What Happened:
In a major win for the U.S. pork industry, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in San Francisco has dismissed a lawsuit brought by several activist groups that aimed to impose significant changes to the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) rules.
Last month, the National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) presented oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit, successfully urging the court to reject the lawsuit’s claims. During the hearing, the court expressed frustration and raised significant concerns regarding Food & Water Watch’s approach and transparency in their arguments.
The court ultimately upheld EPA’s current approach to regulating livestock production, including the formation of its Animal Agriculture Water Quality Subcommittee, which includes representatives from the pork industry to study water quality issues. The court confirmed that EPA’s strategy of gathering data before proposing new regulations is prudent and consistent with the requirements of the Clean Water Act. The decision highlights that NPPC’s collaboration with the Biden Administration on this matter is both “reasonable and hardly at odds with the Clean Water Act,” as claimed by Food & Water Watch.
Why It Matters:
This lawsuit, which the court deemed baseless, sought to disrupt livestock production across the nation by attacking fundamental due process and civil rights. The activists aimed to shift the burden of proof regarding violations of the Clean Water Act and push judges to disregard Congress’s clear intent not to regulate rainwater runoff from agricultural fields. Had they succeeded, the livelihood of pork producers across the U.S. would have been jeopardized.
NPPC’s Response:
The pork industry has long demonstrated leadership in tackling environmental challenges and has worked closely with federal, state, and local regulators to ensure their farms are designed as zero-discharge operations. NPPC emphasized that major changes to longstanding federal laws should come through congressional action, not through activist lawsuits attempting to rewrite laws in the courts—especially when Congress has repeatedly rejected these unreasonable demands.
