Scott Pruitt, Who Loved to Sue EPA, Just Made It Harder for Green Groups to Sue EPA
"The irony is that polluters don't even have to sue Pruitt to get what they want. They just pick up the phone and ask," says NRDC's John Walke
Trump's Environmental Protection Agency on Monday issued a directive that one environmental organization says targets nonexistent collusion and will make it easier for corporations to pollute.
The order from EPA Administrator [and former serial EPA suer] Scott Pruitt curbs "the type of legal agreements the EPA can reach with groups pressuring it to regulate," as the Washington Post sums up. Echoing language used by rightwing think tanks, Pruitt called them "sue and settle" practices and said, "The days of regulation through litigation are over."
Indeed, they've been in cross hairs of conservative groups, thus the Heritage Foundation praised Pruitt's directive as "hugely positive news."
"We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the Agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle," Pruitt said.
"The rule change," Talking Points Memo explains,
could force environmental groups to spend much more time and effort on lawsuits aimed at making the EPA enforce its own rules and abide by agreed-upon timelines--spreading them thinner and making it harder for them to expend effort on other, more complicated cases. The EPA's decision to refuse to reimburse lawyers' fees also could be costly to environmental groups, as well as make it harder and less likely for average citizens and localities to undertake lawsuits to get the EPA to do what it's legally required to do.
The EPA's press statement says the "sue and settle" practices "effectively force the Agency to reach certain regulatory outcomes." A 2015 GAO report, however, stated "the impact of deadline suits on EPA's rulemaking is limited."
According to John Walke, director of Natural Resources Defense Council's Clean Air Project and Climate and Clean Air program, "Pruitt's doing nothing more than posturing about a non-existent problem and political fiction. His targeting of legal settlements, especially where EPA has no defense to breaking the law, will just allow violations to persist, along with harms to Americans."
"The irony," he continued, "is that polluters don't even have to sue Pruitt to get what they want. They just pick up the phone and ask. Make no mistake, the unspoken Trump EPA agenda is to allow more corporations to ignore the law and prolong EPA breaking the law; both will lead to dirtier air, dirtier water, and sicker people."
Walke also took to social media to denounce what he characterized as Pruitt's "serial falsehoods and political posturing on the topic of EPA legal settlements."
Among the charges in his "tweet storm" include saying that Pruitt can't name an example of when a settlement subverted rulemaking, and that his agency's beef is not with all suits but with those by "Americans that want EPA to enforce clean air, clean water, and health protections."
"Nothing you do, Mr. Pruitt, can curtail Americans' right to hold EPA accountable for breaking law, whether you agree to follow law or not," he concluded.
We are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. US voters have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
Trump's Environmental Protection Agency on Monday issued a directive that one environmental organization says targets nonexistent collusion and will make it easier for corporations to pollute.
The order from EPA Administrator [and former serial EPA suer] Scott Pruitt curbs "the type of legal agreements the EPA can reach with groups pressuring it to regulate," as the Washington Post sums up. Echoing language used by rightwing think tanks, Pruitt called them "sue and settle" practices and said, "The days of regulation through litigation are over."
Indeed, they've been in cross hairs of conservative groups, thus the Heritage Foundation praised Pruitt's directive as "hugely positive news."
"We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the Agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle," Pruitt said.
"The rule change," Talking Points Memo explains,
could force environmental groups to spend much more time and effort on lawsuits aimed at making the EPA enforce its own rules and abide by agreed-upon timelines--spreading them thinner and making it harder for them to expend effort on other, more complicated cases. The EPA's decision to refuse to reimburse lawyers' fees also could be costly to environmental groups, as well as make it harder and less likely for average citizens and localities to undertake lawsuits to get the EPA to do what it's legally required to do.
The EPA's press statement says the "sue and settle" practices "effectively force the Agency to reach certain regulatory outcomes." A 2015 GAO report, however, stated "the impact of deadline suits on EPA's rulemaking is limited."
According to John Walke, director of Natural Resources Defense Council's Clean Air Project and Climate and Clean Air program, "Pruitt's doing nothing more than posturing about a non-existent problem and political fiction. His targeting of legal settlements, especially where EPA has no defense to breaking the law, will just allow violations to persist, along with harms to Americans."
"The irony," he continued, "is that polluters don't even have to sue Pruitt to get what they want. They just pick up the phone and ask. Make no mistake, the unspoken Trump EPA agenda is to allow more corporations to ignore the law and prolong EPA breaking the law; both will lead to dirtier air, dirtier water, and sicker people."
Walke also took to social media to denounce what he characterized as Pruitt's "serial falsehoods and political posturing on the topic of EPA legal settlements."
Among the charges in his "tweet storm" include saying that Pruitt can't name an example of when a settlement subverted rulemaking, and that his agency's beef is not with all suits but with those by "Americans that want EPA to enforce clean air, clean water, and health protections."
"Nothing you do, Mr. Pruitt, can curtail Americans' right to hold EPA accountable for breaking law, whether you agree to follow law or not," he concluded.
Trump's Environmental Protection Agency on Monday issued a directive that one environmental organization says targets nonexistent collusion and will make it easier for corporations to pollute.
The order from EPA Administrator [and former serial EPA suer] Scott Pruitt curbs "the type of legal agreements the EPA can reach with groups pressuring it to regulate," as the Washington Post sums up. Echoing language used by rightwing think tanks, Pruitt called them "sue and settle" practices and said, "The days of regulation through litigation are over."
Indeed, they've been in cross hairs of conservative groups, thus the Heritage Foundation praised Pruitt's directive as "hugely positive news."
"We will no longer go behind closed doors and use consent decrees and settlement agreements to resolve lawsuits filed against the Agency by special interest groups where doing so would circumvent the regulatory process set forth by Congress. Additionally, gone are the days of routinely paying tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to these groups with which we swiftly settle," Pruitt said.
"The rule change," Talking Points Memo explains,
could force environmental groups to spend much more time and effort on lawsuits aimed at making the EPA enforce its own rules and abide by agreed-upon timelines--spreading them thinner and making it harder for them to expend effort on other, more complicated cases. The EPA's decision to refuse to reimburse lawyers' fees also could be costly to environmental groups, as well as make it harder and less likely for average citizens and localities to undertake lawsuits to get the EPA to do what it's legally required to do.
The EPA's press statement says the "sue and settle" practices "effectively force the Agency to reach certain regulatory outcomes." A 2015 GAO report, however, stated "the impact of deadline suits on EPA's rulemaking is limited."
According to John Walke, director of Natural Resources Defense Council's Clean Air Project and Climate and Clean Air program, "Pruitt's doing nothing more than posturing about a non-existent problem and political fiction. His targeting of legal settlements, especially where EPA has no defense to breaking the law, will just allow violations to persist, along with harms to Americans."
"The irony," he continued, "is that polluters don't even have to sue Pruitt to get what they want. They just pick up the phone and ask. Make no mistake, the unspoken Trump EPA agenda is to allow more corporations to ignore the law and prolong EPA breaking the law; both will lead to dirtier air, dirtier water, and sicker people."
Walke also took to social media to denounce what he characterized as Pruitt's "serial falsehoods and political posturing on the topic of EPA legal settlements."
Among the charges in his "tweet storm" include saying that Pruitt can't name an example of when a settlement subverted rulemaking, and that his agency's beef is not with all suits but with those by "Americans that want EPA to enforce clean air, clean water, and health protections."
"Nothing you do, Mr. Pruitt, can curtail Americans' right to hold EPA accountable for breaking law, whether you agree to follow law or not," he concluded.