The Supreme Court just made it easier to challenge government environmental overreach

Loading

Jazz Shaw:

Last year, during a series of lawsuits brought against both the Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency, it became obvious that the courts were taking a hard look at the definition of the “Waters of the United States” and how the agency planned to regulate the activities of landowners in the name of the Clean Water Act. The abuses of the government were highlighted as many individuals and businesses were left facing difficult choices when Uncle Sam came calling and restricted their private activities based on “damage” that might be done to bodies of water as significant as a drainage ditch or a damp section of their lawn.

While it may sound humorous in the typical way that many government mandates strike us as ridiculous, it was a very serious matter for the landowners. Once such a pronouncement was made by the feds, they could either cancel their plans or incur monumental fines which would continue to stack up while they pursued some sort of appeal though the courts. But now the Supreme Court has weighed in with a rare, unanimous decision and determined that this is an unacceptable situation. (Washington Post)

The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it easier for landowners to challenge the decision of federal regulators that the use of property is restricted by the Clean Water Act.

The justices ruled unanimously that property owners could file suit against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the agency’s determination that their land contains “waters of the United States” covered by the Clean Water Act, which provides criminal and civil liabilities for violations.

The government contended that such suits could be brought only after the landowner filed for a permit and was dissatisfied with the result. Alternatively, the government said, the conflict could be resolved if the owner proceeded without a permit and faced sanctions.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said neither alternative was acceptable. Proceeding without a permit opens owners to penalties of up to $37,500 a day if they are determined to have violated the act.

This sounds so suspiciously close to common sense by the entire panel of SCOTUS justices that my head is spinning. Property owners have been locked in battles with environmental regulators for the past forty years or more, frequently incurring crippling fines and legal costs over matters which the average citizen would find more suitable for a Monty Python skit. And keep in mind that we’re not talking about someone establishing a factory where they plan to dump barrels of mercury into the local river. These are frequently people who want to build a stock pond for their cattle on a stream which runs through their property or grade their lawn for better drainage and easier mowing.

Property ownership and the dream of controlling your own little piece of the American dream were once considered a cornerstone of our culture. The idea that the federal government should micromanage our affairs to this level is abhorrent to anyone who values any sort of personal independence and responsibility, and yet we’ve been fighting these battles for decades. It all dates back to the environmental awareness revolution of the sixties and seventies, when what should have been a great, common sense idea began to morph into a cudgel for the government to use against its own citizens.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

In Huge Blow to Joe Biden, Supreme Court Unanimously Rules Against EPA in Wetlands Dispute
comment image

The US Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously ruled against the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) authority to regulate wetlands.

This is a major blow to Joe Biden’s climate agenda and a victory for the American people.

https://twitter.com/seanmdav/status/1661781402008838145?s=20

Biden’s EPA wanted to regulate every puddle and pond which they deemed “wetlands” under the Clean Water Act – but the Supreme Court struck it down.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Michael and Chantell Sackett, a couple from Idaho who filed a lawsuit after the EPA blocked them from building a home on their own land because it contained “wetlands.”

The US Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously sided with the Sacketts, but its reasoning for the ruling was split 5-4.

CBS News reported:

The Supreme Court on Thursday curtailed the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to regulate certain wetlands that qualify as “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act, curbing what has long been seen as a key tool to protect waterways from pollution.

The high court ruled against the agency in a long-running dispute with Idaho landowners known as Sackett v. EPA. In an opinion authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the court found that the agency’s interpretation of the wetlands covered by the Clean Water Act is “inconsistent” with the law’s text and structure, and the law extends only to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies of water that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right.”

While the majority acknowledged that weather and climate events like low tides and dry spells can cause “temporary interruptions” between bodies of waters covered by the law, the court said that wetlands protected under the Clean Water Act should be otherwise “indistinguishable” from other regulated waters.

The Supreme Court’s ruling reverses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which sided with the EPA.

Schumer whined about the Supreme Court’s decision and falsely claimed the “MAGA Supreme Court” is eroding our country’s environment laws.

https://twitter.com/SenSchumer/status/1661764643692462082?s=20

The ruling was UNANIMOUS.

This is a significant ruling in that the court last rule 6-3 in WVA vs EPA. This is the second major blow to the EPA in less than one year. The buried lede here is the over reach of the administrative state enacting regulations that can have the force of law should there be non-compliance by the citizens or businesses.

West Virginia v. EPA – Wikipedia