Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

pilotonline.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 149 posts

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#21

Post by MarkMarine »

zdragnar wrote: post #4

As much as I love protecting wetlands generally, I am personally familiar with the extent to which they can apply unreasonably. I wouldn't be surprised if much of these wetlands were in fact "wetlands". In any case, if the EPA can no longer protect land that Congress hadn't actually authorized it to protect, then let's get something in Congress that better fits the bill.

Congress specifically wrote the law to protect wetlands. The issue of "wetlands" as you put it actually came up while congress was drafting the laws, and congress specifically wrote the law to cover them. The Supreme Court just ignored this because it felt like it.

https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44585

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#22

Post by neverartful »

I'm all for protecting true wetlands, but I'm aware of a specific instance in my county where a 'wetland' is nonsense. My friend owns rural property that was once mined for coal (not surface mining). He has sinkholes on his property from the former mine shafts. There is a sinkhole that straddles his property line with his neighbor and this sinkhole is from a former mine shaft. The sinkhole has never been filled in and being a low spot collects water. The state's railroad commission who has done some sinkhole mitigation work won't touch it because it's been classified as a wetland. Asinine.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#23

Post by LastTrain »

MarkMarine wrote: post #21
zdragnar wrote: post #4

As much as I love protecting wetlands generally, I am personally familiar with the extent to which they can apply unreasonably. I wouldn't be surprised if much of these wetlands were in fact "wetlands". In any case, if the EPA can no longer protect land that Congress hadn't actually authorized it to protect, then let's get something in Congress that better fits the bill.

Congress specifically wrote the law to protect wetlands. The issue of "wetlands" as you put it actually came up while congress was drafting the laws, and congress specifically wrote the law to cover them. The Supreme Court just ignored this because it felt like it. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44585

Well then they should have written the law better.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#24

Post by JumpCrisscross »

MarkMarine wrote: post #21
zdragnar wrote: post #4

As much as I love protecting wetlands generally, I am personally familiar with the extent to which they can apply unreasonably. I wouldn't be surprised if much of these wetlands were in fact "wetlands". In any case, if the EPA can no longer protect land that Congress hadn't actually authorized it to protect, then let's get something in Congress that better fits the bill.

Congress specifically wrote the law to protect wetlands. The issue of "wetlands" as you put it actually came up while congress was drafting the laws, and congress specifically wrote the law to cover them. The Supreme Court just ignored this because it felt like it. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44585

> issue of "wetlands" as you put it actually came up while congress was drafting the laws, and congress specifically wrote the law to cover them. The Supreme Court just ignored this because it felt like it

This is a bad reading of the opinion. Wetlands were broadly undefined in statute.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#25

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #17

The recent decision didn’t so much “strike down” the protections, but rather ruled that the relevant law does not apply to the wetlands the EPA used to apply it to. There was previous ruling, which according to SCOTUS, was erroneous, and so it reversed it. This is perfectly reasonable if you look at the original law and intent behind it, and the wetlands the federal agency no longer can claim control over. The origin…

> they will need to pass a new law to assert that

Exactly. The law as written was misinterpreted. Write a new law.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#26

Post by CalChris »

ars wrote: post #6

This quote is just stupid: "Where the Supreme Court is tying the hands of the federal government". Congress could, if they actually wanted to, pass a law that would regulate these lands. All the the Supreme Court did is rule that, at least so far, congress has not done so. And yet somehow this is the Supreme Court's fault.

Congress passed the Clean Water Act which literally included "estuarine zones". The Supreme Court cynically said Congress hadn't meant wetlands with that synonym. So yeah, the Supreme Court or Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett are at fault.

BTW, the opinion literally quotes the term "estuarine waters" which is a phrase never used in the Clean Water Act. Basically, the majority opinion is lying.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#27

Post by willcipriano »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #25
xyzzyz wrote: post #17

The recent decision didn’t so much “strike down” the protections, but rather ruled that the relevant law does not apply to the wetlands the EPA used to apply it to. There was previous ruling, which according to SCOTUS, was erroneous, and so it reversed it. This is perfectly reasonable if you look at the original law and intent behind it, and the wetlands the federal agency no longer can claim control over. The origin…

> they will need to pass a new law to assert that Exactly. The law as written was misinterpreted. Write a new law.

They won't because their donors and friends don't want one. So all you'll get is impotent complaining about the supreme court.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#29

Post by barney54 »

MarkMarine wrote: post #21
zdragnar wrote: post #4

As much as I love protecting wetlands generally, I am personally familiar with the extent to which they can apply unreasonably. I wouldn't be surprised if much of these wetlands were in fact "wetlands". In any case, if the EPA can no longer protect land that Congress hadn't actually authorized it to protect, then let's get something in Congress that better fits the bill.

Congress specifically wrote the law to protect wetlands. The issue of "wetlands" as you put it actually came up while congress was drafting the laws, and congress specifically wrote the law to cover them. The Supreme Court just ignored this because it felt like it. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R44585

Here, Congress said they were regulating the “navigable waters.” If they wanted to regulate wetlands, they should have said so in the text of the law. Congress didn’t say they wanted to regulate wetlands in the text of the law.

Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states

#30

Post by JumpCrisscross »

throwway120385 wrote: post #10
HWR_14 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most wetlands are connected via subsurface connections. About half.

Which makes sense because water flows underground.

It also makes it impossible for someone to decide ex ante if their property is a wetland, a problem with the current process SCOTUS called out. Namely, the government wouldn’t tell you if your property was a wetland until after it thought you’d violated the law.
Post reply on HN