The #Trump admin proposed Monday to significantly limit the EPA’s authority to limit #pollution in #wetlands, #rivers & other bodies of #water across the country.
The proposed rule could strip federal #protections from millions of acres of wetlands & #streams, potentially threatening sources of clean #DrinkingWater for millions of Americans.
#climate #wildlife #law #EnvironmentalLaw #CleanWaterAct
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/11/17/climate/epa-curbs-protections-for-wetlands.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share
It was a victory for a range of business interests that have lobbied to scale back the #CleanWaterAct of 1972, including farmers, home builders, real estate developers, #oil drillers & #petrochemical manufacturers.
…Under the #CleanWater Act, companies & individuals must obtain a permit from the #EPA before releasing #pollutants into the nation’s #waterways. They must receive a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers.…
A 2023 #SCOTUS decision set the stage for the action by limiting the agency’s power to police #wetlands. In the opinion in Sackett v. EPA, Justice #Alito wrote that the #CleanWaterAct allowed the #EPA to regulate only wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” to a “relatively permanent” body of #water.
But he did not explicitly define a “relatively permanent” body of water. Now, the #Trump admin is describing it as a body of water that flows year-round or during the “wet season.”
You're missing how the process works.
No, the SCOTUS didn't limit the agency's power. Instead it recognized that *Congress* had limited its power.
Alito didn't explicitly define a relatively permanent body because that wasn't his job, as they weren't there to limit the agency's power. It was up to Congress, not him, to set those limits and definitions.
Now the agency is clarifying its view of Congress's definition.
Again, that's not the SCOTUS doing that. Because that's not how the courts work in the US.
