Home· Settings· Breaking · FrontPage · Extended · Editorial · Activism · News

Prayer  PrayerRequest  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  Biden  Elections  POLLS  Debates  TRUMP  TalkRadio  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Monthly Donors · Dollar-a-Day Donors · 300 Club Donors

Click the Donate button to donate by credit card to FR:

or by or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 4th Qtr 2024 Fundraising Target: $81,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $14,565
17%  
Woo hoo!! And we're now over 17%!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Keyword: priestlake

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • Supreme Court Reins in EPA Overreach

    05/25/2023 5:51:08 PM PDT · by E. Pluribus Unum · 38 replies
    Reason ^ | 05.25.2023 5:14 PM | RONALD BAILEY
    The U.S. Supreme Court in a 5โ€“4 decision reined in the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) effort to impose extensive federal land use regulation through its broad interpretation of the Clean Water Act (CWA). The decision in the case of Sackett v. EPA turns on the question of the proper definition of the term "the waters of the United States" (WOTUS). Interestingly, all the justices concurred in the judgment that plaintiffs Michael and Chantell Sackett's property and actions were not covered by the CWA. In the case, the Sacketts had purchased property near Priest Lake, Idaho, and began backfilling the lot...
  • Idaho couple takes on EPA at the Supreme Court over land rights [Protected Waters action]

    10/04/2022 1:11:03 PM PDT · by SES1066 · 20 replies
    KY3 Broadcasting (Missouri) ^ | 10/03/2022 | Molly Martinez
    US Supreme Court 1st hearing on 3 October 2022. The case revolves around Michael and Chantell Sackett who bought a soggy plot of land near Priest Lake, Idaho in 2004. With the intention of building a home on the property, they began back-filling the low lying wet area. The EPA stepped in, claiming they were interfering with protected wetlands.