Supreme Court limits Clean Water Act for wetlands.

[CastletonSnob]

Supreme Court delivers blow to wetlands protections in win for Idaho landowners

Idaho couple Mike and Chantell Sackett have fought for years with the federal government over whether land they own includes a federally protected wetland.

www.nbcnews.com

And the Supreme Court wonders why faith in them is at an all-time low.

 

[Hawki]

Supreme Court delivers blow to wetlands protections in win for Idaho landowners

Idaho couple Mike and Chantell Sackett have fought for years with the federal government over whether land they own includes a federally protected wetland.

www.nbcnews.com

And the Supreme Court wonders why faith in them is at an all-time low.

Bunch of wet mops.

 

[tstorm823]

Supreme Court delivers blow to wetlands protections in win for Idaho landowners

Idaho couple Mike and Chantell Sackett have fought for years with the federal government over whether land they own includes a federally protected wetland.

www.nbcnews.com

And the Supreme Court wonders why faith in them is at an all-time low.

They took the only reasonable position in a case that has been a standing joke for over a decade. This is the "EPA will declare a puddle on your property a wetland" case, the people filled in a disconnected ditch so that it wouldn't fill with standing water for half the year, and the EPA got involved not to say they shouldn't do that, but to fine them for not paying for a permit first. It's just arbitrary extortion. The moral of the story here is nothing to do with the Supreme Court, the moral is that if you value regulations and want them to be effective, don't abuse them

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Love how they're basically arguing that congress can't delegate regulation to agencies with specialized experts. That's not gonna fuck things up forever.

 

[Ag3ma]

They took the only reasonable position in a case that has been a standing joke for over a decade. This is the "EPA will declare a puddle on your property a wetland" case, the people filled in a disconnected ditch so that it wouldn't fill with standing water for half the year, and the EPA got involved not to say they shouldn't do that, but to fine them for not paying for a permit first. It's just arbitrary extortion. The moral of the story here is nothing to do with the Supreme Court, the moral is that if you value regulations and want them to be effective, don't abuse them

Environmental systems are complex: realistically, given the proportion of land in private ownership, care of the wider environment needs to take into account private property. For instance, a river and lake may be publicly owned and subject to regulation, but the water in them comes from the surrounding area. If a private owner chops a forest down around the river, it may make management of the water hard, even unmanageable.

And what I can say for sure, is that if you fuck an environment up, it's potentially going to create a great deal of hardship and be extremely hard to fix. In the above example, for instance, the result could be increased vulnerability to flooding events causing misery for thousands. At bare minimum, I'd think it reasonable for those who have their homes flooded to sue the guy who chopped down the forest - except of course that the law has little or no provision for that sort of liability either.

 

[tstorm823]

Environmental systems are complex: realistically, given the proportion of land in private ownership, care of the wider environment needs to take into account private property. For instance, a river and lake may be publicly owned and subject to regulation, but the water in them comes from the surrounding area. If a private owner chops a forest down around the river, it may make management of the water hard, even unmanageable.

And what I can say for sure, is that if you fuck an environment up, it's potentially going to create a great deal of hardship and be extremely hard to fix. In the above example, for instance, the result could be increased vulnerability to flooding events causing misery for thousands. At bare minimum, I'd think it reasonable for those who have their homes flooded to sue the guy who chopped down the forest - except of course that the law has little or no provision for that sort of liability either.

All of that is totally independent of this ruling, and the law 100% has provisions for that sort of liability (assuming the cause and effect can be firmly established). If you make alterations to your property that changes the flow of water and floods your neighbor, you can be found liable for the damage. All major construction requires hydrological design for that reason. If the ditch in question was operating as a de facto retention pond, and the people downhill got flooded because they filled it, those people could sue for damages and win. That is entirely different than the EPA declaring something a wetland, giving themselves final authority over the land regardless of the effects of leveling it.

 

[Ag3ma]

All of that is totally independent of this ruling, and the law 100% has provisions for that sort of liability (assuming the cause and effect can be firmly established). If you make alterations to your property that changes the flow of water and floods your neighbor, you can be found liable for the damage. All major construction requires hydrological design for that reason. If the ditch in question was operating as a de facto retention pond, and the people downhill got flooded because they filled it, those people could sue for damages and win. That is entirely different than the EPA declaring something a wetland, giving themselves final authority over the land regardless of the effects of leveling it.

Sure. But the ruling, as is, does not just affect a single case but appears to fundamentally undermine the right of the government to regulate wider environments where private land is concerned. A potential result, as Kavanugh's dissent notes, is that this potentially means that the envirionmental protections may be effectively toothless in entirety.

I also think that establishing liability in a court takes a long time and can be, as you yourself imply, often very difficult. As a result, it's a sort of nothing-y statement to imply everything will be fair and okay, when in fact it will not.

 

[dreng3]

Seems like the SC is just lining things up for the upcoming non-delegation cases.

 

[tstorm823]

Sure. But the ruling, as is, does not just affect a single case but appears to fundamentally undermine the right of the government to regulate wider environments where private land is concerned. A potential result, as Kavanugh's dissent notes, is that this potentially means that the envirionmental protections may be effectively toothless in entirety.

Kavanaugh's dissent is interesting, in that it is both well argued and totally moot. The only category of wetlands being exempted by the majority's interpretation that Kavanaugh would explicitly include is wetlands separated from larger bodies of water by artificial barriers.
1) Such a thing cannot be created in the first place without going through the EPA as those waters would be connected prior to building the barrier.
2) It's only a matter of conversation when the barrier creates wetlands, if the barrier destroys the wetland its unambiguously no longer waters of the US.
3) Such an endeavor is almost certainly on public land to begin with.

So what is the difference? That people will build berms to create a wetland on their property and then be allowed to fill in the wetland of their own creation without the EPA involved? That's very specific. His argument is solid, and he's right to make it, but I don't think there's a functional difference in the end.

I also think that establishing liability in a court takes a long time and can be, as you yourself imply, often very difficult. As a result, it's a sort of nothing-y statement to imply everything will be fair and okay, when in fact it will not.

I mean, there's the other half to this as well: the EPA doesn't care if your neighbor floods your property. Every property has runoff when it rains, most are not wetlands by any definition, if your neighbor causes you water damage, it was never the EPA that was going to step in. They aren't tasked with that in the first place.

 

[Eacaraxe]

Love how they're basically arguing that congress can't delegate regulation to agencies with specialized experts. That's not gonna fuck things up forever.

Shit, this is a drop in the bucket (pun intended) compared to Chevron, and that case is nearly forty years old.

 

[Gergar12]

Supreme Court delivers blow to wetlands protections in win for Idaho landowners

Idaho couple Mike and Chantell Sackett have fought for years with the federal government over whether land they own includes a federally protected wetland.

www.nbcnews.com

And the Supreme Court wonders why faith in them is at an all-time low.

Idaho couple broke the law, and the supreme court backed them because they want to pretend like they are multiple branches of government.

 

[Trunkage]

I mean, there's the other half to this as well: the EPA doesn't care if your neighbor floods your property. Every property has runoff when it rains, most are not wetlands by any definition, if your neighbor causes you water damage, it was never the EPA that was going to step in. They aren't tasked with that in the first place.

The guy who has demanded to dismantle the EPA and has gotten his way over 40 years is complaining that there are loopholes in the EPA... caused by said dismantling

Like, you're complaining about something you wanted

 

[Silvanus]

The guy who has demanded to dismantle the EPA and has gotten his way over 40 years is complaining that there are loopholes in the EPA... caused by said dismantling

Like, you're complaining about something you wanted

Its part of the ploy. Undermine a system -> failures occur in that system -> use those failures to criticise the system, and drive support to further cuts. Its the same approach the Tories take to the NHS.

 

[Trunkage]

Its part of the ploy. Undermine a system -> failures occur in that system -> use those failures to criticise the system, and drive support to further cuts. Its the same approach the Tories take to the NHS.

Or Social Security. Or SNAP. Or unions.

Oh, remember, in the 1930s, when they did the same thing to democracy? Fun times