After Supreme Court curtails federal power, Biden administration weakens water protections

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Biden administration weakened regulations protecting millions of acres of wetlands Tuesday, saying it had no choice after the Supreme Court sharply limited the federal government’s jurisdiction over them. The rule would require that wetlands be more clearly connected to other waters like oceans and rivers, a policy shift that departs from a half-century of federal rules governing the nation’s waterways.

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Michael Regan said the agency had no alternative after the Supreme Court sharply limited the federal government’s power to regulate wetlands that do not have a “continuous surface connection” to larger, regulated bodies of water.

Justices boosted property rights over concerns about clean water in a May ruling in favor of an Idaho couple who sought to build a house near a lake. Chantell and Michael Sackett had objected when federal officials required them to get a permit before filling part of the property with rocks and soil.

The ruling was the second decision in as many years in which a conservative majority on the high court narrowed the reach of environmental regulations.

Read more: https://apnews.com/article/clean-water-epa-biden-supreme-court-sackett-a2101597f96ca9f0dcc6917832906b1e

[bucolic_frolic]

1. SCOTUS chose to POLLUTE THE SWAMPS

[Traildogbob]

2. Well

It’s not like GQP congress and senate will be exposed to water carcinogen's. (scalise)

[cstanleytech]

11. Personally I would classify 6 of the judges on SCOTUS as carcinogens.

[Ponietz]

3. Those bloodsuckers know that water will be the last commodity to be bought and sold

[Think. Again.]

4. Another option would have been...

...to not change the rules until lawsuits drag through the court for years, eventually telling them they must.

I know, that's a very republican to do but it would have kept the waters protected longer, perhaps until something permenant could be figured out.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. There already had been a Supreme Court ruling, after a lawsuit

Isn't that telling they they had to?

[Think. Again.]

13. From the article...

...referenced in the original post...

https://apnews.com/article/clean-water-epa-biden-supreme-court-sackett-a2101597f96ca9f0dcc6917832906b1e

...it seems there are quite a lot of legal uncertainties around this new rule and even the court ruling itself.

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. The uncertainties seem raised by developers who say they want it weaker still

"This rule changes existing policy to align with the recent Supreme Court decision and is final" is the main point. But I can't see where you've got "uncertainties about the court ruling itself" from. What sentences from the article are you talking about?

[Think. Again.]

15. It seems...

It seems both sides are unhappy, I suspect this will spin off a lot of other court activity...

From the article:

The new rule is highly unusual and responds specifically to the Supreme Court ruling in the Sackett case. Typically, a rule is proposed, the public weighs in and then the federal government releases a final version. This rule changes existing policy to align with the recent Supreme Court decision and is final.

And...

Still, Schiff said the rule ignored other ways that the court limited the reach of the Clean Water Act to protect certain streams and ditches. “I think this attempt to keep it vague, whether it is wisely strategic in a political sense, is just not legally sustainable,” he said.

And..

“Even worse, the agencies blocked public input and engagement in the revision process,” said Courtney Briggs, chair of the industry group Waters Advocacy Coalition in a statement.

And...

Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a separate opinion that the majority’s decision was political, improperly weakening regulatory powers Congress gave the federal government.

And...

Kelly Moser, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, said the new rule overturns decades of federal law and practice.

[muriel_volestrangler]

17. So I don't see how any of those quotes support your option of ...

"not change the rules until lawsuits drag through the court for years, eventually telling them they must".

The first is what I pointed out - this rule from the EPA is specific to the Supreme Court ruling, which came from a lawsuit. After that, we have the developer's lawyer saying "the EPA should be protecting even less", and then the industry group saying "wah, they didn't ask us what we want" (answer: even less regulation than this). Kagan's minority opinion that the SC majority opinion was political may be correct, but is fairly irrelevant. That's the thing about minority SC opinions - they have no force. The government can't say "a minority of the SC justices were on our side, so we'll just ignore the majority ruling and wait for more lawsuits." Moser says this overturns decades of law and practice - again, correct, but the SC decision forced it. The article notes the SC reversed the previous standard which had been articulated by Justice Kennedy.

[Think. Again.]

19. oh....

...my apologies, I was giving quotes that raised legality questions, I didn't mean for them to support my "don't act until you're forced to" option. And yeah, I realize that any current SC ruling makes it legal but obviously there's room to re-argue it.

I doubt that the "don't act" option would ultimately hold up but someone would have to bring it through the courts again to fight the "in"-action.

Honestly, I think the DOJ did act so quickly because their fix is probably less than what the anti-clean water people would be happy with. Now the EPA can say 'we fixed it and if you're STILL not happy, tell it to a judge'.

[mysteryowl]

5. These kind of reports are so gut renching.

[AllaN01Bear]

6. we now go back to burning rivers no?

[moonshinegnomie]

7. my solution

company pollutes the water
company gets sued and loses. they are required to restore the waterway to its original state. they also must resotre any persons injured to theor original state. if as a result of the companies pollution someone dies then the company gets shut down permanently. the top execs also go to jail for life with no parole

[housecat]

8. good solution. What about an executive order?

[moonshinegnomie]

20. probably cant do that

but canissue an order permanantly barring the company form federal business

[housecat]

21. and lawsuits by affected entities

[onetexan]

9. The heading of this article is all wrong

It shld say Supreme court forced Biden admin to relax water protections.

The heading as it stands makes it sound like Biden team's fault.

[cstanleytech]

10. A very inaccurate article as it was some SCOTUS judges that chose to weaken water protections.

[Novara]

16. Once again, the media fucks up

He was forced to do this by the SCOTUS.

I am en environmental chemist. I fucking HATE IT when people who have no solid background in science make scientific decisions. There is a process involved in passing environmental protection laws and this process includes scientific study and consensus. You know, from people who know what the fuck they are doing, and what the real implications are. Then religious fundiewhackos who are bought and paid for by oligarchs throw all of that out the window because their handlers want to make more money.

[LiveToLurk]

18. It's going to get worse - way, way worse.

Wait until this happens - we're screwed.

"Republicans on the Supreme Court are, it appears, planning to gut most of America’s regulatory agencies, in what could be the most consequential re-write of the protective “deep state” since it was largely created during the New Deal in the 1930s.

If they pull it off, they could destroy the ability of:
— the EPA to regulate pollutants,
— the USDA to keep our food supply safe,
— the FDA to oversee drugs going onto the market,
— OSHA to protect workers,
— the CPSC to keep dangerous toys and consumer products off the market,
— the FTC to regulate monopolies,
— the DOT to come up with highway and automobile safety standards,
— the ATF to regulate guns,
— the Interior Department to regulate drilling and mining on federal lands,
— the Forest Service to protect our woodlands and rivers,
— and the Department of Labor to protect workers’ rights."

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/neil-gorsuch-is-preparing-his-revenge/ar-AA1fy93V