-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Conservative Court strips protection of wetlands
- Thread starter pearl
- Start date
Curious George
Veteran Member
An interesting long opinion. It might help if you had a link to some of the media response:
time.com
(This one links to the Supreme Court decision).
Supreme Court Ruling Strips Wetlands Protections From Clean Water Act
It's the second decision in as many years that narrows the reach of environmental regulations.
(This one links to the Supreme Court decision).
Curious George
Veteran Member
That is not quite what I meant
esmith
Veteran Member
The title of this post is misleading and totally beyond understanding.
The Court voted 9-0 on the EPA's attempt to overreach.
www.foxnews.com
From the above:
"The case centered on Michael and Chantell Sackett, two Idaho residents whom the EPA prohibited from building a home near a wetland years ago, citing the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972
"The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day," Alito's majority opinion stated. "The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as 'waters of the United States' because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not 'waters of the United States.'""
The Court voted 9-0 on the EPA's attempt to overreach.
Supreme Court delivers blow to key Biden environmental policy
The Supreme Court upended a Biden administration environmental regulation broadly defining and regulating which water sources the federal government has authority over.
"The case centered on Michael and Chantell Sackett, two Idaho residents whom the EPA prohibited from building a home near a wetland years ago, citing the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1972
"The EPA ordered the Sacketts to restore the site, threatening penalties of over $40,000 per day," Alito's majority opinion stated. "The EPA classified the wetlands on the Sacketts’ lot as 'waters of the United States' because they were near a ditch that fed into a creek, which fed into Priest Lake, a navigable, intrastate lake. The Sacketts sued, alleging that their property was not 'waters of the United States.'""