As Supreme Court weakens Clean Water Act, what does it mean for WA?

“A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday that eroded longstanding water protections might have little effect in Washington because of the state’s more stringent laws safeguarding wetlands, but it could have implications for endangered species and tribal lands. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled that water protections apply to wetlands “indistinguishable” from nearby bodies of water and are only protected if they are close to a bigger waterway and wet enough that it’s hard to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins. That significantly differs from state wetland protections, which will remain intact. Waters that are no longer considered “waters of the U.S.” under the ruling will retain protections as waters of the state, said Colleen Keltz, a state Department of Ecology spokesperson. (from Seattle Times, Isabella Breda reporting).”A U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday that eroded longstanding water protections might have little effect in Washington because of the state’s more stringent laws safeguarding wetlands, but it could have implications for endangered species and tribal lands. In an opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, the court ruled that water protections apply to wetlands “indistinguishable” from nearby bodies of water and are only protected if they are close to a bigger waterway and wet enough that it’s hard to determine where the water ends and the wetland begins. That significantly differs from state wetland protections, which will remain intact. Waters that are no longer considered “waters of the U.S.” under the ruling will retain protections as waters of the state, said Colleen Keltz, a state Department of Ecology spokesperson.” (Excerpt from Seattle Times, Isabella Breda reporting).

In writing for the court majority, Justice Samuel Alito said that the navigable waters of the United States regulated by the EPA under the statute “do not include many previously regulated wetlands” but that the CWA extends to only streams, oceans, rivers and lakes, and those wetlands with a continuous surface connection to those bodies.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by the court’s three liberal members, disputed Alito’s reading of the statute, noting that since 1977 when the CWA was amended to include adjacent wetlands, eight consecutive presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic, have interpreted the law to cover wetlands that the court has now excluded. Kavanaugh said that by narrowing the act to cover only adjoining wetlands, the court’s new test will have quote “significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States.” (quoted from NPR)

In addition to joining Kavanaugh’s opinion, the court’s liberals signed on to a separate opinion by Justice Elena Kagan. Pointing to the air and water pollution cases, she accused the majority of appointing itself instead of Congress as the national policymaker on the environment.

In OFCO’s view, this is a catastrophic decision because it will affect the quality of the water we drink, swim, fish, boat and recreate in. It will also affect all marine wildlife as pollution runs amuck.