Biden White House starts end run around Supreme Court WOTUS ruling

From the DAILY CALLER

Daily Caller News Foundation

By Bonner Cohen, Ph. D.
AUTHOR, FIXING AMERICA’S CRUMBLING UNDERGROUND INFRASTRUCTURE

At an April 23 “Water Summit” at the White House, the Biden administration announced a multi-agency plan reasserting the federal role in determining the future of wetlands in the wake of last year’s landmark Supreme Court Decision limiting Washington’s authority to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS).

The administration’s move on wetlands appears to be part of a concerted effort to get as many rules and regulations as possible in place by the end of the year, in the event there is no second Biden term.

In April, alone, the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued new rules setting stricter emissions standards for heavy-duty trucks, buses, and other vehicles by 2027, mandated steeper emissions cuts from new natural gas power plants and existing coal plants, and approved a California plan to mandate zero-emissions locomotives on all rail lines in the state by 2030, a move that could be adopted by like-minded states thereby crippling the nation’s vast freight rail network. Zero-emissions locomotives simply do not exist and are not likely to by the arbitrarily set deadline.

To these emissions-related climate policies can now be added to the White House’s effort to tighten federal control over lands and bodies of water. (RELATED: Biden’s EPA Says Sweeping Power Plant Regs Won’t Harm America’s Grid — Experts Are Saying The Exact Opposite)

“The America the Beautiful Freshwater Challenge: A Partnership to Conserve and Restore America’s Rivers, Lakes, Streams, and Wetlands sets a bold, new national goal to protect, restore, and reconnect 8 million acres of wetlands and 100,000 miles of our nation’s rivers and streams,” the White House said in a Fact Sheet.

“To achieve the new national freshwater protection goal and to ensure that our freshwater resources are protected for current and future generations as part of the America the Beautiful Freshwater Challenge, the Biden-Harris administration is also launching a new initiative that calls on states and other governments and entities, including Tribes, interstate organizations, cities, and local communities to advance their own policies and strategies for conserving and restoring America’s freshwater systems,” the White House said. “Over 100 inaugural members from across the country have signed on to support freshwater restoration in their communities, including ten states, eight Tribes, and 24 local governments.”

The initiative can be seen as part of the administration’s larger “30X30” plan, a scheme unveiled in January 2021 to “protect” at least 30% of the nation’s land and water by 2030. That plan was later dubbed “America the Beautiful,” a phrase that has now been incorporated in the new “America the Beautiful Freshwater Challenge.”

The 30X30 plan has run into stiff resistance at the state and local level, where many rural community leaders fear it will bring federal control over land and water use decisions, as well as pose a threat to property rights.

For its part, the White House makes no secret that its latest wetlands initiative is in response to the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Sackett v. EPA, “which dramatically reduced federal protections for wetlands in one of the largest judicial rollbacks of environmental protections in U.S. history.”

In truth, the High Court clarified — at long last — the vague language of the 1972 Clean Water Act that had hitherto allowed EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to claim regulatory jurisdiction over millions of acres of wetlands and other isolated bodies of water with no direct connection to ”navigable waters of the United States.” The Supreme Court’s decision pulled the legal rug out from under the Biden administration’s plans to impose federal zoning on millions of acres of private and public land across the U.S under the guise of protecting wetlands.

Other than announcing it will spend over $1 billion to improve drinking water quality on Tribal lands, $11 million to combat Western megadroughts, $70 million to upgrade dams, culverts, levees, and other water infrastructure and $123 million for the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to expand its coastal management programs, the White House was vague about how it plans to reassert jurisdiction over wetlands. Administration officials must know that any move they make that violates the will invite a flood of lawsuits.

Having proclaimed it is taking an “all of government” approach to what it says is a “climate crisis,” the Biden team is simply practicing what it preaches. All these moves will face stiff legal challenges in any event, so why not push the envelope on putting wetlands back under EPA’s control?

Bonner Russell Cohen, Ph. D. is a senior policy analyst with the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

4.9 18 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
52 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
May 6, 2024 6:17 am

How far is the Biden administration from: “You will own nothing and be happy”?

Reply to  Steve Case
May 6, 2024 6:29 am

November 5, 2024.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  Steve Case
May 6, 2024 6:31 am

What makes you think they want anyone to be happy?

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
May 6, 2024 9:25 am

I think the “be happy” bit is more of a threat than a desire

Reply to  Redge
May 6, 2024 10:47 am

In the end, Winston Smith loved Big Brother.

Reply to  Scarecrow Repair
May 6, 2024 4:21 pm

Kamala will giggle for you when she takes office after Joe leaves the building.

Streetcred
Reply to  doonman
May 6, 2024 4:42 pm

Joe has long left the planet.

The Expulsive
May 6, 2024 6:56 am

Electric trains do exist, but not battery ones. Even if they mandate electrical trains, they will not be zero emission, unless a magic wand is used to proclaim (pretend) that there are no emissions from the sourcing the materials, to making the electricity. Also, the costs to electrify the rails would be astronomical.

MyUsername
Reply to  The Expulsive
May 6, 2024 7:29 am

True, how should the US be able to do what India, China and most of Europe have done.

What’s next? Public Transport, walkable cities and cycling infrastructure. Where will it end?

Mr Ed
Reply to  MyUsername
May 6, 2024 7:44 am

India went from steam powered rail in the 1980’s to electrified in the past few
years. In 2023 India imported over $100Billion dollars worth of oil just for
the rail system, the electrical power for the rail is coal fired…

Reply to  Mr Ed
May 6, 2024 8:03 am

All their trains are electric? I’ve seen videos of their trains- didn’t look like electric- and every car was extremely over packed with people- and people on the roofs and hanging out the doors. Got any evidence of all these electric trains in India?

You say they imported 100 B for oil for the rail system- then you say the rail is coal fired? Please explain.

Idle Eric
Reply to  MyUsername
May 6, 2024 7:56 am

The UK has about 38% of its network electrified, that’s after about 75 years, France is at 55%, Germany 61%, Spain 63%.

Plus there’s the technical problem that if any part of the route isn’t electrified, you can’t use an electric train, which in practice means that most freight (if not all) is transported by diesel in the UK anyway.

But sure, let’s achieve 100% electrification in six years, it’s certainly no more delusional than most “net-zero” ideas.

Dave Andrews
Reply to  MyUsername
May 6, 2024 9:11 am

Network Rail, which runs the rail network in the UK, put forward a plan to electrify large portions of its network a couple of years back. The cost was £30 billion. The Treasury said no.

Idle Eric
Reply to  Dave Andrews
May 6, 2024 10:57 am

£30 billion “cost”, about the same as HS2 was supposed to cost, so £100 billion+ in reality, and large parts of it would never happen anyway.

Reply to  MyUsername
May 6, 2024 9:28 am

True, how should the US be able to do what India, China and most of Europe have done.

What on earth are you talking about?

The Expulsive correctly stated:

Electric trains do exist, but not battery ones.

Unless you have evidence that India, China and most of Europe are indeed using battery-powered trains.

Scarecrow Repair
Reply to  MyUsername
May 6, 2024 10:15 am

Do you really think that thousands of miles of track across Nevada and other extremely rural areas can be safely and reliably electrified?

You sound like one of those dummies who whines the US ought to have convenient high speed rail across the continent, or subways in every single city, regardless of population density.

You also sound like one of those dummies whose left side of their mouth is whining about greedy capitalists so hungry for money that they miss no opportunity to stomp on the poor, while the right side of their mouth is whining that stupid capitalists can’t see the money opportunities right in front of them to build high speed rail which no one will use.

Grow up.

Reply to  MyUsername
May 7, 2024 5:43 am

Like most of these deluded people, User lives in an imaginary world where everyone lives the same lives, wants the same things, and things get built by magic. I wonder if it (User) knows how things like “walkable cities”, or even regular ones get built. I am unaware of any zero-emissions construction and distribution on any reasonable scale.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  The Expulsive
May 6, 2024 8:37 am

Every time an unintended animal or insect encounter with the electrified rails occurs, the CO2 rises from the ashes.

Mr Ed
May 6, 2024 6:59 am

The new EPA regulations have generated some discussion among the politicians here
in MT. =====>

https://www.ktvq.com/news/local-news/montana-congressional-delegation-concerned-that-epa-rule-is-bad-for-colstrip

The new regulations will require the Colstrip power plant to reduce it’s mercury emissions
via MATS—Mercury and Air Toxic Standards.

“The EPA emissions standards created for Colstrip Power Plant are unrealistic at best,” Rosendale said in a news release. “Furthermore, accusing Colstrip of cheating the system for producing too much mercury while the naturally occurring mercury in the Yellowstone River far exceeds the amount of mercury Colstrip produced is disingenuous. This is just another example of the EPA’s overreach targeting Montana’s businesses, economy, and citizens by creating emissions standards that are out of touch with scientific findings and the real-life impact.”

I think Stalin must be smiling at what Biden is sending out of DC thru the EPA.

MyUsername
May 6, 2024 7:40 am

So cfact is in favour of the conservation and restoration plan, I assume?

pillageidiot
Reply to  MyUsername
May 6, 2024 11:56 am

River through a Democrat run city – full of litter, needles, shopping carts, and old tires.

River through private property with only private ownership upstream – mostly free of litter, with almost zero hazardous waste.

Why do you advocate for the former?

Reply to  pillageidiot
May 6, 2024 2:56 pm

Username wants people to be able to walk to the nearest needle.

Reply to  MyUsername
May 6, 2024 1:44 pm

One sure way of destroying rivers (or anything for that matter), is to have a Biden or other Democrat administration involved.

SteveZ56
May 6, 2024 7:49 am

Biden’s PPP = Puddle Protection Plan.

Giving_Cat
Reply to  SteveZ56
May 6, 2024 10:58 am

In Wokeachusetts “Vernal Pools” are more commonly called “Wicked Big Puddles.”

May 6, 2024 8:00 am

Wokeachusetts, I think, had the first state wetlands laws- which they regulate, fanatically. I think the EPA got its wetland ideas from this state. I was once walking to review a logging project with the state “service forester” who regulates logging. She has a master’s degree in wetland ecology- so every little wet spot to her is a wetland. So, we were walking along an old logging road- where that project left a small rut in that road. We were walking in late winter as the snow was melting. It filled that old rut in the road. She saw that and chewed me out for not showing that “wetland” on the logging cutting plan! In another case, a different service forester called me to inform me that I forgot to list a vernal pool on a cut plan. I went to the location he gave me and found a wet spot the size of a bathtub. It was not a vernal pool- which have specific species of plants and wildlife. It was just a wet spot after a heavy rain. It’s because of this BS that I decided to retire after 50 years though I’m fully capable of working. What makes it worse is that most of the state forestry staff are very young, with little experience- and mostly appointed based on nepotism, cronyism, affirmative action- and especially if LGBT. And, of course, they are vastly overpaid. Every year that I did this work- they made the paper work more complicated. But all that extra paper work didn’t make the actual work any better- it just helped justify their jobs.

Giving_Cat
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 6, 2024 11:00 am

A clogged backyard drain can get your backyard classified a protected Vernal Pool. It is getting worse with intrusive survey drones.

Aetiuz
May 6, 2024 8:04 am

Always remember. Biden and the Dems hate you and hate America. They want you to suffer. Remember.

Duane
May 6, 2024 8:07 am

It sounds as if the Biden admin is trying to convince states and tribes to do the work they were doing on rulemaking, but that is just pablum for the enviros that will have little to no effect. The bottom line is that SCOTUS determined that the Feds have no jurisdiction over isolated wetlands, period. If states and tribes want to regulate that stuff, it’s up to them. In Florida State law is at least as restrictive as the former EPA/USACE rules, and the State has been managing wetlands preservation for decades. So nothing will change in Florida. Other states? If they did not already take on wetlands protection from the Feds, it’s likely because the state had no intention to duplicate or go beyond Federal rules, and so they are unlikely to suddenly enter on a wetlands regulating binge now post-Sackett.

May 6, 2024 10:06 am

What the AF is going on in that image? Either Biden’s handlers are *really* handling him, or he’s grown a second right hand. And that sheep don’t look too sheepish to me – more wolfy. A Sholf maybe? Canus Bleatus? AI images… perfect for creepypasta.

Beards
May 6, 2024 10:17 am

I’m a conservative that would support this. Waters and wetlands need protection. Wetlands are one of the most destroyed land types out there and they serve extremely important ecosystem roles. I’m all for it and wish Republicans would support it as well.

Duane
Reply to  Beards
May 6, 2024 11:10 am

It is a question of what the Federal Clean Water Act law says and what enviros say it should say. SCOTUS ruled that CWA does not authorize the Federal government to regulate isolated wetlands. If states want to regulate isolated wetlands, that is their prerogative.

Drake
Reply to  Duane
May 6, 2024 5:55 pm

And if they limit people’s use of their own property, they can be sued for the “taking” of the use of that property as protected by the US constitution.

The current SCOTUS, unlike ANY SCOTUS since the 50s, MIGHT rule in their favor with all court costs to be reimbursed.

Reply to  Beards
May 6, 2024 1:39 pm

Bye bye, Toledo.
Hello malaria!
(The Great Black Swamp)

Drake
Reply to  Gunga Din
May 6, 2024 5:56 pm

YEP, ignorant people don’t even know that Malaria was a BIG problem for the “pioneers” in the plains in the 1800s.

Drake
Reply to  Beards
May 6, 2024 5:52 pm

A TRUE conservative would have a clue about what this whole discussion is about.

Starting off with:

I’m a conservative that would support this.

Shows you are totally ignorant of WHAT “THIS” IS, and are therefore NO CONSERVATIVE.

Have you not read here at WUWT where the EPA stopped people from building on their own land because they had a “wetland” that did not EVER connect to ANY outflow at all, so could not pollute or effect any “Waters of the US”, meaning navigable waters.

There are POTHOLES all across the upper plains, created by large chunks of ICE left behind by the retreating glaciers that DO NO DRAIN TO ANY WATERCOURSE. And because a chunk of ice created a depression, you think the government should stop the property owner from filling it in, or conversely making it bigger.

Conservative organizations like Ducks Unlimited actually buy these features from their owners to help preserve the flyway. The envirowacos of the government want to TAKE the control of those features without just compensation in violation of the 4th amendment “takings” clause. And YOU are all for it.

No, Beards, you are in no way a conservative.

Reply to  Beards
May 7, 2024 9:57 am

Hi Beards,

I’m guessing you won’t respond. But what is a wetland? What needs protected?

How much money should one be required to spend to show that they don’t have any wetland to protect?

If you can’t respond to the the first two questions, without having to research or deflect, you should just admit you are emotionally driven and shut up.

Gregory Woods
May 6, 2024 10:28 am

‘the Biden Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’ better said: the Biden Protection Agency (BPA)

antigtiff
May 6, 2024 10:31 am

A large criminal organization is at work…..it is anti-democracy. It is for rule of criminals-not rule of law. It is for more government and taxes and regulation – not minimum government. It is for socialism – not free enterprise. It is for a woke military and weak national defense.

May 6, 2024 12:07 pm

The lawless Biden administration will forever attempt to thwart minor barriers such as negatiave court rulings or the original intent of Congress. In their mind this is justified because these actions are deemed necessary by bureaucratic experts for the benefit of society which, of course, is defined by them. What would we do without these unelected folks looking out for our benefit?

Reply to  Ollie
May 6, 2024 2:47 pm

deemed necessary by bureaucratic experts for the benefit of society

Where did you get that strange idea?

Bob
May 6, 2024 12:15 pm

Yet another example of bad government out of control. Nothing is more destructive than bad government out of control.

May 6, 2024 1:39 pm

The image at the top- goofing on Biden- funny. But I like to be fair and look at humor against all politicians since I dislike them all, so you should view:

Scared Ketchup’s 1 Year Anniversary Spectacular STAR WARS May the Fourth Be with You, AI Hope Hicks

Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
May 7, 2024 3:34 am

And I thought I’d get 100 thumbs down for this one. 🙂

May 6, 2024 2:52 pm

The US Constitution set up separation of powers. The Executive Branch was only to enforce what Laws the Legislative Branch (The Senate and The House of Representatives) had passed.
SCOTUS was to decide if those laws were within the limits of Government authority outlined in The Constitution and The Bill of Rights (whether that Law or, now, Executive Order, was “popular” or not.).
“Executive Orders” have been extremely abused. Time to reign them in. With consequences.
(If I had the time I’d look up Obama saying that if Congress didn’t go along with his “Existential Threat” (fill in the blank), he’d act without Congress.)
That is not what the Executive Branch is supposed to do.

Gregg Eshelman
May 6, 2024 5:27 pm

The only way to have a zero emissions locomotive is to put a nuclear reactor in it. Back to steam power!

ScienceABC123
May 6, 2024 5:28 pm

Remember the last Democrat President said he had a pen and a phone, and claimed that was all he needed.

Louis Hunt
May 6, 2024 9:18 pm

It would serve the President right if the EPA should declare his depends to be a protected wetland that cannot be touched to allow the rich biodiversity of bacteria and fungi to thrive in its protected habitat.

Reply to  Louis Hunt
May 7, 2024 10:18 am

Me: “The intake from the river is for cooling water. It isn’t discharged back to the river because it is 90 degrees. It is discharged into an excavated channel (originally an irrigation channel) and travels primarily in excavated channels (but also concrete lined & pipe systems) approximately 10 miles to the other river.”

Corp of Engr hearings official: “The other river is jurisdictional … it is all connected … the entire channel(s) and all the water in the channels is under Federal jurisdiction.”

Local Corp regulator: “See, if it is ever connected to (or can be connected to) a water or the state at any point, during any flood event, we can call it jurisdictional.”

Me: “The drinking water here comes out of the first river ,,, and it is, after drinking water treatment, use, sewerage and then end treatment, discharged back into the second river after miles of water line, use, then miles of sewer line. Do you have jurisdiction of the water in my toilet.”

Local Corp regulator: “Yes, we can call it jurisdictional.”

True story.

(sad part is that the local guy is better than the last 3 guys before him)

MaroonedMaroon
May 7, 2024 8:56 am

Wetlands and malaria: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtcM4ippsI0&t=360s

‘- Canada?

May 7, 2024 11:46 am

If the House Republican leadership were serious about doing their constitutional duties, Joe Biden and every member of his cabinet and every executive agency bureaucrat that is flouting the law would be impeached. Biden and his cabinet and the management of every agency have sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution (the rule of law) and execute the laws passed by Congress. They are clearly and defiantly in violation of that constitutional responsibility, which qualifies at the very least as a “misdemeanor”, and may be a high crime (I think it is, you may not), and usurped legislative powers that belong exclusively to Congress by making “regulations.” Usurping power you are not explicitly granted by the governing legal documents (the Constitution) is a high crime. But with a razor-thin majority, Republican leadership is more concerned about retaining power than doing their duty. Power, rather than responsibility, is also the primary concern of Democrats. It’s fun to be governed by the people least suited to the responsibility.

Verified by MonsterInsights