3 ms·

The question was "what is a wetland?" All justices agreed that the property wasn't a wetland. There was no consensus on what a wetland actually was. The proper

by mannyv 3y ago

The question was "what is a wetland?" All justices agreed that the property wasn't a wetland. There was no consensus on what a wetland actually was. The property in question was hundreds of feet from a lake, with a row of houses and a road in between the property and a lake. The EPA and various rules by Obama tried to make anything that drains into a navigable waterway a wetland, and thus under its jurisdiction. That's obviously ridiculous. This cuts the Biden rule a little finer, so that something designated a wetland needs to be physically adjacent to the water to fall under the protection umbrella. Reading comprehension is hard, which is why people don't do it.

mrguyorama 3y ago
>That's obviously ridiculous. In what way? Any pollution draining into the wetland affects the wetland. Why shouldn't regulation to protect the wetland protect the wetland from pollution? How come you should be free to pollute a waterway just because you aren't waterfront property?
- sidewndr46 3y ago
  The peak of a mountain often drains into a nearby waterway, unless evaporation or adsorption can soak the water away first. A mountain peak is obviously not a wetland.
- verdverm 3y ago
  It's not like this undoes the CWA, it's more about trying to solidify where it applies. The main issue is the lack of clarity around the definition and the rather significant fines ($60k / day) that can be imposed on someone who moved some dirt. Part of what the court wants is for congress to define the law rather than putting that in the hands of ever changing, appointed officials in a federal agency. --- start of the majority opinion This case concerns a nagging question about the outer reaches of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the principal federal law regulating water pollution in the United States. By all accounts, the Act has been a great success. Before its enactment in 1972, many of the Nation’s rivers, lakes, and streams were severely polluted, and existing federal legislation had proved to be inadequate. Today, many formerly fetid bodies of water are safe for the use and enjoyment of the people of this country. There is, however, an unfortunate footnote to this success story: the outer boundaries of the Act’s geographical reach have been uncertain from the start. The Act applies to “the waters of the United States,” but what does that phrase mean? Does the term encompass any backyard that is soggy enough for some minimum period of time? Does it reach “mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, [or] playa lakes?” How about ditches, swimming pools, and puddles? For more than a half century, the agencies responsible for enforcing the Act have wrestled with the problem and adopted varying interpretations. On three prior occasions, this Court has tried to clarify the meaning of “the waters of the United States.” But the problem persists. When we last addressed the question 17 years ago, we were unable to agree on an opinion of the Court. Today, we return to the problem and attempt to identify with greater clarity what the Act means by “the waters of the United States.” --- later Second, the EPA’s interpretation gives rise to serious vagueness concerns in light of the CWA’s criminal penalties. Due process requires Congress to define penal statutes “‘with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited’” and “‘in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’”
nerdponx 3y ago
The problem now is that Congress will almost certainly not revise the language in the CWA. What's worse is that the majority ruling has essentially stripped them of their ability to do so in the future, even if the political will existed to do so, under a ridiculously limited reading of the Commerce Clause.

by mannyv 3y ago

mrguyorama 3y ago

>That's obviously ridiculous. In what way? Any pollution draining into the wetland affects the wetland. Why shouldn't regulation to protect the wetland protect the wetland from pollution? How come you should be free to pollute a waterway just because you aren't waterfront property?

sidewndr46 3y ago
The peak of a mountain often drains into a nearby waterway, unless evaporation or adsorption can soak the water away first. A mountain peak is obviously not a wetland.
verdverm 3y ago
It's not like this undoes the CWA, it's more about trying to solidify where it applies. The main issue is the lack of clarity around the definition and the rather significant fines ($60k / day) that can be imposed on someone who moved some dirt. Part of what the court wants is for congress to define the law rather than putting that in the hands of ever changing, appointed officials in a federal agency. --- start of the majority opinion This case concerns a nagging question about the outer reaches of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the principal federal law regulating water pollution in the United States. By all accounts, the Act has been a great success. Before its enactment in 1972, many of the Nation’s rivers, lakes, and streams were severely polluted, and existing federal legislation had proved to be inadequate. Today, many formerly fetid bodies of water are safe for the use and enjoyment of the people of this country. There is, however, an unfortunate footnote to this success story: the outer boundaries of the Act’s geographical reach have been uncertain from the start. The Act applies to “the waters of the United States,” but what does that phrase mean? Does the term encompass any backyard that is soggy enough for some minimum period of time? Does it reach “mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, [or] playa lakes?” How about ditches, swimming pools, and puddles? For more than a half century, the agencies responsible for enforcing the Act have wrestled with the problem and adopted varying interpretations. On three prior occasions, this Court has tried to clarify the meaning of “the waters of the United States.” But the problem persists. When we last addressed the question 17 years ago, we were unable to agree on an opinion of the Court. Today, we return to the problem and attempt to identify with greater clarity what the Act means by “the waters of the United States.” --- later Second, the EPA’s interpretation gives rise to serious vagueness concerns in light of the CWA’s criminal penalties. Due process requires Congress to define penal statutes “‘with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited’” and “‘in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.’”

nerdponx 3y ago

The problem now is that Congress will almost certainly not revise the language in the CWA. What's worse is that the majority ruling has essentially stripped them of their ability to do so in the future, even if the political will existed to do so, under a ridiculously limited reading of the Commerce Clause.