Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Latest Breaking News
In reply to the discussion: Supreme Court rules against EPA in dispute over regulating wetlands [View all]KPN
(15,645 posts)23. All nine concurred that the specific land/wetlands at issue in this case did not meet the
criteria of "wetlands" protected under the law as spelled out in the existing law. There is nothing in the law that says the wetlands must have a "continuous surface connection" to larger regulated bodies of water. The 5-4 vote was split along this specific criteria created by this court, not whether or not the Clean Water Act applied to this specific wetland. All nine concurred that it should not, i.e., the application of the existing law in this specific case was flawed in their opinion.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
53 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Supreme Court rules against EPA in dispute over regulating wetlands [View all]
BumRushDaShow
May 2023
OP
Creating a dystopian environmental future, repealing one EPA regulation at a time. nt
OAITW r.2.0
May 2023
#4
All nine concurred that the specific land/wetlands at issue in this case did not meet the
KPN
May 2023
#23
Not exactly. The decision set aside the agency's determination that the wetland involved was
KPN
May 2023
#30
Probably because it was narrow, pretty much focused on this one property owner
BumRushDaShow
May 2023
#38