Source: POLITICO'S MORNING AGRICULTURE, 2/1/18

The ink had barely dried on EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt's signature after his agency issued a final rule to delay the Obama administration's Waters of the U.S. rule when environmental groups vowed to challenge the move in court. At least three groups are promising legal action when a stay issued by Court of Appeal for the 6th Circuit is lifted (and allowing the Obama-era rule to go into effect): the National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council and American Rivers. 

"EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt is racing the clock to deny protections for our public health and safety. It's grossly irresponsible, and illegal - and we'll challenge it in court," Jon Devine, senior attorney at NRDC, said in a statement.

Courtroom fault lines: The Administrative Procedures Act will serve as the legal battlefield. Challengers are likely to take shots at the rule over its short comment period - 21 days, including the Thanksgiving holiday. Others will also take issue with the use of the phrase "effective date" and the agency's decision to make the rule effective immediately rather than waiting the typical 30 days after it runs in the Federal Register.

'Certainty' is in the eye of the beholder: Underlying the procedural arguments is a fundamental disagreement about what makes for "certainty." The Trump administration, along with the industry groups that back it, say the delay rule would provide "certainty" - without it, the country would be a patchwork of different definitions when the appellate court's hold lifts for the 37 states not covered by a North Dakota District Court stay. 

Those for and against: "Today's announcement is part of a measured and thoughtful process to provide regulatory certainty to farmers and ranchers while the agencies continue the important work of withdrawing and rewriting the unlawful 2015 WOTUS rule," American Farm Bureau Federation President Zippy Duvall said in a statement. 

But environmentalists and proponents of the Obama rule say the delay would undercut "certainty" since it would leave in place the muddled approach to Clean Water Act jurisdiction that all sides have complained about for more than a decade.