On Thursday, the US Supreme Court, in a major environmental decision, struck down the Environmental Protection Agency’s definition of wetlands that fall under the agency’s jurisdiction, siding with an Idaho couple who had said they should not be required to obtain federal permits to build on their property that lacked navigable water.
The nine justices agreed to overturn the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that upheld the Biden administration’s broad definition of America’s waters, or WOTUS, the term for what falls under federal application of the Water Act. Clean.
But they published four separate opinions showing a 5-4 split as to how far they would allow federal jurisdiction to stretch.
Writing for the court’s conservative majority, Justice Samuel Alito said the Clean Water Act applies only to wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to navigable waters such as streams, lakes, oceans, and rivers that are directly covered by the law.
The Biden administration’s definition, which said an area with an ecologically “significant nexus” to a waterway was subject to Clean Water Act enforcement, would bring nearly all of the nation’s waters and wetlands under federal jurisdiction, with little space for the state application, Alito wrote.
Wetlands must be virtually indistinguishable from navigable waters for federal jurisdiction to apply, he wrote.
But conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, along with the three liberals on the court, wrote that a continuous surface connection to navigable waters was not strictly necessary for wetlands to fall under federal jurisdiction, but that Michael and Chantell Sackett, the Idaho homeowners who challenged the federal definition, must still prevail in the case.
Kavanaugh, in a notable departure from the usual courtroom alliance, said the majority rewrote the law and introduced new questions about wetlands that have long been subject to federal jurisdiction.
“The Court’s new and overly narrow test may leave long-regulated and long-accepted-regulatory wetlands suddenly beyond the reach of the agencies’ regulatory authority, with negative consequences for America’s waters.” , wrote.
long legal fight
The case is part of a decades-long legal conflict to define the scope of the Clean Water Act.
Farm interests, homebuilders and Republican officials have argued that the federal regulations impose an undue burden and must be strictly enforced.
“The Supreme Court has just ruled that Biden’s overreaching interpretation of WOTUS is unconstitutional,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey, a Republican, said on Twitter. “This is a great victory for farmers across the United States.”
Environmental groups and Democrats have advocated for a broader definition that they say allows the federal government to offer important protections.
“Federal protections that are not dependent on local politics or the regional influence of polluters are essential for vulnerable and disadvantaged communities across the country,” Jim Murphy, director of legal advocacy for the National Wildlife Federation, said in a statement. release. “The court’s ruling removes these vital protections from important streams and wetlands in every state.”
Murphy called on Congress and state governments to adopt stricter standards.
This is a developing story that will be updated.
