6/19/2023 0 Comments Qustodio review business![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() "We are encouraged that the Biden EPA's relentless crusade against Ohio coal miners and power plants are continuing to lose in federal court," Justin Bis, president of the Ohio Coal Association, said in an emailed statement. Others applauded the Supreme Court, including the Ohio Coal Association, which also referenced the court's 9-0 decision that the federal government overstepped its authority regarding the Sacketts' specific situation. In an emailed statement, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency said it is still reviewing the Supreme Court decision as to how it affects Ohio. Sasson also said that developers wouldn't have to provide mitigation when building on these sites, such as being required to replace a stream with another somewhere else. Some urban areas could see poorer stream quality downstream, he said, which could be affected by different water flow and temperature, he said. "What is the environmental outcome in removing ephemeral streams from protection?" he said. "And make no mistake: Congress wrote the statute it meant to," she wrote.Īnthony Sasson, a research associate with the Midwest Biodiversity Institute in Hilliard, said with the court's decision, ephemeral streams - which flow only after rains or with water from snowmelt - could be eliminated, perhaps some replaced with retention ponds. In a dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the Clean Water Act spells out that the waters of the United States include wetlands adjacent to waters the act covers, and that adjacent not only means when it is touching but also nearby. "The wetlands on the Sacketts’ property are distinguishable from any possibly covered waters," it said. Alito Jr., writing for the conservative majority, said the court majority said the Clean Water Act extends to only those “wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are ‘waters of the United States’ in their own right,” so that they are “indistinguishable” from those waters. In a 5-4 decision on May 25, Justice Samuel J. The Sacketts sued the EPA, arguing that their property was not “waters of the United States.” The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, and threatened penalties of more than $40,000 per day. That prohibits discharging pollutants into "the waters of the United States." The EPA classified the wetlands as such because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek that fed into Priest Lake. ![]() Environmental Protection Agency told the Sacketts that their property had wetlands and that the backfilling violated the Clean Water Act. Supreme Court case, involved a couple, Michael and Chantell Sackett, who bought property near Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot with dirt for a new house. Melanie Houston, the group's managing director of water policy, said in a statement that without continued state protection or new federal protections, the Supreme Court’s decision opens the door for polluters to further degrade Ohio’s wetlands. More: Environmentalists wants Ohio EPA to ensure more Big Darby protections with sewage loans Swamps, bogs and marshes are not only safe havens for hundreds of migratory and endangered birds, but these wetlands are critical to reducing harmful algal blooms." This destructive ruling endangers our state’s remaining 10% of wetlands and puts Ohio’s 36,000 miles of rain-dependent streams at risk. "Ohio has already lost a shocking 90% of its wetlands. "Under the decision, wetlands without a continuous link to navigable waters or their tributaries are not protected," the group said in a statement. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |