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 ...
WOW!
By that definition, my LAWN is a wetland. Being on a heavy clay soil, a heavy rain doesn't percolate down very fast, and low spot puddles, (the size of a queen bed), can take up to a day of dry weather to disappear.
These days??? Not the “people”
One of the deciding factors in the Sackett case was that the EPA decided that WOTUS allowed any body of water that touched another body of water to be regulated under WOTUS.
And then the EPA added underground water flows ... even if there was no physical surface connection.
What would be next?
Anyone that carried water from place to place - after all, people are 65% water ...
It took them 15 years to finally resolve the problem. 15 years! The govt hopes the other side will give up and they usually do.
They have endless amounts of OUR money to do their bidding.
Hmmm. Makes me wonder if we can get the EPA to declare the site of Burning Man to be a protected wetland! Gotta save the delicate ecosystem of the desert that occasionally is home to the fairy shrimp!
Send the Burners back to San Francisco where they belong!
In other ‘news’: THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!
I really wish these over-educated-idiots would focus on paying their loans and leave the rest of us alone.
Like most all laws over the last 50 years or so, they start out seemably reasonable with good intentions that are then hijacked. In retrospect, they were all deep state subversions of our republic that has lead to the current state of affairs.
Benito Mussolini, the founder of Italian Fascism, called his regime the “Totalitarian State”: “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.
“The central question was whether the EPA had the authority to prevent the Sacketts from building on a wetland area........”
I don’t think that was the question raised in the ruling. Am I wrong? I am pretty sure it was over which bodies of water the EPA had been tasked by law with protecting. There is a difference.
OMG, we’re all gonna die because Michael and Chantell Sackett want to build a home there and started to fill in the marshy site with gravel.
LOVE IT!
“the Guardian reports.“
The Guardian is preposterous little left wing comic book.
Nixon was probably who Ayn Rand had in mind with this quote:
“There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.”
Most especially the departments not explicitly authorized by the federal constitution.
So:
This decision came at a time when the Clean Water Act was being strengthened by the EPA and the Biden administration, so the federal government may take action to address the change.
Thus by simply expanding this oversight then the EPA can regulate wetlands that do not have a continuous surface connection to bodies that are waters of the United States in their own rights
Gotta admire the determination of the Sacketts
````````````````````````
March 21, 2012
Today, the Supreme Court has sided with an Idaho couple in Sackett v. EPA, a private property rights case, ruling they have the right to go to court to challenge an Environmental Protection Agency policy that blocked construction of their new home and threatened fines of more than $30,000 a day.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2861997/posts
“this federal protection has been removed from many crucial wetlands across the country, the Guardian reports”
Yes, we need a British rag to tell us which of our wetlands are “crucial”, because British people know our own country better than we do.
Citing this case is the best their "expert" can come up with to justify this horrible over reach of gooberment?
A pox upon them.
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.