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

111–120 of 149 posts

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

#111

Post by oatmeal1 »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #32
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…

> Now, I believe that federal government could actually argue that the random wetlands actually can be under its jurisdiction, if they affect the water in other states, eg. through ground water flows etc. However, they will need to pass a new law to assert that, instead of leaning on old law that clearly did not mean to cover this. You can also raise the counterpoint here: 45 years of precedent says they're included,…

Is it truly 45 years of precedent, or has the executive slowly taken a less strict interpretation over the years, expanding what it thinks the Act gives it jurisdiction over?

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

#112

Post by TheRealPomax »

joecool1029 wrote: post #62
TheRealPomax wrote: post #28

and the president because what one can take away, another can regrant. All Biden needs to do is go "actually no these are all protected again".

US law does not function like this. Federal agencies are authorized to operate under authorizing law passed through Congress. A president can only direct an agency to allocate resources to do something under existing law (Executive Orders are not new law, they are instructing an agency to enforce or not enforce existing law). Agencies are given some latitude in how to create Rules that function under the authorizing…

Presidential decree 100% functions like this, and has been used for things like this well before Trump brought it into the lime light.

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

#113

Post by paulddraper »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #32
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…

> Now, I believe that federal government could actually argue that the random wetlands actually can be under its jurisdiction, if they affect the water in other states, eg. through ground water flows etc. However, they will need to pass a new law to assert that, instead of leaning on old law that clearly did not mean to cover this. You can also raise the counterpoint here: 45 years of precedent says they're included,…

> 45 years of precedent says they're included, and if you don't like it, pass a law saying it doesn't

So.... Not a fan of Oberefell vs Hodges, I take it?

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

#114

Post by rascul »

CalChris wrote: post #26
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.

> So yeah, the Supreme Court or Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett are at fault.

You forgot Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. The decision was unanimous.

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

#115

Post by paulddraper »

cmh89 wrote: post #101
ksherlock wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't you just hate those radicalized 9-0 SCOTUS rulings? Chantell and Michael Sackett went to the Supreme Court twice. Twice! Unanimous rulings in their favor both times. Sacketts: 18, EPA: 0. Due to court turnover they had 13 unique SCOTUS justices find in their favor.

You mean the 9-0 that says they don't have a corruption problem despite mounting evidence of decades of bribes? Am I supposed to pretend that the liberal justices aren't also corrupt?

So what percentage of SCOTUS "legitimate"

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

#116

Post by neverartful »

Somatochlora wrote: post #33
neverartful wrote: post #22

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 an…

Sounds like a wetland to me. You can argue that artificially created wetlands shouldn't qualify for protection but that doesn't seem obvious to me.

Cattlemen sometimes construct ponds to provide water for their cattle. Is the pond a wetland? Suppose the rancher sells off his herd. Should he be required to keep the pond that has now become a breeding ground for mosquitoes?

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

#117

Post by JumpCrisscross »

ceejayoz wrote: post #53
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Wetlands were broadly undefined in statute. Probably not because “oops we forgot”, but “we want regulators to handle the specifics”.

As in wetlands aren’t in the original statute. The term is “waters of the United States.”

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

#118

Post by CalChris »

rascul wrote: post #114
CalChris wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> So yeah, the Supreme Court or Alito, Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch and Barrett are at fault. You forgot Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson. The decision was unanimous.

The 2023 case Sackett v. EPA II narrowing the Environmental Protection Act to not include wetlands was decided 5-4.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sackett_v._Environmental_Prote...

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

#119

Post by ceejayoz »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #117
ceejayoz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wetlands were broadly undefined in statute. Probably not because “oops we forgot”, but “we want regulators to handle the specifics”.

As in wetlands aren’t in the original statute. The term is “waters of the United States.”

What makes a wetland wet, again?

The Act includes all sorts of wording, like "it is the national goal that wherever attainable, an interim goal of water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and provides for recreation in and on the water", "eliminating the pollution of the navigable waters and ground waters and improving the sanity condition of surface and underground waters", and "within all or part of a watershed or river basin".

That's quite a wide net to cast.

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

#120

Post by [deleted] »

thomasahle wrote: post #39
ars wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This decision made no sense to begin with since Again, if Congress wanted to fix this, they have the authority. The decision simply said they have not yet actually done so.

I'm trying to understand if the people saying "congress can just fix this" every time the supreme court makes a ruling, a) Don't agree that congress is blocked and is never going to pass anything. b) Care more about the legalities than the issues themselves, and so don't really care about whether there is a plausible way through congress. c) Are making a cry for help for everyone to come together to fix congress. Hop…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN