Why not cut some federal agencies drastically!
In May, 2011, the Obama administration expanded the EPA’s interpretation of the Clean Waters Act. The Clean Waters Act was meant to prevent pollution in “navigable waters”
Now, thanks to Obama, th EPA asserts control over “wetlands”. “Wetlands” can include property near a lake.
In 2005, the Sacketts bought a small property in an Idaho residential neighborhood intending to build a home. In oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court Deputy Solicitor General Steward revealed the Sacketts were liable for $85,000 a day until restoring the property to its original condition for 1) violating the Clean Waters Act and 2) for violating the compliance order.
Supreme Court Justice Alito asked, If you related the facts of this case as they come to us to an ordinary homeowner, don’t you think most ordinary homeowners would say this kind of thin can’t happen in the United States?”
The High Court’s narrow ruling in Sackett v EPA [Supremes 9, EPA 0] does not provide relief to the thousands of homeowners affected by the Clean Water Act Most property owners continue to dance to the EPA’s tune. For more about the EPA and the Clean Water Act see the WSJ, Thursday, March 22, 2012.
_______________
DrCameronJackson@gmail.com
