Seems like another bonehead court decision pivoting
around words adjacent and adjoining. When talking about water, interpreting it
to be continuous shows a real fundamental grasp of how water works with gravity.
The Trump court that keeps on giving ! At least Kavanaugh dissented.
Actually, it doesn’t appear to be 5-4.
Read carefully: The justices agreed that their specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court’s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case Rapanos v. United States, should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh’s opinion and a separate opinion from the court’s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.
It appears that all nine justices agreed that the Idaho couple’s property wasn’t covered, making it, for all intents and purposes, 9-0.
It’s only 5-4 as to which test should be applied.
I’m no expert, but I’ve been adjacent (or adjoining? 
) to this field. I have only skimmed through the article, but I can’t say I disagree with the Court’s logic here in excluding non-adjacent wetlands from federal jurisdiction. Wetlands have long been under federal purview based on their jurisdiction of interstate commerce through navigable waterways. How does that give the federal government jurisdiction over a prairie pothole on the Katy Prairie, or someone’s backyard in Idaho? It’s more than a stretch of logic.
With that said, these wetlands that we’ve been destroying for centuries are critical for habitat, migratory birds, and to reduce flooding. Developers, farmers and homeowners should absolutely be mitigating the destruction of wetlands.
But this decision indicates to me that that protection will need to come from new legislation. Whether it could stand up to judicial review is another question. But there’s no doubt in my mind this is an important public good that needs to be protected. I do doubt that many on the right will agree it’s important, when it comes to impacts to their own property. Need Ducks Unlimited lobbyists to get to work.
This ruling of 5-4 that curbs the EPA power to manage wet lands is a big deal. And it
reverses the 2017 decision. As to the likelihood of congress updating the language of
the terms in the CWA, I don’t see that as realistically happening anytime soon.
As to how far CWA extends upstream from a body of water, it is a difficult thing to define.
However with the ability for EPA to regulate activities this will not bode well for people long
term in terms of pollution and loss of wildlife.
Supreme Court cuts EPA’s Clean Water Act protection for wetlands
The court ruled unanimously for Idaho couple, but divided 5-4 on EPA power.
Gotta be honest with ya Bro.
If I had some land out in the country, I sure as Hell wouldn’t want the federal government to tell me that I couldn’t build a house on it simply because I had a little stagnant pond nearby that isn’t otherwise connected to any active waterway.
2 Likes
What if a land owner wants to build a toxic dump?
There are any number of other environmental and land use laws that would regulate that.
2 Likes
The issue isn’t the ruling in favor of the individual that brought the case. The issue is the
cutting into the power to regulate usage of wetlands. Look at what is going on in Florida 
The Florida Senate has passed a bill that will allow the use of a radioactive waste byproduct from the fertilizer industry, called phosphogypsum, in road construction.
If the previous standard wasn’t overruled, then it’d be too easy for the EPA to screw over another rural family in the same way they tried to do this one.
Only with this change will the EPA forever know that they can’t pull crap like this again.
Good.
Correct thinking….correct ruling.
2 Likes
No, incorrect thinking it’s only an either or
situation. Be more creative.
1 Like
DeSantis literally wants to put nuclear waste into pavement, right?
That is a typical lib response to almost everything. Government knows the best! People will never do the right thing.
Are you old enough to remember the 70’s? Did corporations do the right thing back then? lol. Please, try to think on your own, instead of just being a parrot.
You’re arguing with a troll and a pest. Nothing to be gained.
1 Like