Supreme Court rules to strip back clean water regulations

PARKERSBURG, W.Va. (WTAP) - On May 25, in the case of Sackett v. EPA, the US Supreme Court ruled that wetlands are only protected by the Clean Water Act when they have a “continuous surface connection” with a relatively permanent body of water.

In layman’s terms, this means that only wetlands that are virtually indistinguishable from a larger body of water, like a lake or a river, fall under the jurisdiction of the EPA. It’s a decision that rolls back regulations that have protected wetlands in this country for decades. It’s good news for property developers and industry groups, but it might not be such good news for the quality of the water every living thing depends on to thrive.

“We’ve lost a significant amount of authority, EPA has lost and state EPAs, to protect water quality in the United States, period., “Dr. Eric Fitch, a professor of environmental science at Marietta College, told WTAP. Fitch says that matters because wetlands play a vital role in maintaining ecosystems and naturally purifying water. “The vegetation, the soils take off contaminants before it percolates down, hopefully, into groundwater.”

Fitch says this crucial role isn’t exclusive to wetlands that have a “continuous surface connection” with a river or lake. In fact, wetlands that lack that connection play a further crucial role too. “Very often, it’s those wetlands that act as a buffer against flooding events,” he said.

For the Mid-Ohio Valley, Fitch points out that the Ohio River has long suffered from contamination and pollution from the various industries that set up shop along its shores. He says its largely due to regulation from legislation like the Clean Water Act that progress has been made in cleaning the river up in recent decades. “If you allow greater freedom to pollute, you put all that in danger,” he said. “And basically by saying, ‘You can’t touch, you can’t regulate these interconnected parts of the system’ -- that’s a bad case scenario.”

So what motivated the court’s decision? The opinion of the court, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, describes the Clean Water Act as a “potent weapon.” And because of what the court finds to be unclear legal definitions of what waters the act applies to, they say it’s a weapon often wielded too indiscriminately. That’s how they say it was used against Michael and Chantell Sackett, the case’s plaintiffs, who planned to build a house on property they owned back in 2004. “Their home-building plans remain on hold to this day because EPA remains steadfast in its view that their property contains navigable waters, subject to regulation under the Clean Water Act,” Damien Schiff, an attorney arguing for the Sackett’s case, told the court.

Local environmental activist Eric Engle says that the court could’ve made a more narrow ruling, one that gave some leeway to the Sackett’s without also doing away with this much of the Clean Water Act’s regulatory authority. “It’s worth noting that even conservative justice Brett Kavanaugh, who was a Trump appointee, dissented from his fellow conservative justices and said ‘I think that this ruling goes a step too far,’ in removing protections of a lot of bodies of water under the clean water act,” Engle said.

According to a brief filed by several scientific and other organizations against the decision, it will exclude 51% of the wetlands in the county from Clean Water Act regulation.

Copyright 2023 WTAP. All rights reserved.