SCOTUS Limits EPA Protections of Wetlands

Late in May, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in favor of an Idaho couple looking to build on their property. Initially, the couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, were denied a permit to build on a portion of their property that was deemed a protected wetland.

This marks the second time the court cut back on EPA protections after it imposed major constraints on the agency's authority to limit carbon emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act last year. Wetlands that back up to large bodies of water, like the one on the Sackett’s property, were previously protected by the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act allows the government to regulate "waters of the United States." But which wetlands qualify as "waters of the United States" has been subject to some debate and past court cases.

While this is a win for private property defenders, the repealing of these protections opens up the floodgates (literally and figuratively) to companies and land developers who wish to build on protected wetlands. Wetlands are swamps, marshes, or any other water-saturated land and are an integral part of our ecosystem. Beyond being home to some of the most biodiverse populations in the country, wetlands serve as a natural flood deterrent.

As global warming and human-influenced climate change continue to be a rising concern for shoreside communities, wetlands provide a natural defense to storm surges and increased rainfall. Wetlands are home to over 40 percent of the world’s species including various freshwater fish and waterfowl. Wetlands naturally store and slowly release large intakes of water, making them a crucial part of preserving surrounding areas from flooding.

With warmer climates come more moisture and more rain. Increased storm surges and flooding events can be tied back to anthropogenic climate change and are expected to continue to increase with rising sea levels. Many of the country's largest cities are built on shorelines or close to large bodies of water. When city planning, this makes sense for easy access to trade routes and water sources. Additionally, many of these large bodies of water have natural surrounding wetlands, like the large, swampy areas of New Jersey that surround New York City. Should land developers decide to begin building on these wetlands, New York City could see worse flooding than it already is.

In the ruling, Supreme Court Justices determined that the Clean Water Act did not apply to wetlands that do not have a "continuous surface connection" to bigger, regulated bodies of water. This ruling would cut out about half of the country’s wetlands from EPA protections, according to Energy and Environment reporter Coral Davenport of the New York Times. The environmental law group Earthjustice warned that as many as "118 million acres" would be affected.

Just another case of the conservative-packed SCOTUS ruling against the interest of public health and safety in a long line of unpopular decisions. It’s safe to say that the damaging effects of these Supreme Court Justices, and the administrations that appointed them, will be felt for decades to come.