New Clean Water Act rule increases clarity, but at what cost?
Recently, the EPA and Corps completed a draft report on the connectivity of streams and wetlands. This report will form the basis of new regulations defining the scope of federal jurisdiction to regulate isolated streams and wetlands throughout the country. Based on the report’s conclusions, the federal agencies are preparing to expand their jurisdiction to include many more ephemeral and intermittent streams, as well as isolated wetlands.
The agencies have argued that the coming regulatory changes will benefit property owners by providing “greater consistency, certainty, and predictability nationwide by providing clarity for determining where the Clean Water Act applies and where it does not.”
Greater regulatory clarity in the scope of the Clean Water Act is needed. Two years ago, in Sackett, Justice Alito criticized the EPA and Congress for failing to settle the scope of the act. But clarity alone will not solve the problem. For example, the EPA could provide absolute clarity and predictability to property owners by adopting a rule that any property that has standing water at any time in the year (basically all of the United States) is a “water of the United States.” But this clarity, would come at too high of a cost—expanding the scope of the act. Thankfully, EPA and the Corps do not appear to be going that far. But the expansion that they appear to be pursuing cannot be justified as a boon to property owners, increased clarity notwithstanding.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.
Minnesota bans political apparel at polling places across the State. The government interprets “political” broadly: the ban applies to shirts with classic American phrases such as “Liberty” or “Don’t tread on me,” as long as those phrases appear alongside a tea party logo — no matter how small.
Sunday marks the 230th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Pacific Legal Foundation celebrates Constitution Day this year with a column about a Founding Father and signer of the Constitution who now stars in the Broadway hit musical, Hamilton. We also use the opportunity to remind our federal legislators about the importance of the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. The opinion piece will run in newspapers from coast to coast this weekend.