Jannah Theme License is not validated, Go to the theme options page to validate the license, You need a single license for each domain name.
USA

Supreme Court rules against EPA in dispute over wetland regulation

Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate certain wetlands that fall under the Clean Water Act, which is “the water of the United States,” long seen as a key means to keep waterways free from pollution. restrained things.

In a long-running dispute with Idaho landlords known as Sackett v. EPA, the High Court ruled against the agency.and opinion The court, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, found that the agency’s interpretation of wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act was “inconsistent” with the wording and structure of the Act, and that the Act was “a continuous link between water and land.” It was found that it applies only to “wetlands where It is itself the “waters of the United States.” ”

Although the majority accepted that weather and meteorological phenomena such as low tides and droughts can cause “temporary interruptions” between bodies of water covered by the law, the court decided against protection under the Clean Water Act. Wetlands that are otherwise regulated should be “indistinguishable” from other regulated wetlands. water.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reverses a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for the EPA.

The court unanimously ruled in favor of Idaho couple Michael and Shantel Sackett, who filed the lawsuit, but the arguments were split 5-4. Alito’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also concurred.

In a concurring opinion written by Mr. Kavanaugh and attended by three liberal justices, Mr. Kavanaugh said the “continuous surface connection” test adopted by the majority was “legal text, 45 years of consistent agency practice, And it deviates from the court’s precedent.”

Kavanaugh warned that the narrowing of the Clean Water Act would exempt some long-regulated wetlands from the Act and would have “significant impacts on water quality and flood control” across the country. .

Wetlands separated by dikes Mississippi River Kavanaugh said the Chesapeake Bay would not be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act and would not be subject to federal protection if landfills could be dumped into wetlands adjacent (not adjacent) to the Chesapeake Bay and its covered tributaries. said it could be less effective. ”

“Simply put, the court’s non-textual test, or rewriting ‘adjacent’ to mean ‘adjacent,’ would have real-world implications for U.S. waters and create regulatory uncertainty.” Kavanaugh wrote.

The Conservative Court’s ruling is the latest to redirect EPA authority to pollution police.On the last day of his term last year, the High Court restricted the powers of government agencies Regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, hurting efforts to combat climate change.

The dispute involves the Clean Air Act, and the Supreme Court has now granted EPA authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of pollutants into what the Act defines as “the waters of the United States.” mentioning. Regulations issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers define “United States waters” to include “wetlands” that are “adjacent” to conventional navigable waters.

President Biden called the Supreme Court’s decision “disappointing” and promised to work with the Justice Department and relevant federal agencies to use legal authority to protect the nation’s waters. Mr Biden said the ruling would put wetlands and the waters that lead to them at risk of “pollution and destruction”.

“Today’s decision upends the legal framework that has protected U.S. waters for decades,” he said in a statement. “It also goes against the science behind wetlands’ vital role in protecting our nation’s rivers, rivers and lakes from chemicals and pollutants that harm the health and well-being of children, families and communities.”

The long-running affair dates back to 2007, when the Sacketts began building a home on a residential lot near Priest Lake, Idaho. After the Sacketts obtained a local building permit and began filling the site with sand and gravel, the EPA ordered a stop to the work, saying the land contained wetlands protected by Clean Water. Arguing, he instructed the couple to return the property to its natural state. activity.

Illustration by the Pacific Law Foundation showing real estate near Priest Lake, Idaho, in the heart of Sackett v. EPA.
Illustration by Pacific Law Foundation. It shows the Idaho real estate at the center of the Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court case.


Pacific Legal Foundation/Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0



Faced with thousands of dollars in fines, the Sacketts sued the EPA in 2008, arguing that EPA’s legal jurisdiction did not extend to their property.

The Office sought dismissal of the lawsuit, and the United States District Court in Idaho granted the claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted this, but the Supreme Court reopened the case and remanded the dispute to the lower courts.

In a second round in the lower courts, the district court ruled in favor of the EPA, and based on tests presented by Judge Anthony Kennedy in the 2006 case, the EPA had a wetland purportedly located on the Sacketts family property. recognized as having the power to regulate Clean water law.

In Lapanos v. United States of 2006, the court presented two competing tests to determine whether a wetland could be regulated under the Clean Water Act. Under Kennedy’s criteria, applied by the lower courts in the Sacketts legal battle, a wetland may be subject to the Clean Water Act if it has a “significant connection” to conventional navigable water.

9th circuit affirmed The district court’s ruling found that the EPA has jurisdiction over the wetlands. In its ruling, the Court of Appeals stated that the agency described the Sacketts’ property as a “waterlogged residential area” and that the wetlands on which it resides adjoin a tributary that, along with another wetland complex, constitutes an important wetland. found that the authorities had jurisdiction over the Connection to Priest Lake. The Ninth Circuit found the wetlands “significantly impacting the health of Priest Lake.”

But Alito warned of the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act, saying that “almost all bodies of water and wetlands could be affected by regulation under this act.” [significant nexus] The experiment puts a surprising number of landowners at risk of criminal prosecution for mundane acts like moving soil. ”

made up of wetlands 5.5% of land According to the EPA, it is considered part of the “” in the continental United States. Most Productive Ecosystem It is comparable to tropical rainforests and coral reefs in the world. ”

They not only provide habitat for a wide variety of plants and microorganisms, but are also essential in mitigating flooding and erosion. This factor is becoming more important as the climate crisis deepens and storms become more frequent and intense. Human modification of wetlands through construction and pollution is a major stressor that can dramatically alter human function and viability.

Aerial view of Priest Lake, Idaho, and grounds central to the Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court case.
Aerial view of Priest Lake, Idaho, and grounds central to the Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court case.


Brian Founer/Pacific Legal Foundation/Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0



John Devine, director of federal water policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, warned that a court decision to curtail the EPA’s authority over wetlands “could be devastating.”

“The tens of millions of acres of wetlands that currently protect communities from flooding and ensure a more reliable supply of drinking water are going to be reclaimed or polluted without any prior environmental research,” he told CBS. It will be at risk,” he said. News in a pre-decision interview.

Protecting these waterways is becoming more urgent as climate change exacerbates floods, droughts and other problems, he said.

“These things are small individually, but the collective impact is huge,” he says. “That’s why we need to prevent millions of deaths that could be caused by bad decisions here.”

Summarize this content to 100 words

Washington — The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate certain wetlands that fall under the Clean Water Act, which is “the water of the United States,” long seen as a key means to keep waterways free from pollution. restrained things.In a long-running dispute with Idaho landlords known as Sackett v. EPA, the High Court ruled against the agency.and opinion The court, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, found that the agency’s interpretation of wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act was “inconsistent” with the wording and structure of the Act, and that the Act was “a continuous link between water and land.” It was found that it applies only to “wetlands where It is itself the “waters of the United States.” ”Although the majority accepted that weather and meteorological phenomena such as low tides and droughts can cause “temporary interruptions” between bodies of water covered by the law, the court decided against protection under the Clean Water Act. Wetlands that are otherwise regulated should be “indistinguishable” from other regulated wetlands. water.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reverses a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for the EPA.The court unanimously ruled in favor of Idaho couple Michael and Shantel Sackett, who filed the lawsuit, but the arguments were split 5-4. Alito’s majority opinion was joined by Chief Justices John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett. Justices Brett Kavanaugh, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson also concurred.

In a concurring opinion written by Mr. Kavanaugh and attended by three liberal justices, Mr. Kavanaugh said the “continuous surface connection” test adopted by the majority was “legal text, 45 years of consistent agency practice, And it deviates from the court’s precedent.”Kavanaugh warned that the narrowing of the Clean Water Act would exempt some long-regulated wetlands from the Act and would have “significant impacts on water quality and flood control” across the country. .Wetlands separated by dikes Mississippi River Kavanaugh said the Chesapeake Bay would not be subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act and would not be subject to federal protection if landfills could be dumped into wetlands adjacent (not adjacent) to the Chesapeake Bay and its covered tributaries. said it could be less effective. ””Simply put, the court’s non-textual test, or rewriting ‘adjacent’ to mean ‘adjacent,’ would have real-world implications for U.S. waters and create regulatory uncertainty.” Kavanaugh wrote.

The Conservative Court’s ruling is the latest to redirect EPA authority to pollution police.On the last day of his term last year, the High Court restricted the powers of government agencies Regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, hurting efforts to combat climate change.The dispute involves the Clean Air Act, and the Supreme Court has now granted EPA authority under the Clean Water Act to regulate the discharge of pollutants into what the Act defines as “the waters of the United States.” mentioning. Regulations issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers define “United States waters” to include “wetlands” that are “adjacent” to conventional navigable waters.President Biden called the Supreme Court’s decision “disappointing” and promised to work with the Justice Department and relevant federal agencies to use legal authority to protect the nation’s waters. Mr Biden said the ruling would put wetlands and the waters that lead to them at risk of “pollution and destruction”.”Today’s decision upends the legal framework that has protected U.S. waters for decades,” he said in a statement. “It also goes against the science behind wetlands’ vital role in protecting our nation’s rivers, rivers and lakes from chemicals and pollutants that harm the health and well-being of children, families and communities.”The long-running affair dates back to 2007, when the Sacketts began building a home on a residential lot near Priest Lake, Idaho. After the Sacketts obtained a local building permit and began filling the site with sand and gravel, the EPA ordered a stop to the work, saying the land contained wetlands protected by Clean Water. Arguing, he instructed the couple to return the property to its natural state. activity.

Illustration by Pacific Law Foundation. It shows the Idaho real estate at the center of the Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court case.

Pacific Legal Foundation/Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

Faced with thousands of dollars in fines, the Sacketts sued the EPA in 2008, arguing that EPA’s legal jurisdiction did not extend to their property.The Office sought dismissal of the lawsuit, and the United States District Court in Idaho granted the claim. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted this, but the Supreme Court reopened the case and remanded the dispute to the lower courts.

In a second round in the lower courts, the district court ruled in favor of the EPA, and based on tests presented by Judge Anthony Kennedy in the 2006 case, the EPA had a wetland purportedly located on the Sacketts family property. recognized as having the power to regulate Clean water law.In Lapanos v. United States of 2006, the court presented two competing tests to determine whether a wetland could be regulated under the Clean Water Act. Under Kennedy’s criteria, applied by the lower courts in the Sacketts legal battle, a wetland may be subject to the Clean Water Act if it has a “significant connection” to conventional navigable water.9th circuit affirmed The district court’s ruling found that the EPA has jurisdiction over the wetlands. In its ruling, the Court of Appeals stated that the agency described the Sacketts’ property as a “waterlogged residential area” and that the wetlands on which it resides adjoin a tributary that, along with another wetland complex, constitutes an important wetland. found that the authorities had jurisdiction over the Connection to Priest Lake. The Ninth Circuit found the wetlands “significantly impacting the health of Priest Lake.”But Alito warned of the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of the Clean Water Act, saying that “almost all bodies of water and wetlands could be affected by regulation under this act.” [significant nexus] The experiment puts a surprising number of landowners at risk of criminal prosecution for mundane acts like moving soil. ”made up of wetlands 5.5% of land According to the EPA, it is considered part of the “” in the continental United States. Most Productive Ecosystem It is comparable to tropical rainforests and coral reefs in the world. ” They not only provide habitat for a wide variety of plants and microorganisms, but are also essential in mitigating flooding and erosion. This factor is becoming more important as the climate crisis deepens and storms become more frequent and intense. Human modification of wetlands through construction and pollution is a major stressor that can dramatically alter human function and viability.

Aerial view of Priest Lake, Idaho, and grounds central to the Sackett v. EPA Supreme Court case.

Brian Founer/Pacific Legal Foundation/Flickr/Creative Commons 2.0

John Devine, director of federal water policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council, warned that a court decision to curtail the EPA’s authority over wetlands “could be devastating.”

“The tens of millions of acres of wetlands that currently protect communities from flooding and ensure a more reliable supply of drinking water are going to be reclaimed or polluted without any prior environmental research,” he told CBS. It will be at risk,” he said. News in a pre-decision interview.Protecting these waterways is becoming more urgent as climate change exacerbates floods, droughts and other problems, he said. “These things are small individually, but the collective impact is huge,” he says. “That’s why we need to prevent millions of deaths that could be caused by bad decisions here.”

trending news

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-epa-clean-water-act/ Supreme Court rules against EPA in dispute over wetland regulation

Back to top button