You’re right. Reading up on the background of this case shows that the Sacketts had all the local permits required.
That is excellent! It is going to be an interesting situation at the Supreme Court.
And missed this:
“The issue arose over the EPA’s announcement that the Sacketts’ residential parcel in a subdivision, which had no standing or running water, was a “wetlands.” “
Read more: Owners of land taken over by feds getting day in court http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=316361#ixzz1QcE9jJ9u