A recent Supreme Court ruling has eliminated safeguards for wetlands not directly connected to regulated bodies of water under the Clean Water Act. The case involved Chantell and Michael Sackett, who faced objections from federal officials when they wanted to build a house near Priest Lake in Idaho. The court prioritized property rights over clean water concerns, overturning a previous opinion. Critics argue that the previous standard was ambiguous, while environmental proponents warn of the loss of wetland protections. Environmental organizations are calling for Congress to amend the Clean Water Act.
The recent ruling by the Supreme Court has created new challenges for the federal government in its efforts to regulate water pollution. The decision, with a 5-4 vote, eliminates safeguards for wetlands that are not directly connected to larger bodies of water already regulated under the Clean Water Act. The case involved Chantell and Michael Sackett, who wanted to build a house near Priest Lake in Idaho but faced objections from federal officials who considered a portion of their property as wetlands. The court prioritized property rights over clean water concerns and overturned a previous opinion that allowed the regulation of wetlands with significant links to larger waterways.
Critics of the previous standard argued that it was ambiguous and impractical, while environmental proponents warned that limiting the scope of the law would result in the loss of protections for a significant number of wetlands nationwide. The ruling has disappointed environmental organizations, with calls for Congress to amend the Clean Water Act and reinstate wetland protections. The decision is likely to impact ongoing legal disputes over wetland regulations implemented by the Biden administration.
The opinion introducing the new criterion for determining wetland coverage was supported by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett. Justice Brett Kavanaugh and the three liberal justices disagreed, expressing concern about the court's restrictive test potentially excluding wetlands previously considered under regulatory authority. The decision has implications for projects such as flood management on the Mississippi River and the preservation of the Chesapeake Bay. Justice Elena Kagan criticized the majority's alteration of the act, highlighting the court's role in national environmental policy decisions.
The Sacketts, who initially purchased the property near Priest Lake, had filled a portion of the land for construction but were ordered to cease their activities by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The federal appeals court in San Francisco affirmed the EPA's determination that a section of their property qualified as wetlands.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
