2 ms·

A reminder that the Supreme Court is hearing a case on wetlands & could decide to vastly rollback the Fed's reasonably longstanding regulatory capability over w

A reminder that the Supreme Court is hearing a case on wetlands & could decide to vastly rollback the Fed's reasonably longstanding regulatory capability over watershed & wetlands (because of course this court would). Current division of power is that states have right to regulate land usage, but feds have regulatory power over water & wetland, but Supreme Court could disrupt this capability. Whether a state lile Alaska or Washington would potentially be more regulatory is an interesting question. There's another somewhat adjacent submission on water regulation that seems worth noting (headsup, I know nothing about the repytation/biases of the Alaska Republic newspaper), Rewrite of federal fisheries law navigates rough partisan waters https://alaskapublic.org/2022/10/04/rewrite-of-federal-fisheries-law-navigates-rough-partisan-waters/ https://alaskapublic.org/2022/10/04/rewrite-of-federal-fishe... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33145996 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33145996 Of course, water regulation might not be enough, if the whole ecosystems here are being tromped on by climate change. Maybe maybe maybe we can change out find some new nutrient supply for the fish if their normal food sources can survive, but whether it's that or any of a dozen other problemstic factors doing the bulk of the harm: no one knows.

xyzzyz 4y ago
I don’t thing the current Supreme Court is going to rollback federal regulatory capability of streams and rivers (which is where the fish actually are). The current case in questions, and the legal issue involved revolves around the question whether the federal law granting the federal government ability to regulate “waters of the United States” was also meant to enable the executive to regulate wetlands that are not actually connected to any navigable waters. In any case, even if Supreme Court reinterprets the existing law more narrowly than the federal executive had, the federal legislative will still be able to pass new legislation to grant the executive all these capabilities right back. This case is better thought of in terms of limiting the ability of administrative state to promulgate new, substantial laws, rather than the ability to regulate the waters or wetlands themselves.
- socialismisok 4y ago
  Have you met the current supreme court? I'd say there's nothing off the table for them.
bdbenton 4y ago
Here in the Southeastern United States, we have the world's largest biodiversity of freshwater fish and a vast amount of wetlands and unpolluted fresh water systems. The region has been growing economically and companies like 3M have poisoned a major river with industrial pollution. Corporations like HP, Oracle, and other SV giants have moved to the South due to lower taxes, cost of living, fewer regulations, and looser labor laws. Better environmental regulation is necessary to protect our lands and waters, all across the country and even the planet. Water is far more vital than money, and arable land feeds the world. If the whole world is developing, environmental protections have to evolve alongside it. Big business will always push at the limit, and even sometimes cross the line with the consequence being a large fine and firing a few scapegoats. It really is a struggle between the will of the people and corporate greed at its core. Short-term profits vs long-term survival of the human race. Declining fish populations upset ecosystems, communities, and food supply. These large entities are more focused on driving quarter-over-quarter revenue growth. If you look at what's happening in Guam, it is has even become a matter of national security recognized by the military. Issues like these, as mentioned here elsewhere, are more important than saber rattling with China. These things get set on the backburner if fear and greed push us into another global war.
- ericmay 4y ago
  > It really is a struggle between the will of the people and corporate greed at its core. I always find it weird that people try to put these two things against each other when they are often one and the same. Nobody makes people in Alabama buy Ford F-150s, and people in California complain about high gas prices. New Yorkers want their iPhones shipped to their door from China overnight, and midwesterners want to go to the mountains and coasts quickly. How corporations conduct themselves is similar to how governments conduct themselves. They’re beholding to the will of the people. The people demand their trucks and TVs and cheap steaks. Focusing on the services providing the goods and not those demanding said goods is a losing endeavor with respect to the environment. It’s not the greed of the corporations. It’s the greed of the people.
  - andrekandre 4y ago
hedora 4y ago
As the current supreme court points out, our only recourse is to vote them out of office.

xyzzyz 4y ago

I don’t thing the current Supreme Court is going to rollback federal regulatory capability of streams and rivers (which is where the fish actually are). The current case in questions, and the legal issue involved revolves around the question whether the federal law granting the federal government ability to regulate “waters of the United States” was also meant to enable the executive to regulate wetlands that are not actually connected to any navigable waters. In any case, even if Supreme Court reinterprets the existing law more narrowly than the federal executive had, the federal legislative will still be able to pass new legislation to grant the executive all these capabilities right back. This case is better thought of in terms of limiting the ability of administrative state to promulgate new, substantial laws, rather than the ability to regulate the waters or wetlands themselves.

socialismisok 4y ago
Have you met the current supreme court? I'd say there's nothing off the table for them.

bdbenton 4y ago

Here in the Southeastern United States, we have the world's largest biodiversity of freshwater fish and a vast amount of wetlands and unpolluted fresh water systems. The region has been growing economically and companies like 3M have poisoned a major river with industrial pollution. Corporations like HP, Oracle, and other SV giants have moved to the South due to lower taxes, cost of living, fewer regulations, and looser labor laws. Better environmental regulation is necessary to protect our lands and waters, all across the country and even the planet. Water is far more vital than money, and arable land feeds the world. If the whole world is developing, environmental protections have to evolve alongside it. Big business will always push at the limit, and even sometimes cross the line with the consequence being a large fine and firing a few scapegoats. It really is a struggle between the will of the people and corporate greed at its core. Short-term profits vs long-term survival of the human race. Declining fish populations upset ecosystems, communities, and food supply. These large entities are more focused on driving quarter-over-quarter revenue growth. If you look at what's happening in Guam, it is has even become a matter of national security recognized by the military. Issues like these, as mentioned here elsewhere, are more important than saber rattling with China. These things get set on the backburner if fear and greed push us into another global war.

ericmay 4y ago
> It really is a struggle between the will of the people and corporate greed at its core. I always find it weird that people try to put these two things against each other when they are often one and the same. Nobody makes people in Alabama buy Ford F-150s, and people in California complain about high gas prices. New Yorkers want their iPhones shipped to their door from China overnight, and midwesterners want to go to the mountains and coasts quickly. How corporations conduct themselves is similar to how governments conduct themselves. They’re beholding to the will of the people. The people demand their trucks and TVs and cheap steaks. Focusing on the services providing the goods and not those demanding said goods is a losing endeavor with respect to the environment. It’s not the greed of the corporations. It’s the greed of the people.
- andrekandre 4y ago

hedora 4y ago

As the current supreme court points out, our only recourse is to vote them out of office.