Thread by @ArielWittenberg

SCOTUS basically saw TRUMP #WOTUS and decided to *exclude more wetlands* from protections. I'll explain 1/

https://twitter.com/ArielWittenberg/status/1661736056524537856

The 5-4 decision by Alito finds wetlands are only protected if they are SO close to a bigger waterway and are SO wet that it is “difficult to determine where they ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.’”

If you recognize that wording, it's because it's a direct quote from Scalia's #WOTUS plurality in Rapanos.

Back in 2018, Trump EPA decided to write their #WOTUS rule to be in line with Scalia's opinion, despite the fact that it was NOT the controlling opinion in Rapanos. The result was their Navigable Waters Protection Rule

Here's the thing: We have a *really good* idea of how many wetlands would have lost protections under that rule because EPA accidentally gave me and @KevinBogardus their data in a #FOIA in 2018.

When they looked at federal datasets on rivers/streams and wetlands, they found some 51 percent of wetlands would lose protections under the rule they proposed

eenews.net/articles/epa-f…

But Alito actually goes FURTHER than the final Trump rule.

The Trump rule, for all of its exclusions, maintained protections that have been in place since the Regan administration to ensure that wetlands separated from nearby waterways by man-made structures (like roads or berms) to continue being covered by the Clean Water Act.

The Sackett dispute was over those kinds of wetlands. The wetlands on their property were separated from a bigger waterway by a 30-foot road.

Alito says they don't have a #WOTUS on their property anymore. He went farther than Andrew Wheeler and Trump.

He also goes further than Ronald Regan.

Making this a pretty spot-on #WOTUS take

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1661737614150623234?s=20

OK. So, what does this *actually mean* for wetlands? It means that developers, oil companies, farmers, etc. can now destroy 51 percent of the nation's wetlands without Clean Water Act permits that would normally require them to restore nearby wetlands to compensate for the damage

This ruling is saving those industries a TON of money. It repeals protections for wetlands everywhere, but that includes places like Alaska and North Dakota, where oil and gas companies have previously had to pay to compensate for their damages. No more.

Lots of animals are going to be harmed as a result. That would include wood storks in Florida and gopher frogs in North and South Carolina. Both rely on isolated wetlands for their feeding and habitats.

subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews…

Even mallards could be impacted--they typically rely on prairie potholes (relatively isolated wetlands not connected to nearby waterways!) for nesting. Those potholes are often located in areas sought after for oil and gas development in the central plains.

We also know what this opinion WILL impact larger bodies of water. Four years ago I went down to Louisiana to talk to a duck hunter who had seen conditions on the Mississippi River deteriorate as more prairie potholes were filled in thousands of miles away

That was a year of incredible flooding throughout the midwest. Without as many wetlands to absorb and slow flood waters, the Mississippi River rose, drowning out some wintering habitat for ducks, too.

eenews.net/articles/a-hun…

All of these impacts are part of why the EPA's Science Advisory Board slammed Trump EPA for its rule.

They said: "The science isn't right."

Alito's opinion today essentially resurrects it anyway.

subscriber.politicopro.com/article/eenews…

*correction, this was the Army Corps of Engineers that gave us the best FOIA ever.

Anyways, yes, I am still on maternity leave. So while I can't stay away from #WOTUS and will (obviously) be tweeting some thoughts, make sure to follow @eacrunden and @pamelalauren for @EENewsUpdates ' coverage!