Tag Archive for: SCOTUS Water Battle

States at the Forefront of Fights Over Wetlands Protections After Justices Slash Federal Rules

A month after the U.S. Supreme Court severely restricted the federal government’s power to oversee wetlands, the Republican-dominated North Carolina legislature handed state agencies an order: Don’t give the ecologically crucial waters any more protection than newly weakened federal rules provide.

EPA Revises Waters Rule to Align With High Court Wetlands Ruling

A new rule governing federally protected waters and wetlands was issued Tuesday by the EPA to align agency regulations with a US Supreme Court ruling that will allow unpermitted development in wetlands across the country.

The rule revises the Biden administration’s earlier waters of the US, or WOTUS, definition finalized in January, removing its legal basis, which was struck down by the Supreme Court in May in Sackett v. EPA.

Supreme Court Scales Back Clean Water Protections. What Does It Mean for California?

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision scaling back federal protections for many wetlands and streams has drawn criticism from scientists and environmental advocates, who say the gutting of safeguards will jeopardize water quality throughout the arid West.

California’s water regulators say the ruling will be harmful for protections nationwide, but the more stringent state protections of wetlands won’t be affected.

EPA Authority to Regulate Wetlands Clobbered by Supreme Court

Limiting the government’s authority to regulate wetlands under the Clean Water Act, the Supreme Court ended a nearly two-decade-old dispute Thursday.

The ruling from the court was unanimous, with the justices affirming summary judgment in the suit by Chantell and Michael Sackett against the Environmental Protection Agency.

Biden May Prevail Against Navajo in SCOTUS Water Battle

The Supreme Court on Monday appeared closely divided on whether to side with the Navajo Nation in the tribe’s high-stakes fight against the Biden administration and four states to protect its right to water from the drought-stricken Colorado River.

While the court could decide the case on narrow procedural grounds, some of the more moderate conservative justices questioned whether a ruling for the Navajo would obligate the federal government to build a vast network of pipelines and pumps to deliver water to the tribe or upset the delicate balance struck by the 40 million people who rely on the massive waterway that travels among seven states and Mexico.