Posted on 09/05/2023 4:18:05 AM PDT by where's_the_Outrage?
Since the creation of the Clean Water Act in 1972, the federal government has had the authority to protect bodies of water throughout the U.S. from pollution. This traditionally included wetlands, which play a vital role in feeding open bodies of water like rivers and lakes.
However, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling in May, this federal protection has been removed from many crucial wetlands across the country, the Guardian reports.
What happened? According to the Guardian, Michael and Chantell Sackett are Idaho residents who bought a half-acre lot in 2004 near Priest Lake, one of the state’s largest bodies of water. They intended to build a home there and started to fill in the marshy site with gravel.
The Sacketts didn’t know that the site was a protected wetland, which they would need a permit to fill in, the Guardian explains. The EPA stepped in to stop construction and issued serious fines for the work already done.
The Sacketts began a 15-year legal battle, which made it to the Supreme Court this year. The central question was whether the EPA had the authority to prevent the Sacketts from building on a wetland area........
“For 50 years the Clean Water Act has been instrumental in revitalizing and safeguarding drinking water sources for people and wildlife, wetlands for flood control, and habitats that sustain our wildlife heritage,” said Murphy. “The court’s ruling removes these vital protections from important streams and wetlands in every state. We call on both Congress and state governments to step in, plug the gap, and protect our threatened waters and the people that depend on them.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.com ...
I live off Lake St Clair in Michigan, around 100 years ago people used the surrounding wetlands to dig canals using the excavated mud to form building areas for houses. Glad the EPA wasn't around to stop it. We have beautiful blue water, great fishing, and fun boating (when Witless doesn't make it illegal).
government agency exists to impede the freedoms of taxpayers and make the taxpayers pay for that imposition. it’s a sad, sick cycle that only the taxpayers can stop by voting out politicians who grow government. but here we are. and again...”elections have consequences and then everyone suffers the consequences” enjoy!
Great step by SCOTUS to stop overreaching government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well and truly said. A conservative Federal and State judiciary is the last line of peaceful defense against a government of tyranny in our country. That’s why we’re doomed if the Biden regime is not obliterated in the next election.
Any time I see the corrupt MSM use the term "expert" I immediately know they are using some left-wing shill as a propaganda tool for the sole purpose of reinforcing the let's narrative. You know, "I am the science.". "Trust the science."
[and started to fill in the marshy site with gravel.]
Will there be a gravely road?
However, the EPA claims the power to regulate everything everywhere. We did not form the Republic to be terrorized by unelected bureaucrats.
Significantly, decision was 9-0.
National Wildlife Federation is a scheme where they get all the money to use as they please and the donators get a flimsy t-shirt!
That’s part of it.
Government mainly exists so the government can exchange permits for bribes, no show jobs, and favor the connected.
The proper procedure for filling this land was to be someone important, in which case it’s a non issue or pay your bribe to the correct democrat.
I vaguely remember this case (it’s 15 years old). The issue was that an outrageously overzealous EPA was determining large swaths of land were wetland for reasons nearly as compelling as: a frog once hopped across it.
EPA bureaucrats are not normal people; they are green extremists who joined government to force a warped agenda.
This article is deliberately slanted. One need only note that the property in question is consistently described as “wetland”. That was the key question of the case; what qualifies as wetland? The SCOTUS properly found that the EPA doesn’t have the authority to arbitrarily declare any area they want as a wetland. The EPA should have to pay all of their court costs and attorney fees.
Lawfare takes a pause.
We can thank the (R) president that gave us the EPA…..
The epa is yet another government terrorist organization.
I shall celebrate this WIN...with gusto!
9 to 0!
HOORAY.
The Sacketts never were ones to let themselves be pushed around by governments.
Several (R) Presidents have been Progressives. They start with Teddy Roosevelt, then Hoover, then Eisenhower, then Nixon. After Franklin Delano Roosevelt stacked the Media (using the FCC) with Progressives during and after WWII, a non-Progressive Republican did not stand a chance until Reagan, and he was a former Progressive!
The feds expanded “wetlands” to include vernal pools, basically where water puddled during wet seasons, usually spring. I think that backing off that definition is what the MSM is claiming that “half of the wetlands have been removed from protection”.
I’ve heard complaints that the EPA quite often declares small ponds and even mud holes as “wetlands”.
Thanks, that is significant.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.