>
Please remove anything that Trump did as quickly as possible. >

Louis DeJoy is like a bad case of herpes that just won’t go away. >

Anyone else notice that mail was super slow and unreliable this year? >

its not entirely dejoy's fault, but 99% of the blame lies with him.  And, dejoy can't be fired directly(well, he could, but biden won't even if rump did it with SCOTUS backing him on his right to fire).  The dems need to start playing by the same rules as the GQP, else the dems will lose again. >


who complained about federal overreach that they said stretched into gullies, creeks and ravines on farmland and other private property.

Because it's all connected. I can't tell if these people are just stupid or plain old malicious. >

The malicious prey on the stupid >

They even hate clean water >

My favorite political conversation with my mom was when she said "you Millennials are so entitled, you think everything is a right.  You think you have a right to clean water!"
Like...yeah?  We do?
It made me laugh because of how absurd it was, but it was also sad.  Why?  I'm an environmental scientist, my whole career is based on keeping water clean.  It was really depressing that she knew this and shit on it anyway. >

Imo There’s a lot of work ahead. The new Gen needs to work for the good of themselves and their children and not fall trap $. >

Supreme court: hold my beer >

Came here for this comment >

The article is not super well-written.
The Clean Water Act allows the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers to regulate "waters of the United States", which includes "navigable waterways".  In Rapanos v. United States (2006), Justice Kennedy suggested the consideration that any waters which can affect the chemical, physical, or biological condition of a navigable waterway is also a "water of the United States".  
In 2015, the Obama Administration better defined which wetlands and lakes are covered by the Clean Water Act.  This included wetlands that don't appear to be connected to rivers, but hydrologically are through the subsurface, and intermittently flowing streams - because even if there's no water at one moment, if you dump waste there, it can still impact the waterway when water returns.
Trump administration reversed this, and restricted the definition to only waters with a direct surface connection to navigable waterways.    This was widely regarded in scientific communities as "dumb" and "bad".  It was successfully challenged in Arizona in 2021 as it would cause "serious environmental harm".
The "new" definition is returning to a slightly-restricted version of the Obama administration's, but this may be short-lived as there is a current case on its way to the Supreme Court (Sackett v. EPA, or Sacket II) which, as 5/9 members are "monsters" and "assholes" the court is likely to rule against the EPA. >

This is great news since we’re dealing with the severities of climate change. We need to do everything we can to combat it. We need to overturn lots of Trump policies. >

This action will stick about as well as Trump’s hair or Biden’s “ghost gun” bill. 
An executive branch giving an enforcement agency a “law” is a temporary, feel-good fix. In order for it to be law, congress has to actually do their dam job and legislate it. Otherwise the next presidency can just roll it back again. 
Same with Roe v Wade, same with the ATF, CDC… you name it, if it’s going to stand, it must be legislated by congress. Otherwise it’s a toilet paper law waiting for the next rain storm. >

Oh it's better than that, the Supreme Court will soon rule that these agencies can't do anything that isn't already a law congress has passed.
We won't simply get "Republicans will roll it back", we'll effectively have no EPA or any other government agency able to have enforcement delegated to it because anything they enforce will have to be written into law to a T.
What, clean air act didn't specify this specific pollutant? Well then the EPA can't regulate it at all.
Republicans know they've broken Congress, and their judicial coup is complete for them to legislate from the bench.