Monday, July 23, 2012

Chesapeake Bay Foundation Submits Brief Supporting EPA

On July 20, 2012, in the case American Farm Bureau Foundation (AFBF) v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Intervenor Chesapeake Bay Foundation filed a brief in support of EPA’s cross-motion for summary judgment.  In its brief, Intervenor Chesapeake Bay Foundation argued that EPA should be granted its cross-motion for summary judgment because AFBF lacked appropriate standing, because EPA has the authority to issue Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) amounts, and because the vast size and scale of TMDL requires EPA be granted “substantial deference.”  To read Intervenor Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s brief in its entirety, click the link below.

Intervenor Chesapeake Bay Foundation Reply Brief in Support of EPA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (July 20, 2012)

Written By M. Sean High, Research Assistant
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center

Thursday, July 19, 2012

Defendant Intervenors File Reply Briefs in Support of EPA’s Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

On July 13, 2012, in the case American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) v. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), two of the three Defendant Intervenors filed reply briefs in support of Defendant EPA’s cross-motion for summary judgment.  To read the briefs in their entirety, please click on the links below:

Intervenor Municipal Association Brief in Support of EPA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (July 13, 2012)

Intervenor Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Association Brief in Support of EPA's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (July 13, 2012)

Written By M. Sean High, Research Assistant
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center
July 19, 2012

Friday, July 6, 2012

EPA Files Brief in Support of Cross Motion for Summary Judgment

On June 20, 2012, in the case American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) v. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Defendant EPA filed a reply brief in support of their cross motion for summary judgment.  Defendant EPA argues Plaintiffs in the case have not overcome the initial burden of a strong presumption of upholding agency decisions.  Furthermore, the EPA asserts that the agency has not intruded upon the rights of each Chesapeake Bay Watershed State because the setting of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) is not equivalent to implementation.

To read the brief in its entirety, click on the link below:





Written By M. Sean High, Research Assistant
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center
July 6, 2012

EPA Evaluates Final Phase II WIPs

On May 30, 2012, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued evaluations of each Chesapeake Bay Watershed State's final Phase II Watershed Implementation Plan (WIP).  New York has not submitted a final Phase II WIP, and therefore the EPA has not evaluated their plan.

To read the EPA evaluations of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed States’ final Phase II WIPs in their entirety, click the links below.


Written By M. Sean High, Research Assistant
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center
July 6, 2012

AFBF Submits Brief on Motions for Summary Judgment

On May 21, 2012, Plaintiff American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) submitted a brief that simultaneously opposed Defendant Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) cross motion for summary judgment and supported Plaintiff AFBF’s motion for summary judgment.  The essence of Plaintiff AFBF’S argument was that the EPA exceeded its statutory authority and acted arbitrarily and capriciously when imposing final Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements on Chesapeake Bay Watershed States. 

To read the full AFBF brief, click the link below.

Plaintiff AFBF's Brief in Opposition of EPA's Cross Motion for Summary and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

Written By M. Sean High, Research Assistant
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center
July 6, 2012

Intervenors in AFBF v. EPA Submit Briefs

On April 12, 2012 and April 20, 2012, in accordance with U.S. District Judge Sylvia Rambo’s January 11, 2012 court order amending case management deadlines and dates, the three Intervenors involved in AFBF v. EPA each submitted briefs that supported the EPA’s cross-motion for summary judgment and opposed AFBF’s motion for summary judgment. 

To read each Intervenor's brief, click on the link provided below:






Written By M. Sean High, Research Assistant
Penn State Law, Agricultural Law Center
July 6, 2012