The US Supreme Court just made a ruling that could have major implications for the environment. The court has limited the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate pollution under the Clean Water Act, specifically when it comes to wetlands that are connected to bodies of water that fall under the act’s regulatory scheme. The court now says that those connections need to be direct and contiguous for the act to apply, which means many wetlands separated by small strips of land, including artificial structures like levees, will no longer be under the EPA’s oversight.
This ruling is unusual because all nine justices agree that the people who originally sued the EPA should prevail. However, there was a very sharply worded 5-4 disagreement over what the word “adjacent” means.
The Clean Water Act was a major piece of environmental regulation due to the sometimes horrific pollution prevalent in the early 1970s. Its text applies regulations to the “waters of the United States,” a term that has proven sufficiently vague that it has been the subject of various lawsuits and federal regulatory policies over the years.
The relevant federal agencies, the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers, have pursued rulemaking under different interpretations of “significant nexus,” with more expansive ones prevailing under Democratic presidencies. The Trump administration’s attempt to limit the scope of regulations was thrown out by a court in 2021. The Biden administration’s replacement only took effect this year.
The ruling came about due to a case called Sackett v. EPA, which had been brewing in the background since 2007. The Sacketts owned property near an Idaho lake and filled in some wetlands to build a house on the property. The EPA, noting that the wetlands drained into the lake via a nearby ditch, ordered the couple to restore the property to its original condition. The Sacketts sued, leading to the case that was before the Supreme Court.
The majority of the court used the Sackett case as an opportunity to throw out the “significant nexus” standard and craft a rule that severely limits the wetlands that can be regulated by the EPA. Under the new ruling, the Clean Water Act only applies to wetlands that are contiguous with open water, where it’s difficult to determine where the wetland ends and the river or lake begins.
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch argue that the court isn’t going far enough because it isn’t completely crippling the Clean Water Act’s scope. They argue that Congress only has constitutional authority over bodies of water that can be used for trade, which would exclude congressional authority over interstate commerce like the sale of fish or recreation by out-of-state residents. That has been well outside the judicial mainstream since around the time of the New Deal. But an originalist can dream, I guess.
On Monday, the Supreme Court sided with environmental groups, ruling that two permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) violated the Clean Water Act. The ruling greatly restricts the EPA’s ability to limit pollutants entering US waters.
The EPA has been issuing permits under the Clean Water Act since the 1970s. The court’s ruling restricts the EPA’s ability to issue such permits and limits its power to regulate pollutants affecting US waterways. The ruling comes after environmental groups argued that the permits were being used to regulate pollutants that do not necessarily reach actual US waterways, but could nonetheless cause serious environmental damage.
The court’s ruling is a major blow to the EPA and a major victory for environmental groups. The ruling shows that the court is willing to stand up for the welfare of the environment, even when the EPA is seemingly failing to do so. In essence, the court’s ruling is an affirmation of its commitment to protecting US waterways from pollutants.
This ruling serves as a stark reminder of the EPA’s limited authority when it comes to water pollution and highlights the importance of strict regulation. This ruling should also provide additional impetus for environmental groups to remain active in their fight to protect US waterways from pollution.
