WASHINGTON DC- The Supreme Court of the United States of America ruled this Thursday in favor of the two who had denounced the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and agreed with those two that the agency does not have the power to intervene in their land.
The consultation is strongly opposed by US President Joe Biden, who is considered dominant in the constitution “putting the country’s wetlands at risk of contamination and destruction”, as well as in the dangers of clean water sources, from which millions of Americans feed.
In addition, he confirmed the opinion “completely changes” the legal framework that has protected the water of the country for decades and “the challenges of science, which demonstrated the role of wetlands in protecting rivers and lakes from pollutants that harm the health of citizens. .
The Idaho-based Sacketts goes back more than a decade to the legal battle. They bought some land in 2004 and wanted to cover it with gravel and rocks to build a house on that lot, located 100 meters from the priest lake.
They got local permits, but the EPA ordered them to stop work and return the land to its original state, claiming the area contained wetlands subject to Clean Water Act protections. Sacks ended the EPA’s acquisition, finding that its authority did not extend to his land.
The Supreme Court, with a conservative majority, decided this Thursday that the interpretation made by that agency of protected wetlands was “inconsistent” with the text and structure of the law and that this law only “covers wetlands with a continuous connection to bodies of water.” that they are “waters” of the United States in their own right.
The court considered that the EPA must provide “clear evidence” about the scope of its authority to control the matter and also called on Congress to “use very clear language if it wants to significantly change the balance between federal, state and government power over the family matter.”
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito agreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling, 5 votes in favor and 4 against, that the Clean Water Act was a success and before its enactment in 1972 many of the country’s rivers and lakes. They are heavily contaminated.
However, he explained that the scope of that organization was vague from the beginning. “It applies to US waters, but what does that mean?” he asked, confirming that this meant that the institutions that had to respond to its application in the middle of the century had different interpretations.
To sum up, the Clean Water Act extends only to those “with continuous connection with bodies of water within the jurisdiction of the United States”, so that they are “indistinguishable” from those waters, and wetlands in the possession of the United States. distinguished
White House spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre warned in a daily press conference that the plan of the administration of Joe Biden to “review the decision”.
“The president will use all the jurisdiction available to him to ensure that Americans in every state have clean water. Not clean water, but safe water. This is going to be our priority,” he said.
According to the National Wildlife Federation, this ruling threatens the drinking water supply for millions of people and the health of the nation’s rivers and wetlands.
“Federal Water Act protections are necessary for vulnerable communities and resources across the country. The court’s ruling removes vital protections for streams and wetlands in every state,” the director said in a statement. Jim Murphy’s legal defense organization.
Murphy therefore called for “conventions and state governments to intervene, close the gap, and protect water threats and the people who depend on them.”
