Supreme Court Oral Arguments on Clean Water Act
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
livingston
20×102mm Vulcan
Reason for the case: The Supreme Court ruled in June that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) overstepped its authority under the Clean Air Act to slash planet-warming emissions from power plants.
The case: It’s Sackett v. EPA and centers on a long-running dispute involving an Idaho couple named Chantell and Michael Sackett. Their legal battle began in 2007, when they tried to build a home on their land near Idaho's Priest Lake. EPA said the property contained a wetland, and that the couple needed to obtain a CWA permit or face heavy fines. Their land contains no body of water, and the law authorizes EPA to regulate only “navigable waters” in interstate commerce. EPA still ordered construction work halted and threatened huge penalties if the Sacketts didn’t obtain a federal permit, which typically requires more than two years and $250,000 in consulting costs. EPA’s argument: The Sacketts’ lot was connected to a wetland though it was separated by a 30-foot paved road, and that wetland was connected to a man-made ditch that was connected to a non-navigable creek that was connected to Priest Lake, which was navigable. The Sacketts, represented by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, have won at the Supreme Court before. They want the justices to significantly narrow the definition of WOTUS so that their property — and others like it — would not be subject to the CWA.
www.profarmer.com
The case: It’s Sackett v. EPA and centers on a long-running dispute involving an Idaho couple named Chantell and Michael Sackett. Their legal battle began in 2007, when they tried to build a home on their land near Idaho's Priest Lake. EPA said the property contained a wetland, and that the couple needed to obtain a CWA permit or face heavy fines. Their land contains no body of water, and the law authorizes EPA to regulate only “navigable waters” in interstate commerce. EPA still ordered construction work halted and threatened huge penalties if the Sacketts didn’t obtain a federal permit, which typically requires more than two years and $250,000 in consulting costs. EPA’s argument: The Sacketts’ lot was connected to a wetland though it was separated by a 30-foot paved road, and that wetland was connected to a man-made ditch that was connected to a non-navigable creek that was connected to Priest Lake, which was navigable. The Sacketts, represented by the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation, have won at the Supreme Court before. They want the justices to significantly narrow the definition of WOTUS so that their property — and others like it — would not be subject to the CWA.
Supreme Court on Monday Hears Oral Arguments Re: WOTUS Challenge to Clean Water Act
Employment report Friday | Flurry of Fed speakers again | CR signed into law | Prop 12 challenge
www.profarmer.com
GOYABEAN
.950 JDJ
Don't worry I'm sure with the new woke blood added to the court things will be back as usual 
Didn't the new "I don't know what a woman is" woke blood merely replace another woke blood?Don't worry I'm sure with the new woke blood added to the court things will be back as usual
spat
.700 Nitro Express
Breyer was a raging leftist, but he wasn't an idiot.
He at least would have been able to answer the question "what is a woman".
He may have been wrong about a lot of things, but he was at least still attached to reality.
His replacement doesn't even know what color the sky is without consulting an oppression focus group.