Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency, 598 U.S. 651 (2023), also known as Sackett II (to distinguish it from the 2012 case), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that only wetlands and permanent bodies of water with a "continuous surface connection" to "traditional interstate navigable waters" are covered by the Clean Water Act.
The Supreme Court rules that land owned by Idaho couple Chantell and Mike Sackett does not fall under jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act. Supreme Court delivers blow to wetlands protections in ...
NC legislators are considering changing the state’s wetlands definition to match the federal government’s, which the Supreme Court sharply limited. Proposed NC law could mean Supreme Court ...
The Environmental Protection Agency and US Army on Tuesday released a new rule that slashes federally protected water by more than half, following a Supreme Court decision in May that rolled back ...
Petitioner Coy Koontz applied to the St. Johns River Water Management District for a permit to develop 3.7 acres of wetlands under the District's jurisdiction. [2] Koontz offered to mitigate the loss of wetlands by conveying to the District a conservation easement over 11 acres of adjacent land.
Wetlands, like this one along the South Carolina coast, often get in the way of development. Environmental laws to protect wetlands have been eased with a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling.
The Court ruled unanimously that the government does have the power to control intrastate wetlands as waters of the United States. [1] This ruling was effectively revised in Rapanos v. United States (2006), [ 2 ] in which the Court adopted a very narrow interpretation of "navigable waters."
In a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court limits federal protection for wetlands in a property rights case, saying the Clean Water Act does not usually apply to the marshy areas.