Tulane environmental law experts available to discuss Supreme Court wetlands ruling

May 25, 2023

3 min

Haley GentryMark S. Davis

In a 5-4 decision this week, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the federal government’s authority to regulate certain waters and wetlands under the Clean Water Act.



The following environmental law experts at the Tulane Institute on Water Resources Law and Policy are available to speak on the wide-ranging implications of the Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency decision:


Haley Gentry, senior research fellow

hgentry@tulane.edu


Christopher J. Dalbom, assistant director and senior research fellow

cdalbom@tulane.edu


Mark Davis, director

msdavis@tulane.edu


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. Here is the Institute’s response to today’s ruling:


Today, the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision in the long-awaited Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency case. This decision removes federal protections for a significant portion of the nation’s wetlands, marking an end to regular Clean Water Act practices that date back to the 1970s. Justice Alito, writing for the Sackett v. EPA majority, sets forth what the Supreme Court deems the proper test for determining when a wetland is considered a “water of the United States” (WOTUS) and thus subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act. The Court reversed the 9th Circuit decision, holding that only wetlands with continuous surface connections are subject to the Act’s permitting requirements.


It has always clear that the Clean Water Act covers adjacent wetlands, but the standard employed to determine what “adjacent” means has been the subject of constant litigation and rulemaking. The Army Corps and EPA have been using a standard referred to as the “significant nexus” test for WOTUS determinations since the split decision in Rapanos v. United States in 2006. Rapanos dealt with a similar issue in Sackett, but no majority was reached— Justice Kennedy argued for a significant nexus standard, and Justice Scalia argued for a continuous surface connection test. Today, Justice Alito purports to adopt the “continuous surface connection” standard from the Rapanos but ultimately reconfigures the definition of adjacent to mean directly touching and adjoining. Going forward from today, only wetlands with a “continuous surface connection” that are “indistinguishable from waters of the United States” may be regulated. So, the now-regulated wetlands are not wetlands at all, simply the edges of the water bodies themselves. The Court takes this limitation to the extreme by indicating that any man-made or natural separation between a traditional WOTUS and a wetland will preclude regulation due to lack of a surface connection.


While there are questions of the practical application of this new standard, it likely means that any leveeing, road construction, berm, dune, etc. will remove federal protection for those wetlands. Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence in Sackett disagrees with the new standard. He uses the Mississippi River as an example of how serious the consequences of the decision might be. Wetlands are crucial for flood control. Wetlands also filter pollutants and improve water quality simply by existing. Allowing the unregulated filling and development of wetlands could have dire consequences in the Mississippi Valley and across the country.


The decision itself and its language invalidating the recent WOTUS rule will certainly cause regulatory confusion. And the majority opinion fails to account for variations due to climate change, droughts, when man-made constructions preclude jurisdiction, among others.


In the coming months, the impacts and responses at the state level will also cause uncertainty and confusion. Roughly half of the states rely on the federal government’s definition of WOTUS. Thus, a substantial amount of our nation’s wetlands will lose all protection. Some states may eventually pass legislation to regulate wetlands in their borders. But many of these states have laws the prohibit regulating waterways and water quality more stringently than the federal government. It goes without saying that water does not follow political boundaries. States will take vastly different approaches without a sufficient federal floor for wetland protection, and the impacts will be felt throughout watersheds. Today’s opinion represents a huge setback in our efforts to protect habitats, improve water quality, and combat flooding. Climate change impacts are only becoming more severe, and this attack against federal environmental law and agency authority will have tremendous consequences.


The Tulane Institute on Water Resources Law & Policy will continue to research and publish on this matter and identify ways in which this decision will affect our nation’s health as well as ways in which protections can be restored at local, state, and federal levels.


Connect with:
Haley Gentry

Haley Gentry

Senior Research Fellow

Gentry is an environmental law expert.

Mark S. Davis

Mark S. Davis

Senior Research Fellow

Professor Davis specializes in water resource management and stewardship.

Wetlands ConservationEnvironmental LawWater Resource Management

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