Thanks SC - we can look forward to the Potomac River Turing orange again now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:



Dramatic, much?

It's accurate, dick. I'm tired of R's claiming "hyperbole" and "Dramatic." That's what they said about Roe and here we are.
SCOTUS gutte- GUTTED- decades of admin review of this law. It's disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One can be incredibly well-spoken and also wrong. And PP is both.

Here's an article that breaks down this case pretty well - albeit from liberal outlet Slate. The Court went beyond the case in front of them to completely redefine the meaning of the clause at issue in the Clean Water Act. Even Kavanaugh objected.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/samuel-alito-wetlands-opinion-lost-brett-kavanaugh.html

This writer is not being honest. He says Congress added 'adjacent' to codify the EPA's definition of bordering, contiguous or neighboring. I don't understand the difference between the first two, but neighboring is not part of the definition of adjacent.
The EPA could have stuck to its older usage, but they wanted more control, and argued against letting a family work on their land, because it was in the general neighborhood of some other wetlands.

As I see it, Alito and the conservative justices are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the law and are deliberately going against the clear language set forth by Congress. Contiguous is NOT the same as adjacent and neighboring. Contiguous means physically touching, whereas adjacent and neighboring mean nearby but not necessarily touching. The language in CWA *is* broader than what these Justices are claiming.

I think EPA should continue to follow the law as written by Congress, not as distorted and misrepresented by SCOTUS.

The EPA defined nearby, as being tens of miles. The definition they want is something having a nexus to a wetland or waterway. They are essentially claiming authority over all water, regardless of whether it is connected to a lake or river.

I think you are grossly exaggerating and misrepresenting. For one, there are hardly even any places in the US where there are isolated wetlands completely separated from the nearest water body by tens of miles to begin with.

Then perhaps the EPA shouldn't have gone after these places.
It is not a matter of being near any body of water, but a navigable body of water, that connects to the rest of the US. The government is using commerce clause power to regulate. In this case, the EPA is arguing that this land is in the neighborhood of wetlands that are adjoining to a creek that does not connect to anything else.

Got news for you: A lot of the soil and geological strata in the US is not impermeable and water doesn't only flow on the surface. In many cases it's connected underground as well.

Congress didn't define that in the law. If Congress wants to make laws covering all the water in the US, let them own it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Dramatic, much?

It's accurate, dick. I'm tired of R's claiming "hyperbole" and "Dramatic." That's what they said about Roe and here we are.
SCOTUS gutte- GUTTED- decades of admin review of this law. It's disgusting.

+1

To quote one of the Harry Potter movies, “if there’s something wrong with the ____, there’s something wrong with the pup.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
One can be incredibly well-spoken and also wrong. And PP is both.

Here's an article that breaks down this case pretty well - albeit from liberal outlet Slate. The Court went beyond the case in front of them to completely redefine the meaning of the clause at issue in the Clean Water Act. Even Kavanaugh objected.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/samuel-alito-wetlands-opinion-lost-brett-kavanaugh.html

This writer is not being honest. He says Congress added 'adjacent' to codify the EPA's definition of bordering, contiguous or neighboring. I don't understand the difference between the first two, but neighboring is not part of the definition of adjacent.
The EPA could have stuck to its older usage, but they wanted more control, and argued against letting a family work on their land, because it was in the general neighborhood of some other wetlands.

As I see it, Alito and the conservative justices are deliberately and willfully misrepresenting the law and are deliberately going against the clear language set forth by Congress. Contiguous is NOT the same as adjacent and neighboring. Contiguous means physically touching, whereas adjacent and neighboring mean nearby but not necessarily touching. The language in CWA *is* broader than what these Justices are claiming.

I think EPA should continue to follow the law as written by Congress, not as distorted and misrepresented by SCOTUS.

The EPA defined nearby, as being tens of miles. The definition they want is something having a nexus to a wetland or waterway. They are essentially claiming authority over all water, regardless of whether it is connected to a lake or river.

I think you are grossly exaggerating and misrepresenting. For one, there are hardly even any places in the US where there are isolated wetlands completely separated from the nearest water body by tens of miles to begin with.

Then perhaps the EPA shouldn't have gone after these places.
It is not a matter of being near any body of water, but a navigable body of water, that connects to the rest of the US. The government is using commerce clause power to regulate. In this case, the EPA is arguing that this land is in the neighborhood of wetlands that are adjoining to a creek that does not connect to anything else.

Got news for you: A lot of the soil and geological strata in the US is not impermeable and water doesn't only flow on the surface. In many cases it's connected underground as well.

Congress didn't define that in the law. If Congress wants to make laws covering all the water in the US, let them own it.

Congress didn’t write a broad authorization because of the Supreme Court. There is a long history of states rights nonsense rulings that allows state and local governments to let developers and polluters do whatever they want. Congress had to base the authority on the watersheds of navigable waterway because the Army Corps of Engineers has long-standing jurisdiction of them.

Congress also can’t require everyone with flood risk to buy flood insurance because of state & local rights. The federal mandate is required for a federally backed mortgage or as a condition of accepting FEMA disaster assistance for flood damage, if the local government participates. The National Flood Insurance Program is essentially a contract with local governments to smuggle in minimal elevation and building code requirements for new development in exchange for federal flood coverage. The flood maps underestimate risk because the state and local governments have a lot of influence in keeping them that way.

[Anonymous]

Face it. Republicans love pollution.