Supreme Court sides with Idaho landowners against EPA
Article and # 3.
.
I saw this couple interviewed on Fox this morning. They stated the EPA also demanded they plant “wet land plants” to restore it. If they had, the EPA would have been able to say, “See, the land has wet land plants ergo it is a wetland”. Small victory and I hope the couple is able to build their home.
If I read correctly in another thread.. This couple has nothing left. Just the land and motor home they are living in. They still are not allowed to build. Just to sue. I suspect they will be out of money by the time they win the right to build. Then what? They will have to sell the land just to pay the lawyer and the EPA while loosing, will still win.
Mark Levin discusses the EPA and wetlands in his new book “Ameritopia”, and when he reads the EPA definition of wetlands, it is completely clear that it is so broad as to be tyrannical.
It is easy to see how bureaucrats would abuse it.
Supreme Court sides with Idaho landowners against EPA
Article and # 3.
.