CAFO Rule - Environmental Groups Identify Their Legal Claims
Client Alert | 1 min read | 06.01.03
The parties litigating EPA's revised CAFO regulations filed papers in May identifying the claims that they intend to assert. Four environmental groups (so far) have challenged the CAFO rule in court. These related cases, in addition to suits by four industry associations, have been consolidated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Although most of the parties submitted only generalized statements of their claims, the list submitted by the Sierra Club is detailed enough to provide some insight into the regulatory changes the group wants to require.
Sierra Club's filing indicates that it will challenge:
- EPA's recognition of any CAFO land application area runoff as exempt "agricultural storm water discharge";
- EPA's failure to require sufficient restrictions on land application of CAFO waste in watersheds where water quality is impaired;
- EPA's failure to require agency approval of, and public review and comment on, each CAFO's nutrient management plan;
- EPA's decision to allow the use of "general permits" that do not involve public review and comment on each CAFO's permit application;
- EPA's elimination of the "co-permitting" and "integrator liability" provisions that were in included in the proposed CAFO rule; and
- EPA's failure to adequately protect groundwater, including requirements for groundwater monitoring.
Sierra Club's list also threatens to challenge EPA's identification of the "best available technology economically achievable" and the agency's purported failure to limit metals, pathogens, antibiotics, and other pollutants in CAFO waste.
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 04.16.24
Navigating the AI Intellectual Property Maze - Key Points From Congressional Hearing
On April 10, 2024, the U.S. House of Representatives, Judiciary Committee Subcommittee on Intellectual Property convened Part III to an ongoing discussion and exploration of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) rights. The session, “Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property: Part III - IP Protection for AI-Assisted Inventions and Creative Works,” delved into the nuanced debate over what IP protections should exist for AI-generated or AI-assisted works.
Client Alert | 5 min read | 04.15.24
Making the EU Courts More Efficient for Trade-Related Decisions
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.15.24
New FAR Part 40 to Address Supply Chain and Information Security Requirements
Client Alert | 1 min read | 04.11.24
U.S. Chamber Submits Comments on the FAR Council’s Proposed Rule Regarding Pay Transparency