This article discusses a legal challenge to the Long Term 2 Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)
mounted by the city of Portland, Oregon, and
New York City in the U.S. Court of Appeals on September 25, 2007. Surface water systems typically protect customers
from Cryptosporidium by providing filtration treatment.
The city of Portland, and New York City,
however, do not filter their drinking water before it
reaches consumers. Instead, both cities have implemented
active source water protection programs to
protect public health. Both cities
face high costs to comply with the final LT2ESWTR
and have a responsibility on behalf of their populace
to ensure that expenditures (and rate increases) to
meet regulatory requirements are fully justified.
Portland challenged the final LT2ESWTR following
its promulgation on Jan. 5, 2006 (USEPA, 2006),
by filing a petition for judicial review in the Appeals
Court. New York City filed a
motion to intervene on behalf of the petitioner which
was granted by the Appeals Court. This article focuses on the following arguments presented by the two cities: the cost-benefit analysis for the LT2ESWTR was
improper and overstated the benefits of regulation;
notice and opportunity for public comment was
inadequate;
substantive comments on the draft rule were
ignored;
best available science was not used; and,
the final rule was not supported by the rulemaking
record. The US District
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied the
cities' petition for judicial review, upholding the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) rule and
thereby clarifying provisions of the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). Includes 5 references.
| Edition : | Vol. 100 - No. 3 |
| File Size : | 1
file
, 55 KB |
| Note : | This product is unavailable in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus |
| Number of Pages : | 8 |
| Published : | 03/01/2008 |
