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

41–50 of 149 posts

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

#41

Post by saalweachter »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #30
throwway120385 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Is this really the case?

I can look up a map of what the State and Federal government consider a wetland on my property. If I need to do eg construction within 100 feet of such an area on the map, I'm supposed to call in the local DEC and they -- for free -- come in and tell me the boundaries of the wetland based on local vegetation.

Isn't that how it works everywhere?

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

#42

Post by loeg »

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…

I don't know why you say this doesn't "strike down" protections. Isn't this exactly what "striking down" means, in the context of the US judicial system?

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

#43

Post by scythe »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #5
justrealist wrote: post #3

The 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.

>Personally I’m in favor of pretty broad federal land protections.

I'm generally in favor of broader protections than the Court permitted with this decision. However, determining what policies are appropriate is simply not in the remit of the Court. SCOTUS determines what the law says, not what it should say.

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

#44

Post by zdragnar »

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,…

Congress shouldn't have to constantly pass laws just to tell the executive branch that they are abusing their powers. That's what the judiciary is for.

My uncle has a small stream running through his back yard, counted as "navigable water" despite the fact that I could jump across it as a child and it wasn't deep enough to support anything but a paper boat.

I'm also not saying we shouldn't have protections for the environment, but loose interpretation of rules is how you get corruption and abuse.

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

#45

Post by winter_blue »

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.

Congress has been deadlocked for 12½ years (i.e. since January 2011) due to the Senate filibuster. Don't expect any meaningful¹ non-budgetary law to be passed until the filibuster² is gone.

Since Congress is in a comatose state, executive branch agencies have come to rely on Chevron deference and related doctrines, and the people on the courts to expand executive branch authority.

¹ Congress manages to pass a few non-budgetary laws that have broad³ bipartisan appeal, but this has the effect of excluding most meaningful legislation

² the repeal of which Sinema and Manchin blocked; so its repeal is contingent on Democrats winning a few more Senate seats

³ broad, due to the Senate filibuster, and the Hastert rule in the House: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastert_Rule

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

#46

Post by ceejayoz »

ars wrote: post #15
munk-a wrote: post #7

Watersheds 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 L…

> 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.

They also have had the authority to fix the supposed misinterpretation of their intent for decades, and have not.

Meanwhile, Congress watches the Court strike down significant parts of things like the Voting Rights Act.

There’s little reason to believe the Court couldn’t possibly have struck down a “fix” on some other premise.

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

#47

Post by cmh89 »

zdragnar wrote: post #44
bcrosby95 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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,…

Congress shouldn't have to constantly pass laws just to tell the executive branch that they are abusing their powers. That's what the judiciary is for. My uncle has a small stream running through his back yard, counted as "navigable water" despite the fact that I could jump across it as a child and it wasn't deep enough to support anything but a paper boat. I'm also not saying we shouldn't have protections for the en…

> That's what the judiciary is for.

Right, and the judiciary has 45 years of precedent that the wetlands are included. This radicalized illegitmate SCOTUS just threw out the protections because their corporate owners benefit from it.

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

#48

Post by junofan »

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…

b). The US government is really big and powerful, so it’s more important to me the system is working as it should than any single issue be resolved.

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

#50

Post by zdragnar »

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…

The "so..." clause in (B) is irrelevant. Any solution that doesn't pass conditional muster is temporary, at best. Relying on unconstitutional measures to enact the change you want invites unfortunately measures to enact changes you don't like.

The only way to address the issue is to do so legally.

Post reply on HN