A second federal district judge has ruled that EPA's delay of the Obama-era Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction rule was unlawful and scraps the Trump administration's order blocking the rule's enforcement nationwide, solidifying a regulatory patchwork on the CWA's reach as various court decisions have now revived the rule in 22 states.

Rural water utilities are suggesting that a provision in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) that gives the EPA administrator “sole judgment” to determine new contaminants may be vulnerable to a constitutional challenge under the “non-delegation” doctrine, and are urging the agency to address the issue in an upcoming rule governing perchlorate.

Environmentalists are threatening to sue EPA over any rule that authorizes wastewater treatment plants to “blend” partly- and fully-treated effluent during wet-weather events, warning in written comments that the state of research into potential health harms from blending is too thin to support a rational rulemaking process.

The Supreme Court is giving the Trump administration just one month to weigh in on whether the Clean Water Act (CWA) limits pollution that travels through groundwater to protected surface waters, potentially posing a difficult test for EPA as the agency is in the early stages of crafting a rule or guidance to address the same question.

The Trump administration's recently released national assessment outlining increasingly serious effects from climate change is giving critics fresh political ammunition to challenge officials' efforts to dismiss the issue, and could also provide legal fodder for those fighting EPA's various climate rule rollbacks.

Recent negotiations between the White House and California on light-duty vehicle greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards are boosting optimism -- albeit slightly -- that the two sides can reach some kind of deal to avert a legal collision over the Trump administration's pending plan to freeze standards after model year 2020.

The National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA) is faulting EPA's plan to revise and ease its enforcement policy on tampering with aftermarket auto emissions control parts such as catalytic converters by warning that it will not adequately protect air quality, and is calling on the agency to instead pursue strict new emissions rules for the parts.

Appellate judges at Nov. 28 oral argument appeared divided on the merits of Northeastern states' suit aiming to force EPA to expand the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC) of states subject to stricter ozone reduction mandates, with two judges backing the agency's denial of the effort while the third offered some support for the states.

A local government advisory panel to EPA is urging the agency to provide leadership to communities on a “coordinated and comprehensive” approach of regulatory actions and other steps to address perfluorinated chemicals, as communities struggle with the emerging unregulated contaminants in drinking water.

Utilities are asking a federal appeals court to let them intervene in environmentalist groups' suit over the Trump EPA's first round of revisions to the Obama-era coal ash disposal rule, in which the groups are alleging that the agency ignored its duty to avert harms to health and the environment when it extended compliance deadlines.

EPA's final 2019 renewable fuel standard (RFS) production goals largely echo the proposed version of the rule but also include a modest hike for cellulosic biofuel targets over the proposal, disappointing biofuels groups that lobbied EPA to increase all fuel volume categories to compensate for RFS waivers it will likely grant to small refiners.

In compliance with an appellate court order, EPA is issuing a final rule imposing requirements of the Obama administration's January 2017 final rule strengthening the agency's Risk Management Plan (RMP) facility accident prevention program, despite plans to issue early next year a final rule largely scrapping the Obama-era rule.

Industry officials are urging lawmakers to renew EPA's expiring authority to collect industry fees to support timely pesticide reviews, either through a stand-alone bill or by attaching it to a broader appropriations package, after lawmakers declined to extend the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act (PRIA) program in the Farm Bill.