Full Description

This article discusses a legal challenge to the Long Term 2 EnhancedSurface Water Treatment Rule (LT2ESWTR)mounted by the city of Portland, Oregon, andNew York City in the U.S. Court of Appeals on September 25, 2007. Surface water systems typically protect customersfrom Cryptosporidium by providing filtration treatment.The city of Portland, and New York City,however, do not filter their drinking water before itreaches consumers. Instead, both cities have implementedactive source water protection programs toprotect public health. Both citiesface high costs to comply with the final LT2ESWTRand have a responsibility on behalf of their populaceto ensure that expenditures (and rate increases) tomeet regulatory requirements are fully justified.Portland challenged the final LT2ESWTR followingits promulgation on Jan. 5, 2006 (USEPA, 2006),by filing a petition for judicial review in the AppealsCourt. New York City filed amotion to intervene on behalf of the petitioner whichwas granted by the Appeals Court. This article focuses on the following arguments presented by the two cities: the cost-benefit analysis for the LT2ESWTR wasimproper and overstated the benefits of regulation;notice and opportunity for public comment wasinadequate;substantive comments on the draft rule wereignored;best available science was not used; and,the final rule was not supported by the rulemakingrecord. The US DistrictCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit denied thecities' petition for judicial review, upholding the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) rule andthereby clarifying provisions of the Safe DrinkingWater Act (SDWA). Includes 5 references.

Product Details

Edition: Vol. 100 - No. 3 Published: 03/01/2008 Number of Pages: 8File Size: 1 file , 55 KB