Huge win for farmers/landowners

[JABIII]

Supreme Court narrows WOTUS (Waters of the US) definition
Court rules 5-4 in favor of limiting EPA authority.


Joshua Baethge
May 25, 2023

The Supreme Court has limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate certain bodies of water. In a 5-4 vote, the Court ruled in favor of an Idaho landowner in the long-running Sackett vs. EPA case.

The Clean Water Act of 1972 gave EPA the authority to regulate navigable waters in the country. At issue is what bodies of water should be considered “Waters of the United States.”

Under the most recent definition of WOTUS issued by the Biden Administration late last year, EPA had the authority to regulate various small bodies of water, including those on private land and farms. The court held that this definition was too broad, and limited EPA’s authority to only wetlands “with a continuous surface connection” to navigable waterways.


The ruling effectively invalidates the Biden WOTUS rule.

This is a developing story.

https://www.farmprogress.com/farm-po...tus-definition

[DJP]

Seems logical to me. Hard to navigate non contiguous water.

[Hogg]

While many may be applauding the result, Alito's opinion is textbook judicial activism.

[wskinner]

While many may be applauding the result, Alito's opinion is textbook judicial activism.

Did you think all the hoopla over selecting Justices was just for show?

[MolliesMaster]

Good for land owners and corporations but potentially bad for wildlife, yea?

[Hogg]

Do you believe in the Constitution of the United State of America?

[wskinner]

Do you believe in the Constitution of the United State of America?

Yes, and I wasn’t trying to be condescending, just saying that conservative justices are going to do their thing and liberal justices are going to do their’s.

[Southernduck]

Do you believe in the Constitution of the United State of America?

So how do you think the Constitution would interpret this situation?

I like to think the Constitution tells the bureaucracy to go piss up a rope but real world results show me that isn't happening.

[drwilly]

Do you believe in the Constitution of the United State of America?

the part that gives the govt the power to control water?

[Hogg]

the part that gives the govt the power to control water?

Congress enacts the law.
The Judiciary is supposed to interpret it and not rewrite it as they please.

[WoodieSC]

Congress enacts the law.
The Judiciary is supposed to interpret it and not rewrite it as they please.

Congress is also required to follow the Constitution. When they violate their oath to do so, they need to be over-turned as needed.

[Silentweapon338]

Congress enacts the law.
The Judiciary is supposed to interpret it and not rewrite it as they please.

Well, we have long sense passed that virtuous stance so let's stack the courts with constitutionalist.

[fro]

Wish they would just decide one way or the other. This has been changing constantly since 2006'ish with every administration. Drives me insane!!!

[BigBrother]

Wish they would just decide one way or the other. This has been changing constantly since 2006'ish with every administration. Drives me insane!!!

It's why you make the big bucks.

[BrandonWagner]

Now will be interesting to see how the key word of “continuous” will be interpreted..

[scquackaddict]

It’s good for forestry. I have no problem with SMZs and BMPs to protect water quality. They are all positive things. That being said the government trying to regulate every ditch and mud puddle is absurd.

[smitch320]

It’s good for forestry. I have no problem with SMZs and BMPs to protect water quality. They are all positive things. That being said the government trying to regulate every ditch and mud puddle is absurd.

I agree.

[winyah]

As a part of a very large Environmental Firm, our senior wetland scientist is reviewing the entire 82 page opinion tonight. I'll be interested to hear his impressions forthcoming.

The difference between wetlands/waters "with a continuous surface connection" vs. a theoretical underground "significant nexus" is huge. We shall see....

[TennDan]

As a part of a very large Environmental Firm, our senior wetland scientist is reviewing the entire 82 page opinion tonight. I'll be interested to hear his impressions forthcoming.

The difference between wetlands/waters "with a continuous surface connection" vs. a theoretical underground "significant nexus" is huge. We shall see....

It's huge for certain districts. Not so much in the Carolinas. Will be interesting to see how state agencies respond. FL stepped up. I suspect others will follow.

[winyah]

It's huge for certain districts. Not so much in the Carolinas. Will be interesting to see how state agencies respond. FL stepped up. I suspect others will follow.

Agreed