Chevron Deference Overruled

[SharkTanked]

I have mixed feelings. Philosophically, I agree from a separation of powers and constitutional perspective. I can appreciate rolling back some of the power of the Executive. 

OTOH, I fear unintended consequences and our lack of ability to adapt quickly will have more dramatic and destructive results than we anticipate. Could have global ramifications. 

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:54 PM, SharkTanked said:

H2O in USA

How about a dry creek bed that only runs during a 50 year flood?

[SharkTanked]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:58 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

How about a dry creek bed that only runs during a 50 year flood?

Kinda H2O in USA.

[Orange]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:57 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

So why is it that we’ve had 6 markedly different agency definitions of ‘water of the united States’ within the last 20 years? Does the science change year and flip flop drastically year to year?

I don’t know, dude, ask your local federal judge.   Clearly, they’re the experts.  

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:58 PM, SharkTanked said:

Kinda H2O in USA.

So why is it that these ‘career scientists’ change their view of what ‘H2O in USA’ means every 4 years?

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/28/2024 at 3:00 PM, Orange said:

I don’t know, dude, ask your local federal judge.   Clearly, they’re the experts.  

I’d prefer to ask the local judge.  At least whatever definition we get will have some precedential value and we can begin to have some certainty on the law.  

[SharkTanked]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:01 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

So why is it that these ‘career scientists’ change their view of what ‘H2O in USA’ means every 4 years?

Job security?

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/28/2024 at 3:04 PM, SharkTanked said:

Job security?

Probably so.  Constant work reinventing the wheel.  Unfortunately for development, no one wants to invest with high uncertainty.  If I don’t know for certain whether I can or can’t put my wind turbine in a piece of ground because it may or may not be a water of the USA because we change our mind every 4 years; why am I ever going to take that risk to generate the carbon free energy in the area?

[Orange]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:02 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

I’d prefer to ask the local judge.  At least whatever definition we get will have some precedential value and we can begin to have some certainty on the law.  

That’s just a straight-up BANANAS answer.  
 

Our ecology and our planet is dynamic.  Demanding some grey-suit definition that never waivers with regard to a matter that is dynamic is not workable in real life.  

[Orange]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:06 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

Probably so.  Constant work reinventing the wheel.  Unfortunately for development, no one wants to invest with high uncertainty.  If I don’t know for certain whether I can or can’t put my wind turbine in a piece of ground because it may or may not be a water of the USA because we change our mind every 4 years; why am I ever going to take that risk to generate the carbon free energy in the area?

Yea, all these “investors” are just trying to put wind turbines in the ground while mean ‘ol environmentalists want to stop them.   It’s not copper mines dumping sludge in creeks and West Virginia coal companies lopping off mountain tops and draining waste into drinking water.  

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/28/2024 at 3:13 PM, Orange said:

That’s just a straight-up BANANAS answer.  

I’ve seen your style on here by perusing recent threads. It’s a resort to a lot of name calling and personal attacks for persons who don’t hold your views rather than providing a substantive and thought provoking response.  I sincerely hope that isn’t your legal style as well but I am certainly well acquainted with that ineffective legal approach.  But something that they say about zebras and stripes…

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/28/2024 at 3:16 PM, Orange said:

Yea, all these “investors” are just trying to put wind turbines in the ground while mean ‘ol environmentalists want to stop them.   It’s not copper mines dumping sludge in creeks and West Virginia coal companies lopping off mountain tops and draining waste into drinking water.  

Yes.  I’ve represented multiple wind developers whose projects were entirely stopped because of threat of environmental litigation.  

[Billings]

On 6/28/2024 at 2:18 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

Yes.  I’ve represented multiple wind developers whose projects were entirely stopped because of threat of environmental litigation.  

The million dollar question is was there a real threat?   Sometimes there is and the developers want to go ahead anyway $$$.  I question a judges ability to measure and understand a threat or non-threat in any real detail.    Judge Roberts did say this was only going forward and not a backward rule.  So no impact on existing projects.

Rules often go too far and can be drafted to appease certain groups.  I agree with you on that and they keep encroaching.  However, sometimes they have to be tightened as we learn more about certain chemicals or past groundwater contamination for example. 

I just find it a very complex situation and I fear the pendulum swung too far with this decison.  It needed to come back some but wow

[OrediggerPoke]

On 6/28/2024 at 4:59 PM, Billings said:

The million dollar question is was there a real threat?   Sometimes there is and the developers want to go ahead anyway $$$.  I question a judges ability to measure and understand a threat or non-threat in any real detail.    Judge Roberts did say this was only going forward and not a backward rule.  So no impact on existing projects.

Rules often go too far and can be drafted to appease certain groups.  I agree with you on that and they keep encroaching.  However, sometimes they have to be tightened as we learn more about certain chemicals or past groundwater contamination for example. 

I just find it a very complex situation and I fear the pendulum swung too far with this decison.  It needed to come back some but wow

The threat was the years of delays the environmental groups legal challenges would bring.  This provided enough project risk that it wasn’t worth the investment.  The money could be better spent in producing oil and gas wells with a relatively predicatable rate of return.  

[azgreg]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:54 PM, SharkTanked said:

H2O in USA

Is that a Springsteen song?

 

[azgreg]

On 6/28/2024 at 1:50 PM, OrediggerPoke said:

Does this not qualify me to have such an opinion?

Not until we get Convert's opinion on the matter.

 

[AlpineSummer]

I still have yet to read the rulings.  And, as I sort of inferred, it may not be of such great help.  A local judge deciding the water status an intermittent creek seems fundamentally different than a higher, federal court parsing the complex biologics of small molecules or how an adc binds to receptors in therapeutics.  It seems apparent from mounds of history that Chevron created some confusions and overreach.  It doesn't flow logically that stripping it fixes everything nor unintended consequences won't occur.  This will be like many impactful laws or rulings in that looking backward will be the real tell. 

[stanfordchef]

Hoping this allows for more rare earth development here in the US. 

[smltwnrckr]

I'm sure this will help you and me much more than the rich and powerful...

[SharkTanked]

On 6/28/2024 at 4:19 PM, azgreg said:

Is that a Springsteen song?

 

If not, it should be.