Skip to main content

The citizens here [above] and anywhere in the US do not want the current politicians and for-hire lawyers serving on the Supreme Court, especially not making scientific decisions masked as agency overreach, which they now plan to do.

Facts, precedents and reality never gets in the way of the Roberts court

By Skip Clement

A recent study has brought to light a crucial issue-the significant role of small, temporary flowing streams in the water supply of regional river basins. These streams, which lost federal protections last year, are not just a minor detail.

NOTE: Above is an aggregated paragraph from the NYTimes story by Brad Plumer on June 27, 2024. Study Finds Small Streams, Recently Stripped of Protections, Are a Big Deal 

Brown trout Salmo trutta by Thom Glace, award winning watercolorist/illustrator.

The Supreme Court’s decision, in what can only be described as a power grab, has restricted the scope of the Clean Water Act, eliminating federal protections for millions of miles of these streams. It’s a matter of concern that half of the water flowing through regional river basins starts in these so-called ephemeral streams. They contribute a substantial amount of water flow [50%] and can have a significant impact on water quality.

Despite the EPA’s ability to update water regulations being considerably limited, there’s a glimmer of hope

Some states are continuing their efforts to regulate pollution in these streams. It’s a testament to their commitment to environmental protection. Ephemeral streams, with their significant influence on water quality, are not being overlooked. Many states are still trying to regulate pollution in these streams.

NOTE 2: PR Newswire reports 95% of Americans say that protecting the water in our nation’s lakes, streams and rivers is important. Further, 79% want to strengthen or maintain current standards, while just 8% want to relax them.

• 89% of adults would be concerned if polluters no longer had to meet water requirements before adding waste into streams or wetlands and 88% would be concerned if the permit requirement to make a permanent physical change to a water body was removed in some cases.

• Voters want more safety standards for water releases from factories and industrial processes (69%), municipal drinking water (68%) and drinking water in their community (67%) – clearly want more regulation, not less.

Learn to say goodbye to some trout stream in America. Sorry, it is not great to let the supremes guarantee pollution. Image credit Little River Outfitters, Townsend, TN.

Ephemeral streams affect 50% of our water supply

Half of the water flowing through regional river basins starts in ephemeral streams. Last year, the Supreme Court curtailed federal protections for these waterways.

Will Chief Justice Roberts be remembered as another lawyer joke?

I, for one, do not trust our Supreme Court justices – at all. They are now the sole arbiters of all environmental laws and mask this as helping avoid overreach.

NOTE 3: They decided six to three to overtake the responsibility, constitutionally the prerogative of Congress.

Agencies, imperiling an array of regulations

A foundational 1984 decision [Chevron] had required courts to defer to agencies’ reasonable interpretations of ambiguous statutes, underpinning regulations on health care, safety and the environment.

Screw the public

Who could claim Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito, and the other Christian Nationalists on the Supreme Court know more about environmental science than trained and qualified teachers, researchers, and scientists with decades of data and test results?




Author Skip

More posts by Skip

Leave a Reply