WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has dammed the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate wetlands under the Clean Water Act.
In a 5-4 ruling announced May 25, the Justices sided with an Idaho couple that became entangled in a regulatory dispute when they tried to fill a vacant lot with sand and gravel until the EPA ordered them to stop.
But Thursday’s ruling said the EPA’s Clean Water Act extends only to “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own rights,” according to the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito.
Morrisey
West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey praised the decision.
“We now have a clearer definition for Waters of the United States, and we’re pleased the Supreme Court ruled in a way that state lands and waters are less subject to the whims of unelected bureaucrats,” said Morrisey, who led a 26-state coalition in an amicus brief in support of the petitioners, Michael and Chantell Sackett in Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. “The EPA’s confused, convoluted and overbroad understanding of wetlands subject to its regulation would have been costly to property owners who would have spent years and tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars just getting permission from the federal regulators to build on their own property.
“We are also happy to see the court reject EPA’s request for deference to its misguided new ‘waters of the United States’ rule, which we have led a coalition in challenging. The Supreme Court has now agreed with what we successfully said there: EPA’s new rule is ‘inconsistent with the text and structure’ of the Clean Water Act.’”
Morrisey said the ruling is vitally important.
“Today is a big day for farmers, homebuilders, contractors, property owners and those who care about economic activity not being subject to overreach by the federal government,” Morrisey said. “Next, we will continue our successful fight by taking down the new Biden rulemaking.”
EPA Administrator Michael Regan said he was disappointed by the “decision that erodes longstanding clean water protections.” He also said the agency will “carefully review” the ruling and “consider next steps.”
A representative of the Pacific Legal Foundation who argued the case said the ruling “returns the scope of the Clean Water Act to its original and proper limits.”
“Courts now have a clear measuring stick for fairness and consistency by federal regulators,” Damien Schiff said. “Today’s ruling is a profound win for property rights and the constitutional separation of powers.”
However, a Syracuse University law professor said Alito’s opinion missed the mark.
“Justice Alito’s opinion creates a presumption against a straightforward interpretation of laws that 'significantly alters the balance' between federal power and state power and private property,” said David Driesen, who specializes environmental law, law and economics and constitutional law. “He fails to consider the Clean Water Act’s purpose, which is precisely to alter the balance of power in order to meet ecological goals.
“In this way, his conservative political views trump what Congress was trying to accomplish when its constituents demanded an end to water pollution.”