Supreme Court to weigh limits on reach of Clean Water Act

[PSPS]

Source: BDN

Supreme Court to weigh limits on reach of Clean Water Act

The Supreme Court said Monday it will consider reining in federal regulation of private property under the nation’s main anti-water pollution law, the Clean Water Act. The justices agreed to hear a business-backed appeal from Chantell and Michael Sackett, who have wanted to build a home close to Priest Lake in Idaho for 15 years and won an earlier round in their legal fight at the Supreme Court. The Environmental Protection Agency ordered work on the Sackett’s property halted in 2007, determining that part of it was a wetlands that could not be disturbed without a permit.

The new court case, to be argued in the fall, tests the reach of the Clean Water Act beyond rivers, lakes and streams. Under an opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2006, regulators can block development on properties far from waterways as long as they prove a significant connection to the waterways. Kennedy said the wetlands must “significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity” of nearby navigable waters to come under the Clean Water Act. No other justice joined Kennedy’s writing, and four conservatives wrote that they would allow regulation only if there was a continuous surface connection from the wetlands to the lake, river or stream. There is no such connection on the Sackett’s property. Among the four were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. They now have three colleagues on the right, Justices Neil Gorsuch, Amy Coney Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh, who took Kennedy’s seat when he retired in 2018.

Jon Devine, director of federal water policy at the National Resources Defense Council, said the court had agreed to hear a case that could “gut our ability to protect wetlands and other waters. It’s a threat to the clean water our communities depend on for drinking, swimming, fishing and other uses.”



Read more: https://bangordailynews.com/2022/01/24/news/nation/supreme-court-to-weigh-limits-on-reach-of-clean-water-act/

---

Eliminating reproductive freedom, codifying racial disparity in higher education and, now, no more clean water.

[mountain grammy]

1. chip, chip, chip..

[PortTack]

2. A sad day that should never have happened...

[ColinC]

3. We need to win in November, add PR and DC as states and expand the courts immediately.

[Rebl2]

10. I wish

[AllaN01Bear]

13. us vergin islands too.

[bahboo]

21. I wonder if PR and the VI could come in as one state...

just thinking population. Gotta be bigger than Wyoming or a Dakota...

[Polybius]

24. How could they become just one state?

I hate it when streets aren't connected, but unconnected states? Yikes!

[Journeyman]

4. So now we're going to remove "masks" from the waterways as well . . .

[sakabatou]

5. Seriously?!

Ugh...

[montanacowboy]

6. What next?

No trial by jury?
No presumed innocent?

This court is doing the right wing agenda without them being in power. They will bring everything and the kitchen sink to the court and they will take it to reverse every fucking thing that we have fought for all our lives.

[Marthe48]

7. But if the government wants your land that's not limited

eminent domain. If the government can own the property if it needs it, let the government control how it is used and maybe not abused.

[Lonestarblue]

11. Yes. Eminent domain is one of the most abused principles in this country.

It’s one thing when government needs to build something for the common good, like rail tracks or a highway. It’s quite another when land can be taken to hand over to a private developer who wants ito do things like develop luxury waterfront properties.

[Marthe48]

16. I agree with you

I'm just saying that if the government is allowed to take private land, let's by extension allow it to protect the same land!

[Alexander Of Assyria]

18. Not to worry! Corporations will assure you they will not pollute the air and water...again.

[Scalded Nun]

8. Just what will be next to fall in these sorry fucker's attempt to dismantle

every Goddamn good thing that has been accomplished in this country? This is beyond outrageous.

The rich and corporations are having to hire additional housekeeping staff just to change out their bed sheets daily due to all the wet dreams these bastards must be having.

We really need an asshole-proof majority so we can add the 2 states, fix what we can now and get the SCOTUS expanded and stuffed with common sense, intelligent, caring people to start setting things right again.

[Magoo48]

9. What group of allegedly free humans allows its government to reduce any clean water laws?

[NurseJackie]

12. I'm glad I'm old. --- I weep for my grandchildren.

[Skittles]

14. what repukes cannot get via voting

they will just get it from their hacked Supreme Court

[SWBTATTReg]

15. Here's an easy way for the Supreme Court to decide this issue. If they can all drink 100

small vials of water gathered from the top 100 waterways, to see if they all remain healthy and so forth, then they can rule against the clean water act, or whatever is being sought.

And I want to see every one of them drink the water too, if they feel that the water as it is, is clean and safe, then I have no issue w/ any sort of negative rulings, on the clean water act.

I, of course, feel that our waterways still have a way to go, before being deemed totally clean and safe. Miracles don't occur overnight, especially in those aquifers that were damaged w/ heavy metals, and/or other contaminants that are difficult to cleanse.

[Martin68]

17. Without authority over wetlands and waterways on private land, the CWA is meaningless. Industrial

polluters own land through which the waterways they pollute flow.

[IrishAfricanAmerican]

19. Damn!

This sucks ass.

[WHITT]

20. Congress Was Damn Clear

in regards to the 'Clean Water Act', but the Fascists on the court have their own different special agenda.

[in2herbs]

22. Since Congress has the power to expand/add courts, because climate change is so

important to human's survival, why doesn't Congress use its power to establish a court specific to issues related to climate change. Of course Schumer would have to conduct a vote exhibiting every member's position on climate change but either way the vote goes, the Rs will be exposed for their refusal to address climate change.

[pfitz59]

23. wetlands are the filters and sponges

which make our water potable, as well capturing runoff to fill aquifers and streams. 'developers' buy the land cheap (because its unbuildable) then try to change the law in their favor. been going on forever.

[byronius]

25. This court will remain the benchmark for Villainy forever.

They'll fail in the end, and they'll bring about the opposite of their sick dream with their oafish darkhearted overreach -- but for the rest of American history each of these conservative justices will be judged to have betrayed every principle of the jurist.

They somehow think they can return a modern nation to primitivist elitism using the precious levers of democracy they gained by lying and cheating and gaming a system they should have shown respect for. But they're only going to place their idiot philosophy in stark contrast to the better United States, and in doing so drive us there more quickly.

Villains. Forever.

[live love laugh]

26. Shameful!