Featured Post from Tulane University

Upcoming Supreme Court ruling could dramatically limit Clean Water Act, Tulane expert says

Jan 26, 2023

3 min

Haley Gentry

The U.S. Supreme Court could soon rule on a challenge to the Clean Water Act, dramatically affecting the quality of the nation’s waterways.


Haley Gentry, a water law expert at the Tulane University Law School, says that if the high court’s conservative majority curtails the scope of the law, states will have to navigate significant changes and overcome legal barriers to maintain protections for waters and wetlands.


The case, Sackett v. EPA, challenges federal authority to regulate certain waters and wetlands under the Clean Water Act. Filed 12 years ago, the litigation has touched on such topics as toxic pollution, states’ authority over land use and commercial development.


“Because a significant number of states have statutory or regulatory limitations within their water quality legislation, changes at the federal level could dismantle long-standing protections to waters and wetlands traditionally afforded by the Clean Water Act,” said Gentry, Senior Research Fellow at the Tulane Institute on Water Resources Law & Policy.


The Institute provides law and policy analysis to decision makers and the public to ensure that water and the ecosystems it supports are maintained for future generations while providing for the needs of people. It recently released a paper titled "Supreme Consequences: Anticipating Barriers to Clean Water Act Administration at the Federal and State Levels Following Sackett V. EPA." The paper was authored by Senior Research Fellow Haley Gentry under the supervision of Director Mark Davis and Assistant Director Christopher Dalbom.



The paper provides a legal analysis as it relates to the history of the Clean Water Act and current state water quality laws. The Institute found a variety of immediate and long-term challenges that would arise if the Court alters the standard for what constitutes “Waters of the United States,” or WOTUS, under the Clean Water Act. The discussion focuses on state-level water pollution laws, amicus briefs for Sackett, and administration of federal programs to shed light on how the coming decision could present challenges to maintaining existing protections.


“Because a significant number of states have statutory or regulatory limitations within their water quality legislation, changes at the federal level could dismantle long- standing protections to waters and wetlands traditionally afforded by the Clean Water Act and other programs that are tied to WOTUS,” Gentry said. “The main purpose is to inform stakeholders of potential outcomes and barriers to state regulation and related water quality issues.”


Heightened concerns over the effects of climate change, from natural disasters to water supply to public health, play a central role in the issues surrounding Sackett. Due to the wide variety of state approaches to water quality regulations, multiple questions could arise in the immediate aftermath of a Sackett decision that shrinks the scope of WOTUS.


For example, political approaches and responses will vary by state and branch of state government as evidenced by competing views among governor, legislators and agency leaders. Also, if the Court announces an opinion inconsistent with the newest Clean Water Act regulations, it would almost certainly by challenged by a coalition of states and regulated industries, Gentry said.


“Any action taken, whether it be protective legislation, assumption of federal programs, or a reduction in water quality protection, would create different outcomes both within states and across watersheds.


“Regardless of the outcome,” she said, “the coming decision will affect state and

federal governments’ ability to plan for a future riddled with environmental uncertainty.”



Connect with:
Haley Gentry

Haley Gentry

Senior Research Fellow

Gentry is an environmental law expert.

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Tulane University

2 min

Expert: TikTok lawsuit may spur new battleground over kids’ privacy

The Biden administration's lawsuit against TikTok for violating children's privacy rights isn't just another tech spat—it's a potential game-changer in protecting children online. The landmark case accusing TikTok of gathering personal information from users under the age of 13 without their parent’s permission could spark a global reckoning on kids' online safety. According to Tulane University tech ethics and legal expert Muira McCammon, the case is a bellwether for the future of children’s digital rights and whether the U.S. will strengthen lax data laws to make Big Tech accountable for any potential harm against younger users. “This TikTok lawsuit isn't just about one company's missteps—it's a watershed moment for children's digital rights. It signals that even tech giants aren't above the law when it comes to protecting minors online. The outcome could redefine how social media platforms handle young users' data globally, setting new standards for digital responsibility in an age of constant connectivity.” McCammon can discuss: • The vulnerability of U.S. data privacy laws, emphasizing the need for stronger regulations to protect young Americans online. • How the proposed Kids Online Safety Act, passed by the Senate, will strengthen reporting mechanisms and push social media platforms to disclose how they use minors' data. This new transparency alone may not drive real change in corporate practices. • How the legal battle between TikTok and the government underscores the ongoing power struggle between children seeking online freedom and parents striving to shield them from the perils of constant connectivity and targeted advertising. • How the case may trigger investigations into data handling practices at other companies and incentivize platforms to prioritize children's safety to maintain their user base, particularly among younger demographics. McCammon is an assistant professor of communication at Tulane University School of Liberal Arts. Contact Roger Dunaway, assistant director of media relations, for interviews at roger@tulane.edu.

2 min

National survey finds gender and partisan divides in perceptions of women's leadership abilities

A national survey from the Newcomb Institute at Tulane University has found that significant gender and partisan divides persist in perceptions of women's leadership abilities. While the majority of Americans do not believe men make better political leaders than women, there are stark differences in attitudes based on the gender and political ideology of respondents, according to the Institute’s forthcoming #MeToo Harassment Study 2024, which polled more than 3,000 U.S. adults earlier this year. The survey, conducted in partnership with the University of California at San Diego and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago, included questions related to domestic violence, sexual harassment and abuse in the past 12 months. It also asked participants how much they agree or disagree with the following statement: “On the whole, men make better political leaders than women do.” This item is used by the World Values Survey to assess this belief in other country contexts. Key findings include: • Only 12% of U.S. adults agree that men make better political leaders than women, far lower than the global average of 50%. • Men are more likely than women to believe that men make better political leaders than women do – 16% of men compared to 10% of women hold this belief. • There is a clear partisan divide, with 26% of very conservative respondents agreeing compared to only 5% of very liberal respondents. • Disagreement with the notion that men make better leaders is highest in progressive states like California, which has relatively higher representation of women in elected office, and lowest in more conservative states like Mississippi. "These findings are concerning, as persistent biases against women's leadership abilities can impede progress in achieving gender parity in political representation," said Anita Raj, executive director of the Newcomb Institute and professor of global public health at Tulane. Raj said gender inequality in political representation matters because elected female officials are more likely than their male counterparts to introduce and enact bills, and they are more likely to build legislation on key areas affecting women and families, such as childcare, healthcare, paid family leave and sexual harassment in the workplace. The full report, which will be released in September, will dive into experiences of sexual harassment in public and private spaces, including the workplace.

3 min

Rising sea temperatures are pushing Great Barrier Reef to brink

Rising sea temperatures are causing increasing signs of stress and threatening the existence of one of the world's most diverse and valuable marine ecosystems, Australia’s Great Barrier Reef, according to a new international study from a team of researchers that includes Tulane University coral reef expert Thomas DeCarlo. The assistant professor of oceanography at Tulane School of Science and Engineering analyzed historical temperature and bleaching patterns at the reef site using underwater drilling to collect coral core samples and CT scans to identify density variations and annual growth bands visible from when coral previously bleached and recovered. DeCarlo’s work, published this month in Nature, documents unprecedented levels of ocean heat leading to bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef, endangering a vital marine ecosystem. How is climate change threatening coral reefs across the globe? Corals are animals that live in symbiosis with photosynthetic algae inside their cells. These algae provide most of the energy corals need to survive. When water temperatures are abnormally warm, this symbiosis breaks down. The coral expels the algae, which is called bleaching. The coral turns white as you see the skeleton through the translucent tissues. While bleached corals are still alive, they begin to starve without their symbionts and may die if conditions don't improve quickly. What makes the Great Barrier Reef so unique — and how does it illustrate the urgency of rising sea temperatures? The Great Barrier Reef is the longest continuous reef in the world, near the center of reef biodiversity, with hundreds of coral species. It's a World Heritage Site and an icon for Australia. Key findings observed there include: - The high-temperature events of the past two to three decades are exceptional and unprecedented in the past four centuries. - There's strong statistical confidence that the highest temperature events causing devastating mass coral bleaching in the past decade have no parallel in at least the last 400 years. - We found some evidence of coral bleaching in the late 1800s, which wasn't previously known. - The frequency of mass bleaching has dramatically increased. From 1877 to 1982, there was almost a century between bleaching events. Since 1982, there have been seven mass coral bleaching events, occurring almost every other year recently. - The severity of bleaching has likely increased, and the short time between events doesn't allow for reef recovery. Why are coral reefs so important? Hundreds of millions of people depend on coral reefs for food, economic reasons and livelihood. Reefs also provide tourism revenue, as well as spiritual and aesthetic value. Ecologically, reefs protect shorelines by breaking waves and reducing erosion. As we lose live corals, reefs become flatter and less effective at breaking waves. Reef degradation also leads to loss of biodiversity, as many species depend on specific coral habitats. This impacts fisheries potential and has widespread effects on society and people around the world. How can we protect coral reefs from further damage? The primary action needed is reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Climate models show that the warming trend since the late 1800s is due to human activities. These models can simulate natural climate variability and demonstrate that the temperature events of the past two decades on the Great Barrier Reef would have been impossible without human CO2 emissions. The first step is to acknowledge that a problem exists. Unfortunately, there's still controversy around labeling the Great Barrier Reef as "in danger," despite clear scientific evidence of its deterioration and continued exposure to heat extremes. We need to agree on the danger the reef is in before we can make the hard choices necessary to reduce the speed of climate change. For more on DeCarlo’s work, visit The Sclero Lab at Tulane University. To schedule an interview, contact Stacey Plaisance with Tulane media relations, splaisance@tulane.edu or 504-247-1420.

View all posts
Powered by