The Supreme Court on Thursday issued a ruling narrowing the federal government’s authority to regulate bodies of water and effectively upending a Biden administration policy that recently went into effect.
The high court’s decision, which was delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, rejected the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) broad definition of Waters of the United States (WOTUS). [emphasis, links added]
The case centered on Michael and Chantell Sackett, two Idaho residents whom the EPA prohibited from building a home near a wetland years ago, citing the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972.
“The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day,” Alito’s majority opinion stated.
“The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as ‘waters of the United States’ because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not ‘waters of the United States.'”
The ruling ultimately held that the federal government’s WOTUS definition must be restricted to a water source with a “continuous surface connection” to major bodies of water.
While the decision was unanimous on the merits, the court split 5-4 on determining how the federal government should go about defining water sources.
“Understanding the CWA to apply to wetlands that are distinguishable from otherwise covered ‘waters of the United States’ would substantially broaden [existing statute] to define ‘navigable waters’ as ‘waters of the United States and adjacent wetlands,'” Alito wrote.
The ruling, which was cheered by Republican lawmakers and groups representing landowners, comes months after the EPA finalized and implemented a new WOTUS regulation.
On Dec. 30, the final working day of 2022, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers quietly announced that they had approved the WOTUS regulation and that it would be implemented in March.
After announcing it, EPA Administrator Michael Regan said the rule “safeguards our nation’s waters.”
The rule opened the door for the federal government to regulate wetlands, lakes, ponds, streams, and “relatively permanent” waterways, largely mimicking a pre-2015 environmental rule set during the Obama administration that implemented the changes in an effort to curb water pollution.
The regulation was the broadest interpretation to date of which water sources require protection under the CWA.
Industry groups, Republican lawmakers in Congress, and multiple states blasted the regulation as an example of federal overreach and demanded that it be rescinded.
In April, a federal judge granted a request from 24 states and several trade groups to pause the implementation of the regulation. The House and Senate both approved a regulation rejecting the regulation.
“Today, the Supreme Court sent a loud and clear warning shot to the Biden administration about its attempts to overregulate the lives of millions of Americans,” said Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., the ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
“By rejecting the ‘significant nexus’ test, the Court protected America’s farmers, ranchers, builders, and landowners from overreach under the Clean Water Act, and ruled President Biden’s recent WOTUS rule goes too far,” Capito added.
“I was proud to both support the petitioners on this case last year and lead a successful effort this year in Congress to overturn the Biden WOTUS rule and am thrilled with the Court’s decision today, which is a major win for individual freedom.”
Read rest at Fox News
Some Common Sense and a blow to the Eco-Freaks and their Wildlands ideas
The Supreme Court’s ruling was good but didn’t go far enough. The law that Biden and Obama tried to use to control all US water specially says it is for navigable waters. On our property there is a creek that has continuous surface contact to major waters. Normally the creek is eight inches wide and an inch deep. After heavy rains it gets up to 18 inches wide and three inches deep. This creek obviously is not a navigable water. The court needs improve its focus so that the law is applied as written.