Letters to the Editor do not reflect the opinions of The Reporter, its publisher or its staff. You can submit your own Letter to the Editor by email to News@ReadTheReporter.com. Please include your phone number and city of residence. The Reporter will publish one letter per person per week.
Dear Editor:
Within the field of environmentalism, the legal system reigns above. With the snap of its fingers, land can be lost, water can be polluted, and humans can suffer.
A new Supreme Court case is trying to push back on environmentalism, taking the side of property owners over established law. This new case is Sackett v. EPA. It being brought to the Court was the intersection between federal protection of wetlands and property rights. The case revolved around the Sacketts, a couple whose land was placed on a protected watershed, which they were told they couldn’t build on by the EPA, citing the Clean Water Act. This claim of jurisdiction was challenged in court, and the question of determining EPA’s jurisdiction over wetlands under the CWA was passed up to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled unanimously that the EPA lacked CWA jurisdiction over the Sacketts’ land but disagreed on changing the EPA’s fundamental guidelines.
Section 404 of Congress’ Clean Water Act outlines the EPA’s jurisdiction to regulate the filling of land within “Waters of the United States.” This term, shaped by intentions of Congress as well as past legal precedent, has historically been interpreted to include many wetlands. The EPA previously decided jurisdiction over wetlands on a case-by-case basis, conducting a “significant nexus test,” which uses a wide set of guidelines to determine whether there is a significant connection (nexus) between any given wetland and other traditional navigable waters. This means that the EPA assumed jurisdiction over large amounts of wetlands which, while not necessarily having continuous surface flow of water, held significant ecological connections to larger adjacent bodies of water.
Sackett v. EPA is such a significant development because it has massive implications for environmental protection, specifically wetlands. To enforce environmental protections in a swift and precise manner is a top priority of the EPA, but this decision throws a legal wrench in the works.
As we have seen with disasters like East Palestine, the new Kentucky train derailment, and many more, action being slowed can lead to horrific consequences including debilitating health effects, death, and the destruction of whole communities. This new case allows the ability for homeowners, businesses, and anti-environmental groups to slow down whole efforts to preserve some of our most valuable ecological resources.
This crippling on the CWA should also be seen as a risky move because of how much good the CWA has done historically. The introduction of the CWA brought the end of a long period of mass destruction of wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimated that in the 200 years between pre-industrialization in the 1780s and the 1980s, the Conterminous United States has lost 53 percent of its wetlands, including 10 states which have lost over 85 percent of their pre-industrialization wetlands (Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Ohio).
Alex Libby
Bloomington, Ind.