Shit that annoys you

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

Today’s Supreme Court ruling is pretty annoying if you care about clean water:

One last time: “Adjacent” means neighboring, whether or not touching; so, for example, a wetland is adjacent to water on the other side of a sand dune. That congressional judgment is as clear as clear can be—which is to say, as clear as language gets. And so a clear-statement rule must leave it alone. The majority concludes otherwise because it is using its thumb not to resolve ambiguity or clarify vagueness, but instead to “correct” breadth.

Kagan is clear that the conservative majority is rewriting the words of Congress not because of any ambiguity—there isn't any—but simply because they believe the current wetlands rules go too far.

https://jabberwocking.com/supreme-co...wetlands-case/

---

What’s annoying is that we have a Judicial branch of the government that for all practical purposes has no oversight or accountability. They answer to no one once they’re seated on the court.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Activist judges.

Technically they could be impeached - which I think happened once - but ya, the disconnect between most of the justices and real life is beyond comprehension

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn

What’s annoying is that we have a Judicial branch of the government that for all practical purposes has no oversight or accountability. They answer to no one once they’re seated on the court.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

---

careful, you'll hurt their feelings...

I get it but the NWI is inaccurate in locations much like the the regulatory floodway in my work. Regulating what people can do on their private property with low resolution data has always been problematic.

Looking forward to the days we work off super high resolution mapping that is constantly updated for accuracy. In the meantime we will keep fighting over bullshit politics.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by riser4

Activist judges.

---

Add that to the list of things that are projected onto others but are what they really wanted for themselves

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple

I get it but the NWI is inaccurate in locations much like the the regulatory floodway in my work. Regulating what people can do on their private property with low resolution data has always been problematic.

Looking forward to the days we work off super high resolution mapping that is constantly updated for accuracy. In the meantime we will keep fighting over bullshit politics.

---

Isn't the NWI just a tool to figure out where to look for wetland and do an on the ground survey? I've never seen a project use NWI as an official delineation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldnew_guy

Isn't the NWI just a tool to figure out where to look for wetland and do an on the ground survey? I've never seen a project use NWI as an official delineation.

---

Reading the case now but I can tell you the main point of argument is the "significant nexus" test and the aggregate industry not agreeing that utilizing that material on inland wetlands violates the clean water act.

It seems the EPA shut down their partially completed project based on the NWI maps and then the fight got ugly when the property owner's consultants disagreed with the mapping. They probably didn't win over the EPA because the fill was already there and the consultants couldn't prove it without removing it to show pre-construction ground.

I would fight the EPA also if I had a similar issue. I would probably be a bit smarter about doing my due diligence on regulatory mapping first though ;)

If you disagree with a law, change it. Don’t cry to judges you’ve bought and paid for.

Edit the other point of contention is an "adjacent" road (built by others) that may or may not have changed the natural hydrology of the system. Again the aggregate industry probably jumped on that one.

Groundwater is a concept lost on about 99% of the population. If you can't see it you can't grasp how it works. It's barely a mappable phenomenon due to spatially variable sub surface conditions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple

Reading the case now but I can tell you the main point of argument is the "significant nexus" test and the aggregate industry not agreeing that utilizing that material on inland wetlands violates the clean water act.

It seems the EPA shut down their partially completed project based on the NWI maps and then the fight got ugly when the property owner's consultants disagreed with the mapping. They probably didn't win over the EPA because the fill was already there and the consultants couldn't prove it without removing it to show pre-construction ground.

I would fight the EPA also if I had a similar issue. I would probably be a bit smarter about doing my due diligence on regulatory mapping first though ;)

---

My only point is that NWI isn't a wetland delineation. It's just a tool to help you identify that there might be one.

Even with this ruling it seems like you are going to still use NWI to trigger an actual delineation and determination if it is connected to surface waters.

Can I join your 1%? Is this creek properly mapped? Did I almost get stuck due to ground water or surface water mucking up the road.https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...27c0794bc9.jpghttps://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...c970f57a99.jpg

Sent from my Turbo 850 Flatbrimed Highhorse

We just finished this quarry reclamation. Soon to be wetlands. Next step is to get the water table higher by flattening the adjacent river bed slope.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/202...0ae7e815c8.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldnew_guy

My only point is that NWI isn't a wetland delineation. It's just a tool to help you identify that there might be one.

Even with this ruling it seems like you are going to still use NWI to trigger an actual delineation and determination if it is connected to surface waters.

---

I get that. What made the Corps shut down the site then? If a 404 wasn't applied for then the most likely source for their jurisdiction was the NWI right? News sources I found said that EPA didnt talk to the press about the case or why they posted a $34k a day fine. Turned into a battle between two cunts most likely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simple

Groundwater is a concept lost on about 99% of the population. If you can't see it you can't grasp how it works. It's barely a mappable phenomenon due to spatially variable sub surface conditions.

---

Yeah, it takes a very complicated and expensive model to approximate what is happening underground. Governments are only going to invest in that where absolutely necessary.

I’m not going to pretend that I’ve read the whole judgment, and I probably wouldn’t understand most of the legalese anyway.

But my understanding of the problem here, from reading people who follow the court, isn’t that the case was decided in the plaintiffs favor - it was a unanimous decision. The issue is that the majority overreached in a way that sets a new precedent that eliminates the EPA’s ability to regulate wetlands unless it they are directly connected to the a main body of water.

That was never the case previously, it contradicts verbiage that was specifically included by congress when writing the law, and as the judges in the minority showed, it was entirely possible to rule in favor of the plaintiffs without handcuffing the EPA.

Sure. But if one of your philosophical goals is the dismantling of the administrative state...

In my neighborhood, somewhere between 15-30% of the houses put anything out on recycling day. Some mornings, I’m the only one and I have to check my calendar to see if I got the day wrong.
Then on trash day it’s like Dec 26 with huge piles of cardboard everywhere.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by J. Barron DeJong

I’m not going to pretend that I’ve read the whole judgment, and I probably wouldn’t understand most of the legalese anyway.

But my understanding of the problem here, from reading people who follow the court, isn’t that the case was decided in the plaintiffs favor - it was a unanimous decision. The issue is that the majority overreached in a way that sets a new precedent that eliminates the EPA’s ability to regulate wetlands unless it they are directly connected to the a main body of water.

That was never the case previously, it contradicts verbiage that was specifically included by congress when writing the law, and as the judges in the minority showed, it was entirely possible to rule in favor of the plaintiffs without handcuffing the EPA.

---

It used to be that judges, including SCOTUS, limited their rulings and opinions to those necessary to resolve the case at hand. Now the current Court seems to be looking to go far beyond the issues raised by an actual case to make new law. There is a lot more of this to come regarding the regulatory agencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

It used to be that judges, including SCOTUS, limited their rulings and opinions to those necessary to resolve the case at hand. Now the current Court seems to be looking to go far beyond the issues raised by an actual case to make new law. There is a lot more of this to come regarding the regulatory agencies.

---

Yep. Like I said...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

Sure. But if one of your philosophical goals is the dismantling of the administrative state...

---

Never forget that there are people within federal agencies that want to dismantle the system. I wouldn't trust anyone if I worked there. They are the new confederacy that works within.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jm2e

In my neighborhood, somewhere between 15-30% of the houses put anything out on recycling day. Some mornings, I’m the only one and I have to check my calendar to see if I got the day wrong.
Then on trash day it’s like Dec 26 with huge piles of cardboard everywhere.

---

In Seattle you can actually get fined for putting recyclables in your trash. Not sure how much it's enforced, but as a general rule people recycle. The city has incentivized this by giving everyone a 96 gallon recycle bin, but charge for garbage based on the size of the bin (with recycling always included in the total price). I think this makes a huge difference.

So no line item for the recycling bin, just the garbage bin? That’s a good incentive. Perceived at least.

In Portland our recycling and compost comes every week, and trash only every other week. You can also just leave flattened cardboard on the curb for pickup, it doesn't have to fit in your bin.

SF charges for all three. I think the cost is slightly higher for the black garbage bin. Most of the trash guys act like card board is radioactive and won’t touch it. If your collector is nice, he will take it if flattened…maybe. But in general, I see a lot of cardboard strewn around on trash day. And if it’s more than a couple flats and they aren’t bundled together, forget it.

I think the recycling here has become a bit performance art. Most of the stuff gets discarded as unusable. The stuff that’s not high value gets sent off to some third world country that’s burns a ton stuff they don’t want so sometimes the landfills seem like a better option from the get