I know that these people are ontologically evil but a 9-0 vote is still a little mind-boggling.
"While I am disappointed by the Supreme Court's decision in the Sackett case, EPA and Army have an obligation to apply this decision alongside our state co-regulators, Tribes, and partners," EPA Administrator Michael Regan said in a statement.
No. Wrong. Incorrect. You have an obligation to protect the environment. You have no obligation at all whatsoever to listen to the Supreme Court, as the Supreme Court is not a body with any authority and can and should be ignored.
the law includes only streams, oceans, rivers and lakes, and wetlands with a "continuous surface connection to those bodies."
(insert guillotine joke)
As a result of the rule change, protections for many waterways and wetlands will now fall to states.
"Biden isn't a weak, failed leader, he's merely letting states fail and be weak on their own terms!" very reassuring
Oh fucking great, cant wait till we start building more subdivisions in flood plains critical to our ecosystem. I fucking hate it here.
Biden is the president to elect if you want to address climate change! Don't ask how! Just wait until he's inaugurated in 2021.
You don't want trump to get elected. He'd do fracking, cause chemical spills by preventing rail-workers from striking, and allow the supreme court to overturn environmental protections instead of packing the courts!
Jokes aside, don't forget that the president has had the power to address a lot of the bad things that have been happening. This has been true back with Obama if he wanted to decriminalize marijuana, advocate for same sex marriage (one of his campaign promises in 2008), or not increase oil harvesting when we knew climate change was already a thing. Biden could protect abortion rights throughout the US, forgive student debt, make healthcare a right, and address climate change. All if he actually wanted to.
His words and inaction from the beginning of his political career to now prove he doesn't want to.
Having worked in wetland restoration I can say with confidence that section 404 of the CWA was always only a fig leaf that slowed but did not substantially reduce destruction of wetlands - typically what would happen is a project would get approved and then follow up was shifted to the localities who would have an incentive to ignore projects that failed. There was more enforcement if the area was an important to endangered species or migratory birds and the EPA would occasionally pursue enforcement on unauthorized alterations, but the statistics demonstrate that wetland area in the States has been in continuous decline going back to the colonial period.
The really funny-ish irony in all this is that the reasons for protecting wetlands in the first place were mainly economic - wetlands serve as important buffers for floods and capture storm runoff. You typically don't want to build in low-lying frequently flooded areas because that'll cost you in the long run. All this decision does is ensure that the consequences of climate change will be even harsher in areas that experience increased rainfall. But the dudes must rock.
I am once again calling for the restoration of the Great Black Swamp.
