{"id":19456,"date":"2023-05-31T18:07:37","date_gmt":"2023-05-31T18:07:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/?p=19456"},"modified":"2023-05-31T18:08:30","modified_gmt":"2023-05-31T18:08:30","slug":"esa-policy-news-may-30-2023","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/esa.org\/esablog\/2023\/05\/31\/esa-policy-news-may-30-2023\/","title":{"rendered":"ESA Policy News: May 30, 2023"},"content":{"rendered":"

In this issue:<\/strong><\/h2>\n
\n
Supreme Court dramatically shrinks Clean Water Act\u2019s reach<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/div>\n
Biden administration must now rework recent Clean Water Act regulations.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Join ESAL and ESA for a workshop on local policy and community engagement<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
This June 8 workshop will provide the resources to help scientists and engineers bridge the gap between science and policy<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Webinar Recording Available: Protecting Wetlands for Healthy Communities and Ecosystems<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Webinar covers how science and policy intersect to protect waterways.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\u00a0<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
House Appropriations Committee Releases Agriculture Spending Bill Amid Debt Ceiling Negotiations<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Bill includes slight increases for the Agricultural Research Service and the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative.<\/span><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

Congress<\/strong><\/a>
\nHouse Natural Resources Committee passes Save Our Sequoias Act and legislation to allow mining near the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness.<\/p>\n

Executive Branch<\/strong><\/a>
\nWhite House to hold open science listening sessions.<\/p>\n

Courts
\n<\/strong><\/a>Supreme Court decision about California\u2019s pork regulations could impact state climate regulations.<\/p>\n

States<\/strong><\/a>
\nColorado River states reach water rights agreement.<\/p>\n

International<\/strong><\/a>
\nUnited Nations panel questions carbon removal schemes.<\/p>\n

Scientific Community<\/strong><\/a>
\nScientific evidence shows that protecting and restoring wild animals and their functional roles can enhance natural carbon capture and storage.<\/p>\n

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

<\/a>Supreme Court dramatically shrinks Clean Water Act\u2019s reach<\/h2>\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 <\/a>with the US Supreme Court 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. 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

On May 25, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in the case, largely siding with the Sacketts and the Pacific Legal Foundation. The below article from PoliticoPro provides more details on the ruling.<\/p>\n

By Annie Snider, PoliticoPro, 5\/25\/2023<\/em><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court on Thursday significantly shrank the reach of federal clean water protections, dealing a major blow to President Joe Biden\u2019s efforts to restore protections to millions of acres of wetlands and delivering a victory to multiple powerful industries.<\/p>\n

The ruling from the court\u2019s conservative majority vastly narrowing the federal government\u2019s authority over marshes and bogs is a win for industries such as homebuilding and oil and gas, which must seek Clean Water Act permits to damage federally protected wetlands. Those industries have fought for decades to limit the law\u2019s reach.<\/p>\n

The Biden administration this year\u00a0finalized a rule to cement broad protections\u00a0for wetlands, which trap pollution, provide wildlife habitat, and act as sponges that soak up flood waters. That regulation must now be reworked in light of the Supreme Court ruling.<\/p>\n

The 5-4 ruling in\u00a0Sackett v. EPA\u00a0<\/em>creates a far narrower test than what has been used for more than half a century to determine when bogs and marshes fall under the scope of the 1972 law. Under the majority\u2019s definition, only those wetlands with a continuous surface water connection to larger streams, lakes and rivers should get federal protections.<\/p>\n

Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, wrote in the majority opinion that only those wetlands that are \u201cindistinguishable\u201d from those larger waters should be covered.<\/p>\n

\u201cWetlands that are separate from traditional navigable waters cannot be considered part of those waters, even if they are located nearby,\u201d Alito wrote.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s liberals, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, disagreed with that test, arguing that it cuts out a broad swath of wetlands that are important to Clean Water Act\u2019s goal of protecting the nation\u2019s waters.<\/p>\n

\u201cPut simply, the Court\u2019s atextual test \u2014 rewriting \u2018adjacent\u2019 to mean \u2018adjoining\u2019 \u2014 will produce real-world consequences for the waters of the United States and will generate regulatory uncertainty,\u201d Kavanaugh wrote in his concurring opinion.<\/p>\n

The case centers on a patch of wetlands on an Idaho couple\u2019s property. The justices agreed that their specific wetlands should not be subject to Clean Water Act regulation, and that the court\u2019s prior test, stemming from the 2006 case\u00a0Rapanos v. United States,<\/em>\u00a0should no longer determine the scope of the law. For this reason, Kavanaugh\u2019s opinion and a separate opinion from the court\u2019s liberals, are considered to be concurring opinions.<\/p>\n

Alex Guill\u00e9n contributed to this report.<\/em><\/p>\n

<\/a>Webinar Recording Available: Protecting Wetlands for Healthy Communities and Ecosystems<\/h2>\n

On May 8, ESA and Engineers and Scientists Acting Locally held a webinar to learn how science and policy intersect to protect waterways, hear from local advocates for ecologically sound practices and discuss the potential impact of the Sackett v EPA Supreme Court ruling, which had not been released at the time of the webinar. Panelist Royal Garner served as the counsel of record on the scientific societies\u2019 amici curiae in this case.<\/p>\n

The webinar recording is now available on YouTube.<\/a><\/p>\n

Panelists:<\/p>\n

Erika Harris-<\/strong>\u00a0Senior Planner, Puget Sound Regional Council
\nRoyal C. Gardner, JD<\/strong>\u2013 Professor of Law and Co-Director, Institute for Biodiversity Law and Policy, Stetson University College of Law<\/p>\n

\n

Join ESAL and ESA June 8 at noon for a workshop on local policy and community engagement<\/h2>\n

Local communities are increasingly forced to deal with challenges presented by natural resource management, biodiversity, climate change, and other pressing issues that benefit from scientific expertise. However, scientists are often not trained to navigate local decision-making processes or provided with the tools to translate their scientific expertise and collaborate with local policymakers and community leaders.<\/p>\n

In this workshop, co-hosted by Engineers and Scientists Acting Locally and the Ecological Society of America, we will provide the resources to help scientists and engineers bridge that gap. Attendees will have the opportunity to dive into case studies of scientists and engineers engaging locally across all career stages. Attendees will also receive information and hands-on practice with step-by-step guides for activities such as delivering public comments and joining a local board or commission, with the opportunity to begin identifying opportunities in their own communities.<\/p>\n

Register to attend the webinar June 8, 12:00pm eastern here: <\/strong>https:\/\/www.eventbrite.com\/e\/opportunities-for-local-science-and-community-engagement-registration-636953353627<\/a><\/p>\n

House Appropriations Committee Releases Agriculture Spending Bill Amid Debt Ceiling Negotiations<\/h2>\n

The House Appropriations Committee began releasing its Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 spending bills the week of May 15. The House Appropriations Committee plans to release the least controversial bills this year.<\/p>\n

These bills are being released while Congress and the White House are in negotiations over raising the debt ceiling. The White House and House Republicans have reached a tenative agreement to hold federal spending flat for two years and plan to vote on the deal the week of May 30. This agreement means that science programs will have to compete with other non-defense federal programs for any spending increases. The US is projected to reach the debt ceiling in June, forcing either Congress to raise the debt ceiling or the country to default on its debts.<\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the House Appropriations Committee already released the details of the House Agriculture spending bill. Overall, the bill decreases funding for agriculture programs by around 2%. House appropriators propose $1.746 billion for the Agricultural Research Service, a slight increase of $1.2 million over FY 2023 levels. The summary from the Republican majority notes that this includes increases for high-priority initiatives and reduces funding for climate hubs and climate change research. The National Institute of Food and Agriculture receives $1.692 billion for the National Institute of Food and Agriculture, a decrease of $9.5 million. This includes an increase of $5 million for the Agriculture and Food Research Initiative, the USDA\u2019s main competitive research grants program. House appropriators also propose cutting climate and equity programs in the Natural Resources Conservation Service.<\/p>\n

On the Senate side, Appropriations Chair Patty Murry (D-WA) and Ranking Member Susan Collins (R-ME) announced that their committee will start releasing spending bills in June.<\/p>\n

Read more:<\/u><\/p>\n