This had made liberals very mad…right up to the point where Los Federales decide to regulate the small pond on their own property. In fairness, this doesn’t directly smack around the rule, but, puts it on notice to just stop right now
Supreme Court rules against EPA in dispute over regulating wetlands
The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate certain wetlands that qualify as “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, curbing what has long been seen as a key tool to protect waterways from pollution.
The high court ruled against the agency in a long-running dispute with Idaho landowners known as Sackett v. EPA. In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court found that the agency’s interpretation of the wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act is “inconsistent” with the law’s text and structure, and the law extends only to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right.”
While the majority acknowledged that weather and climate events like low tides and dry spells can cause “temporary interruptions” between bodies of waters covered by the law, the court said that wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act should be otherwise “indistinguishable” from other regulated waters.
Protecting wetlands is great. I’m all for it, though, if they are solely in a state that should be up to the state, not the federal government. Extending it out to just about any running water? No. Do you really want the EPA to regulate that small pond behind your house and make you get all sorts of permits? How about for temporary streams? It really is just a power grab
In a concurring opinion authored by Kavanaugh and joined by the three liberal justices, Kavanaugh argued the “continuous surface connection” test adopted by the majority “departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this court’s precedents.”
By narrowing the scope of Clean Water Act, Kavanaugh warned some long-regulated wetlands will no longer be covered by the law, which will have “significant repercussions for water quality and flood control” throughout the nation.
I understand their reasoning, but, the EPA is contending that a small stream is navigable and under their purview and control, a massive stretch, as the EPA, and most federal agencies like to do. There would be no need for this ruling or even a case if the EPA wasn’t continuously attempting to grab more and more power.
The decision from the conservative court is the latest to target the authority of the EPA to police pollution. On the final day of its term last year, the high court limited the agency’s power to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants, dealing a blow to efforts to combat climate change.
It’s not about targeting their authority, it’s about reigning in their authority as deemed by law which the EPA wants to expand.
President Biden criticized the Supreme Court’s decision as “disappointing” and pledged to work with the Justice Department and relevant federal agencies to use their legal authority to protect the nation’s waters. Mr. Biden said the ruling puts wetlands and connecting bodies of water at risk of “pollution and destruction.”
What if the EPA decided to crack down on Biden’s properties using the same rule? I wonder how he would respond?
[…] Pirates Cove-SCOTUS 9 Team Mumbles and Stumbles 0 […]
If it makes so much sense, let Congress pass a law. EPA doesn’t get to control everything because sh*t flows downhill.
Now onward toward reining in the FDA.
https://pjmedia.com/columns/megan-fox/2023/05/26/fda-bans-farmers-from-caring-for-their-own-animals-without-costly-vet-approval-n1698371
#AnotherBureaucraticOverreach
#LetsGoBrandon
Bwaha! Lolgf
Ban all 3-letter agencies!!
In the EPA ruling, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh accuses his conservative SCOTUS partners, “pointing out that the court is making law instead of interpreting it” adding, “I would stick to the text.”
Guess libtards no longer consider Kavanaugh a MAGAt, hey Rimjob? Maybe he no longer needs federal marshals to protect him and his family from leftist assassins.
#MAGA
Bwaha! Lolgf
The PillowBiter misses the point, butt again.
We have a small, useless pond on our property; I’d actually like to just fill it in, but there’s no urgency. It is Jeremiah’s home. We also have drainage ditches, which are, sometimes, filled with water.
The real problem for the Sacketts? They applied for, and received, permits from the state to build a house there, and some officious little prick squealed to the EPA. A system under which you need permits to do something completely ordinary on your own land is repugnant.
In remodeling two kitchens, redoing the plumbing in three houses and the electrical in two, I’ve gotten exactly one inspection — to get the new circuit box in the new garage hooked up to power — and zero permits.
What are the odds the commies running the EPA will simply ignore this ruling and keep on doing what they’ve been doing….
Actually it’s fascist. Commies would just steal your land. Fascists like you to keep your land and pay taxes on it while they tell you what you can and cannot do with it.
End all regulatory agencies and regulations.
We have the remedies we need without unelected bureaucrats!
Tort law!!
If my neighbor dumps his goat offal in the stream that runs through his property upstream from me, I sue him for damages. Eazy-peazy.
If he dumps spent motor oil in his pond which overflows and contaminates a creek down the hill that drains into the reservoir that is the water supply for Springfield, the city can sue him for damages!
The beauty and simplicity is obvious. Ducks, mussels, crawdads, beavers, muskrat, spotted bass, snail darters, hellbenders etc have no standing to sue!
Multiple state, federal and even an earlier Supreme court had upheld the EPA, but the new all-activist TrumpSupremeKourt (TSK) continues it’s jackbooted march over America!!
TSK
How clever.
Thanks, dumbass.