DES MOINES, Iowa (Jan. 25, 2017) – A bill introduced in the Iowa House would nullify all EPA regulations within the state, and place sole authority for environmental regulations in the hands of a state agency and the legislature.
A coalition of seven representatives introduced House Bill 100 (HF100) on Jan. 24.The legislation rests on the following legislative finding:
“The regulation making authority of the United States Environmental Protection Agency is not authorized by any article or amendment of the Constitution of the United States and violates the Constitution’s true meaning and intent as given by the founders and ratifiers.”
Based on the finding, the bill declares “all regulations imposed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency before, on, or after July 1, 2017, are void in this state.”
In short, all of them.
HF100 vests the authority to provide all environmental protection in Iowa in the Department of Natural Resources.
All laws and funding appropriations concerning environmental protection shall be determined through passage of enrolled acts by the general assembly.
The department of natural resources shall be responsible for the adoption and enforcement of all necessary rules.
Rep. Chris Judy introduced a similar bill in Indiana.
President-elect Donald Trump recently appointed Scott Pruitt as his EPA head. He is known to be a “climate-change denier” and many speculate he will rein in far-reaching EPA regulations. As Oklahoma attorney general, Pruitt sued the EPA several times to thwart federal regulations.
Although states may find some relief under the Trump administration, Iowa should still act. Passage of HF100 would send a strong signal of support for rolling back onerous regulations to the new administration, and it could thwart the implementation unconstitutional federal regulations that remain in place. After all, environmental policy should be handled at the state level under the Constitution.
How implementation of HF100 would play out in practice remains unclear. Presumably, the state would simply refuse to enforce or implement future EPA regulations. It might serve the legislature well to amend the bill to include anti-commandeering language specifically prohibiting any state agency from cooperating with the implementation or enforcement of EPA rules, regulations or directives.
The legislation rests on rock-solid constitutional principles, but many in the legal profession will wrong-headedly dispute the state’s authority to declare federal regulations void. Nevertheless, there is no question that the state can simply refuse to enforce or implement federal acts or programs. The Supreme Court has consistently held that the federal government cannot commandeer state resources or personnel for federal purposes. The anti-commandeering doctrine rests on four Supreme Court cases dating all the way back to Prigg v. Pennsylvania in 1842.
Currently, the EPA works directly with state agencies to implement federal regulations and programs. This would end with passage of HF100. No matter the outcome of the legal wrangling that would likely ensue, the EPA would have a difficult time implementing its programs if the Iowa government refused to cooperate.
HF100 was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources where it will need to pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the the legislative process.
Latest posts by Mike Maharrey (see all)
- Texas and California: Two State Approaches to Federal Immigration Enforcement - October 16, 2017
- CNN Resurrects Old-School Anti-Nullification Hatchet Job - October 13, 2017
- My Contentious Interview with a National Radio Host - October 13, 2017