Supreme Court backs power plants over fish

Seattle Times by Robert Barnes | Apr. 3, 2009 (News Report)
The Supreme Court said Wednesday that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) may consider whether protecting fish and other aquatic creatures...

The court ruled 6-3 that such cost-benefit decisions are allowed under the Clean Water Act as the agency moved to require more than 500 older power plants to upgrade the ways they draw water to cool machinery. Water-intake systems kill 3.4 billion fish and shellfish each year, the EPA estimated. Full Story »

Posted by Dwight Rousu

More Info

Tags Help
Subjects: World, U.S., Politics, Business, Sci/Tech
Topics: Environment, U.S. Supreme Court, Energy, Water
Member Tags: Fish
Editorial Help
Posted by: Posted by Dwight Rousu - Apr 3, 2009 - 2:46 PM PDT
Reviewed by: Dwight Rousu (review), Katie Rose (review), Aimee deChambeau (review), Glenn LaBauve (review)
Content Type: Article
Edit Lock: This story can be edited
Edited by: Dwight Rousu - Apr 3, 2009 - 2:46 PM PDT

Reviews

Show All Comments
Show All | Notes | Comments | Quotes | Links
Katie Rose
3.3
 by Katie Rose - Apr. 14, 2009

Not a very in-depth look at the issue behind the court's decision nor why it is so important (difference between two administrations' policies). But a concise report of the ruling.

See Full Review » (11 answers)
Dwight Rousu
3.8
 by Dwight Rousu - Apr. 3, 2009

The decision is reported along with comments from a dissenting judge and environmental participants in the suit.

6-3. Two judges away.

the court did not say the EPA is required to use the cost-benefit analysis, only that it may. More »

Dwight posted this story.
See Full Review » (15 answers)
Aimee deChambeau
4.3
 by Aimee deChambeau - Apr. 8, 2009

Quite clearly & concisely presents the problem, the decision, and the possible implications.

See Full Review » (6 answers)
Glenn LaBauve
3.9
 by Glenn LaBauve - Apr. 8, 2009

Good story with balanced content

For this court, it is not nearly as bad as it could have been.

See Full Review » (13 answers)

Comments on this story Help (BETA)

Sort by: Oldest | Newest Hide All Replies
NT Rating | My Rating

Ratings

3.8

Good
from 4 reviews (40% confidence)
Quality
3.8
Facts
4.5
Fairness
4.2
Sourcing
3.7
Style
3.7
Context
3.0
Depth
3.2
Enterprise
2.3
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
4.0
Recommendation
3.8
Credibility
4.5
# Reviews
2.0
# Views
5.0
# Likes
1.0
# Emails
1.0
More
How our ratings work »
(See these related stories.)

Links Help

No links yet. Please review this story to add some!