Here in the Southeastern United States, we have the world's largest biodiversity of freshwater fish and a vast amount of wetlands and unpolluted fresh water systems.

The region has been growing economically and companies like 3M have poisoned a major river with industrial pollution. Corporations like HP, Oracle, and other SV giants have moved to the South due to lower taxes, cost of living, fewer regulations, and looser labor laws.

Better environmental regulation is necessary to protect our lands and waters, all across the country and even the planet. Water is far more vital than money, and arable land feeds the world.

If the whole world is developing, environmental protections have to evolve alongside it. Big business will always push at the limit, and even sometimes cross the line with the consequence being a large fine and firing a few scapegoats.

It really is a struggle between the will of the people and corporate greed at its core. Short-term profits vs long-term survival of the human race. Declining fish populations upset ecosystems, communities, and food supply. These large entities are more focused on driving quarter-over-quarter revenue growth.

If you look at what's happening in Guam, it is has even become a matter of national security recognized by the military. Issues like these, as mentioned here elsewhere, are more important than saber rattling with China. These things get set on the backburner if fear and greed push us into another global war.

I don’t thing the current Supreme Court is going to rollback federal regulatory capability of streams and rivers (which is where the fish actually are). The current case in questions, and the legal issue involved revolves around the question whether the federal law granting the federal government ability to regulate “waters of the United States” was also meant to enable the executive to regulate wetlands that are not actually connected to any navigable waters. In any case, even if Supreme Court reinterprets the existing law more narrowly than the federal executive had, the federal legislative will still be able to pass new legislation to grant the executive all these capabilities right back. This case is better thought of in terms of limiting the ability of administrative state to promulgate new, substantial laws, rather than the ability to regulate the waters or wetlands themselves.

As the current supreme court points out, our only recourse is to vote them out of office.