Supreme Court: Wetlands Not Protected Under Clean Water Act

[cali]

Today the SC overturned two lower courts in a Michigan case regarding the building of condos. To be clear about it, the decision does not mean that all wetlands are exempt from the CWA, but it certainly opens the door to rapacious developers. This is one fucked up decision with terrible implications. Naturally, it was 5-4.

[pinniped]

1. No one with brains thought the pukes were installed on the court...

to protect the environment.

[cali]

2. That's hardly a reason

not to take notice of what they're doing, or shrug it off because we knew they'd be awful.

[mcar]

3. This is incorrect, it was a split decision

4-4, with Kennedy writing his own opinion that primarily agreed with the CWA defenders. His decision sent the case back to the lower court for another pass. I just listened to the entire report about it on NPR and it was not a loss for us, but not a "slam dunk" win either.

[HereSince1628]

4. The most endangered habitat in Wisconsin is sedge meadow.

This is NOT good news for this habitat.

I own 3 acres of low land that is sedge meadow and do my best to keep the government away from it (I've strongly rejected participating in conservation reserve).

"They" like wetlands and the state wildlife people like ponds even if they are seasonal. All in all it is my opinion that even the "experts" have little appreciation for "moist" habitats that don't get inundated/wringing wet. Sedge meadows do that irregularly and sedges are plants you need to get to know before you can love them.

[eppur_se_muova]

5. So...these 'wetlands' are wet with something other than water ? nt