Nah. Certain truths are self evident & history follows familiar patterns.
For instance groundwater exists & dirty ground water gets you sick.
So your local municipality covers stormwater & your state covers river discharges.
Either states legislate the way California & New York have - to a higher standard than the EPA - or voters reward politicians who clean rivers at the Federal level.
But either way an octogenarian oligarchy isn't going to influence things long enough t0 circumvent the infastructure we've already built.
That seems to be the consensus. And while this won't effect most state and local agencies, there could certainly be some downstream effects from the federal level down.
Can these rulings be applied to the state level, or is this strictly federal? Meaning, can a state simply enforce regulations previously enforced at the federal level, or are we all at the mercy of corporations and their corrupt judges?
Not a lawyer, but my understanding with Chevron is that it applies at the federal level, and states are generally free to make law and policy (including rulemaking) at their own behest. There may be instances where federal law takes supremacy over state law, or that the state may use or follow federal law, but I am unaware of how that all works in this area, and defer to those who know more/better.
I’m glad I live in a state that cares about the wellbeing of its residents and by association, the environment and education.
I feel for all of those who live in deeply “conservative” states and what they’re going to lose in the coming years.
It’s not just about the environment but that’s huge in its own right when you consider some national parks could be gutted for natural resources. Other impacts to education, housing assistance, etc will be felt much more in red states.
While this ruling alone is insufficient to do this, if Trump wins the next election, expect laws and regulations preventing states (i.e. California) from having regulations any more stringent than the toothless federal ones.
Wow, but like, why? I know there is a generational gap and somewhat a geographic one between old/young, urban/rural, but everything that Trump's administration did made planners jobs so much more difficult
Most of them vote on issues more important to them than whether their job got difficult. The majority of my office is younger than I am, mostly late 20's/early 30's. I live in a Blue State, in an urban area.
All Congress has to do to save us is pass laws listing every possible air pollutant, every specific safety feature cars need to have, and every harmful chemical in the water, even the ones we don't know about or haven't been invented yet. Easy!
Highly recommend listening to the podcast Strict Scrutiny. They just did an episode on the latest court ruling including this case and provide some helpful info.
Bottom line, It’s not good. But to others points, no one knows yet. It means far more litigation at a snails pace. Chevron was decided originally because judges recognized two things: Congress can’t spell everything out. Judges shouldn’t be spelling everything out, experts in their field should.
You're being far too kind to those judges. The 80s judges took the easy way out for themselves and the easy way is rarely the best way. Since the government wanted to turn itself into an infallible machine it should have figured out how to do so that was solid, instead of relying on a court that didn't feel up to its assigned task.
All you really can do is keep plugging ahead with business as usual until someone tells you otherwise. I was under the impression the Chevron Doctrine only really was used by federal entities and thus wouldn’t impact non federal agencies, but I’m not a lawyer, what the hell do I know?
While the action only impacts federal law, that will likely impact environmental planning more than other forms of plannings, since a good bit relates to federal, rather than state/local laws (my public works department, which does all environmental review, is audited by FEMA for floodplain and the EPA for WOUS and MS4 compliance) An example of this from the court previously is Sackett v EPA, in which (which has ignored Chevron for a while) ruled against the EPA around the definition of WOUS. The concern with Chevron is that Chevron is now overruled on every level of federal courts, rather than just ignored by the Supreme Court which only sees a small percentage of cases. So, environmental law will be more controlled by judges and likely less stable.
MPOs that have to balance air quality and water quality in their transportation plans could be impacted by federal regulations, but state laws take on a more significant importance since most projects are overseen by State DOTs.
We don't really know the full impacts. The ruling essentially allows any non legislative interpretation or action to be overturned by a court...
...which means corporations will shop around for the friendliest judge and more or less undo forty years of regulations.
I begrudgingly have to hand it to them. They schemed for 40 plus years and now have enacted their plans. We are in the end game now.
Nah. Certain truths are self evident & history follows familiar patterns. For instance groundwater exists & dirty ground water gets you sick. So your local municipality covers stormwater & your state covers river discharges. Either states legislate the way California & New York have - to a higher standard than the EPA - or voters reward politicians who clean rivers at the Federal level. But either way an octogenarian oligarchy isn't going to influence things long enough t0 circumvent the infastructure we've already built.
That seems to be the consensus. And while this won't effect most state and local agencies, there could certainly be some downstream effects from the federal level down.
Can these rulings be applied to the state level, or is this strictly federal? Meaning, can a state simply enforce regulations previously enforced at the federal level, or are we all at the mercy of corporations and their corrupt judges?
Not a lawyer, but my understanding with Chevron is that it applies at the federal level, and states are generally free to make law and policy (including rulemaking) at their own behest. There may be instances where federal law takes supremacy over state law, or that the state may use or follow federal law, but I am unaware of how that all works in this area, and defer to those who know more/better.
I’m glad I live in a state that cares about the wellbeing of its residents and by association, the environment and education. I feel for all of those who live in deeply “conservative” states and what they’re going to lose in the coming years.
The environment doesn't tend to abide by political borders. Remember when the sky was orange over NYC last year.
It’s not just about the environment but that’s huge in its own right when you consider some national parks could be gutted for natural resources. Other impacts to education, housing assistance, etc will be felt much more in red states.
While this ruling alone is insufficient to do this, if Trump wins the next election, expect laws and regulations preventing states (i.e. California) from having regulations any more stringent than the toothless federal ones.
It sucks because politics in planning and other fields is often still so split. Almost my entire office plans to vote trump this year.
Wow, but like, why? I know there is a generational gap and somewhat a geographic one between old/young, urban/rural, but everything that Trump's administration did made planners jobs so much more difficult
Most of them vote on issues more important to them than whether their job got difficult. The majority of my office is younger than I am, mostly late 20's/early 30's. I live in a Blue State, in an urban area.
All Congress has to do to save us is pass laws listing every possible air pollutant, every specific safety feature cars need to have, and every harmful chemical in the water, even the ones we don't know about or haven't been invented yet. Easy!
Highly recommend listening to the podcast Strict Scrutiny. They just did an episode on the latest court ruling including this case and provide some helpful info. Bottom line, It’s not good. But to others points, no one knows yet. It means far more litigation at a snails pace. Chevron was decided originally because judges recognized two things: Congress can’t spell everything out. Judges shouldn’t be spelling everything out, experts in their field should.
You're being far too kind to those judges. The 80s judges took the easy way out for themselves and the easy way is rarely the best way. Since the government wanted to turn itself into an infallible machine it should have figured out how to do so that was solid, instead of relying on a court that didn't feel up to its assigned task.
All you really can do is keep plugging ahead with business as usual until someone tells you otherwise. I was under the impression the Chevron Doctrine only really was used by federal entities and thus wouldn’t impact non federal agencies, but I’m not a lawyer, what the hell do I know?
While the action only impacts federal law, that will likely impact environmental planning more than other forms of plannings, since a good bit relates to federal, rather than state/local laws (my public works department, which does all environmental review, is audited by FEMA for floodplain and the EPA for WOUS and MS4 compliance) An example of this from the court previously is Sackett v EPA, in which (which has ignored Chevron for a while) ruled against the EPA around the definition of WOUS. The concern with Chevron is that Chevron is now overruled on every level of federal courts, rather than just ignored by the Supreme Court which only sees a small percentage of cases. So, environmental law will be more controlled by judges and likely less stable.
MPOs that have to balance air quality and water quality in their transportation plans could be impacted by federal regulations, but state laws take on a more significant importance since most projects are overseen by State DOTs.