On January 24, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it would hear and grant review for a case of an Idaho couple in a legal battle with the federal government over plans to build a home in their residential neighborhood Priest Lake, Idaho. The sole purpose of this review is to decide once and for all “the proper test for determining whether wetlands are ‘waters of the United States’ under the Clean Water Act.”

Interestingly, considering the current composition of the Supreme Court Justices and the fact that Sackett originates from the Ninth Circuit, an appellate court with a long history of SCOTUS reversals in environmental law cases, there are high chances that the Court would constrain assertions of federal jurisdiction over remote and isolated wetlands. 

Nearly 15 years ago, Chantell and Mike Sackett were put on indefinite hold to realize their dream to build a family home. The reason for that is the demand from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), on pain of immense monetary penalties, that the Sacketts must first obtain a tedious and expensive Clean Water Act permit from the Army Corps of Engineers and then start building their home. This arduous course of action was required because of EPA’s regulations. Namely, the Sacketts’ lot contained wetlands that qualify as “navigable waters” subject to Clean Water Act regulation.

In 2004, the Sacketts bought a vacant lot near Priest Lake, Idaho, and obtained local permits to build a home. As Chantell and Mike Sackett began constructing their home, they received an order to stop all work by the Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers. It was stated that Sackett needed a federal permit to proceed and threatened with fines of up to $75,000 per day if they did not obey one. Months later, the EPA sent the Sacketts a compliance order claiming that the property contained a wetland that could not be filled without a federal permit. EPA not only prohibited the Sacketts from the construction of their home but also demanded costly restoration work. In addition to that, EPA required a three-year monitoring program, during which the property was to be left untouched.

Since 2007, the Sacketts have been in court fighting for the right to use their property. In 2012, the Supreme Court heard the Sacketts’ case, and contrary to EPA’s view, the Sacketts had the right to immediately challenge the agency’s assertion of authority over their homebuilding project. The next step is for the Court to consider whether their lot contains “navigable waters” subject to federal control.

The Sackett case ordeal can be described as symbolic and arises from a long-running dispute over whether the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction extends to wetlands occurring on the Sackett family’s rural Idaho homesite. Damien Schiff, a senior attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, which represents the Sacketts, says: “The Sacketts’ ordeal is emblematic of all that has gone wrong with the implementation of the Clean Water Act. The Sacketts are delighted that the Court has agreed to take their case a second time, and hope the Court rules to bring fairness, consistency, and a respect for private property rights to the Clean Water Act’s administration.”

In a 2006 PLF case, Rapanos v. the United States, the Supreme Court ruled to limit EPA’s regulatory power. However, the agency issued guidance documents and created new rules, like the 2015 Waters of the United States rule and the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule, thus attempting to sidestep the ruling. Each of the listed changes has been met with lawsuits, and courts have applied the 2006 case unevenly. This resulted in a confusing patchwork of regulations and inconsistency across the country. Now the Sacketts have opened the question to Supreme Court to clarify what EPA can and cannot control under the clean water act.  

The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and unanimously took the Sackett family side by supporting the fact that the Sackett family had the right to challenge a compliance order from the EPA and direct them to restore wetlands they had filled the property when they started building their home.

The Sacketts winning the battle actually challenged the basis for the EPA’s compliance order, arguing that wetlands were not subject to federal jurisdiction under the CWA. Namely, the Sacketts family declared that it is utterly improper that EPA and the Army Corps asserted jurisdiction over their wetlands by using Justice Kennedy’s “significant nexus” test from Rapanos v. the United States. Instead, agencies should have relied on Justice Scalia’s narrower jurisdictional test from Rapanos, according to which wetlands must have a “continuous surface connection” to a “relatively permanent” “water of the United States” for CWA jurisdiction to apply. Once again, Ninth Circuit took the Sacketts side, and Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. 

The Supreme Court’s second grant of certiorari to the Sacketts advocates the possibility the Justices to be poised to make a definitive ruling on which jurisdictional test should be used for the evaluation process of whether wetlands are considered “waters of the U.S.” After the splintered 4-1-4 Rapanos decision issued in 2006 by the Court, the scope of the CWA’s jurisdiction over wetlands and other waterbodies has been the main subject of repeated rulemakings and litigation. All of the rulemakings were against the backdrop of Rapanos’ two competing tests. The unenviable situation and the uncertainty of CWA implementation in the wake of Rapanos can be ended if at least five Justices in the new Sackett case can agree on the appropriate jurisdictional test to apply. 

The outcome of the latest Sackett case is almost inevitable. It undoubtedly will have an impact on the new “durable” regulatory definition of “waters of the United States” that EPA and the Corps are currently developing. Moreover, the Supreme Court’s decision could open to debate the rulemaking process since only Congress could change the law by amending the CWA. This fix has evaded Congress for decades, and considering the present political situation; it is even more unlikely to happen.     

The Sackett case is a perfect and unique opportunity for the project proponents to highlight the confusion and regulatory inconsistency which resulted from the agencies’ reliance on the “significant nexus” test and the corresponding benefits of a more straightforward test.

The briefing for this case will likely take place in early 2022, and the amicus briefs will be due seven days after the supported party files the brief. Oral argument will probably be held in fall 2022, and the decision is expected to be made at the end of this year or early 2023. 

The non-fungible tokens or NFTs are tokens that ring a bell as something linked to cryptocurrencies, blockchain, or at least something sold and bought on the internet. The NFTs are acknowledged as the new frontier of digital technology, but organizations brought into question the impact that mining of those tokens has on the environment. 

Non-specialists in this area would never suppose NFTs can be described as earth-killing polluters. Still, that is why the community is divided into two groups: supportive individuals who tend to reap financial gains and opponents who condemn the NFTs for accelerating climate change.

What is Mining?

Most people think that crypto mining is a simple process that creates new coins and enters them into circulation. Although it is partially true, since crypto mining is a process that creates new digital currency units, it also involves validating cryptocurrency transactions on a blockchain network and adding them to a distributed ledger.

New crypto coins are created by solving an extremely complex mathematical equation with sophisticated hardware. When an individual invests funds in cryptocurrency, the investment details are recorded on a blockchain-distributed ledger. This, however, doesn’t mean that the process is finished. Namely, the process is complete when a “miner” verifies the transaction as legitimate. This is the last step in locking the transaction into the blockchain and making it available and visible to everyone. After that, the process begins again.

The verification process requires miners that will solve complex equations. The problem-solving process is an actual race against each other, and the fastest is the winner. The first who solve the equations are paid a fraction of the transaction fee for the effort. Only successful transactions result in new coins that enter into circulation. This process requires high-functioning computers that consume a lot of time and electric energy, making the mining process very costly and harmful to the environment.

How does mining work?

Buying and selling coins on the marketplace is a simple process that requires enormous funds. On the other hand, the creation process of coins is meticulous, expensive, and only sporadically rewarding. As previously mentioned, mining is a process by which new currency units are created or “minted” and introduced into the market.

Banks around the world are centralized and have physical locations. Cryptocurrencies are specific decentralized banking ledgers, and all transactions are simultaneously recorded in multiple locations and are updated by contributors to the network, a process known as the blockchain. Each insertion of new blocks adds data to that chain and contains information regarding the transactions. Confirmation of the new transactions resulting from the mining is a critical component of maintaining and developing the blockchain ledger.

The extensively questioned subject is how energy use translates to carbon emissions? How exactly does the process of mining leave a carbon footprint on Earth?

Miners use advanced and expensive mining rigs to make the necessary calculations, and more power means faster and easier mining. Mining rigs are PCs with intricate setups and specialized equipment to maximize the capability, which requires more electric energy. Over the years, the need to process more equations simultaneously rises, which requires additional investments. As the need for an upgrade requires additional equipment, the price of mining increases. This, in turn, means more power, better cooling, and ventilation for the heat produced.  

Fast processing implies more guesses of the correct solution and a higher chance of finding the correct answer faster than others. Regardless of whether the miners first arrive at the correct answer, they use the same power.     

Why Does Mining Use So Much Electricity?

In the early days of mining coins, anybody could use their PC or laptop and run a mining program. However, as the network expanded and more and more people became interested in mining new coins, the need for a more powerful unit to support the mining algorithm became higher. The more miners are included in the process; the lower are chances that somebody will solve the equation quicker. The average time needed for solving the equation increased. This ultimately requires more robust machines that consume more energy.  

What Is the Environmental Cost of Crypto Mining?

The purpose of crypto mining is the creation of new units of currency and maintaining the integrity of the blockchain ledger, which prevents illegal transactions. But, does this purpose justify the environmental cost?

According to an article published on the Digiconomist web page, a single Bitcoin transaction takes 1,544 kWh. As for comparison, this power equals 53 days of power for an average US household. In addition to that, more energy power is needed for all of the transactions happening across the world. It is believed that the summarized energy cost of crypto mining is higher than in some countries.  

The NFTs’ impact on pollution is a hotly-contested topic locally and globally. The mining operations have significant environmental impacts since the energy used for the mining activities leaves greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, the massive impact mining has on the environment awakened the consciousness of many and emphasized the responsibility that humans have over nature. As a result, Tesla halted accepting Bitcoin as a payment, the Malaysian authorities publicly destroyed the mining rigs, and China banned mining and trading entirely.

While many companies and organizations are putting significant effort into making the mining process more environmentally friendly, other digital currencies plan to discontinue the mining process altogether.

What is the Carbon Footprint of NFTs?

Carbon footprint is an estimate of all the carbon emissions released in creating and consuming a product. All operations included in the process add value. When it comes to minting an NFT, it is difficult to estimate the exact impact since many steps of the process does not have a known carbon footprint, but also because there are just a few scientific peer-reviewed studies on this topic.   

According to the estimation by the platform Digiconomist, a single Ethereum transaction’s carbon footprint is 33.4kg CO2. At the same time, artist and programmer Memo Akten estimates that an NFTs transaction has a carbon footprint of about 48kg CO2 on average. Additionally, when NFT is minted or sold, another transaction is realized. On the other hand, mailing an art print, according to Quartz, has a carbon footprint of 2.3kg CO2, or in other words, the carbon footprint of NFTs transactions is 14 times higher than mailing.  

Lower-carbon NFTs?

Blockchains like Ethereum and Bitcoin operate using a system called Proof-of-Work (PoW). It is the primary reason for the massive energy intensity of 28 TWh annually for Ethereum and 72 TWh for Bitcoin. However, there are blockchain alternatives running with a different system, such as Proof-of-Stake (PoS), whose estimated annual energy consumption is 0.00006 TWh. The PoS blockchains do not rely on massive computing power and consequently use substantially less electricity. 

WAX – A clean & carbon neutral blockchain

One of the ecologically responsible companies is WAX – Worldwide Asset eXchange. This certified carbon neutral company works as a PoS system, a transaction validation design that thrives towards building a sustainable future. WAX has an environmental mindset and constantly is taking action to erase its carbon footprint. Moreover, it is energy-efficient and creates offset NFTs while partnering with Climate Care.

Why WAX?  

With WAX DPoS, transactions are approved by 21 energy-efficient guilds entrusted with that responsibility by WAX token holders. WAX token holders who stake their tokens are eligible to vote for their preferred guilds. Staking uses substantially fewer resources compared to mining, without the need for additional machines.

Many NFTs are minted and traded on Ethereum, and as previously mentioned, this blockchain mining or PoW requires a tremendous amount of energy to process transactions. Namely, the 75.8 kilowatt-hours of energy that Ethereum transaction consumes are 125,000 times more energy than WAX needs. Moreover, Ethereum and Bitcoin PoW chains are constantly battling for computing power dominance, which is not the case with WAX DPoS. In other words, Ethereum and Bitcoin grow in terawatts of energy each month, and on the other side, WAX blockchain energy consumption is relatively stable. If we assume that all the NFTs minted and traded to date on WAX had been created on Ethereum instead, whooping 4 million tons of carbon dioxide would have been released into Earth’s atmosphere. That enormous amount of CO2 emissions can be possibly be sequestered with growing 88.9 million tree seedlings for 10 years. 

On November 18, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army announced the signing of a proposed rule. On December 7, 2021, the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register. Until February 7, 2022, the comment period is open. This proposal is a breakthrough after announcing the regulatory process in June 2021.      

After EPA signed a proposed rule to scrap the Trump-era rule Navigable Waters Protection Rule (NWPR), authorities appointed the restrictive pre-2015 regulations until they developed a newly revised WOTUS rule. The agencies intend to put back into place the pre-2015 definition of “waters of the United States,” which will be updated in order to reflect consideration of Supreme Court decisions. In comprehensive consultations with states, tribes, local governments, and a broad array of stakeholders, the agencies work in the current implementation and future plan of action regarding the regulation of the WOTUS definition and to establish the geographic scope of federal jurisdiction.

Background

In 2019, the Trump administration repealed the 2015 Waters of the United States (WOTUS) and, in June 2020, replaced it with the new NWPR. The NWPR substantially narrowed the definition of WOTUS that were subject to federal authority under the Clean Water Act. The Trump -rule was the subject of many legal discussions. Soon after the Biden administration took the lead, several federal court rulings vacated the Trump-era rule. On June 9, 2021, the Agencies announced their intention to propose a new WOTUS regulatory definition by following the critical two-step federal rulemaking process. 

The WOTUS definition has undergone many changes over the years. This recent action to scrap the NMPR is the next step towards solidifying the rules that will bring stable implementation of WOTUS. EPA Administrator Michael S. Regan stated: “In recent years, the only constant with WOTUS has been change, creating a whiplash in how to best protect our waters in communities across America. Through our engagement with stakeholders across the country, we’ve heard overwhelming calls for a durable definition of WOTUS that protects the environment and that is grounded in the experience of those who steward our waters. Today’s action advances our process toward a stronger rule that achieves our shared priorities.”

“The Army recognizes the importance of our nation’s water resources and the role water plays in our communities across the nation. We remain committed to working with EPA to develop a rule that is informed by our experience and expertise, as well as that of our co-regulators, is mindful of implementation practices, and is shaped by the lived experience of local communities and stakeholders,” said Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Jaime A. Pinkham.

Earlier this year, at the House Appropriations Committee hearing, Regan said: “We don’t have any intention of going back to the original Obama Waters of the U.S. verbatim and we don’t necessarily agree with everything that was in the Trump administration’s version as well. We’ve learned lessons from both, we’ve seen complexities in both and we’ve determined that both rules did not necessarily listen to the will of the people.”

EPA officials gained experience and learned many lessons from both versions of the rule over the years. Both approaches have their complexities, and the final conclusion is that both rules did not automatically favor the regulated community and public interests. According to environmentalists, more stringent water regulations are necessary since the Trump administration’s rule allowed smaller bodies of water that flow into larger water sources and thus contaminate the entire water flow. On the other hand, farmers rated the Obama-era rule as too burdensome and overreaching.

Wherever politics is represented, there are two directions and two, in most cases, opposite views on the same topic. As with the EPA’s action decision, both parties expressed their opinion on the WOTUS rule. On the one side, Republicans warn that the rule would frustrate infrastructure. On the other side, Democrats state that the proposed rule paves a way to develop a definition that will provide reliability. Additionally, Democrats believe the new rule will protect nations’ waters and wetlands and, at the same time, will support the economy, public health, environment, agricultural activity and will offer the development of industries that depend on clean water. 

Will there be a completely new WOTUS rule soon?

It remains unclear when EPA will release the new definition for “water of the U.S.” and which wetlands and streams the rule will protect. The predictions are that the new WOTUS rule will be closely related to the 2015 Obama WOTUS rule, unlike the 2020 Trump WOTUS rule. The comprehensive pre-proposal engagement performed by the EPA and the Army is helpful regarding the content of the proposed rule. For that purpose, Federalism and Tribal consultation contributed to the consultation.     

A successful business is almost entirely based on employees equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to effectively and efficiently perform their daily duties. Technology and rapid technological development have a complete scoring over the workplace methods and strategies. Therefore, both employers and employees need to align their knowledge, skills, values, and abilities. Keeping up with the competition and having an advantage in terms of skilled employees that are motivated and dedicated means providing an opportunity for additional training and development.             

Technological advancement is challenging to keep pace with, and companies are giving their best to use the progress for powerful business opportunities while avoiding potential skill gaps. As a result of the great resignation, the demand for skilled workers is exceptionally high. This is especially risky since quitting is contagious, and losing employees can be fatal for companies of any size and structure. One of the best ways to enhance employees’ knowledge and skills is staff training. Relevant and consistent training improves performance and significantly increases results in the workplace. Despite the high cost of upskilling, staff training is an effective method to invest in the business. Although there is always a chance for the employees to resign, the best way to retain the current employees is to give them the skills they need to succeed elsewhere. The return on investment is immense if it is consistent, and the risk of investing in upskilling and still facing quitting contagion is worth it.      

Upskilling programs are specially created to allow employers to indirectly invest in their business by investing in employees that have the full potential to develop and become the key figure in the business. The upskilling programs encourage the critical thinking and digital acumen essential for future personal and business success in a structured way. Competitive advantage is achieved by expanding the skillsets of employees. Training and development will help employers combat the skills gap and retain their current workforce in the long term. 

The increasingly technology-driven world and the coronavirus pandemic put the businesses in real trouble: everyone competes for top talent. It’s not just a matter of hiring the right employees, but retaining them, as well. The tight labor market became even tighter in 2021, among a post-pandemic rise in demand for better working opportunities. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, between June and August 2021, there were over a million people who moved jobs, while 400,000 were choosing to resign. In September 2021, a record 4.4 million Americans resigned, which is the highest record for nearly 20 years. With the Great Resignation ongoing and employees looking for more rewarding job opportunities, companies must take a step forward and focus on skill development programs.

Employee training and development programs are pivotal for enhancing employee performance. According to a 2019 report published in The International Journal of Business and Management Research, up to 90 % of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that training and development programs improved their job performance. Companies can offer various in-person or online training and development opportunities for upskilling of their employees. When it comes to career and opportunities for continued growth, employers should establish paid apprenticeships that have to learn built-in. Another important thing for workers who want to advance their skills to progress in their careers is the upskilling opportunities not to feel like extra work. By making investments in learning continually, employers are investing in their workers, but it shouldn’t necessarily be considered as means to a predefined goal. 

Let’s talk about careers and opportunities for continued growth in wetland science!

The Swamp School offers a broad range of courses in wetland science and related ecological topics online, in a classroom, in the field, or a combination of all three. Our certifications are recognized as the gold standard in the natural science industry, taught by seasoned professionals with decades of experience in environmental consulting and teaching.

By registering for a select training course, you will gain a practical understanding of wetland rules’ technical and regulatory aspects, stay up to date on changing regulations, and gain the hands-on field experience employers look for.

Earn Certificates Online: Swamp School offers the opportunity to complete training courses from home in as little as a few weeks. You will get professional lectures from various learning modules combined with hands-on field experiences from the wide selection of online classes. Thus, you will grow your skills, industry expertise, and working knowledge of the latest regulatory changes.

What makes Swamp School unique?

The training courses in Swamp School are carefully designed to satisfy the needs of both amateurs and professionals. Regardless of whether you want to upskill or learn about wetlands and related ecological topics, Swamp School took care of the comprehensiveness of classes. We are supportive of the diverse needs of a varied and dynamic business community, and we are offering many opportunities for growth and success.

With our world-class programs, dedicated instructors, and individualized approach, we will help you succeed at the workplace and beyond. Instructors in the Swamp School show enthusiasm, commitment, and high-level teaching skills.

Our clients can take advantage of a broad range of activities, such as hands-on training in the field, direct interaction with the instructor and classmates, uploading data for instructor review and feedback, etc. Additionally, upon successfully completing the class and achieving a grade of 80% or better on the final exam, our clients will receive a certificate recognized by the Society of Wetland Scientists. The Professional Development Hours (PDHs) available for our classes can be used as continuing education credit for many disciplines, including engineers, surveyors, architects, attorneys, geologists, hydrologists, inspectors, and many more.

On November 18, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army (“the agencies”) made an announcement referring to the signing of a proposed rule to revise the definition of “waters of the United States.” On December 7, 2021, the proposed rule was published in the Federal Register, The Daily Journal of the United States Government. The period for public comments is now open and will close on February 7, 2022. 

As announced on June 9, 2021, “the agencies” expressed their intention to revise the definition of WOTUS. This proposal is described as a critical milestone in the regulatory process by many. The process that includes two rulemakings is expected to protect the nation’s vital water resources and thus support public health, environmental protection, agricultural activity, and economic growth. An EPA declaration described that the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule has destructive impacts on critical water bodies, which was why requesting remand of the 2020 rule. This was supported by a large variety of stakeholders, including states, tribes, local governments, scientists, and non-governmental organizations. 

The agencies explained that the revised definition of WOTUS will be based on the pre-2015 definition. They intended to reflect consideration of Supreme Court decisions. This standard approach would deliberate a stable implementation of “waters of the United States.” At the same time, the agencies will continue to consult with all parties involved in implementing WOTUS and future regulatory actions. The broad array of stakeholders provided extensive feedback and recommendations, which EPA and the Army reviewed. After evaluating all opinions obtained through consultations, pre-proposal meetings, and webinars, the EPA and the Army developed the proposed rule.  

On July 30, 2021, the agencies announced stakeholder engagement opportunities, together with the intent of the agencies to host ten regionally focused roundtables. On this date, the agencies also announced a schedule for initial public meetings. The purpose of these meetings is for stakeholders to present their perspectives on defining “waters of the United States” and implementing that definition. The public meetings were held as web conferences in the period between August and September 2021. On October 13, 2021, EPA and Army encouraged stakeholders to submit nomination letters for a slate of nominees to enter the selection process for one of these geographically focused roundtables.

PRE-PUBLICATION NOTICE: On November 18, 2021, the EPA Administrator, Michael S. Regan, and the Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), Jaime A. Pinkham, signed the following proposed rule. After signing, EPA has submitted the document for publication in the Federal Register (FR), and it is available solely for the convenience of interested parties. It is important to highlight that this is not the official version of the rule and does not represent an Agency determination or policy for purposes of public notice and comment under the Administrative Procedure Act.  

Background: The Clean Water Act interdicts the discharge of pollutants to navigable waters, defined in the Act as “the waters of the United States (WOTUS), including the territorial seas.” WOTUS is the term used to establish the point source concerning the geographic scope of federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Since the 1970s, EPA and the Army have defined the term WOTUS, a definition used in the agencies’ programmatic activities.   

President Biden’s Executive Order 13990 on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis (January 20, 2021) has identified the 2020 Navigable Waters Protection Rule. This administers the federal agencies to carefully review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and actions that were promulgated, issued, or adopted between January 20, 2017, and January 20, 2021.