WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Supreme Court ruled against the EPA in Sackett v. EPA which will reduce the regulatory power the EPA has over some wetlands in the country.
The case stems back to 2007 when the Sackett family tried to develop land they owned near Priest Lake in northern Idaho. They tried to do so without a Clean Water Act permit, causing an intervention by the EPA.
Now in 2023, the Sackett's have an answer, but the implications of the ruling will go past the Sackett property.
“(The ruling) will potentially impact what you’re able to do, what you’re able to develop, and how you’re able to utilize that land," Said Braden Jensen, the deputy director of governmental affairs for the Idaho Farm Bureau. "Whether you need to get a federal permit to be able to do whatever you want to do."
Jensen says the ruling has the opportunity to make the EPA clear up misconceptions over what farmers can develop. The argument posed by Sackett is the government was overreaching on what they considered Waters of the United States (WOTUS)
The SCOTUS ruled Thursday, WOTUS refers to navigable waters, meaning if the surfaces of the water don't meet, waterways like wetlands won't be considered a part of the WOTUS.
This is different from what the EPA was arguing, saying that because waters can be connected through various channels, including underground, what could be considered WOTUS could be much larger.
Jensen says the ruling will likely turn the debate into a states' issue, meaning each state will have to regulate its water that is no longer a part of the WOTUS.
People in opposition to the ruling say this could have a huge impact on the waters in the US, especially in Idaho.
“Here in Idaho, we have some huge aquifers in addition to just our wetlands, and things like that are now opened up for pollutants," said Nic Nelson, the executive director of Idaho Rivers United. "They’re exempt from the clean water act. Which has always been the intent of Congress is to protect all waters of the United States.”
That is something Jensen says there are guardrails for. He says because of Idaho's Department of Environmental Quality.
Nelson notes the SCOTUS only interprets laws, it is up to Congress to create them. That's where he sees the next battle.
“We can urge our congress members to pass a bill that updates the definition of Waters of the United States, updates the Clean Water Act, that restores those protections," Nelson said.
