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

See All Reviews »

View

Review

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.

Justice John Paul Stevens, in dissent, said the majority was ignoring the plain language of the statute, and he found it “puzzling” that the court relied on Congress’ silence about whether a cost-benefit analysis was appropriate to decide that it was allowed. He was joined by Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Dwight posted this story.

See All Reviews »

Dwight's Rating

Overall
3.8

Good
from 15 answers
Quality
3.9
Facts
4.0
Fairness
4.0
Sourcing
4.0
Style
4.0
Context
4.0
Depth
4.0
Enterprise
3.0
Relevance
4.0
Popularity
3.5
Recommendation
4.0
Credibility
3.0
More How our ratings work »