In May, the Supreme Court told the Environmental Protection Agency it couldn’t regulate lands distant from navigable waters as “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act. Given recent history, this was a momentous decision. Ryan M. Yonk and Ethan Yang, writing for Law & Liberty, have analyzed the subject more deeply. Until…
The Biden administration had a major setback today as the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the EPA’s current definition of “waters of the United States.” The definition had been used to halt construction of a home on property deemed a wetland by the EPA. The case, Sackett vs. EPA, has been going on for 15 years….
A Texas district court has rejected, for the time being, the EPA’s definition of the waters of the United States (“WOTUS”). The EPA’s latest definition went into force nationally on March 20 but the announcement explicitly excluded Texas and Idaho. Idaho was omitted because the Supreme Court is considering the case of Michael and Chantelle…
- No new gas stations in Los Angeles?
- Canada’s “Zero-Plastic Waste 2030” program will cost $13 billion (Canadian dollars), gain only $619 million benefit, says Fraser Institute’s Ken Green.
- Australian Scientists Discover Styrofoam-eating “superworm.”
- Supreme Court agrees to hear a case that would define “waters of the United States” for EPA regulatory purposes.
- Why does electricity usage go down? Income inequality, says Resources for the Future.
- Ford trying to get more congressional support for electric vehicles, says the Washington Post.
“Fifty years after the enactment of the Clean Water Act, its reach is clear as mud,” writes Jonathan Wood, introducing an amicus brief for a Supreme Court case. The Court has agreed to hear a case claiming that the federal interpretation of the “waters of the United States” (known to environmental specialists as WOTUS) is…