Search

Nearly ninety percent of New Mexico’s rivers and streams potentially have been removed from federal protection under the Clean Water Act following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Sackett v. EPA to substantially reduce what qualify as “waters of the United States.” Before this decision, many ephemeral streams, tributaries, and wetlands were protected by the Environmental Protection Agency. Permits are essential to protect not only the environment but landowners as well. The New Mexico Environment Department is in the process of developing its own surface water discharge permitting program, as the EPA’s jurisdiction contracted commensurately with the Supreme Court’s new definition of “waters of the United States.” The New Mexico Environment Department and water conservationists worry that without a permitting process, many bodies of water in New Mexico and the United States would be left unprotected, allowing unregulated discharge of harmful pollutants into waters on which the public relies for drinking water, agriculture, recreation, and ecological stability. But is requiring a permit enough to protect the waters of New Mexico? How would obtaining a permit through the state protect waters in New Mexico from those who, either intentionally or unintentionally, discharge pollutants into waters outside of New Mexico that flow into the state? Does the interpretation of “waters of the United States” in Sackett only apply to wetlands? This Note addresses the local problems created by the Sackett decision and offers possible solutions to the lack of protection for states like New Mexico with dry and arid climates. It proposes that it is not enough for the New Mexico Environment Department to create its own permitting process—to truly protect our most precious resource, Congress needs to correct the Court’s mistake and enact an improved definition of “waters of the United States” in the Clean Water Act itself. Congress cannot continue to ignore the reoccurring problem of the Court’s intrusion into environmental regulation. Leaving the interpretation of the Clean Water Act to the United States Supreme Court has proven to be a critical error. The time to act was decades ago, and the consequences of Congress’s inaction are at New Mexico’s doorstep. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on legal disputes involving environmental regulations and resource management. It discusses the challenges faced by San Francisco in contesting vague narrative permit conditions under the Clean Water Act, arguing they fail to specify compliance measures adequately. It examines the Mandan, Hidatsa, and Arikara Nation's litigation against the Bureau of Land Management over drilling permits near Lake Sakakawea.

Problems with clean water in coastal areas alongside an increase in population and community economic activities have diversified community activities. Coastal settlements bordering the high seas are characterized as arid areas with a lack of clean water. Here, the use of the range groundwater supply against seawater intrusion means that the water consumed by the community tastes salty and brackish. The availability of abundant seawater, processed through desalination technology, can be used to meet the daily clean water needs of coastal communities. Sustainable development goal (SDG) 6 Water and Sanitation is concerned with ensuring that everyone has access to clean water and sanitation. In this regard, desalination technology is considered viable to achieve the SDGs in the environmental sector. Some countries have focused on using desalination technology to achieve target 6.4 by 2030. This goal aims to improve the efficiency of water use to reduce the number of people experiencing clean water scarcity by ensuring a sustainable supply of fresh water. The objective of this study is to examine the application of seawater desalination technology for clean water in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Indonesia, and identify the implications of desalination policies in these countries. Comparative studies were conducted using secondary data and literature studies on transforming seawater into clean water with technology. KSA applies seawater desalination technology to meet water needs. However, in Indonesia, policymaking has not holistically examined the potential of using seawater desalination technology for clean water. Until now, unlike in the KSA, Indonesia has not addressed the importance of the use of desalination technology in state policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues on the role of the Clean Water Act (CWA) in the regulation of light pollution and preservation of the nation's waters by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Topics discussed include damage caused by artificial light at night (ALAN) to marine and wetland ecosystems, state and local regulation of light pollution, classification of ALAN as pollutant under the CWA, and regulatory overreach with respect to greenhouse gases in the case West Virginia v. EPA.

This Article reviews the history of CWA Section 401 and finds that it supports affording EPA’s newest interpretive rule Chevron deference. The CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification Improvement Rule serves as an important case study of the doctrine which faces mounting criticisms and two cases challenging its legality in the Supreme Court at the time of this publication. Although its application delegates lawmaking authority to unelected officials who change policies with the tides of each election, this delegation has been necessary in many areas of the law due to Congress’s failure to act in recent years. Instead of simply surrendering the interpretation of ambiguous statutes to the judiciary, CWA Section 401 exemplifies the determination of deference owed to an agency’s interpretation through a close analysis of Congress’s intent, the agency’s previous actions, and the statutory language itself. Without addressing the merits of challenges to Chevron deference or predicting their outcomes, this Article reviews the legislative, rulemaking, and judicial history of CWA Section 401 and concludes that its history supports deference to the new rule when it is challenged in court. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the impact of the Supreme Court's decision in Sackett v. EPA on the definition and regulation of "Waters of the United States" (WOTUS) and the future of wetlands protection. Topics include the judicial history of WOTUS interpretations, the narrowing of federal authority over wetlands following the Sackett ruling, and the critical need for state-level action to safeguard wetlands no longer protected under the Clean Water Act.