Insider Header
FocusOn Landscapers | FocusOn Equipment Rentals | FocusOn Mining, Aggregates & Construction | FocusOn Land Improvement Contractors
Trending Industry Stories
Work Restarts On Audacious Kilometer-Tall Skyscraper
How Machine Control Help Construction Professionals Regain Control
Hitachi Strengthens Structure for Promoting Zero Emissions at Construction Sites
The PHOENIX / KISA Bucket Wheel - Versatility In Aggregate & Dredge Processing
Cemex In Talks To Refinance $3B Bank Debt - Bloomberg
US Proposes 50-Year Ban On New Mining Projects In New Mexico
Optimum Performance under Complex Conditions
JCB Reveals Financial Results And Machine Sales
Sandvik Introduces New Logotype and Visual Identity
Taking a Closer Look at the Hyundai HX520A Large Frame Excavator
Vulcan Materials Names New President
China’s Construction And Mining Sectors Demand More Battery And Hydrogen-Powered Equipment
Briggs & Stratton Announces New Chief Executive Officer
‘50 Years Of Deception’: California Sues Five Big Oil Companies For Lying About Climate Change






U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against EPA In Wetlands Regulation Challenge

Original source: Successful Farming


The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of an Idaho couple in their long-running bid to build a home on property that the EPA had deemed a protected wetland under a landmark federal anti-pollution law.

The justices in a 9-0 decision overturned a lower court's ruling against the couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, that had upheld the EPA's determination that their property near a lake contained wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act of 1972. Though the justices unanimously agreed to reverse the lower court's decision, they differed in their reasoning for doing so.

The ruling marked the latest instance of the court backing a challenge to the scope of the EPA's ability to regulate in the environmental arena under existing law. In a 6-3 ruling last June powered by its conservative justices, the court imposed limits on the EPA's authority to issue sweeping regulations involving greenhouse gas emissions from existing coal- and gas-fired power plants under a different environmental law, the Clean Air Act.

The case decided on Thursday stemmed from the Sacketts' purchase in 2004 of an undeveloped plot of land about 300 feet (90 meters) from Priest Lake, one of the largest lakes in Idaho, near the U.S.-Canada border. In 2007, the couple began preparing construction of a home on it.

But after placing sand and gravel fill on the lot, the EPA issued an administrative compliance order stating the property contained wetlands protected by the Clean Water Act and that they needed a permit to build, which they had failed to obtain.

That law bars discharging pollutants, including rocks and sand, into the "waters of the United States," which regulators for decades have said covers not just navigable waters but adjacent wetlands like swamps, marshes and berms.

Courts and regulators have been grappling for decades over how much of a connection with a waterway a property must have in order to require a permit, with the Supreme Court issuing a ruling in 2006 that led to further uncertainty.

Four justices at that time said the law governed land with a "continuous surface connection" to a waterway while Justice Anthony Kennedy, who cast the deciding vote in the 5-4 case and has since retired, said the law extended further to areas that had a "significant nexus" to a waterway.

The Sacketts had asked the Supreme Court to revisit the issue after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals relied on Kennedy's test in upholding a judge's determination that the Sacketts' property contained wetlands.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court once before, with the justices ruling unanimously in 2012 that the couple could challenge in court the EPA's compliance order, which exposed them to financial penalties if they did not comply.

The court's Thursday ruling came after President Joe Biden's administration in December finalized a rule expanding the definition of waterways that are protected under the Clean Water Act, in a reversal from former President Donald Trump's era. Biden in April vetoed a congressional measure that sought to overturn the rule.

A federal judge in North Dakota on April 12 temporarily blocked implementation of the rule in 24 states in response to a lawsuit by mostly Republican-led states. In a separate ruling, a federal judge in Texas on March 19 blocked the rule from being enforced in Texas and Idaho at the request of Republican attorneys general amid legal challenges to the new regulation. The rule was also halted in Kentucky on May 10 by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals while the state appeals a lower court's ruling.

... GO TO U.S. Supreme Court Rules Against EPA TO READ MORE

The FocusOn Group

FocusOn Landscapers
FocusOn Equipment Rentals & Retailers
FocusOn Mining, Aggregates & Construction
FocusOn Land Improvement Contractors

The FocusOn Industry Insider, bringing you breaking news and information relevant to your industry.

We hope you enjoy this no charge service for FocusOn subscribers. Suggestions for making the Insider better?

Would you like to advertise with us?
Advertising Inquiry
Forward Subscribe