Waters of the United States

[lpskier]

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court today rejected the very expansive EPA definition of Waters of the Inited States as adopted during the Obama administration, repealed in the Trump administration and recently re-adopted in the Biden administration.  Good news for farmers, developers and water skiers, among others. 

[Wish]

This is huge.! Thanks for posting.!

[vtmecheng]

Just because this makes things easier for skiing doesn’t mean it is good for our communities or our wildlife. I’ll stop there since environment protection is some how a political debate instead of common sense.

[The_MS]

Lets talk politics 

😎

[Bruce_Butterfield]

Sure seems like waterski related politics, so that's allowed.  C'mon @The_MS how do you feel about it?

[The_MS]

Every skier on this board pees in the water every time they get in it. 

[rfa]

To be sure, the unanimous decision applied only to a specific site under litigation. The more "universal" rejection of the definition, was a 5-4  decision with Kavanaugh  joining the minority. (Of course the "I like beer" justice wants to protect the quality of its main ingredient...)
One can argue who/what benefits or is harmed by it. 

[MDB1056]

don't feed the beast...................

[Wish]

It was a federal government over reach by a looooong shot. If you are a land owner with a swell (low land) that could at some point fill with water but maybe not, the EPA owned it for the most part. Even if u lived 50 or more miles from the nearest lake, river or stream. Their argument for controlling it was that at some point waaaaaaay down deep in the earth, that swell with the occasional water in it could in fact reach those bodies of water in some mythical labyrinth of underground connections. This was never about protecting the environment. This was a a land grab of epic proportions through regulations. Now imagine if you did own a ski lake or lived on a lake or river. The EPA has plenty of power to keep the environment clean. But that’s just one guys opinion and understanding. There is a longer more detailed thread on this from yrs back. I applaud this decision and hope this type of federal over reach never surfaced again 

 

[Spencer_Shultz]

@Wish I’ll refrain from getting political but if you impact an area deemed as a wetland, it’s a nice hefty price tag. If my memory is correct, it’s like the price of a cash prize tournament entry fee for every foot of wetland impacted. 

[Wish]

Spenc…Yep true. Those rules are in the books already. Especially in FL. I’ve been involved with the EPA, State, County, City, Florida Lake Watch and the University of FL for 20 some odd years. Why..?..to best serve protect and preserve our lakes echo system and what surrounds it. We have had great success eradicating invasive aquatic plants, holding municipalities accountable to any construction around the lake, educating lake front owners in does and don’ts with shorelines and more. I know more about wetlands than I ever wanted to know. You’ve seen my place. 169 foot dock over wetlands that I pay big taxes on. Land I cannot touch. But I’m very much ok with that because it’s part of the lakes Echo system and it’s literally what keeps our lake crystal clear 12-15 feet down depending on the season. What’s not part of my lakes echo system is a ditch 25 miles away. But if the Feds get their wish, that ditch won’t belong to that land owner via regulations for something that is in no way wetlands. Feds wanted more …much more power. They want that ditch deemed wetlands or a perverse version of it. Overreach.