- DTN Headline News
EPA Adviser Policy in Court
Friday, February 21, 2020 1:49PM CST
By Todd Neeley
DTN Staff Reporter

OMAHA (DTN) -- Both sides in a federal appeals case challenging EPA's 2017 decision to prohibit scientists from serving on EPA boards if they have grants from the agency delivered oral arguments Wednesday.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit fired questions at attorneys from the EPA and plaintiffs, led by Physicians for Social Responsibility, in the appeal of a lawsuit that was dismissed one year ago by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

During oral arguments on Wednesday, EPA attorney Jeffrey E. Sandberg said the case boils down to one fact: The agency can choose advisory board members however it wishes.

"EPA has broad discretion to choose what it wants as advisers," he said. "Federal ethics rules apply to those in federal service. They don't tell the agency who they can and can't hire."

Earthjustice attorney Neil Gormley said EPA's policy contradicts ethics rules in the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, which permits board members to be EPA grant holders.

"EPA failed to rationalize why the previous policy wasn't working," he said during arguments. "This will have a large impact on these committees. EPA failed to address any of this."

In 2017, then EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt issued a directive stating scientists who received EPA grants no longer would be able to serve on the agency's scientific advisory boards.

At the time, EPA did an evaluation of grant funds awarded during the previous three years. The agency found the members of the Science Advisory Board, Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee and the Board of Scientific Counselors received up to $77 million in EPA grants while serving on the committees.

"Whatever science comes out of EPA shouldn't be political science," Pruitt said during an announcement. "From this day forward, EPA advisory committee members will be financially independent from the agency."

In a December 2017 lawsuit, the plaintiffs argued the requirement was arbitrary and capricious, conflicted with several statutes and regulations governing advisory committees, and was a shift in policy that EPA failed to explain.

EPA argued the plaintiffs lacked standing because the directive was an appointment policy reserved to agency discretion. In addition, the EPA argued the plaintiffs failed to allege a violation of any specific statutory provision.

The district court sided with EPA and dismissed the case in February 2019.

At the time of the EPA announcement, Democratic members of Congress expressed concern Pruitt was attempting to silence some scientists.

The directive said the policy was designed to strengthen independence of members of the committees; to increase state, tribal and local government participation; to enhance geographic diversity on the committees and to promote "fresh" perspectives.

Groups such as the Union of Concerned Scientists said the agency's directive would harm independent science.

The directive received support from the American Petroleum Institute, who claimed the change returned EPA back to its original mission.

Todd Neeley can be reached at todd.neeley@dtn.com

Follow him on Twitter @toddneeleyDTN


blog iconDTN Blogs & Forums
DTN Market Matters Blog
Editorial Staff
Tuesday, February 25, 2020 10:08AM CST
Friday, February 21, 2020 11:39AM CST
Friday, February 14, 2020 11:12AM CST
Technically Speaking
Editorial Staff
Monday, February 24, 2020 9:14AM CST
Tuesday, February 18, 2020 8:53AM CST
Monday, February 10, 2020 8:24AM CST
Fundamentally Speaking
Joel Karlin
DTN Contributing Analyst
Friday, February 21, 2020 8:08AM CST
Wednesday, February 19, 2020 11:04AM CST
Tuesday, February 18, 2020 10:59AM CST
DTN Ag Policy Blog
Chris Clayton
DTN Ag Policy Editor
Tuesday, February 25, 2020 2:29PM CST
Tuesday, February 25, 2020 11:19AM CST
Friday, February 21, 2020 11:36AM CST
Minding Ag's Business
Katie Behlinger
Farm Business Editor
Wednesday, February 19, 2020 12:08PM CST
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 1:24PM CST
Friday, January 17, 2020 4:55PM CST
DTN Ag Weather Forum
Bryce Anderson
DTN Ag Meteorologist and DTN Analyst
Tuesday, February 25, 2020 2:55PM CST
Friday, February 21, 2020 2:16PM CST
Thursday, February 20, 2020 12:43PM CST
DTN Production Blog
Pam Smith
Crops Technology Editor
Thursday, February 13, 2020 11:14AM CST
Friday, January 31, 2020 2:40PM CST
Thursday, January 9, 2020 10:55AM CST
Harrington's Sort & Cull
John Harrington
DTN Livestock Analyst
Monday, February 24, 2020 2:43PM CST
Monday, February 17, 2020 10:48PM CST
Monday, February 10, 2020 4:00PM CST
South America Calling
Editorial Staff
Tuesday, February 11, 2020 5:13PM CST
Tuesday, February 4, 2020 5:18PM CST
Thursday, January 30, 2020 2:52PM CST
An Urban’s Rural View
Urban Lehner
Editor Emeritus
Thursday, February 20, 2020 1:35PM CST
Monday, February 10, 2020 8:59AM CST
Monday, February 3, 2020 9:51AM CST
Machinery Chatter
Dan Miller
Progressive Farmer Senior Editor
Friday, February 14, 2020 2:50PM CST
Thursday, February 6, 2020 4:06PM CST
Monday, January 27, 2020 3:59PM CST
Canadian Markets
Cliff Jamieson
Canadian Grains Analyst
Tuesday, February 25, 2020 3:17PM CST
Monday, February 24, 2020 3:18PM CST
Friday, February 21, 2020 3:21PM CST
Editor’s Notebook
Greg D. Horstmeier
DTN Editor-in-Chief
Tuesday, December 31, 2019 10:39AM CST
Friday, November 22, 2019 5:37PM CST
Monday, November 11, 2019 2:26PM CST
Copyright DTN. All rights reserved. Disclaimer.
Powered By DTN