The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed down a decision limiting the power of federal environmental regulators to oversee the country’s wetlands and waterways in a ruling billed as a win for state agricultural interests.
The state’s biggest agricultural groups celebrated the court’s decision, which was criticized for undercutting the Clean Water Act while seen as bolstering Kansas’ ongoing legal challenge to new rules protecting wetlands.
Kansas and 23 other states brought a lawsuit contending that it’s the states’ sovereign interest to manage waters within their boundaries and the Biden administration’s rule imposed vague standards without considering the costs.
A federal judge already temporarily blocked the law in Kansas and the other states, noting that it would be better to await the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
“There is no urgency to implement the 2023 rule,” U.S. District Judge Daniel L. Hovland wrote in issuing a preliminary injunction in that case.
“The Supreme Court’s decision…will be issued by June 2023 and will likely address many of the unresolved legal issues and jurisdictional determinations at the heart of this lawsuit.”
Republican Attorney General Kris Kobach believed the Supreme Court ruling has implications for the current case challenging the rules.
“This is a great victory for landowners across the country,” Kobach said in a statement.
“It puts to an end the EPA’s aggressive expansion of its own power by attempting to regulate every wetland adjacent to any river or lake,” he said.
“It is likely that this ruling will have a decisive impact on that case.”
The Supreme Court case handed down Thursday originated in Idaho, where a couple purchased property near a lake and started back filling the lot with dirt to prepare for building a home.
The Environmental Protection Agency argued that wetlands on the couple’s lot were subject to federal regulations because they were defined as “waters of the United States” since they were near a ditch feeding into a creek that ran into a navigable, intrastate lake.
However in a 5-4 decision, the court found that the Clean Water Act only applied to wetlands that have “a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right, so that there is no clear demarcation between ‘waters’ and wetlands.”
The Clean Water Act’s use of the word “waters” encompasses “only those relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water forming geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes.”
The decision was seen as setback for environmental regulations and a blow for the Clean Water Act as well as the federal government’s ability to protect the country from pollution and its negative effects on public health.
“The Supreme Court’s disappointing decision… will take our country backwards,” President Joe Biden said in a statement.
“It puts our nation’s wetlands – and the rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds connected to them – at risk of pollution and destruction, jeopardizing the sources of clean water that millions of American families, farmers, and businesses rely on.”
The Sierra Club called the decision “profoundly wrong” and at odds with the law Congress enacted 50 years ago.
“Access to clean, safe, reliable water is a fundamental human right, and it is deeply disappointing that the Court has sided with polluters and the industry to roll back the clock on clean water protections,” Sierra Club Executive Director Ben Jealous said.
“As a result of this decision, millions of Americans will have less safe drinking water than the generation before them,” Jealous said in a statement.
Elaine Giessel, chair of the Kansas chapter of the Sierra Club, said the ruling handed down by the court will remove protections for most isolated wetlands in the state that are fed by rainwater and groundwater.
“If this ruling stands and Congress does not step in and update the Clean Water Act appropriately, those wetlands could be lost and they’re really important to migratory water fowl,” Giessel said.
“They’re important to the hunters throughout the central flyway because the wetlands are a critical stopover habitat,” she said.
She predicted that the court’s decision could affect protections for ephemeral and seasonal streams across Kansas.
“The habitat losses are big,” she said.
Giessel said the new Biden administration “waters of the U.S.” rule is now in trouble.
“The Supreme Court ruling is basically done,” she said. “I think the Biden rule is basically done in with.”
Meanwhile, Republican members of Congress from Kansas praised the decision as well as the Kansas Farm Bureau and the Kansas Livestock Association.
“We believe this opinion significantly limits executive overreach on this topic and restores predictability to the Clean Water Act,” said Aaron Popelka, vice president of legal and governmental affairs for the Kansas Livestock Association.
“This decision should allow the states and other litigants who previously obtained a preliminary injunction against the Biden administration’s Waters of the United States rule…to ask the court to immediately vacate the rule,” Popelka said.
Terry Holdren, CEO and general counsel for the Kansas Farm Bureau, said the court decision brings clarity about what waters are protected under federal law.
“It reaffirms what we in Kansas have known for decades, that states can and do offer the best approaches to ensuring water quality,” Holdren said in a statement.
“While next steps will take some time to sort out, we look forward to working with EPA and others to write a new rule to implement this significant decision.”
Congressman Tracey Mann called the decision a “big win” for farmers, ranchers and producers.
“This unanimous ruling will protect landowners’ rights and limit government overreach under President Biden’s Waters of the U.S. rule,” Mann said.
U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall said he was “proud to see the Supreme Court stand with our farmers and ranchers by rejecting the idea that (waters of the U.S.) can be every ditch, puddle, pond, and dry creek bed in America.”
“By providing much-needed clarity to our agriculture industry, our producers can carry out routine farming activities without worrying about the heavy hand of the federal government and unnecessary burdens from Washington, D.C,” he said.
