often referred to as the “Devaney Memorandum,” and it is available at this link: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/exercise.pdf. This may signal that criminal enforcement of environmental laws under the Trump Administration will be limited to situations in which there has been significant actual or threatened environmental harm and truly culpable conduct.
Construction companies, general contractors, developers, and property owners involved in land clearance and disturbance activities will want to take note of the new Stormwater Construction General Permit (“Construction General Permit”) issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) on February 17, 2017. As with earlier Construction General Permits, the 2017 permit applies to land clearance and disturbance activities greater that one acre and requires site operators to comply with best management practices (“BMPs”), effluent limits, and other permit requirements, including developing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (“SWPPP”).
In January 2017, both EPA and OSHA increased civil penalties for new enforcement cases. While the increases became effective just days before the new Administration took office, the increases are a result of Congressional action in 2015 to annually adjust civil penalties for inflation by January 15 of each new calendar year.
Beginning October 1, 2016, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will target its enforcement efforts in seven different focused areas, including three areas designed to protect water quality, two initiatives aimed at reducing toxic air pollutants and reducing air pollution, an initiative to reduce accidental chemical releases from industrial facilities, and an enforcement initiative geared at energy extraction activities.
Businesses and companies seeking to qualify for penalty mitigation and relief by submitting voluntary self-disclosures under EPA’s Audit Policy need to be aware of significant changes and modifications that took effect in December 2015.
A residential home builder, Garden Homes, has agreed to resolve alleged stormwater violations with the EPA and U.S. Department of Justice, according to a June 8, 2015, Federal Register Notice. The settlement involves a civil penalty of $225,000 and a Supplemental Environmental Project valued at $780,000 involving the acquisition of 108 acres of land for preservation.
On April 10, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit gave a northwestern Minnesota peat mining operation something the company wanted very much — judicial review of a wetlands jurisdictional decision issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hawkes Co., Inc., et. al v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, slip op. No. 13-3067 (8th Cir. April 10, 2015). In so doing, the Eighth Circuit built on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA, 132 S. Ct. 1367 (2012), which had made Clean Water Act administrative orders subject to court scrutiny, and continued the Eighth Circuit’s focus on curtailing what it sees as government agency overreaching, as recently expressed in Iowa League of Cities v. EPA, 711 F.3d 844, 868 (8th Cir. 2013).
On March 10, 2015, EPA issued a new revised 2015 Update to its Supplemental Environmental Project (SEP) Policy, thereby superseding prior SEP policies.
On July 10, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy spoke to the Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City in an attempt to ease concerns over the Administration’s proposed rule to clarify the reach of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The proposed rule, issued jointly by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers, seeks to specify by regulation the scope of the CWA following the 2006 Supreme Court decision in Rapanos v. United States. The competing tests for CWA jurisdiction issued by the Court in Rapanos have complicated efforts to determine when smaller waters, wetlands, and ephemeral streams are subject to CWA jurisdiction and would require government permits before they can be impacted. In response to mounting criticism of the proposed rule from a number of stakeholders, McCarthy tried to reassure the audience, saying, “We don’t believe that we are expanding jurisdiction.”