I think you know an environmental ruling by the Supreme Court is bad news when Brett Kavanaugh writes the following in dissent:
Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh wrote separately to object to the majority’s reading of the law. He wrote that the majority’s new test “departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this Court’s precedents” and will have “significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.” Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson joined Kavanaugh.
Here’s an example of where Chief Justice John Roberts shows his traditional conservative colors, although the actual majority opinion was penned by the always loathsome Samuel Alito.
The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to police water pollution, ruling that the Clean Water Act does not allow the agency to regulate discharges into some wetlands near bodies of water.
The court held that law covers only wetlands “with a continuous surface connection” to those waters, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote for five justices.
That might sound innocuous, but it’s not. In truth, the main issue at hand was decided unanimously. An Idaho family had been told by the EPA they could not build on a property they bought near a lake. All the Justices agreed that the regulation should not have applied to them, but their reasoning differed. Alito’s interpretation of the rules broadly weakens the EPA’s ability to protect wetlands nationwide. Here’s the problem:
In a unanimous ruling in which the justices were divided on their reasoning, the court found that EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers wrongfully claimed oversight of the wetland on the Sacketts’ property — located about 300 feet from Idaho’s Priest Lake — and that federal courts had erred in affirming the agencies’ jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA is a huge victory for housing developers, farmers and the energy industry. The ruling could complicate the Biden administration’s legal defense of its new definition of which wetlands and streams qualify as “waters of the U.S.,” or WOTUS, subject to Clean Water Act permitting. The WOTUS rule is now on hold in more than half of the country.
The Idaho property owners could have received some relief without upending longstanding rules that protect wetlands.
Reacting to the decision, Manish Bapna, the chief executive of the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, called on Congress to amend the Clean Water Act to restore wetlands protections and on states to strengthen their own laws.
“The Supreme Court ripped the heart out of the law we depend on to protect American waters and wetlands. The majority chose to protect polluters at the expense of healthy wetlands and waterways. This decision will cause incalculable harm. Communities across the country will pay the price,” Bapna said in a statement.
As I said at the top, all you need to know is that this ruling appalled Brett Freakin’ Kavanaugh. We will never stop being punished for Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s refusal to retire.
.
