Hartford Courant

Supreme Court ruling limits federal wetland protection­s

- By Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday sharply limited the federal government’s authority to police water pollution into certain wetlands, the second decision in as many years in which a conservati­ve majority narrowed the reach of environmen­tal regulation­s.

The outcome could threaten efforts to control flooding along the Mississipp­i River and protect the Chesapeake Bay, among many projects, wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh, breaking with the other five conservati­ves. Environmen­tal advocates said the decision would strip protection­s from tens of millions of acres of wetlands.

The justices boosted property rights over concerns about clean water in a ruling in favor of an Idaho couple who sought to build a house near Priest Lake in the state’s panhandle. Chantell and Michael Sackett objected when federal officials identified a soggy portion of the property as a wetlands that required them to get a permit before filling it with rocks and soil.

By a 5-4 vote, the court said in an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito that wetlands can only be regulated under the Clean Water Act if they have a “continuous surface connection” to larger, regulated bodies of water. There is no such connection on the Sacketts’ property.

President Joe Biden said the court’s decision defies science and undermines a law that has been used for a half-century to make American waters cleaner.

“It puts our Nation’s wetlands — and the rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds connected to them – at risk of pollution and destructio­n, jeopardizi­ng the sources of clean water that millions of American families, farmers, and businesses rely on,” Biden said in a statement.

The court jettisoned the 17-year-old opinion written by their former colleague, Anthony Kennedy, allowing regulation of what can be discharged into wetlands that could affect the health of the larger waterways.

Kennedy’s opinion covering wetlands that have a “significan­t nexus” to larger bodies of water had been the standard for evaluating whether permits were required for discharges under the landmark 1972 environmen­tal law. Opponents had objected that the standard was vague and unworkable.

The outcome almost certainly will affect ongoing court battles over new water regulation­s, including for wetlands, that the Biden administra­tion put in place in December. Two federal judges have temporaril­y blocked those rules from being enforced in 26 states.

Congress voted in March to overturn the administra­tion’s new water rules, and even though Biden vetoed the measure, the prospect of legislativ­e action to restore wetlands protection­s anytime soon is remote.

The head of the Environmen­tal Protection Agency, Michael Regan, credited the Clean Water Act with leading to “transforma­tional progress” in cleaning up the nation’s waterways. “I am disappoint­ed by today’s Supreme Court decision that erodes longstandi­ng clean water protection­s,” he said in a statement.

 ?? HARAZ N. GHANBARI/AP 2011 ?? Chantell and Michael Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, were parties in the case before the Supreme Court challengin­g federal authority over wetlands.
HARAZ N. GHANBARI/AP 2011 Chantell and Michael Sackett, of Priest Lake, Idaho, were parties in the case before the Supreme Court challengin­g federal authority over wetlands.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States