Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
As a Supreme Court ruling scales back federal water protections, a top California water regulator says the state will maintain stringent oversight of wetlands.
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 ruling Thursday may nullify key parts of a rule the B. The U.S. Supreme Court has stripped federal agencies of authority over millions of acres of wetlands, weakening a bedrock environmental ...
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.
City and County of San Francisco v. Environmental Protection Agency is a pending United States Supreme Court case about whether the Clean Water Act allows the Environmental Protection Agency (or an authorized state) to impose generic prohibitions in National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits that subject permit-holders to enforcement for violating water quality standards without ...
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U.S. 595 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that land-use agencies imposing conditions on the issuance of development permits must comply with the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v.
A month after the U.S. Supreme Court severely restricted the federal government's power to oversee wetlands, the Republican-dominated North Carolina legislature handed state agencies an order: Don ...
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."