After concluding in late 2001 that an exhaustive scientific review of the revised arsenic rule promulgated earlier that year by the outgoing Clinton Administration supported tightening the 60-year-old federal drinking water standard for arsenic from 50 to 10 ug/L, the Bush Administration is now trying to fend off a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the rule as well as of the 29-year-old Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) itself. In a January 21 brief filed with the US
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
attorneys from both the Department of
Justice (DOJ) and the US Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) spelled out
their case countering claims by Nebraska
and several water systems that the SDWA
in general and the arsenic rule in particular
exceed the limits on federal powers over
state activities established by Supreme
Court interpretations of the Commerce
Clause and the Tenth Amendment and violate
the First Amendment's freedom of
speech protection.
This article summarizes the
arguments challenging and supporting the
legality of the arsenic rule and the SDWA
according to the constitutional provisions
cited by Nebraska.
| Edition : | Vol. 95 - No. 3 |
| File Size : | 1
file
, 290 KB |
| Note : | This product is unavailable in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus |
| Number of Pages : | 6 |
| Published : | 03/01/2003 |
