Debt Ceiling Deal – a Slap in the Face to Environmental Justice Communities

House Republicans and the White House cut a deal that raised the debt ceiling and averted an economic crisis. The deal cuts spending for programs critical to environmental protections and our social safety net. In addition, the deal includes hastily negotiated changes to the National Environmental Policy Act. Historically, bills to raise or suspend the debt ceiling have been clean, reflecting the common interest we have in protecting our economy, but this deal comes riddled with policy provisions that continue to sacrifice our communities.

House Republicans held the entire economy hostage to advance an agenda that sacrifices the wellbeing of millions of Americans for the benefit of billionaires and oil and gas companies.

Among the concessions in the deal are revisions to the National Environmental Policy Act that will enable profit-driven industries to lead the environmental review process for their own projects. It also sets arbitrary, one-size-fits-all deadlines that are likely to encourage litigation while discouraging the upfront, public engagement and smart analysis that are essential to the success of needed infrastructure projects, including new clean energy projects.

In late May, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Sackett v U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, re-interpreting the Clean Water Act to eliminate longstanding protections for millions of acres of wetlands. Five Justices on this new conservative Court narrowed the definition of “waters of the United States” – often referred to as “WOTUS” – limiting the reach of the Act, one of the most successful, effective, and widely supported pieces of legislation ever codified in the United States.

The Court’s ruling comes five months after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued long-anticipated regulations clarifying the WOTUS definition. The Court’s decision to hear the Sackett case as EPA was finalizing its new regulation was highly unusual and marks the latest instance in which conservative Justices ignored traditional principles of judicial restraint in their haste to rewrite laws that protect people and the environment. The Sackett decision now creates tremendous confusion for regulators and the communities they protect, because it undercuts the legal foundation of the new science-based WOTUS regulation, as it applies to wetlands.

The Court’s decision rejects those concerns in favor of a deregulatory approach that serves industry interests at the expense of people downstream who depend on clean water for their health, livelihoods, and way of life.

The ongoing willingness of the conservative supermajority to disregard traditional principles of judicial restraint in service of a deregulatory, pro-industry, and anti-environment agenda, raises deep concerns about the future of other bedrock environmental laws. In the last two terms, the Supreme Court has issued decisions that severely restrict our ability to protect our waterways and combat climate change.

Edited for space. Source – Earthjustice.