'If the Supreme Court excludes Clean Water Act protections from major wetlands and other waters,' one climate group warned, 'the damage to water quality, flood control, and wildlife habit would be severe.'
Critics of the Sacketts' case and their proposed definition of protected waters argue that the narrower interpretation of the Clean Water Act wouldof U.S. waters and wetlands of federal protections, imperiling drinking water, Indigenous sites, and wildlife.
"This decision will be nothing short of a life-or-death sentence for coho salmon, razorback suckers, California tiger salamanders, and hundreds of other endangered animals that rely on ephemeral and intermittently flowing streams and wetlands,"amicus brief submitted earlier this year, a group of senators including Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Bernie Sanders argued that"the industry-funded and industry-promoted arguments made" by the Sacketts and their backers"have been repeatedly rejected by the court, and would empower and enrich polluting corporations at the expense of public health, welfare, and the environment."
"The court should refuse to participate in this industry-driven project," the brief continued."Reversals of precedent that reek of politics, and are advanced by thinly-disguised but highly motivated industry front groups, create a 'stench' that is likely to undermine the public's remaining faith in the court."