> Most of this country (by area, not population) is increasingly resentful of the federal government's actions,
Land doesn’t vote.
Land doesn’t vote.
And no this isn't a rhetorical argument, the reasons why we have these regulations is because farms will gladly dump whatever into nearby streams and destroy water supplies because it's quite literally downstream of them and this doesn't directly affect them.
> Within a few years, the agencies had “interpreted their jurisdiction over ‘the waters of the United States’ to cover 270-to-300 million acres” of wetlands and “virtually any parcel of land containing a channel or conduit . . . through which rainwater or drainage may occasionally or intermittently flow.” Rapanos, 547 U. S., at 722 (plurality opinion).
All the court did here was rule that the law doesn’t cover ditches which might occasionally have rainwater in them. The EPA will have to go back to the older definition that includes navigable waterways, such as rivers, lakes, and seas that carry interstate or international trade, as well as the wetlands adjacent to them.
As usual, Congress retains the power to amend the law to give it a more precise definition. They could even amend it so that it does cover any random ditch that might occasionally have water in it if they wanted. Congress could have made that choice at any time in the last 50 years, but they have chosen to leave the law vague instead. If you think that the Clean Water Act _should_ be applied to every single ditch in America, then write your Representative and tell them off for not doing their job.
> All the court did here was rule that the law doesn’t cover ditches which might occasionally have rainwater in them.
Hardly, what the court did was override both the intent of the law and people who understood what was required to implement it. It’s a perversion of the basic concept of the rule of law.
> perversion of the basic concept of the rule of law.
You have this completely backwards. In the 70s when the CWA was created, the EPA did not consider every single ditch in America to be covered by the CWA. Congress didn’t modify the law to include every single ditch in America. They did, however, modify it in 1977 to include all “adjacent wetlands”. This was clearly intended to allow the CWA to apply to any wetland adjacent to a river or lake carrying interstate or international trade. But nobody back then thought that it covered the ditch in your back yard. It wasn’t until 2006 that the EPA started gradually expanding the scope of their activities, culminating in the present case where they are trying to assert their authority over every single place where water flows, or could flow.
The rule of law requires that people know what the law is, and it thus follows that it requires that the agencies which enforce the law may not gradually expand their definitions in order to grab more and more power. If you want the EPA to have more power, then tell your congresscritter to give it to them. Anything else is a perversion of the rule of law.
On top of this speeding up how quickly rain enters streams increases flooding etc. At an individual level it may not be obvious but collectively it can be a huge effect.
As to the bills interpretation, congress isn’t an expert on everything. They create agencies specifically to solve problems not carry out a rote script. Nobody wants the FBI having a list of specifically banned types of murder that are outlawed and if someone comes up with a new one then they’re off scot free. Instead they say arrest people who do X, and if the agency does something they don’t like congress then amends the law.
Congress has been happy to see how the EPA has followed their instructions since 2006, but suddenly these activist judges say hold up you’re not doing what congress wants… Get real they are saying this isn’t what the judges want.
Consider being less antagonistic towards your mutual dependents.