Malinsky, Jason2019-09-252019-09-252010-10-26200700461121http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12424/175734"Divergent interpretations of “daily” in the context of the Clean Water Act’s “total maximum daily load” program have created a circuit split between the D.C. Circuit and the Second Circuit. In 2006, the D.C. Circuit decided in Friends of the Earth v. EPA that “daily” means “every day.” Several years earlier the Second Circuit in NRDC v. Muszynski had decided “daily” could mean “seasonally” or “annually.” The D.C. Circuit’s opinion should ultimately govern because the holding applies Chevron properly and promotes the policy goals of the Clean Water Act. The circuit split and EPA’s subsequent revision of its own interpretation of “daily” present questions about the future of this potentially farreaching and controversial Clean Water Act regulatory program. EPA’s recent reinterpretation of “daily” craftily incorporates the Friends of the Earth ruling while maintaining the flexible regulatory structure that allows for less rigorous environmental standards. If challenged, the agency’s recent interpretation of “daily” will likely be given deference under Chevron. In light of EPA’s actions, policymakers must now consider reforming the TMDL program to better apply pollution standards equitably to major polluters, including the agriculture industry—the nation’s largest water polluter." (p. 1)engWith permission of the license/copyright holderpollutionlawwaterPolitical ethicsEnvironmental ethicsEthics of lawRights based legal ethicsResources ethicsArticle