Navigating Water Policy after Sackett v EPA

Sept 22, 2023 O'Connell Conference at the University of Oregon Law School

Panelists: Professor Adell Amos, Professor Adam Ward (Oregon State University)
Moderator: Professor Greg Dotson

[nnnikola]

this is incredibly insightful and kinda terrifying. I heard of this case from my environmental policy class but they didn’t even get close to conveying how significant of an impact this decision had on the CWA aside from “some wetlands are not protected anymore”

[jamesp]

Based on the oral arguments, the government attorney had no idea what the 'science' was or how to create a legal rule around the science. Namely the line of questions around 1: how far from a stream should the EPA be able to regulate and 2: how is a non-lawyer / non-scientist supposed to get this information. The justices interpreted that answers provided as the government does not know.

[edwardhenderson]

It was not a wetland. IT had no permanent water contact with a navigable water way. This was private land. The EPA does not deprive one of their liberty, their property, and more importantly their due process. We have a constitutional republic not an Oligarchical Administrative state. It is the government of the people, for the people, and by the people. According to these people every time you take a piss, every time rain runs off of your roof onto your lawn and makes it to the water table you are in violation of CWA. Remember it was scientists that brought you covid and then all the ensuing mitigation. These are the exact kinds of tyrants that the founding fathers warned us about. These are the experts that will save you from yourself. Do these people look like or sound like people that you want to trust with your property and liberty. How about we take a vote as to what to do with their personal property? I assure you they will then acknowledge the Constitution of this republic and want all the rights afforded to the individual.