Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
1–10 of 149 posts
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#2[flagged]
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#3The title is kinda deceptive in that those lands weren't under federal protection until relatively recently when the EPA claimed jurisdiction over all lands which occasionally touched something that was wet.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#4As 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.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#5The title is kinda deceptive in that those lands weren't under federal protection until relatively recently when the EPA claimed jurisdiction over all lands which occasionally touched something that was wet.
I suppose it’s open to interpretation whether that is deceptive. It seems like it’s accurate even if there is other context. Personally I’m in favor of pretty broad federal land protections.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#6This 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.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#7Watersheds aren't a local resource - they're a regional resource. This decision made no sense to begin with since, for instance, Vermont acting like a bad neighbor will cause environmental devastation in Massachusetts, Connecticut and New York - water sheds very rarely stay neatly within state boundaries. This becomes an even bigger issue when you look at the Mississippi - mining in North Dakota can cause issues in Louisiana.
I do hope that states can work together to protect the environment but it does seem likely to become a partisan issue.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#8> Last month, a U.S. Supreme Court decision struck down federal protections for wetlands covering tens of millions of acres across the country, leaving no regulation of those areas in nearly half the states.
Is this even true? I thought they only limited the definition of adjacent to a surface connection.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#9> Last month, a U.S. Supreme Court decision struck down federal protections for wetlands covering tens of millions of acres across the country, leaving no regulation of those areas in nearly half the states. Is this even true? I thought they only limited the definition of adjacent to a surface connection.
Most wetlands are connected via subsurface connections. About half.
Re: Half of US wetlands lost federal protection. Their fate is up to the states
#10> Last month, a U.S. Supreme Court decision struck down federal protections for wetlands covering tens of millions of acres across the country, leaving no regulation of those areas in nearly half the states. Is this even true? I thought they only limited the definition of adjacent to a surface connection.
Most wetlands are connected via subsurface connections. About half.
Which makes sense because water flows underground.