Supreme Court unanimously rejects EPA rule on water bodies

Hercules56 · 25th May 2023, 01:23 PM

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...animous-ruling

The supreme Court unanimously ruled against the EPA regarding their regulations upon wetlands that do not permanently connect to navigable water bodies. The EPA and the Biden administration wanted to be able to regulate small wetlands that are clearly not part of the navigable Waters of the United States. But this is clearly a violation of the intent of the clean water act, and everyone in the supreme Court agreed. The clean water act allows the federal government to protect and regulate all navigable water bodies in the United States, and water bodies that connect to them on a regular basis. Wetlands that only connect to such bodies when there is a large flood, but normally are independent, are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

TragicMonkey · 25th May 2023, 01:34 PM

"Unanimously"? The article I read said "5-4".

Cat Not Included · 25th May 2023, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

"Unanimously"? The article I read said "5-4".

Hmm. What I'm reading says there was unanimous agreement on the very specific case that was brought before the court, which dealt with a particular property or properties. It sounds like there was then a very NOT unanimous ruling to apply this decision as the basis for handling ALL wetlands. Which is, by the sound of it, really really bad as it would allow a lot more water pollution.

GodMark2 · 25th May 2023, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by NYT

The decision was nominally unanimous, with all the justices agreeing that the homeowners who brought the case should not have been subject to the agency’s oversight because the wetlands on their property were not subject to regulation in any event. But there was sharp disagreement about a new test the majority established to determine which wetlands are covered by the law.

Unanimous on verdict for the test case, deeply divided on new test put in place by activist judges.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/u...pollution.html

TragicMonkey · 25th May 2023, 01:44 PM

Originally Posted by Cat Not Included

Hmm. What I'm reading says there was unanimous agreement on the very specific case that was brought before the court, which dealt with a particular property or properties. It sounds like there was then a very NOT unanimous ruling to apply this decision as the basis for handling ALL wetlands. Which is, by the sound of it, really really bad as it would allow a lot more water pollution.

Well, if it's any consolation, all the water's going to be dried up anyway thanks to climate change! There, that's a great comfort. All the poisoning will have to be in the form of dusts.

Hercules56 · 25th May 2023, 01:45 PM

Originally Posted by Hercules56

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...animous-ruling

The supreme Court unanimously ruled against the EPA regarding their regulations upon wetlands that do not permanently connect to navigable water bodies. The EPA and the Biden administration wanted to be able to regulate small wetlands that are clearly not part of the navigable Waters of the United States. But this is clearly a violation of the intent of the clean water act, and everyone in the supreme Court agreed. The clean water act allows the federal government to protect and regulate all navigable water bodies in the United States, and water bodies that connect to them on a regular basis. Wetlands that only connect to such bodies when there is a large flood, but normally are independent, are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government.

The court was unanimous that the water bodies discussed in the case are not under the jurisdiction of the EPA. What they disagreed on is what should be the rule as to decide which wetlands should be included under EPA authorization. Interesting that kavanaugh sided with the liberals.

Checkmite · 26th May 2023, 09:08 AM

In case anyone isn't acquainted with the basic facts that were in question during this case:

The plaintiffs are a couple who owned a property with a wetland on it that during heavy rains regularly and predictably fills and overflows into adjacent running natural water that is covered by the Clean Water Act, but in between such rains isn't directly linked to it. The EPA asserted this inconstant but regular connection put the wetland under the pollution constraints of the CWA; the couple, who wanted to fill the wetland and build a house on it, disagreed.

The EPA's case is easy to see here. Whenever it rains heavily, any pollutants in that wetland WILL and DO wash into protected water; it's a simple matter of fact, not a hypothetical or rare and extreme scenario. The new test implemented by the Supreme Court says that doesn't matter, there has to be a constant and continuous exchange in order for the wetland to be covered.

JoeMorgue · 26th May 2023, 09:10 AM

"We made the world a worst place but we did it via the rules we put into place to let us make the world a worst place." - Conservatives when they make the world a worst place on a technicality.

Hercules56 · 26th May 2023, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by Checkmite

In case anyone isn't acquainted with the basic facts that were in question during this case:

The plaintiffs are a couple who owned a property with a wetland on it that during heavy rains regularly and predictably fills and overflows into adjacent running natural water that is covered by the Clean Water Act, but in between such rains isn't directly linked to it. The EPA asserted this inconstant but regular connection put the wetland under the pollution constraints of the CWA; the couple, who wanted to fill the wetland and build a house on it, disagreed.

The EPA's case is easy to see here. Whenever it rains heavily, any pollutants in that wetland WILL and DO wash into protected water; it's a simple matter of fact, not a hypothetical or rare and extreme scenario. The new test implemented by the Supreme Court says that doesn't matter, there has to be a constant and continuous exchange in order for the wetland to be covered.

"Under the current Supreme Court rule, all waters (such as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes) with a "a continuous surface connection" to "navigable waters" are covered under the CWA.[12]

The 1972 statute frequently uses the term "navigable waters" but also defines the term as "waters of the United States, including the territorial seas."[13] Some regulations interpreting the 1972 law have included water features such as intermittent streams, playa lakes, prairie potholes, sloughs and wetlands as "waters of the United States." In 2006, in Rapanos v. United States, a plurality of the US Supreme Court held that the term "waters of the United States" "includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water 'forming geographic features' that are described in ordinary parlance as 'streams[,]... oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.'" Since Rapanos, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have attempted to define protected waters in the context of Rapanos through the 2015 Clean Water Rule, but this has been highly controversial. The agencies considered CWA to cover bodies of water with a "significant nexus" with traditional navigable waters.

In 2023, the Supreme Court rejected the "significant nexus" test in Sackett v. EPA and established the current definition."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_...ct?wprov=sfla1

Laws matter, and the actual text of these laws also matter. If we allow politicians to interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean, then we might as well get rid of Congress because we can always just do whatever.

Small wetlands that are not regularly connected to navigable bodies of water are clearly not under the jurisdiction of the clean water act. Congress is more than welcome to change this law, in fact I hope that they do. But willfully misinterpreting clearly written laws is not the way to handle this and situations like it. Supreme Court is not meant to be writers of law. It is totally inappropriate to ask the supreme Court to literally update laws so as to fit changing ideologies and agendas. It's the role of Congress to write new law. End of story.

And btw, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the current Biden interpretation of the EPA's jurisdiction was simply wrong.

25th May 2023, 01:23 PM	#1
Hercules56 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 4,638	Supreme Court unanimously rejects EPA rule on water bodies https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...animous-ruling The supreme Court unanimously ruled against the EPA regarding their regulations upon wetlands that do not permanently connect to navigable water bodies. The EPA and the Biden administration wanted to be able to regulate small wetlands that are clearly not part of the navigable Waters of the United States. But this is clearly a violation of the intent of the clean water act, and everyone in the supreme Court agreed. The clean water act allows the federal government to protect and regulate all navigable water bodies in the United States, and water bodies that connect to them on a regular basis. Wetlands that only connect to such bodies when there is a large flood, but normally are independent, are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Hercules56 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 4,638	__________________ theliberalgunclub.com "The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a pro-Second Amendment voice for left-of-center gun owners in the national conversations on firearms."

25th May 2023, 01:34 PM	#2
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 66,007	"Unanimously"? The article I read said "5-4".
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

25th May 2023, 01:42 PM	#4
GodMark2 Master Poster Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 2,258	Originally Posted by NYT The decision was nominally unanimous, with all the justices agreeing that the homeowners who brought the case should not have been subject to the agency’s oversight because the wetlands on their property were not subject to regulation in any event. But there was sharp disagreement about a new test the majority established to determine which wetlands are covered by the law. Unanimous on verdict for the test case, deeply divided on new test put in place by activist judges. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/25/u...pollution.html
	__________________ Knowing that we do not know, it does not necessarily follow that we can not know.

25th May 2023, 01:44 PM	#5
TragicMonkey Poisoned Waffles Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Monkey Posts: 66,007	Originally Posted by Cat Not Included Hmm. What I'm reading says there was unanimous agreement on the very specific case that was brought before the court, which dealt with a particular property or properties. It sounds like there was then a very NOT unanimous ruling to apply this decision as the basis for handling ALL wetlands. Which is, by the sound of it, really really bad as it would allow a lot more water pollution. Well, if it's any consolation, all the water's going to be dried up anyway thanks to climate change! There, that's a great comfort. All the poisoning will have to be in the form of dusts.
	__________________ You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.

25th May 2023, 01:45 PM	#6
Hercules56 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by Hercules56 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sup...animous-ruling The supreme Court unanimously ruled against the EPA regarding their regulations upon wetlands that do not permanently connect to navigable water bodies. The EPA and the Biden administration wanted to be able to regulate small wetlands that are clearly not part of the navigable Waters of the United States. But this is clearly a violation of the intent of the clean water act, and everyone in the supreme Court agreed. The clean water act allows the federal government to protect and regulate all navigable water bodies in the United States, and water bodies that connect to them on a regular basis. Wetlands that only connect to such bodies when there is a large flood, but normally are independent, are not under the jurisdiction of the federal government. The court was unanimous that the water bodies discussed in the case are not under the jurisdiction of the EPA. What they disagreed on is what should be the rule as to decide which wetlands should be included under EPA authorization. Interesting that kavanaugh sided with the liberals.
Hercules56 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 4,638	__________________ theliberalgunclub.com "The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a pro-Second Amendment voice for left-of-center gun owners in the national conversations on firearms." Last edited by Hercules56; 25th May 2023 at 01:46 PM.

25th May 2023, 01:41 PM	#3
Cat Not Included Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2016 Posts: 338	Originally Posted by TragicMonkey "Unanimously"? The article I read said "5-4". Hmm. What I'm reading says there was unanimous agreement on the very specific case that was brought before the court, which dealt with a particular property or properties. It sounds like there was then a very NOT unanimous ruling to apply this decision as the basis for handling ALL wetlands. Which is, by the sound of it, really really bad as it would allow a lot more water pollution.

26th May 2023, 09:08 AM	#7
Checkmite Skepticifimisticalationist Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gulf Coast Posts: 28,231	In case anyone isn't acquainted with the basic facts that were in question during this case: The plaintiffs are a couple who owned a property with a wetland on it that during heavy rains regularly and predictably fills and overflows into adjacent running natural water that is covered by the Clean Water Act, but in between such rains isn't directly linked to it. The EPA asserted this inconstant but regular connection put the wetland under the pollution constraints of the CWA; the couple, who wanted to fill the wetland and build a house on it, disagreed. The EPA's case is easy to see here. Whenever it rains heavily, any pollutants in that wetland WILL and DO wash into protected water; it's a simple matter of fact, not a hypothetical or rare and extreme scenario. The new test implemented by the Supreme Court says that doesn't matter, there has to be a constant and continuous exchange in order for the wetland to be covered.
	__________________ "¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD? ¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?" --- Carlos S., 2002

26th May 2023, 09:10 AM	#8
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 44,082	"We made the world a worst place but we did it via the rules we put into place to let us make the world a worst place." - Conservatives when they make the world a worst place on a technicality.
	__________________ "If everyone in the room says water is wet and I say it's dry that makes me smart because at least I'm thinking for myself!" - The Proudly Wrong.

26th May 2023, 09:34 AM	#9
Hercules56 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 4,638	Originally Posted by Checkmite In case anyone isn't acquainted with the basic facts that were in question during this case: The plaintiffs are a couple who owned a property with a wetland on it that during heavy rains regularly and predictably fills and overflows into adjacent running natural water that is covered by the Clean Water Act, but in between such rains isn't directly linked to it. The EPA asserted this inconstant but regular connection put the wetland under the pollution constraints of the CWA; the couple, who wanted to fill the wetland and build a house on it, disagreed. The EPA's case is easy to see here. Whenever it rains heavily, any pollutants in that wetland WILL and DO wash into protected water; it's a simple matter of fact, not a hypothetical or rare and extreme scenario. The new test implemented by the Supreme Court says that doesn't matter, there has to be a constant and continuous exchange in order for the wetland to be covered. "Under the current Supreme Court rule, all waters (such as streams, oceans, rivers and lakes) with a "a continuous surface connection" to "navigable waters" are covered under the CWA.[12] The 1972 statute frequently uses the term "navigable waters" but also defines the term as "waters of the United States, including the territorial seas."[13] Some regulations interpreting the 1972 law have included water features such as intermittent streams, playa lakes, prairie potholes, sloughs and wetlands as "waters of the United States." In 2006, in Rapanos v. United States, a plurality of the US Supreme Court held that the term "waters of the United States" "includes only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water 'forming geographic features' that are described in ordinary parlance as 'streams[,]... oceans, rivers, [and] lakes.'" Since Rapanos, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers have attempted to define protected waters in the context of Rapanos through the 2015 Clean Water Rule, but this has been highly controversial. The agencies considered CWA to cover bodies of water with a "significant nexus" with traditional navigable waters. In 2023, the Supreme Court rejected the "significant nexus" test in Sackett v. EPA and established the current definition." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_...ct?wprov=sfla1 Laws matter, and the actual text of these laws also matter. If we allow politicians to interpret laws to mean whatever they want them to mean, then we might as well get rid of Congress because we can always just do whatever. Small wetlands that are not regularly connected to navigable bodies of water are clearly not under the jurisdiction of the clean water act. Congress is more than welcome to change this law, in fact I hope that they do. But willfully misinterpreting clearly written laws is not the way to handle this and situations like it. Supreme Court is not meant to be writers of law. It is totally inappropriate to ask the supreme Court to literally update laws so as to fit changing ideologies and agendas. It's the role of Congress to write new law. End of story. And btw, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that the current Biden interpretation of the EPA's jurisdiction was simply wrong.
Hercules56 Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2013 Posts: 4,638	__________________ theliberalgunclub.com "The mission of The Liberal Gun Club is to provide a pro-Second Amendment voice for left-of-center gun owners in the national conversations on firearms." Last edited by Hercules56; 26th May 2023 at 10:09 AM.