{"id":19111,"date":"2022-10-11T15:55:22","date_gmt":"2022-10-11T15:55:22","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=19111"},"modified":"2022-10-11T15:56:27","modified_gmt":"2022-10-11T15:56:27","slug":"policy-news-october-10-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2022\/10\/11\/policy-news-october-10-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"Policy News: October 10, 2022"},"content":{"rendered":"

In this issue:<\/strong><\/h2>\n

Supreme Court Hears Sackett v. EPA, Ruling Could Impact the Definition of \u201cWaters of the U.S.\u201d<\/a><\/strong>
\nESA and other scientific societies file brief arguing that the interpretation of the Clean Water Act is inherently founded on science.<\/p>\n

Congress<\/a><\/strong>
\nCongress passes a deal to keep the government funded through Dec. 16.<\/p>\n

Executive Branch<\/strong><\/a>
\nDepartment of Energy requires grant applicants to submit Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research Plans.<\/p>\n

States<\/strong><\/a>
\nEPA determines that most Chesapeake Bay watershed states are not on track to meet 2025 pollution reduction commitments.<\/p>\n

International<\/strong><\/a>
\nState Department names first special envoy for biodiversity.<\/p>\n

Scientific Community<\/strong><\/a>
\nNSF announces new division director for the Division of Environmental Biology.<\/p>\n

Federal Register opportunities<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/a>Supreme Court Hears Sackett v. EPA case, Ruling Could Impact the Definition of \u201cWaters of U.S.\u201d<\/h2>\n

On the first day of the Supreme Court\u2019s new term, justices heard arguments in the Sackett v. EPA case. In this case, Chantell and Michael Sackett sought a CWA Section 404 permit to develop wetlands on their Idaho property that was denied. The Sacketts are represented by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation and backed by business and agricultural groups.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court failed to reach a consensus in the 2006 Rapanos v. United States case and created two legal tests for determining the applicability of the Clean Water Act \u2013 Justice Anthony M. Kennedy\u2019s \u201csignificant nexus\u201d test and the Justice Antonin Scalia\u2019s \u201ccontinuous surface connection\u201d test. The significant nexus test determines that the Clean Water Act applies if wetlands have a \u201csignificant nexus\u201d to regulated waters. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals used Kennedy\u2019s \u201csignificant nexus\u201d test when they sided with the EPA in a 2021 ruling in this case.<\/p>\n

Several Supreme Court Justices, including justices appointed by Republican presidents, expressed skepticism that the court could significantly limit the applicability of the Clean Water Act. The court may not issue a final ruling until summer 2023.<\/p>\n

Lawyers for the government shared the Biden administration expects to issue a new Clean Water Act proposed rule by the end of the year.<\/p>\n

Last summer, twelve scientific societies, including ESA and the members of the Consortium of Aquatic Science Societies, filed an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief with the US Supreme Court in this case. The scientific societies\u2019 brief argues that the Clean Water Act\u2019s mandate to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation\u2019s waters is inherently founded on science and thus can only be achieved through the consideration of science. Meanwhile, the Sackett\u2019s proposed framework rejects hydrological reality, ignoring the science behind the ways in which wetlands and streams affect traditional navigable waters.<\/p>\n

More News:<\/u><\/p>\n