Well I’m sad that this case ended this way. But I really think that there is a silver lining in this. For too long the EPA has decided what could be protected under the Clean Waters Act and frankly I understand though I don’t agree with the Supreme Court decision.
Congress ultimately ought to be the arbiter of putting into the law specific protections rather than having some vague understanding of wetlands somehow being connected to navigable waters of the United States. I’ve never understood exactly what that definition is and thought that it was being quite lenient or overly protective, perhaps Republicans would say overreaching, for the EPA to make those decisions rather than to have them baked into law. I have always thought that navigable waters meant rivers, lakes and ocean areas that would be usable by commercial boats. I don’t know that I would consider Priest Lake, a “navigable water” if it was my decision to make. Apparently, the justices felt the same way, given that there was no dissent, just differences of opinion on the decision. It is hard to imagine on this Supreme Court a 9 to nothing decision but that was what this was. So I don’t know that I would necessarily blame conservative judges though it’s so easy to do so given their recent uncovered flaws.
ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and THOMAS, GORSUCH, and BARRETT, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. KAGAN, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR and JACKSON, J.J., joined. KAVANAUGH, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined.
The justices wrote,
The uncertain meaning of “the waters of the United States” has been a persistent problem, sparking decades of agency action and litigation. Resolving the CWA’s applicability to wetlands requires a review of the history surrounding the interpretation of that phrase.
21-454 Sackett v. EPA (05/25/2023) (supremecourt.gov)
There are many other areas where agencies determine what is the proper law for an industry. Thinking specifically about NOAA and the Army Corps of Engineers in their decision making processes that the court has over and over again found flawed. In fact the Army Corps of Engineers was one of the agencies that was specifically called out in this decision by the court.
I’m hoping that out of this fiasco, that allows homeowners to build homes out over wetlands, that we can come to some new type of laws that will actually regulate our waters properly.
Filed under: Environmental Law, Environmental Protection |
