SUPREME COURT RULING: PROPERTY RIGHTS

I did not realize this case was still being tried in the courts!  I thought it was settled way back when, in the early teens or so.  But apparently I was wrong.

The question is - if you buy land, does the EPA have the right to determine the definition of "wetlands" to be ANY water upon the land?

Well in this case, the water was not a stream ... it was not a pond ... it was not the lake ... it was a DRAINAGE DITCH.

EPA said that since the ditch ran into a stream which ran into a river that ran into a lake, it was a "wetland" ...

So the owners sued the EPA ...

The EPA said they could NOT be sued by individuals .... which would have meant they had NO checks & balances ...

The Supreme  Court said "No" that they COULD be sued by individuals

This put the case back into the court system ...

Yup ... 16 years ago, now .... it has fanally come up with a 9-0 decision ... yeah, this QUIETLY went through the system without showing up in ANY news reports.

Yes EVERY JUSTICE voted the same way.

Now you need to understand that the EPA had gotten to the point where ANY water on a lond could be seen as a "wetland" from a drainage ditch to a puddle after a big rain .... I'm actually surprised they didn't forbid the use of sandbags during floods!

Here is the episode of Facts Matter (YouTube) which discusses the ruling and the NEW definitions as defined BY THE COURT ...

Kind of interesting ... I'm not sure that they can define the term "water way" or "wetland" via the court system ....

It smacks too much of legislating from the bench - they can not make laws from the bench, but they are allowed to interprete the laws as they are written.

But ... here's the video