The Supreme Court case that's likely to handcuff the Clean Water Act

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/9/27/23363959/supreme-court-clean-water-act-sackett-epa-rapanos-wetlands

For decades, the Supreme Court struggled to define a key term at the heart of the Clean Water Act, the landmark 1972 legislation that forms the backbone of America’s efforts to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters.”

It’s an admittedly difficult question, that is now in the hands of the most conservative Supreme Court since the 1930s. And the Court’s Republican-appointed supermajority seems poised to deal a severe blow to the clean water law, in a case that could do significant harm to America’s efforts to prevent floods and to ensure that everyone in the country has access to safe drinking water.

The Clean Water Act prohibits “discharge of pollutants” into “navigable waters.” But it also defines the term “navigable waters” vaguely and counterintuitively, to include all “waters of the United States, including the territorial seas.” In Rapanos v. United States (2006), the Supreme Court’s last attempt to define the key phrase “waters of the United States,” the justices split three ways, with no one approach winning majority approval from the Court.

Now, Sackett v. EPA brings this question to a Court that’s moved dramatically to the right after former President Donald Trump filled a third of its seats. Though the specific dispute in Sackett seems minor — it involves a couple that wants to fill in wetlands on their residential lot near an Idaho lake — the case still gives the Supreme Court everything it needs to hamstring much of the landmark anti-pollution legislation.

*snip*

[2naSalit]

1. Fucking rumpers.

[Hortensis]

2. Spread it around. Everyone wants clean water and Nov 8's coming fast.

[in2herbs]

3. Biden's recently passed IRA legislation overturned a USSC decision and gave Congress

authority to regulate CO2 emission levels. If the USSC tries to do the same with the Sackett decision only with water, will the Biden administration be able to protect the planet by claiming that CO2 emissions cause the water events we are now seeing and somehow include Congresses powers in the IRA to govern CO2 to overturn a USSC's Sackett decision??

[gladium et scutum]

4. Or maybe

All Congress has to do is to better define the terms being contested in the case.

[Midnight Writer]

5. "Want clean water? Vote for Democrats."

[Hermit-The-Prog]

6. Robber baron Roberts' Extreme Court is a threat to life and liberty. Vote for your lives!

Roe, Roe, Roe your vote
against theocracy!
Republicans revoke your rights
and kill democracy!

THESE are the races that will determine control of the House of Representatives:
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217192221

Stick 'em up for a blue wave: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100217078977

[maxsolomon]

7. Can I take a kayak on it?

Navigable!


The Sacketts sued in 2008 - FOURTEEN years ago, after they started filling in a wetland on Priest Lake (without a permit? IDK.) and got caught. Fuckers. They have the right to build SOMETHING, sure.

Can you imagine appealing your case to the Supreme Court when what you want to do is destroy a wetland? Some people have too much money and time.