Saturday, July 20, 2024

Supreme Court Restricts EPA's Ability to Protect US Waterways – Mother Jones


Since 2007, the first of three presidential administrations, Plott has been uninterested in Sacketts or rather moderates Pacific Legal FoundationA group that specializes in challenging environmental regulations—and has fought on their behalf—has pursued the EPA through the courts.

The Sacketts are no strangers to the nation’s highest court. In 2012, the Supreme Court agreed with the couple’s argument that they could challenge the tens of thousands of dollars in fines imposed by the EPA. three years later, in an unrelated In the case, Michael Sackett was sentenced to a year in prison after a sting operation in which he agreed to pay for sex with a 12-year-old girl.

Sacketts previously argued in a joint statement that EPA’s “bureaucrats have used a fabricated definition of ‘navigable waters’ to deny us the right to use our property.”

The Supreme Court has now agreed with this approach, possibly narrowing the definition of a navigable water, and therefore federally protected, to bodies of water that can be clearly crossed by boat, not adjacent. Nearby wetlands that would cause pollution in such waterways. ,

In his response to Thursday’s decision, EPA Administrator Michael Regan said it “destroys a longstanding clean water protection,” adding that the agency will consider its next steps in protecting American waterways.

“Over the past 50 years, we have made transformative progress—rivers that were once on fire have been restored and now sustain vibrant communities in every corner of the country,” he said. “A common sense and science-based definition of the ‘waters of the United States’ is essential to building on that progress and meeting our responsibility to protect our nation’s waters now and for future generations.”