[Boogieman]

” i.e., with a relatively permanent body of water connected...”

That little word “relatively” gives the EPA all the wiggle room they need to continue declaring absolutely any puddle in the county a “wetland”. Is the right ever going to learn that if allow the dishonest left even the tiniest smidgeon of leeway to continue their shenanigans, they will do so, and do so shamelessly?

[Roadrunner383]

‘That little word “relatively” gives the EPA all the wiggle room they need to continue declaring absolutely any puddle in the county a “wetland”..’

Stop making up garbage. You understand that the EPA LOST THE CASE, right? It’s a big win for conservatives and the people of the U.S. Having said that, you are now free to return to your dark corner and resume eating worms.

[Dr. Sivana]

That little word “relatively” gives the EPA all the wiggle room they need to continue declaring absolutely any puddle in the county a “wetland”.

Unfortunately, there are actual bodies of water that are only relatively permanent. I live in Arizona, and some of the so-called rivers are dry as toast much of the time.

[AndyJackson]

the party that wants the CWA to apply to adjacent wetlands must show

And with that little finding the burden of proof is shifted from the individual to the agency to show a continuous surface of water connecing US waters to the wetland to be connected.