Posted on 05/26/2023 7:07:23 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
The U.S. Supreme Court has stripped federal agencies of authority over millions of acres of wetlands, weakening a bedrock environmental law enacted a half-century ago to cleanse the country’s badly polluted waters.
A 5-4 majority significantly expanded the ability of farmers, homebuilders and other developers to dig up or fill wetlands near rivers, lakes and streams, finding the government had long overreached in limiting such activities.
The ruling Thursday may nullify key parts of a rule the Biden administration imposed in December, which two federal judges already had blocked from being enforced in 26 states. It’s the latest turn in a decades-old struggle by courts and regulators to determine which waters are subject to protection under the Clean Water Act.
Some experts say the battle over wetlands now may shift to states, with red and blue states writing laws that take dramatically different approaches.
The high court’s decision follows one in 2022 curtailing federal power to reduce carbon emissions from power plants and indicates a willingness by the court’s emboldened conservatives to limit environmental laws and agency powers.
“This is one of the saddest chapters in the 50-year history of the Clean Water Act,” said Jim Murphy, an attorney with the National Wildlife Federation.
Industry and farm groups praised the ruling.
(Excerpt) Read more at apnews.com ...
Oh, “.....AND DESTROY THEM!!!!!!!?”. The EPA can phu cough! 🖕
Has there ever been a power granted to government that has NOT been abused?
The Court ruled that the Fed's definition of "US Wetlands" was ridiculous and therefore could not control the landowners use of those puddles.
It does NOT allow or promote "destruction".
It was 9-0 concurring in the judgment, liars.
More disturbing, however is the squishy Kavanaugh concurrence in judgment but not in the argument. He writes: "The Court also invokes federalism and vagueness concerns. The Court suggests that ambiguities or vagueness in federal statutes regulating private property should be construed in favor of the property owner, particularly given that States have traditionally regulated private property rights. "
Traditionally - so fratboy is a Bushie deepstate anti-federalism, as much power to the feral gubmint bureaucrats as they want.
He also takes up another point showing his intellectual dimwittedness: "the decisive point here is that the term “adjacent” in this statute is unambiguously broader than the term “adjoining.” On that critical interpretive question, there is no ambiguity. We should not create ambiguity where none exists. And we may not rewrite “adjacent” to mean the same thing as “adjoining,” as the Court does today." But what does adjacent mean? Canada is adjacent to the US. Does this mean that the EPA has jurisdiction over claimed wetlands in Alberta?
Thank god we have some intellectually perspicacious individuals on the Court.
And then there is the Thomas opinion which focuses on the fact that US jurisdition extends only over Navigable waters, and the meanings and restrictions thereof.
Chuck Schumer called this a Maga Court because they made it easier for me to fill that ditch that doesn’t connect to any other body of water on my land when building a home.
Take a look at the other SCOTUS unanimous decision.
They said that the governments (local, state, and federal) could not take your property to pay off tax liens and fail to give you the value above the debt. They had an example of a guy owing just over $100 and DC foreclosing on his $90,000 home, selling it for $40,000, and not giving him the money they earned above his debt.
The article is written for leftists and big city people that know nothing of the problems land owners have with these puddles and sloughs. Draining and filling does not affect wildlife.
This would appear to be another example of the Chevron principle. Basically, the “principle” has been misused by bureaucrats to redefine words to fit their commie trash masters.
SCOTUS has just accepted a case on the Chevron issue. They may destroy this corruption entirely. Watch. This will cause as much commie trash uproar as their RvWade decision since it could significantly drain the swamp.
As always the Associated Press is acting as a leftist propaganda machine. The “weakening a bedrock environmental law” is an outright lie. The law has been perverted by an agency meant to administer it. The legislation that was passed was perverted by leftists to have administrators expand and pervert it and that is why it was slapped down by the courts.
The law has been used for two decades for feds to enter into restricting the use of private property. Any private property. If rain falls and makes flowing water on your property there is some EPA tyrant that claims that water flows toward a navigable waterway and thus your property needs his tyrannical regulation in one or more manners.
What scum the Associated Press has become.
The problem is with non-specific language in that “power”, or legislated law. Then add to it that “power” shifted to a leftist agency to interpret and enforce. It’s a major flaw in our government that is wrecking the country.
The federal government needs to be reined in by severe downsizing to within the limits of the Constitution. People in Hell will be shoveling snow before that ever happens.
As Soviet Stalin said once, it’s unimportant who votes or how, but what is important is who counts the votes and how. Once we quit having communist style elections, maybe things might change.
Then there's new stuff...protecting weeds, wildlife etc etc. and super stupid critters like the Snail Darter.
We know someone who wanted to build a shed on his property but it was within 100 feet of a creek. It was stupid.
“, making it easier to develop and destroy them”
AP=BS
Another Friday fake news release. I expect more big things to happen next week.
A
P
ALL PROPAGANDA
Then why are we so happy? They gotz the sads.
No bias evident in that headline. LOL! None at all.
And, the Court didn’t say that wetlands could be destroyed. They stated every little wet spot or puddle couldn’t be defined as a “wetland” just because it was near a larger body of water.
I welcome this decision with open arms, because parts of the LAWN at my farm could have been declared a wetland under the EPA rules. Conceivably I could have been prevented from mowing it!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.