5 ms·
The title is kinda deceptive in that those lands weren't under federal protection until relatively recently when the EPA claimed jurisdiction over all lands whi
by justrealist 3y ago
The title is kinda deceptive in that those lands weren't under federal protection until relatively recently when the EPA claimed jurisdiction over all lands which occasionally touched something that was wet.
- TaylorAlexander 3y agoI suppose it’s open to interpretation whether that is deceptive. It seems like it’s accurate even if there is other context. Personally I’m in favor of pretty broad federal land protections.
- throwway120385 3y agoSame here. Especially as the alternative of waiting for damage to be done has historically meant that the water is entirely undrinkable for generations and the mining or oil company has bankrupted itself and the owners have skipped town.
- sacrosancty 3y ago[dead]
- hoosier_daddy 3y ago[flagged]
- scythe 3y ago>Personally I’m in favor of pretty broad federal land protections. I'm generally in favor of broader protections than the Court permitted with this decision. However, determining what policies are appropriate is simply not in the remit of the Court. SCOTUS determines what the law says, not what it should say.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- pavon 3y agoThis is simply not true. The Obama administration passed new rules in 2015, but the courts issued an injunction and they never took force. Then the Trump administration then passed new rules in 2020, which were overturned by the courts the next year. Finally, the Biden administration reset to rules to what they were before 2015. Sackett v. EPA was regarding those older rules. Furthermore, the Supreme Court ruling in that case invalidates every interpretation of the CWA that both EPA and the US Army Corp of Engineers have had going back to it's inception in 1972.