The recent decision in the Sackett v. EPA case by the Supreme Court has sowed confusion among landowners in three states: Michigan, New Jersey, and Florida. These states, which handle federal permitting on their soil, are reportedly struggling to understand the breadth of wetlands regulations following the high court’s ruling.
State officials and people closely observing the situation have noted that these states serve as early examples of the challenges other places may face in response to the Sackett ruling.
Related story: Supreme Court Rules Against EPA in WOTUS Case
Many states are in a holding pattern, waiting for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to amend its definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (WOTUS) to take into account the court’s ruling.
Meanwhile, EPA announced that it will only seek public input after it has adjusted its rule about federal waters.
This move has been criticized by House Republicans who, during a recent hearing, accused the EPA of potentially circumventing the ruling. They argue that the agency may try to maintain federal jurisdiction over as many wetlands as possible and could be keeping the public uninformed during the decision-making process.
