Supreme Court delivers blow to wetlands
protections in win for Idaho landowners
NBC News,
by
Lawrence Hurley
Original Article
Posted By: Dreadnought,
5/25/2023 11:29:15 AM
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday weakened a landmark water pollution law by ruling that an Idaho couple's property does not include wetlands subject to federal oversight under the law.actually
The ruling, in which all the justices agreed in the outcome but differed on the legal reasoning, concluded that Mike and Chantell Sackett's land does not fall under jurisdiction of the 1972 Clean Water Act, so they do not require a federal permit to build on the property. The decision ends a yearslong battle between the Sacketts and the federal government and is a victory for conservative groups and business interests opposed to the broad application
Reply 1 - Posted by:
jimincalif 5/25/2023 11:55:47 AM (No. 1477229)
FTA: “ Successive presidential administrations have sought to bring clarity to the law, with Democrats generally favoring greater federal power and Republicans, backed by business interests, [emphasis added] saying that Clean Water Act jurisdiction should be limited.”
Good example of subtle bias in purported news stories. The Democrats apparently aren’t “backed” by any interest groups, but those evil Republicans are backed by “business interests”.
14 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
Maggie2u 5/25/2023 11:58:07 AM (No. 1477231)
Many, many years ago, I read an article about a landowner in Washington state who wanted to build a storage facility on his property. The permit was denied because the property was supposedly on 'wetlands'. He persisted for a few years but couldn't get whatever agency to change their minds. So, supposedly he invited one of our Senators to come and take a look at the property. They did and as they are walking thru the area, the senator asked 'when do we get to the wetlands?' He told her, 'we're on it right now.' He got his permit.
13 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Bur Oak 5/25/2023 12:08:59 PM (No. 1477236)
NBC is pushing propaganda. Actually the Supreme Court strengthened private property rights from the overreach of the unelected EPC bureaucrat's. Thank you Mike and Chantell Sackett for fighting this overreach.
20 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
jalo1951 5/25/2023 12:31:42 PM (No. 1477246)
"They" do not want us to own any personal property. And for those of us who still do own property they want to pull any law out of their butts to demand that we really can't use the land for which it was purchased. Total, absolute control over every part of our lives. Communism is their goal.
12 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
ladydawgfan 5/25/2023 12:44:17 PM (No. 1477251)
RE #2: I read a story many years ago about a house in Vermont that was accidently built TWO FEET too close to an alleged wetland. The EPA, instead of giving them a waiver, made them tear the house down and restore the land. IIRC, the alleged wetland was no more than a large divot that collected water in the rainy season and then completely dried up in the summer. No fish or wildlife lived in it. Made no difference to the EPA. The house, fully complete and ready to be moved into, had to be torn down.
I'm happy to see this ruling. The EPA has gotten too big for its britches!!
12 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Starboard_side 5/25/2023 12:48:44 PM (No. 1477255)
Like many of these regulatory agencies, they are used for particular agendas, and that it's stated in the article that 90 million acres will now have less onerous restrictions, by dictate, is telling of how over-reaching the agency was being used.
It's become a political tool for Progressives to expand the size and scope of government.
Amazingly, this case was started in 2007, and just reached a conclusion is incredible.
9 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
Delilah 5/25/2023 12:49:00 PM (No. 1477256)
I remember seeing the area where Florida's Disney World is now before it was built and it was certainly not dry ground. I know this dates me but I gladly admit I'm now 90 and happy to still be cognizant. Not like FJB.
14 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
DVC 5/25/2023 12:56:40 PM (No. 1477268)
This whoke wetlands BS has gone WAY too far.
Thank you, Supreme Court.
7 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
hershey 5/25/2023 1:00:19 PM (No. 1477274)
I narrowly missed having my cattle pond declared a wetland...we need to reign in these agencies so they can't make their own laws...congress, useless as it is, is responsible for making laws...not bureacrats, not judges...congress...
9 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Maggie2u 5/25/2023 2:10:03 PM (No. 1477317)
Poster #5, several times a year we camp at a place on the Washington coast. There is a small town not far from where we camp so we go there quite a bit. Some years ago, two couples bought some property in the town and they were going to build an place for people to come and play arcade games and the plans also included two really neat miniature golf courses. The property was considered a wetland. The only reason it was is because when the town built a new road going thru the business district they raised the road and when it rained, consequently the water would run off onto this property. The owners hired someone who had retired from the EPA and he walked them thru how to get their permit.
2 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
janjan 5/25/2023 3:24:41 PM (No. 1477373)
Typical liberal spin from the liberal media. The SC did not ‘rewrite Congressional legislation’. They found the law unconstitutional. The Republicans aren’t just backing ‘business interests’. They are protecting people like the Sacketts from the whims of out of control federal agencies who are taking away their property rights just because they think they can. The EPA is not run by educated conservationists. It is run by woke political hacks.
4 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
chance_232 5/25/2023 4:34:30 PM (No. 1477408)
Half my property is considered wet lands. It gets really wet when it rains, but the runoff runs into a drainage ditch, which runs into a stream a 1/4 mile away and runs into a river 5 miles away. I can now cut down some trees.
2 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
Hermit_Crab 5/25/2023 5:34:47 PM (No. 1477443)
I'm pleasantly surprised at the decision.... and absolutely stunned that it was unanimous. They musta got Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson happily drunk or doped up before taking the vote.
3 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
TarAndFeathers 5/25/2023 7:27:34 PM (No. 1477501)
Another twisted lede from the Progressive News Network.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "Dreadnought"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)