So long herons
On Oct. 3 — the first day of its new term — the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, a case that could dramatically reduce the number of wetlands and other waters across the United States that are protected under the landmark Clean Water Act.
And the court being what it is, it seems very likely to be team Sackett and not the EPA that wins.
The Sacketts started their dispute with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in 2007, after purchasing a parcel of land that was subject to Clean Water Act protections. The parcel — which included sensitive wetlands a stone’s throw from Priest Lake, one of the largest lakes in Idaho — required a wetlands permit before being developed.
Instead of following EPA’s processes to get a permit to fill sensitive wetlands to build a lake house, the Sacketts sued. This 14-year legal battle now has them before the Supreme Court, for the second time. (The Sacketts first appeared before the justices in 2012, securing the right to bring a court challenge against an EPA compliance order.)
The Sacketts’ case against the EPA, however, is not about a parcel of land, let alone a lake house, but is a coordinated push by industry polluters that want to blow a hole in the Clean Water Act, bulldoze cherished wetlands, and contaminate the country’s streams with waste from mining, oil and gas, and agro-industrial operations as they see fit, just to maximize their profits.
And they’ll win, thanks to Trump and McConnell.
In 2015, based on a comprehensive scientific study, the EPA issued a regulation that defined “waters of the United States,” a term that determines which waters the Clean Water Act protects.
The Trump administration later attempted to replace that regulation with one that would have substantially narrowed the law’s protections. But a group of Tribes represented by Earthjustice were able to get that regulation overturned. The EPA is now working on an updated definition of the “waters of the United States” to reflect the latest scientific knowledge.
But the Supreme Court isn’t waiting for the EPA to finish that work.
Instead, it is stepping in to decide what waters and wetlands the Clean Water Act protects.
Profit is everything, the environment it and everything else depends on is nothing.
H/t Mike Haubrich
As a wetland specialist, I spend a lot of time horrified. My students are surprised to find out that we don’t actually know how to build a wetland. Sometimes we get lucky, and a good quality wetland appears where we’re struggling to build a wetland. That’s rare.
Don’t they realize, if they proceed with this and wetlands disappear, they will invalidate my identity as a wetland biologist?
And, of course, create all sorts of horrible problems. Katrina might not have breached the levees if the wetlands in the Gulf were intact. They were rebuilding them (I got to visit the project the year before), but were not at a place where the wetlands were stable and able to absorb the storm surge.