Supreme Court Ruling on Waters of the US

[P Carter]

Thanks for any clarity, but if it wasn't a 2 part decision than why the two different votes? Or separate vote/opinion 5-4 about the "adjacent water".... I said they agreed 9-0 that the Sacketts should prevail, but they clearly made a distinction about the adjoining surface, so that's a change that isn't delineated in the original law, correct? Why then did Kavanagh assert the majority opinion has "rewritten the clean water act?".... I interpreted that statement that a justice felt they were changing the law, which to me implies judicial activism. Appreciate any correction you have, but I said it was 9-0 that the Sacketts prevail, and obviously they should, but the way the majority wrote their "opinion" they gave a new definition, which will now be the standard. Other legal analysis implies past courts were unable to come to that interpretation, that somehow now these 5 majority justices could....with no new evidence, data, information....if nothing new, technology, science has come to light, and previous courts upheld, then why the new definition? It seems they decided to take it one step further..... Appreciate your insight.

The only difference between the majority and the concurrence is this: the majority said that “adjacent” requires a continuous surface connection, and the concurrence said that “adjacent” could mean nearby but without a continuous surface connection. The term “adjacent” is used in the Act; Kavanaugh said the majority rewrote the act by ignoring that word.

The majority defined the term “waters of the united states” based on its read of the statute, which is narrow. This interpretation now governed nationwide unless Congress amends the statute. But all 9 justices’ interpretations were far narrower than the EPA/Corps rule.

Previous supreme courts weren’t able to get a majority to agree on a definition. The most recent case, rapanos, split 4-1-4. The majority in the sacketf case mostly went with the most conservative opinion in rapanos. But *all 9* justices in sackett actually read the statute more narrowly than the 5 justices in rapanos.

This isn’t “judicial activism” for a number of reasons (congress can still change the law; the law wasn’t struck down, the reasoning was based on the statute, etc); it’s a pretty routine disagreement between justifies but the scope of the disagreement is remarkably narrow. And not one justice voted for the epa/corps/Obama/Biden interpretation of the statute.

 

[Idaboy]

The only difference between the majority and the concurrence is this: the majority said that “adjacent” requires a continuous surface connection, and the concurrence said that “adjacent” could mean nearby but without a continuous surface connection. The term “adjacent” is used in the Act; Kavanaugh said the majority rewrote the act by ignoring that word.

The majority defined the term “waters of the united states” based on its read of the statute, which is narrow. This interpretation now governed nationwide unless Congress amends the statute. But all 9 justices’ interpretations were far narrower than the EPA/Corps rule.

Previous supreme courts weren’t able to get a majority to agree on a definition. The most recent case, rapanos, split 4-1-4. The majority in the sacketf case mostly went with the most conservative opinion in rapanos. But *all 9* justices in sackett actually read the statute more narrowly than the 5 justices in rapanos.

This isn’t “judicial activism” for a number of reasons (congress can still change the law; the law wasn’t struck down, the reasoning was based on the statute, etc); it’s a pretty routine disagreement between justifies but the scope of the disagreement is remarkably narrow. And not one justice voted for the epa/corps/Obama/Biden interpretation of the statute.

A discussion about the impact on hunters

What the New Supreme Court Wetland Ruling Means For Hunters

On May 25, the United States Supreme Court handed down a ruling in Sackett v. EPA that strips Clean Water Act (CWA) protections from wetlands that do not have a “continuous surface connection” with adjacent water bodies. In a two-part decision that will guide the future of wetland policy, the...

www.themeateater.com

 

[Str8shooter]

The " significant nexus test" used by EPA and the Corps to determine the scope of federal Clean Water Act jurisdiction since the 2006 Rapanos decision, is no longer valid. The Court made up a new jurisdictional test for adjacent wetlands that extends the Clean Water Act to only those wetlands that are indistinguishable from relatively permanent waters of the United States and now agencies asserting that a wetland should be protected by the CWA must also show that the wetland has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the “water” ends, and the “wetland” begins. This interpretation substitutes "adjoining" for "adjacent" ( but good luck finding "adjoining" in the CWA). Kavanaugh (hardly a friend of green groups or agency deference) wrote "By narrowing the Act's coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court's new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States" . It's fairly simple, more dredging and filling of wetlands and intermittent systems will be the result of this case. About half of the states rely on the federal definition for Waters of the US for wetland protections. Wetlands are perhaps THE critical habitat for waterfowl, upland birds, and not to mention fish. Also just about all species of western big game rely on wetlands in some part of the year (particularly the isolated wetlands which are now at the most risk). That "soggy land" may be what supports a dryland elk herd or has tall enough grass to give that years fawns predator cover. Wetlands provide a huge diversity of nutritious forbs, grasses and sedges. Moose are largely wetland obligates spending 90% of their lives within 100meters of willow/wetland complexes. Cattails are critical pheasant and quail habitat. This decision is not good for hunters or wildlife.

 

[Trueglide]

Thanks for any clarity, but if it wasn't a 2 part decision than why the two different votes? Or separate vote/opinion 5-4 about the "adjacent water".... I said they agreed 9-0 that the Sacketts should prevail, but they clearly made a distinction about the adjoining surface, so that's a change that isn't delineated in the original law, correct? Why then did Kavanagh assert the majority opinion has "rewritten the clean water act?".... I interpreted that statement that a justice felt they were changing the law, which to me implies judicial activism. Appreciate any correction you have, but I said it was 9-0 that the Sacketts prevail, and obviously they should, but the way the majority wrote their "opinion" they gave a new definition, which will now be the standard. Other legal analysis implies past courts were unable to come to that interpretation, that somehow now these 5 majority justices could....with no new evidence, data, information....if nothing new, technology, science has come to light, and previous courts upheld, then why the new definition? It seems they decided to take it one step further..... Appreciate your insight.

Agree 100%

 

[labs17]

I had generally viewed this as a big loss (I hunt a lot of waterfowl in the midwest). Interesting to see both sides in this forum.

 

[DenimChicken]

This may be a real victory for some of my neighbors and I. We have been dealing with this wetland BS for 25 years. The state here and King County count just about every puddle that forms as wetlands. It has been very irritating.

Not just King. I’ve seen some interesting “wetlands” in Mason. Friend is currently involved in legal dispute with neighbor and county over wetlands that nobody can figure out who or when deemed them as such. The wetlands in question consist of some native bushes growing in dry soil.

 

[cuerro viejo]

Sociopathic people trying to build homes where they shouldn't.

Ya I have section in WRP. A 10 acre part of it has held a little water 3 months over last 27 years. Average rain fall is 16” a year. I got tired of fighting sociopathic people such as yourself that dont have common sense. Oh well your taxes get to pay me alot now.

 

[cuerro viejo]

I had generally viewed this as a big loss (I hunt a lot of waterfowl in the midwest). Interesting to see both sides in this forum.

I do too, but its far from a loss.

Nothing better then DU flood that corn money….