This was a 9-0 decision on the core holding that the Idaho landowners didn't violate the act. There was then a split plurality for deciding what the ongoing standard is, but all 9 agreed that the current definition is unworkable. This wasn't a "conservative" decision, it was a recognition that the CWA is indefinite on the term wetlands and that the definition that the EPA has been using is not in conformity with the constitution or the enabling legislation.
The court was unanimous in finding that the land owned by the Idaho family was not subject to the Clean Water Act, but split 5-4 on the court's new test, which held that only wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to a body of water are covered by the law.
@@JJW48002 the earth always wins crazy you think the earth is so week, the earth is billions of years old my guy us humans can't destroy it only ourselves.
It has been said that the democrats have been using the courts, instead of the legislature to further their agenda! Does it mean that they will now look for more liberal judges? What about financial issues?
This ruling is just the start. The alphabet agencies have been allowed to write their own “rules” for decades and insert criminal and financial penalties without specific authorization from Congress. This ruling, from all 9 justices - including Sotomayer, Kagan, and Brown, says very clearly that those days are coming to an end! 👏👏👏
Have personal land but can't do anything with it except pay taxes on it. Because the government, you're paying taxes to, claim it as a wetland. If they are going to make it a wetland, shouldn't they just buy the land and make it part of the nation parks and forests?
@@seventyseven5978 oh yeah well in that case let’s change the rules for the few who’s risky decisions didn’t pan out even if it screws with everyone else. Actually you know what that’s exactly what happens everytime.
Seriously? Getting allocations from local or state government in the heavily MAGAtized legislative bodies in our country these days is almost impossible
No unfortunately, environmental and conservation science isn't a respected field of study under capitalism. People left enough to respect it are incredibly unlikely to become employed in journalism/communications, and if they are it's probably in an outlet that receives very little attention.
Nothing on the fact that there was not a single justice who dissented (including ones who aren’t conservative)? The conversation seemed to imply it was the conservative justices who ruled this way and could be misleading
Oh actually it was a two part decision: "The court was unanimous in finding that the land owned by the Idaho family was not subject to the Clean Water Act, but split 5-4 on the court's new test, which held that only wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to a body of water are covered by the law." And of course it is the new test that will have nationwide implications. The Idaho land will have extremely local implications.
@@looselipssinkships6543 The part of the decision that decided that the Idaho property was not wetlands was 9-0. The part of the decision defining a test for how lower courts should decide other similar cases was 5-4.
So now the great salt lake is no longer a wetland? So a seasonal body of water no matter size or ecological importance is no longer a wetland? A reservoir that is designed as a catch basin and spring fed but it's only outlet is a municipal water system? A 5 Sq mile lake formed by a damn that stopped discharging water for a week because of drought???? Riparian flood zones???? Our Supreme Court is detached from reality.
There is context to this case. I’m not a fan of this court but the “land” at issue is a buffer to a wetland and some of these buffers are egregious a 250ft setback can run you out of usable build able land making property worthless after you purchase it. The fact that this was a 9-0 decision imho demonstrates that the agency had overstepped
The court was unanimous in finding that the land owned by the Idaho family was not subject to the Clean Water Act, but split 5-4 on the court's new test, which held that only wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to a body of water are covered by the law.
@@rakninja that’s the point, the rule can and often does change after you purchase. I’ve seen the setback rule change from 75ft to 250ft within 8 years with no change to the property. People don’t always build immediately and there is no “grandfather” clause. So if you bought a couple acres with a wetland on it and you accounted for the un buildable wetland and the setback paid to have a feasibility study. Found an area that percs for your septic, then the rule changes by over 200% you can quickly find yourself with a parcel that is unbuilable and essentially worth a fraction of what you paid. How is that equitable? Your statement is misinformed as to the nature of the issue.
"The court hasn't given us a full definition.......of what exactly is a wetland." THAT'S NOT THE COURT'S FUCING JOB. Courts apply existing laws. They can't decide cases based on what people think the laws should say.
Ummmmm-yeah that IS their job. There was a disagreement (also called a lawsuit) over what the TEXT of the law means. The EPA thought adjacent meant one thing. The Sacketts thought adjacent meant something else. This is PRECISELY the court’s job to define that part of the law where there is disagreement.
MSM has a real hard time communicating basic facts: The decision of the court was 9-0 in favor of the Idaho couple, and 5-4 on the definition of wetland. The video showed a 6-3 ideological split which did NOT occur in this case. Rain puddles are NOT wetlands, hence the court's definition. Opinion: Congress should have defined wetland in the CWA, rather than leaving it to totalitarian bureaucrats. It is the nature of human beings that power corrupts, and that the state will ALWAYS tend towards totalitarianism. That's why power has to be limited and dispersed. That was the genius of our founders, to limit and disperse power.
@Eugene Firebird They "throw their weight around"? That is an amazingly stupid take. To be moral, one must be somewhat informed. I don't think you have to worry about being moral.
The government continued to tax that property as a “water view property” .To say they can not use it for taxed purpose that begs the question of, why then is government ALLOWED TO TAX IT. See also the theft by government of private property. If government prohibits use of land without compensation they have in fact stolen it. See amendments 4A & 5A
Property owners rights should always supersede governmental rights. If the government truly believes that the land should be protected, it should have never been allowed to be purchased, and once owned, the owner should be compensated at fair market value for its best and highest use. That compensation should come out of the executive agency's annual budgeted funding.
Good luck if the government decides they want to build a road on your property. Yes, they buy you out whether you want to go or not, and at a low price.
Exactly, the government wants me to get rid of all the bear traps/fake deer, killing hunters that walk up to them. Pff.... It's MINE though. GOP meat is the most tender because of their weakness. like a baby cow that was never allowed to walk around
It is up to the Congress, not courts or a bureaucratic organization to define limits. In the case where it is not well defined then courts have to decide and make that decesion in favor of the people. In both the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act the EPA was trying to make law by making their own definition. It is Congress's job to make law, not the Bureaucracies.
100% agree….AND to give the devil his due….if congress passed a more stringent definition, provided it is spelled out clearly, passed by both chambers of congress and signed by the potus…..that would be fine.
I remember this story. The couple bought the property and after that the city caused the property to flood THEN the government came in and labeled it a wetland.
@@joelvanwinkle5976 Nine Supreme Court Justices feel that they acted properly and a government agency was engaged in gross overreach. I hope they enjoy their new home.
@@rekcusdooLet me guess the Democrat media told you that 😂 You might be surprised to learn the fairness doctrine only applied to radio broadcasts and has no effect whatsoever on any cable network or internet broadcasting
The Supreme Court agreed 9-0 to allow the citizens to build their home. They disagreed 5-4 on the reasoning and rule change with KAVANAUGH siding either the more liberal justices arguing that the stipulation of a “continuous surface connection” test adopted by the majority “departs from the statutory text,from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this court’s precedents.” With droughts, floods and climate change, all justices agreed that the connections between bodies of water changed, yet the Conservative decision to change the rule will leave previously protected wetlands vulnerable to damage. This is not the mainstream media lying or making things up. These RUclips Videos are not meant to replace sources of news. They are supposed to pique your interest to read about the entire decision and context. For example the MAGA GOP plans to get rid of regulatory agencies that keep food, medicine, air, environment safe and that regulate banks and other big business. That means the FDA EPA Dept of Agriculture, Department of Energy…DeSantis wants to dismantle the CDC This is NOT for the hood of the working class as Red States as already the shortest lived, unhealthiest and most poorly educated. No. It is so they and their rich donors don’t have to clean up nuclear waste, aren’t liable for poisoning you or cleaning up after trail derailment, polluting your rivers and air-giving to no recourse when your lives are ruined.
They spin when the actual facts are sitting right in front of them--- 9-0 in favor of the family. Period. The 5-4 split is how the government should define a water source. Whats the problem now?
Imagine buying a property that was not defined as wetland when you bought it, did not fit the definition of wetlands that ecologists used at the time, and then have the EPA change the definition after you have started to build. Sure. That's not overreach at all. What this "expert" is saying about this is completely wrong and deliberately misleading. If the EPA thinks that they need an expanded definition of what a wetland is, then get Congress to change the law. If we wanted to be ruled by fiat, we would have a king.
@@jeffberwick Power hungry, unelected bureaucrats exercising power they don't have is what i think you meant. The epa has never positively effected the environment only the pockets of politicians
The EPA permits (literally with permits) entities to cause pollution that would otherwise get them sued by directly effected parties. Essentially the EPA is a protection racket to avoid direct litigation.
She did not describe Wetlands in this case properly. The correct term is Waters of the United States. Why put someone on that does not know the issue. .
To be clear, this was a case of bueracratic over reach. Declaration of wetlands has been abused by the epa for decades. All land is essentially connected to a larger body of water so the definition has been problematic, before the govt. abuses it's authority. Either re-define or continue to abuse individual rights.
@@loganbaileysfunwithtrains606 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: "Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The frame or receiver of any such weapon." that's not vague at all, especially to anyone with any degree of familiarity with firearms. if it shoots (or can easily be made to shoot) more than one time per trigger-squeeze, it's a machine gun, excepting manual reloads, like a double barrel shotgun.
@@rakninja yeah and when the ATF doesn’t follow that rule, look up Forced Reset Triggers, by their function they do not meet the requirements for a machine gun, the ATF accepted that they were not a machine gun, and then changed their ruling 2 years later
@@loganbaileysfunwithtrains606 just looked it up: "the subject FRTs do not require shooters to pull and then subsequently release the trigger to fire a second shot. Instead, these FRTs utilize the firing cycle to eliminate the need for the shooter to release the trigger before a second shot is fired. " therefore, the ATF is indeed following the law. bonus: i was unfamiliar with the term, so i looked at an online gun magazine that explained them. their resident gunsmith recommended against them as he felt there were too many moving parts, and generally unsafe. in my personal and professional opinion (served and certified as an armorer during my army service,) i agree with this assessment. it's not too hard to fire a m16/ ar15 family rifle at close to the cyclical rate using just the standard semi-auto setup, anyway.
This was a unanimous opinion. All the justices, both liberal and conservative agreed. I’m not sure it’s fair to imply that it has anything to do with the court being conservative.
Sure, if they can keep the ground water safe. It is a very difficult thing to do. Runoff also can't always be contained. Who do you call when a pig farm poop pond collapses and affect it's neighbor? I'll also reference East Palestine. That rail accident 😊occurred entirely on Norfolk Southern's property. Who do you call?
It's amazing to note how many people in these comments see court decisions as primarily influenced by political ideology without ever considering that all of the justices, liberal or conservative, first of all consider how the action in question complies with the relevant law. That is the final decision in almost all cases.
What Conservativees ? Nixon created thre EPA Teddy Roosevelt was a conservationist and up until Bush and tRump stacked the court with federalist sociecty bought wing nuts there was a conservative court that wasn’t extremist activists
"in almost all cases". Bull. The Justices know what they want to happen in most cases (i.e. imposing their political and religious beliefs) and have their clerks come up with a legal justification to make it so. Arguments before the Court are practically superfluous because the fix is in...
I think it’s funny that the news broadcasters automatically blast the Supreme Court as being conservative, and their decision was very much in line with being a conservative. When 99% of conservatives are very much for protecting the environment, protecting waterways and taking care of our planet. As a conservative Republican, I am very concerned with our planets, well-being, and our ability to fish and hunt and camp. I am offended that CBS would couch. That’s the way they did.
Good decision by the court. Slanted reporting. The vote was 9-0, so the reporters who say "Not surprising coming from this report" are attempting to smear persons on the court for political reasons. The focus of the story should be the victory for property rights.
Have to love when the initial reporter introducing the story has no idea what she is talking about yet is perfectly comfortable injecting a very one-sided and biased opinion. This is a complicated case and is not as simple as "one side good, one side bad."
Wrong, 😂. The epa was all bad in this case. They refused to grant them review they expanded the scope of the act and wouldn’t give the case up. They brought this on themselves completely. The epa also lied about the property in question.
Wetlands are essential for a multitude of species, especially migrating birds. Humans can continue to take away habitat, poison the land and then what - are humans going to go around and hand pollinate all the plants, especially for food production?
Imagine thinking and acting selfishly and alway planning only for the sort term, expecting things will sort out in our benefit. Imagine believing four justices know better than scientists and experts. Delirious
The case in question on a property that was inside of a road that didn't even go to the wetlands on the otherside of the road. The EPA should had have some common sense but they didn't and sued the homeowners. Now big daddy gov has slam the gavel.
Chevron deferrance needs to go yesterday. Reasoning? There shouldn't be any GRAY AREA LAWS! That's just asking for someone to twist the law into something else that's not legal, this case is a perfect example of bureaucratic overreach.
Well, you have had comments from justices. Many of the justices have said openly they don't even believe the EPA should have any power. So, seems relevant.
She didn't mentioned the court ruled unanimously against the EPA. It wasn't a political thing, even the liberal justices though the EPA was overstepping its boundaries. But know, the news is vilifying the conservative justices.
These agencies are always overstepping there authority. 9-0 means CONGRESS has to make laws, NOT un-elected bureaucrats. Not for the courts to determine the definition of wetlands. What is wrong with these people?
The only thing that is important here is that people should be in control of their own land! You don't need "permission" from the Government! They need permission from the people! They are servants of the people not the other way around!
Fun fact: Wet lands do not need to be wet, you can tell what is or can be by the trees, Birch to Black Spruce. Found that out on a construction project here in Fairbanks where all the "Wet Lands" had to be flagged so no one did anything to them. The only time it was wet was at the spring break up and it was wet for a maybe a week. A friend got paid to dig shallow lakes on his property off of Eielson Farm Road by the Government about 20 years ago to make wet lands for birds.
all of the rivers in Florida were rerouted from the Everglades to the coast in order to create more building space. please go look at how that's currently working out for the Everglades, and the rivers themselves! humans canNOT control nature or its course, no matter how hard we try. it will always do what it wants to do because that's how nature works. rivers will keep trying to revert back. while we're at it, rather than arguing about the definition of a wetland, why doesn't anybody in these comments look up what wetlands actually DO for the earth, which happens to be the place we all live!
@@Ma660t5andw1ch Not since Fairbanks' 1967 flood. The water table there, where Ice Alaska's ice carving championship was once held at, is around 15 feet if it's a wet year. What makes it different from the lower 48 would be the permafrost, and if you see sickly looking Black Spruce trees you have found permafrost. That location thawed out and drained from the development that happened around it. My father designed it and I did the survey for that plot of land that is owned by the Alaska Rail Road. It is across the river of The Pioneer Park, if you want to look it up.
Wetlands aren't always wet. Wetlands are transitional areas, sandwiched between permanently flooded deepwater environments and well-drained uplands, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. They include mangroves, marshes (salt, brackish, intermediate, and fresh), swamps, forested wetlands, bogs, wet prairies, prairie potholes, and vernal pools. In general terms, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface. The single feature that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that is at least periodically saturated with or covered by water.
I'll bet you're a liberal. The main clue is the obsession with facts. Combined with correct and sentence structure, this post is pretty darn suggestive of extensive book-reading. (Good post. Thanks for going to the trouble.)
Yes, and also jealous private landowners specifically mobilized the EPA to keep the new landowners from building. They used a federal agency to bully a new landowner and the court ruled unanimously that the EPA overstepped. It was not a “big win for conservatives” but a big win for private landowners with jealous, selfish neighbors. The modifications to the land had zero effect on clean water. This is all about petty people using the feds to bully newcomers. Thanks for doing your homework, CBS. 😢
I wouldn't call it a development but it was a small plot and much of the plots around had been developed. They got all the nessisary permits, bought the land after they were assured it was buildable, started construction. then the EPA came in and threatened them with $40,000 fine per day until they returned the land to exactly what it was prior to their construction starting. Imagine if you were told by the government that a plot of land was buildable so you bought it for $100k (I don't know the actual price) then the unelected EPA comes in and decides it isn't buildable making your $100k piece of land worth $5 and fine you $40k per day until you pay to undo what you paid to do.
@@crissd8283 But the EPA didn’t just “come in.” Jealous neighbors brought them in. They were obviously willing to strongarm a landowner and the Supreme Court slapped them unanimously for doing it, but their neighbors are the real a-holes in this situation. In my opinion…
A wetland cannot be the same as a body of water because a wetland can be like a swamp but a swamp is not the same as a ocean because it forms differently
You know the court ruled unanimously that the EPA was wrong. The couple got all permits and verified the lot (which was adjacent to a bunch of other developed lots) was buildable. They then bought it and started building with the governments permission. The EPA then came in and deamed it wetlands and threatened them with $40k per day in fines until they returned it to its original condition. Imagine making sure that a plot is buildable and then dumping $100k (don't know the actual price) on the property. Spend 10k for permits and another 20k for site prep. Then have the EPA come in and deem it wetlands, bringing the value of your $100k down to $5. You are obviously out the $10k for permits and $20k for site prep. Now the EPA is requiring you to spend your own money to return the site to its original state while fining you $40k per day till it is complete. You were doing everything right but the government took $300k from you. That is not right and the courts ruled unanimously (9-0) that the EPA was wrong.
You probably don't say that about Fox or Daily Wire. And any honest person with half a brain knows that you cannot completely omit bias, it's human nature so stop acting like you're some defender of truth. Lol, you probably think the election is stolen and that Biden is a communist xD
Not on the EPAs side on this case but just because the constitution says navigable waters that does NOT mean the Congress cannot pass a law, signed by the potus that addresses an issue surrounding wetlands. The constitution does not mention highways, and yet the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 created our interstate system.
@@dcj3831 the constitution doesn’t say anything about navigable waters. All it says is congress has the power to regulate commerce. Commerce takes place on navigable waters between states. That used to mean congress only had the power to keep obstructions in the water from impeding traffic. But ok congress thinks that also gives them the power to regulate pollution even though polluting isn’t a commercial transaction. But the clean water act refers to navigable waters. The water on this couple’s property wasn’t navigable water. SCOTUS simply told EPA to obey the clean water act But no congress doesn’t have the power to regulate every bit of water in the country. The power to regulate interstate commerce doesn’t encompass anything like that. Congress cannot do whatever it wants. It’s powers are enumerated in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. All other powers belong to the states
@@gopher7691 I think you and I are mostly in agreement….my only point is the congress can pass laws dealing with these issues without the specific topic being spelled out in the constitution. But (as you point out) federal agencies must stay within the bounds of the laws passed. They can’t make their own laws. AND if the law is particularly clunky and unclear the court has to define those issues in question.
@@dcj3831 I’m sorry but the constitution only gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. It’s a stretch to say this gives them the authority to regulate pollution. But at least they must confine this regulation to only navigable waterways, something to do with interstate commerce. Congress does not have the authority to regulate every wet area in the US, only navigable waters. I dispute that congress has the authority to regulate pollution at all since polluting isn’t an act of commerce.
“I’m not surprised that this court ruled this way”🙄. These people wanted to build THEIR HOUSE on THEIR OWN LAND. Why would anyone have an issue with that. The EPA, literally, wants to call a drainage ditch a “wetland” - that’s not an exaggeration. They want control of all land, period. This is a reasonable ruling.
As someone who grew up with a chemist who worked at the EPA I can tell you this is patently untrue. The EPA wants to make sure places don't flood, your water, soil, and air are clean, and making sure companies don't pollute the community they operate in. Not everything's a conpriracy theory my dude.
@@Onomatopoeia4u Didn’t suggest any conspiracies and what I’m saying isn’t a theory. I’ve seen and been involved in some of their cases. What I’ve described is the literal truth. While they certainly have reasonable authority in many cases they have a terrible record of overreach and this SC case was one of them (where all 9 justices agreed by the way). And the definition of a conspiracy isn’t “anything you disagree with”🙄.
When I was a kid in the 60s our rivers used to catch on fire (if you're young, look it up). The smog was so bad in big cities that often you couldn't see 1 block ahead of you in the car on the freeway and people had to drive with headlights on in the middle of the day (if you're young, look it up). A Republican president, Richard Nixon created the EPA and we started cleaning our air, and water, and rivers. I guess we're going back--whether we want to or not.
There is a balance to everything. You know the court ruled unanimously that the EPA was wrong. This couple got all permits and verified the lot (which was adjacent to a bunch of other developed lots) was buildable. They then bought it and started building with the governments permission. The EPA then came in and deamed it wetlands and threatened them with $40k per day in fines until they returned it to its original condition. Imagine making sure that a plot is buildable and then dumping $100k (don't know the actual price) on the property. Spend 10k for permits and another 20k for site prep. Then have the EPA come in and deem it wetlands, bringing the value of your $100k down to $5. You are obviously out the $10k for permits and $20k for site prep. Now the EPA is requiring you to spend your own money to return the site to its original state while fining you $40k per day till it is complete. You were doing everything right but the government took $300k from you. That is not right and the courts ruled unanimously (9-0) that the EPA was wrong.
I remember those days too it was terrible, couldn’t even see the mountains & the air had a chemical smell from all the smog. Thank you Mr Nixon for creating the EPA. Although in this case maybe they went too far, I don’t have all the info to have an opinion & I’ve learned not to jump to conclusions
@@Kenna198 Freedom should also mean the freedom to breath clean air and drink clean water. Freedom has come to mean freedom to do what I want no matter how many others it hurts.
They did the good work, they achieved the goals, now they are just grasping at straws, measuring pollution in parts per trillion , for reference that is one teaspoon in billions of gallons of water. The deep end has been reached.
Upon scrutinizing the current predicament, it becomes ostensibly apparent that the crux of the matter does not pertain to the accessibility of uncontaminated water, but rather hinges upon the government's encroachment on individual liberties. By necessitating a permit for construction in proximity to water bodies that fall under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the government effectively supersedes property ownership rights. The EPA's delineation of what constitutes a government-regulated waterway is so expansive that it enables them to assert dominion over any aquatic feature or adjacent land of their choosing, irrespective of proprietorship. While the general populace often associates the agency with safeguarding clean water sources, a meticulous examination of this specific instance unveils that its actions are not grounded in environmental preservation, but rather in the unwarranted extension of its jurisdiction.
Excellent redaction, congratulations. I just desire that when we had ruined skies, waters, lands and wetlands, your magnificent prose will restore environmental quality because property rights were enforced 🤯
@@Dude408f Dumbacrats really don't understand their place in Government and it is high time they get put down for their inablity to get their policies passed within the confines of the Constitution using the only correct stand of interpretation: the Originality Position as first put forth by Justice Story.
@@Dude408f Let me guess: You live in a cardboard box? If you don't, you already infringed on the "environmental quality". So now we have to decide on what's ACTUALLY eroding our environment, and when the government is over-reaching. This was simply the government saying that it was eroding water quality when it actually didn't. Moreover, suggesting that someone's property might damage wetlands (when the vast majority of us would get sick if we drank the water from wetlands) is preposterous. Its akin to when the clean water act reduced the use of phosphates in detergent; not because phosphates are harmful to plant life. On the contrary, phosphates cause a tremendous surge in algae bloom. But because it made it harder to clean out the clean water intakes at filtration plants. How absurd is that?
@@johnabbottphotography you don't need to guess, you can ask. You don't need to be angry, we all live in this planet, we share and need environmental quality for our children and grandchildren. We're not enemies. EPA has a mandate and we need them to do it right. Phosphate pollute water, I can explain you but it doesn't seem like you want to hear
@@aleejones7508 You know the court ruled unanimously that the EPA was wrong. You know this couple got all permits and verified the lot (which was adjacent to a bunch of other developed lots) was buildable. They then bought it and started building with the governments permission. The EPA then came in and deamed it wetlands and threatened them with $40k per day in fines until they returned it to its original condition. Imagine making sure that a plot is buildable and then dumping $100k (don't know the actual price) to buy the property. Spend $10k for permits and another $20k for site prep. Then have the EPA come in and deem it wetlands, bringing the value of your $100k property down to $5. You are obviously out the $10k for permits and $20k for site prep. Now the EPA is requiring you to spend your own money to return the site to its original state while fining you $40k per day till it is complete. You were doing everything right but the government took $300k from you. That is not right and the courts ruled unanimously (9-0) that the EPA was wrong. If we believe in democracy we must not give unelected agencies such as the EPA, too much power. I believe in democracy there for, I am skeptical of all agencies that act outside the democratic system.
@@crissd8283 - @"Currently the balance is much to far toward saving the environment at all costs." - No offense, but that has to be the craziest thing I've ever heard. When it comes to making sure we continue to have a habitable planet, there is "balance" needed. We need the planet to be habitable. Either way, whether you agree or don't...it isn't the EPAs job to provide balance. It's their job to protect the environment.
This case was really about federal over reach. Any land that has surface water that flows into a drainage ditch could be considered "wet land". Farming, as we know it, would end. Say goodbye to your yard. The Federal Government would have owned it.
You haven't a clue to what the actual laws, regulations or legal definitions of wetlands are. Are you just anti-government in general? Do you think anyone should do whatever they want with land, water and air?
@@spankduncan1114 Oh, how am I wrong. Please educate us. You know it as a 9-0 decision, right? A wetland, according to this definition, was any body of land that had standing water at any point of time that flowed into a body of water that connected to major tributaries and eventually the ocean. We live in a hill and there are times when we have standing water. They're called retaining walls, and they pool the water, standing water. Could literally apply to almost any land.
I have a perfect example. twenty years ago on our 60 acre horse ranch we built a half acre pond with about another quarter acre shallow area attached to benefit wildlife and...because we wanted a pond. Now, this is a man made pond, using a pond liner. Dug and shaped with backhoe and dozer. Last year we decided to do a major cleanout because it had become choked with iris (they tend to take over shallow water and out compete everything else to the point you cannot see the water). Someone, even though the pond is not visible from the road reported us to the EPA and we received a cease and desist letter with a statement that we were going to be fines about $20K for what was already destroyed and potential fines were over a hundred grand if we did not stop. We were then visited by a green zealot who came steam rolling in ready for war...until he walked up to the pond and said "umm. this is a pond liner. Did you build this?" "yup". "ah. ok. sorry. you can ignore that letter" well, no, you cannot "ignore" a federal agency that has started an action against you. It cost us about $4,000 in legal fees to actually make it go away. So - a "body of water" that is not listed ANYWHERE as existing was automatically "protected" because it is shallow. But the clean water act from day one does have verbiage saying "navigable waters". ANY separate body of water was outside their prevue, but they just ignored that and started regulating more and more and more. The EPA was a great idea. And was and is needed. But ALL government agencies are living entities that must grow or die. And any regulatory agency over time attracts people who are FOR regulating whatever it is. The EPA started out run by scientists. Now it is run by environmental zealots. Same is true for many other agencies. If you HATE "industry X" and there is an agency that regulated that industry, then you are motivated to join that agency. After a few decades everyone in power at that agency hates the industry they are regulating. This is not a party thing. This is a human thing. People who really like a thing are not motivated to be part of it's governing body, but people who hate it are.
That really bites. What cost you $4000 was not keeping decent records that you dug that pond. I am sure you know now, but all that was needed was to ask "does this apply to man made ponds? Here's my records" and that would be that. Good recordkeeping goes hand in hand with good construction.
Nice anecdote, but there's much more evidence showing regulatory agencies are very close to the industries they're supposed to regulate (regulatory capture). Your story isn't one of over regulation but of a doofus that didn't do their job. That sucks, but it'd be a small price to pay to keep people from getting cancer from industry/agricultural spills or runoff.
I disagree with your last line. I know people who grew up hunting, fishing, trapping & lovers of nature who joined the state park rangers. One is working his way up towards leadership. Anecdotally I realize but I think people who like something go into that field out of joy at work, working at something u hate would make everyday suck. That's pure bs you lost 4k though
@@nolongerblocked6210 yes, but the state park rangers is an active group working to keep people safe and enforce the rules. They are not a "regulatory agency". I am speaking of state or federal agencies.
The EPA defined a wetland as anything rain falls on. Thank God someone finally has ruled against the EPA and its seizure/ restrictions on private land.
Tell the news caster to report the news and to keep her personal opinions to herself . Saying you were not surprised shows your bias. Reporters report ! That’s it!!
The property didn't belong to the Government, so the people who shelled out the money for to could build a resort on it if they wanted to. There has been too much big gov. overreach towards its voting population.
Just wait until you find out about how private corporations over step and cause widespread environmental havoc in the pursuit of bottomless profit.....
I'm so shocked that the conservatives on the Supreme Court don't think the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to protect the environment.
@Franzise Hi my name is Franzise and I don't know the definition of the word "Unanimous"... everyone pile on me and tell me what a clown I am because I tried to blame conservatives and now it backfired in my face, much like everything else I comment on...
The cost of building on actual wetlands is enormous. If the water level has extreme highs and lows, the structure will likely have to be on stilts. If this is the case, then the building will not affect the wetland flow. Good decision court.
Filling in wetlands to build a house creates flooding problems somewhere else. Water needs to go somewhere! Supreme Court should listen to civil engineers about wetlands.
@@rabblerousin8981Is that kind of thinking coming from the same doomsday theorists that predicted so many world changing climate disasters that never happened?
@@miked412 no it’s not, the point of these alphabet agencies is to manage and enforce the laws and policies enacted by congress. They are essentially stewards.
@@JoeSmith-fu9yx then why has the govt actively been muzzling and undermining these agencies due to lobbying interests... 🤔won't be any of us left to complain and fight about this once our wetlands are gone and we have effectively destroyed the planet's largest system of filtering clean water! ☺you think congress will invest in more water treatment methods then? or will they keep defaulting until we all die of thirst first?!
Big win for the people who own that land and can build a house in their on their land. All of this homelessness and people are worried about codes, licenses and payments.
The EPA considers a mud puddle wetland. My town argued with the EPA because they considered a 20’x40’ area in the woods, just off a parking lot, that was only wet in the spring after the snow melted but there was still frost in the ground as wetland. It wouldn’t even hold water after a downpour but you couldn’t convince those idiots.
you’re such a deep thinker!! you show how selfish conservatives think and how’s it is all about me first. No wonder the world is in such a dangerous place.
This was a 9-0 decision on the core holding that the Idaho landowners didn't violate the act. There was then a split plurality for deciding what the ongoing standard is, but all 9 agreed that the current definition is unworkable. This wasn't a "conservative" decision, it was a recognition that the CWA is indefinite on the term wetlands and that the definition that the EPA has been using is not in conformity with the constitution or the enabling legislation.
regulation fuzziness gets them in trouble all of the time.
@Ray Wright Can you provide one shred of evidence to support your claim or do you just lie for fun?
Yeah, but the propagandist had to insert the "conservative" label to keep in line with the liberal media's propaganda narrative.
@@marsfalcon9250 It was a joke you muppet
@@marsfalcon9250exactly all republicans do is lie and blame it on democrats!
I might have missed it, but the decision in favor of the couple vs the EPA was 9-0.
If it’s your own land, you have the god giving rights to build whatever you want without liberal bureaucrat interference
@@chuckxu5910 oxymoron
@M W_A
@@davedave4986
@@chuckxu5910 What bible are you reading, I can't find it anywhere in mine.
They talk about this like it's super controversial, but this is another 9-0
The court was unanimous in finding that the land owned by the Idaho family was not subject to the Clean Water Act, but split 5-4 on the court's new test, which held that only wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to a body of water are covered by the law.
Earth 0
They want to regulate every puddle. No joke.
@@JJW48002 the earth always wins crazy you think the earth is so week, the earth is billions of years old my guy us humans can't destroy it only ourselves.
@@Spookykidshow I’m still rooting for aliens to come
Now they need to put the ATF in check.
damn right, they keep trying to stop us from adding tabaco to our shotgun shells and having a quick smoke. damn socialists
and the FBI
@@shellysmith1037 no, Just the ATF
After watching this case.
This is what happens when people in the government believe they can do whatever they want
Right - with no informed electorate in either party. Just angry ones with “friendships” based on mutual hatred’s.
It has been said that the democrats have been using the courts, instead of the legislature to further their agenda!
Does it mean that they will now look for more liberal judges?
What about financial issues?
This ruling is just the start. The alphabet agencies have been allowed to write their own “rules” for decades and insert criminal and financial penalties without specific authorization from Congress. This ruling, from all 9 justices - including Sotomayer, Kagan, and Brown, says very clearly that those days are coming to an end! 👏👏👏
Have personal land but can't do anything with it except pay taxes on it. Because the government, you're paying taxes to, claim it as a wetland. If they are going to make it a wetland, shouldn't they just buy the land and make it part of the nation parks and forests?
More like you got suckered into buying land you can’t use like the last guy did.
@@danieladams1752 still wrong
You had to know before you bought it.
@@seventyseven5978 oh yeah well in that case let’s change the rules for the few who’s risky decisions didn’t pan out even if it screws with everyone else. Actually you know what that’s exactly what happens everytime.
Seriously? Getting allocations from local or state government in the heavily MAGAtized legislative bodies in our country these days is almost impossible
Could we get a news anchor who knows about the topic and isn't bringing up stupid points?
The answer, it seems, is "No". They don't have any of those anchors.
Naw, skin color and what's between the legs is so much more important than being competent at the job.
Good question . The answer is bad.
😂😂😂😂😂😂 fat chance of that!
No unfortunately, environmental and conservation science isn't a respected field of study under capitalism. People left enough to respect it are incredibly unlikely to become employed in journalism/communications, and if they are it's probably in an outlet that receives very little attention.
Nothing on the fact that there was not a single justice who dissented (including ones who aren’t conservative)? The conversation seemed to imply it was the conservative justices who ruled this way and could be misleading
It was a 5-4 decision. What are you talking about?
Oh actually it was a two part decision: "The court was unanimous in finding that the land owned by the Idaho family was not subject to the Clean Water Act, but split 5-4 on the court's new test, which held that only wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to a body of water are covered by the law." And of course it is the new test that will have nationwide implications. The Idaho land will have extremely local implications.
@@LtChamberz it was 9-0 lmfao
@@looselipssinkships6543 The part of the decision that decided that the Idaho property was not wetlands was 9-0. The part of the decision defining a test for how lower courts should decide other similar cases was 5-4.
@@LtChamberz how it should be. The government shouldn't be dictating what people can or cant do with their property without a clear cut set of rules.
Then the EPA should’ve bought the couple out. Good to see the court reign in this ridiculousness.
It’s about time we reel in the unelected bureaucrats.
I hope when it comes back to bite you all none of you all beg for help from the federal government..
I'm assuming you're talking about Conservative on the Court?
@@DavidJames-sq1ec your skull on a stick sounds good
The supreme court isn't elected...
I hope you are referring to the Supreme Court that has become accustomed to legislating from the bench.
And where was the EPA or FEMA when the Train derailed in Pennsylvania and then Ohio and several other places🤦♂️
Trump rolled back safety standards for starters. Secondly the governor decided to handle it his own way.
Thirdly the feds took the mess over
they were being held back by a conservative SCOTUS
So now the great salt lake is no longer a wetland?
So a seasonal body of water no matter size or ecological importance is no longer a wetland?
A reservoir that is designed as a catch basin and spring fed but it's only outlet is a municipal water system?
A 5 Sq mile lake formed by a damn that stopped discharging water for a week because of drought????
Riparian flood zones????
Our Supreme Court is detached from reality.
@@tonywagner4836 and before that the Obama admin was lobbied to remove vinyl caloride from the "dangerous for tranportation" list.
@@tonywagner4836That Trump angle has already been disproven by multiple media outlets.
Now apply this ruling to the ATF and pistol braces along with the whole NFA
There is context to this case. I’m not a fan of this court but the “land” at issue is a buffer to a wetland and some of these buffers are egregious a 250ft setback can run you out of usable build able land making property worthless after you purchase it. The fact that this was a 9-0 decision imho demonstrates that the agency had overstepped
sounds like a case of "caveat emptor" to me. it is your own responsibility to discover what you are allowed to build on land you purchase.
The court was unanimous in finding that the land owned by the Idaho family was not subject to the Clean Water Act, but split 5-4 on the court's new test, which held that only wetlands that have a continuous surface connection to a body of water are covered by the law.
@@rakninja that’s the point, the rule can and often does change after you purchase. I’ve seen the setback rule change from 75ft to 250ft within 8 years with no change to the property. People don’t always build immediately and there is no “grandfather” clause. So if you bought a couple acres with a wetland on it and you accounted for the un buildable wetland and the setback paid to have a feasibility study. Found an area that percs for your septic, then the rule changes by over 200% you can quickly find yourself with a parcel that is unbuilable and essentially worth a fraction of what you paid. How is that equitable? Your statement is misinformed as to the nature of the issue.
@@_NoHandle_ Yeah, I want "wetlands" defined by a bunch of corrupt lawyers who know nothing about what a wetland really is. No, really I don't.
@Bill Randleman Just like the pistol brace rule. smh
"The court hasn't given us a full definition.......of what exactly is a wetland." THAT'S NOT THE COURT'S FUCING JOB. Courts apply existing laws. They can't decide cases based on what people think the laws should say.
Ummmmm-yeah that IS their job. There was a disagreement (also called a lawsuit) over what the TEXT of the law means. The EPA thought adjacent meant one thing. The Sacketts thought adjacent meant something else. This is PRECISELY the court’s job to define that part of the law where there is disagreement.
MSM has a real hard time communicating basic facts:
The decision of the court was 9-0 in favor of the Idaho couple, and 5-4 on the definition of wetland.
The video showed a 6-3 ideological split which did NOT occur in this case.
Rain puddles are NOT wetlands, hence the court's definition.
Opinion:
Congress should have defined wetland in the CWA, rather than leaving it to totalitarian bureaucrats.
It is the nature of human beings that power corrupts, and that the state will ALWAYS tend towards totalitarianism. That's why power has to be limited and dispersed. That was the genius of our founders, to limit and disperse power.
Great day against these bully agencies
Bully agency? Do you consider yourself to be gullible?
@@adamredbeard5232 They really like to throw their weight around. I'm glad they lost. Great day for America.
@Eugene Firebird They "throw their weight around"? That is an amazingly stupid take. To be moral, one must be somewhat informed. I don't think you have to worry about being moral.
@Eugene Firebird I love that you ignore the fact Supreme court is corrupt. Great day for America, lol.
The government continued to tax that property as a “water view property” .To say they can not use it for taxed purpose that begs the question of, why then is government ALLOWED TO TAX IT.
See also the theft by government of private property. If government prohibits use of land without compensation they have in fact stolen it. See amendments 4A & 5A
Always be suspicious of Executive Agencies
Property owners rights should always supersede governmental rights. If the government truly believes that the land should be protected, it should have never been allowed to be purchased, and once owned, the owner should be compensated at fair market value for its best and highest use. That compensation should come out of the executive agency's annual budgeted funding.
Good luck if the government decides they want to build a road on your property. Yes, they buy you out whether you want to go or not, and at a low price.
Exactly, the government wants me to get rid of all the bear traps/fake deer, killing hunters that walk up to them. Pff.... It's MINE though. GOP meat is the most tender because of their weakness. like a baby cow that was never allowed to walk around
It is up to the Congress, not courts or a bureaucratic organization to define limits. In the case where it is not well defined then courts have to decide and make that decesion in favor of the people. In both the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act the EPA was trying to make law by making their own definition. It is Congress's job to make law, not the Bureaucracies.
100% agree….AND to give the devil his due….if congress passed a more stringent definition, provided it is spelled out clearly, passed by both chambers of congress and signed by the potus…..that would be fine.
I remember this story. The couple bought the property and after that the city caused the property to flood THEN the government came in and labeled it a wetland.
Suprem court=terrible
@@mariabator9317 Provide context as to why specifically for this case. It wasn't a wetland until they were flooded.
@@mariabator9317 All 9 of them. It was unanimous.
@@mariabator9317 you only think that because for the first time in decades it isnt controlled by the far left.
@@joelvanwinkle5976 Nine Supreme Court Justices feel that they acted properly and a government agency was engaged in gross overreach. I hope they enjoy their new home.
Building my own house on my land is part of my liberty and pursuit of happiness.
Shove that government overreach.
It is my right to have clean water to drink and clean air to breathe. We must protect Mother Earth.
@@sandrahossman2089 My house isn't affecting your drinking water.
It's built to code.
And your paranoia doesn't trump my constitutional rights.
Bye.
That’s nice but it depends on where you live, cities & towns have zoning laws we have to abide by, not sure how it works out in the country
Can't you even begin a story without giving your opinion about the judges? The news, could we just have the news.
On ALL mainstream media this is what they do...
You can thank Ronald Reagan for that for his repeal of the FCC Fairness Doctrine.
@@rekcusdooLet me guess the Democrat media told you that 😂
You might be surprised to learn the fairness doctrine only applied to radio broadcasts and has no effect whatsoever on any cable network or internet broadcasting
The Supreme Court agreed 9-0 to allow the citizens to build their home. They disagreed 5-4 on the reasoning and rule change with KAVANAUGH siding either the more liberal justices arguing that the stipulation of a “continuous surface connection” test adopted by the majority “departs from the statutory text,from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this court’s precedents.”
With droughts, floods and climate change, all justices agreed that the connections between bodies of water changed, yet the Conservative decision to change the rule will leave previously protected wetlands vulnerable to damage.
This is not the mainstream media lying or making things up. These RUclips Videos are not meant to replace sources of news. They are supposed to pique your interest to read about the entire decision and context.
For example the MAGA GOP plans to get rid of regulatory agencies that keep food, medicine, air, environment safe and that regulate banks and other big business. That means the FDA EPA Dept of Agriculture, Department of Energy…DeSantis wants to dismantle the CDC
This is NOT for the hood of the working class as Red States as already the shortest lived, unhealthiest and most poorly educated. No. It is so they and their rich donors don’t have to clean up nuclear waste, aren’t liable for poisoning you or cleaning up after trail derailment, polluting your rivers and air-giving to no recourse when your lives are ruined.
They spin when the actual facts are sitting right in front of them--- 9-0 in favor of the family. Period. The 5-4 split is how the government should define a water source. Whats the problem now?
Imagine buying a property that was not defined as wetland when you bought it, did not fit the definition of wetlands that ecologists used at the time, and then have the EPA change the definition after you have started to build. Sure. That's not overreach at all.
What this "expert" is saying about this is completely wrong and deliberately misleading.
If the EPA thinks that they need an expanded definition of what a wetland is, then get Congress to change the law. If we wanted to be ruled by fiat, we would have a king.
Whoa...someone took on the EPA and won. Nice.
guess you're not a big fan of clean air or clean water.
Long overdue, Pistol Pete
@@jeffberwick Power hungry, unelected bureaucrats exercising power they don't have is what i think you meant. The epa has never positively effected the environment only the pockets of politicians
The EPA permits (literally with permits) entities to cause pollution that would otherwise get them sued by directly effected parties. Essentially the EPA is a protection racket to avoid direct litigation.
"Preserving a historic landmark" that's on privately owned property...
And the court ruled unanimously (9-0) that what the EPA did to this couple was wrong.
She did not describe Wetlands in this case properly. The correct term is Waters of the United States. Why put someone on that does not know the issue. .
Good decision. Unelected bureaucrats are out of control.
Good job! The old rules were bonkers.
Both of them putting the spin on it? 9-0 seems pretty convincing
These dopes are disciples of the highest woke.
To be clear, this was a case of bueracratic over reach. Declaration of wetlands has been abused by the epa for decades. All land is essentially connected to a larger body of water so the definition has been problematic, before the govt. abuses it's authority. Either re-define or continue to abuse individual rights.
Same for the ATF they keep the definition of a “machine gun” vague so literally anything could fit their definition
@@loganbaileysfunwithtrains606 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b) For the purposes of the National Firearms Act the term Machinegun means: "Any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The frame or receiver of any such weapon."
that's not vague at all, especially to anyone with any degree of familiarity with firearms. if it shoots (or can easily be made to shoot) more than one time per trigger-squeeze, it's a machine gun, excepting manual reloads, like a double barrel shotgun.
💯
@@rakninja yeah and when the ATF doesn’t follow that rule, look up Forced Reset Triggers, by their function they do not meet the requirements for a machine gun, the ATF accepted that they were not a machine gun, and then changed their ruling 2 years later
@@loganbaileysfunwithtrains606 just looked it up: "the subject FRTs do not require shooters to pull and then subsequently release the trigger to fire a second shot. Instead, these FRTs utilize the firing cycle to eliminate the need for the shooter to release the trigger before a second shot is fired. "
therefore, the ATF is indeed following the law.
bonus: i was unfamiliar with the term, so i looked at an online gun magazine that explained them. their resident gunsmith recommended against them as he felt there were too many moving parts, and generally unsafe.
in my personal and professional opinion (served and certified as an armorer during my army service,) i agree with this assessment. it's not too hard to fire a m16/ ar15 family rifle at close to the cyclical rate using just the standard semi-auto setup, anyway.
So a puddle doesn't count as wetlands now. Seems self explanatory
How many times did she say “A win for conservatives” - neglecting to mention it was 9-0.
This was a unanimous opinion. All the justices, both liberal and conservative agreed. I’m not sure it’s fair to imply that it has anything to do with the court being conservative.
the media is never "fair" lol
If they own the land they should be able to do whatever they choose. The EPA has way over extended their authority.
Sure, if they can keep the ground water safe. It is a very difficult thing to do. Runoff also can't always be contained. Who do you call when a pig farm poop pond collapses and affect it's neighbor? I'll also reference East Palestine. That rail accident 😊occurred entirely on Norfolk Southern's property. Who do you call?
So you're ok with your neighbors building toxic trash dump on their property? Conservatives never get it until it happens to them.
It's amazing to note how many people in these comments see court decisions as primarily influenced by political ideology without ever considering that all of the justices, liberal or conservative, first of all consider how the action in question complies with the relevant law. That is the final decision in almost all cases.
What Conservativees ? Nixon created thre EPA Teddy Roosevelt was a conservationist and up until Bush and tRump stacked the court with federalist sociecty bought wing nuts there was a conservative court that wasn’t extremist activists
Stop it. We know how corrupt they are. It's about which lobbyists pay them the best
it depends on the justice who wrote the leading opinion.
"in almost all cases". Bull. The Justices know what they want to happen in most cases (i.e. imposing their political and religious beliefs) and have their clerks come up with a legal justification to make it so. Arguments before the Court are practically superfluous because the fix is in...
@Anee Wilson Lmao!! Oh no the sky is falling!!
I think it’s funny that the news broadcasters automatically blast the Supreme Court as being conservative, and their decision was very much in line with being a conservative. When 99% of conservatives are very much for protecting the environment, protecting waterways and taking care of our planet. As a conservative Republican, I am very concerned with our planets, well-being, and our ability to fish and hunt and camp. I am offended that CBS would couch. That’s the way they did.
Good decision by the court. Slanted reporting. The vote was 9-0, so the reporters who say "Not surprising coming from this report" are attempting to smear persons on the court for political reasons. The focus of the story should be the victory for property rights.
So where is your land located....I want to build a Nuclear Power plant next to you
Lol, even your username is cringe.
yes of course i should be able to pollute the river you drink from as long as i own the land upstream 🤣
@@errorite6653 that's not the issue here, or elsewhere. Start working on critical thinking. It will make your life easier in so many ways.
@@aleejones7508 You say that like it's a bad thing?
Another win for the people.
You mean another win for greedy corporations
@@gigijones4165 Did you pay attention at all? LOL!!! Leftists are clapping with one hand.
Have to love when the initial reporter introducing the story has no idea what she is talking about yet is perfectly comfortable injecting a very one-sided and biased opinion. This is a complicated case and is not as simple as "one side good, one side bad."
And the ruling was 9-0 and not “conservative”. It encompassed the liberal judges too. Smh
😂 Same thing I noticed. Totally uneducated. What a joke.
Wrong, 😂. The epa was all bad in this case. They refused to grant them review they expanded the scope of the act and wouldn’t give the case up. They brought this on themselves completely. The epa also lied about the property in question.
@@Justin-xj3gd Bet no one at the EPA lost a dime that cost the land owners thousands.
Wetlands are essential for a multitude of species, especially migrating birds. Humans can continue to take away habitat, poison the land and then what - are humans going to go around and hand pollinate all the plants, especially for food production?
What you saying has nothing to do with this case!
The Federal Govt is out of control. We have such limited choices to fix this. All are painful.
No. That is GOP hype by specific group of their politicians out of control and hate the DOJ holding them accountable.
Imagine being allowed to build a house on your own property. Pure anarchy
Only an idiot builts on wetland anyways right?
No no, we can't have that...more flouride in the water (that's banned in other cou tries), and chemicals in the air for thee!
Imagine thinking the environment can and has to take anything and everything that we throw to it. Delusion
Imagine that. Lol
Imagine thinking and acting selfishly and alway planning only for the sort term, expecting things will sort out in our benefit.
Imagine believing four justices know better than scientists and experts. Delirious
The case in question on a property that was inside of a road that didn't even go to the wetlands on the otherside of the road. The EPA should had have some common sense but they didn't and sued the homeowners. Now big daddy gov has slam the gavel.
Sounds like the Court just closed another way for the Government to make money! This is a win for everyone!
Which means they take it from your income tax. Yay wins.
Chevron deferrance needs to go yesterday. Reasoning? There shouldn't be any GRAY AREA LAWS! That's just asking for someone to twist the law into something else that's not legal, this case is a perfect example of bureaucratic overreach.
Exactly! Laws should be few and far between, but clear and strong when you run up against one.
This doesn't make sense at all because it is many different forms of not your own veiw
Why did the reporter say she wasn’t surprised this court ruled this way? Is this a talk show or a news report?
because constitutional justice make some people scared. the federal list papers identified the kinds of people that would be.
because it isn't literally everyone knows how they will vote
Because the supreme court is unbalanced, more Democrats are needed to have the same amount, 1/2 Republicans and 1/2 Democrats to have real Debates.
Well, you have had comments from justices. Many of the justices have said openly they don't even believe the EPA should have any power. So, seems relevant.
She didn't mentioned the court ruled unanimously against the EPA. It wasn't a political thing, even the liberal justices though the EPA was overstepping its boundaries. But know, the news is vilifying the conservative justices.
Score one for property rights !!
These agencies are always overstepping there authority. 9-0 means CONGRESS has to make laws, NOT un-elected bureaucrats. Not for the courts to determine the definition of wetlands. What is wrong with these people?
Ironic since SCOTUS is literally a body of unelected Bureaucrats.
Excellent! On to the next overreaching government agency!
The only thing that is important here is that people should be in control of their own land! You don't need "permission" from the Government! They need permission from the people! They are servants of the people not the other way around!
Fun fact: Wet lands do not need to be wet, you can tell what is or can be by the trees, Birch to Black Spruce. Found that out on a construction project here in Fairbanks where all the "Wet Lands" had to be flagged so no one did anything to them. The only time it was wet was at the spring break up and it was wet for a maybe a week.
A friend got paid to dig shallow lakes on his property off of Eielson Farm Road by the Government about 20 years ago to make wet lands for birds.
Aren’t they all connected through the water table?
Not anymore, bucko
all of the rivers in Florida were rerouted from the Everglades to the coast in order to create more building space. please go look at how that's currently working out for the Everglades, and the rivers themselves! humans canNOT control nature or its course, no matter how hard we try. it will always do what it wants to do because that's how nature works. rivers will keep trying to revert back. while we're at it, rather than arguing about the definition of a wetland, why doesn't anybody in these comments look up what wetlands actually DO for the earth, which happens to be the place we all live!
@@Ma660t5andw1ch Not since Fairbanks' 1967 flood. The water table there, where Ice Alaska's ice carving championship was once held at, is around 15 feet if it's a wet year. What makes it different from the lower 48 would be the permafrost, and if you see sickly looking Black Spruce trees you have found permafrost. That location thawed out and drained from the development that happened around it. My father designed it and I did the survey for that plot of land that is owned by the Alaska Rail Road. It is across the river of The Pioneer Park, if you want to look it up.
@Nomen Clature I agree 100% but the army corps of engineers think very differentl
This court is so predictable! It has lost all its integrity.
9-0 decision, it was unanimous.
Thank you SCOTUS!!! It's time to rein in the out of control power hungry unelected EPA!!!
Defund the EPA
This is great news! They should be able to do wtf they want on their own land!
so, if i were to buy all the lots near yours and turn them into landfills, you'd be cool with that, yes?
You think
Great decision by the SCOTUS!
Wetlands aren't always wet. Wetlands are transitional areas, sandwiched between permanently flooded deepwater environments and well-drained uplands, where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. They include mangroves, marshes (salt, brackish, intermediate, and fresh), swamps, forested wetlands, bogs, wet prairies, prairie potholes, and vernal pools. In general terms, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil and on its surface. The single feature that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that is at least periodically saturated with or covered by water.
Ok, cool get it passed through congress. You can't just use executive agencies to insert whatever definition they want.
I'll bet you're a liberal. The main clue is the obsession with facts. Combined with correct and sentence structure, this post is pretty darn suggestive of extensive book-reading.
(Good post. Thanks for going to the trouble.)
So the entire Houston area is wetlands and no one can live or build anything anywhere.
@@Skenderbeuismyhero bro I live in Houston stop being silly.
So, it's all land. Thanks.
As far as I understand, the property in question was a lot in a housing development; not land off by itself.
Yes, and also jealous private landowners specifically mobilized the EPA to keep the new landowners from building. They used a federal agency to bully a new landowner and the court ruled unanimously that the EPA overstepped. It was not a “big win for conservatives” but a big win for private landowners with jealous, selfish neighbors. The modifications to the land had zero effect on clean water. This is all about petty people using the feds to bully newcomers. Thanks for doing your homework, CBS. 😢
I wouldn't call it a development but it was a small plot and much of the plots around had been developed. They got all the nessisary permits, bought the land after they were assured it was buildable, started construction. then the EPA came in and threatened them with $40,000 fine per day until they returned the land to exactly what it was prior to their construction starting. Imagine if you were told by the government that a plot of land was buildable so you bought it for $100k (I don't know the actual price) then the unelected EPA comes in and decides it isn't buildable making your $100k piece of land worth $5 and fine you $40k per day until you pay to undo what you paid to do.
@@crissd8283 But the EPA didn’t just “come in.” Jealous neighbors brought them in. They were obviously willing to strongarm a landowner and the Supreme Court slapped them unanimously for doing it, but their neighbors are the real a-holes in this situation. In my opinion…
Good!!! It's about time!! EPA is out of control!!
A wetland cannot be the same as a body of water because a wetland can be like a swamp but a swamp is not the same as a ocean because it forms differently
You know the court ruled unanimously that the EPA was wrong. The couple got all permits and verified the lot (which was adjacent to a bunch of other developed lots) was buildable. They then bought it and started building with the governments permission. The EPA then came in and deamed it wetlands and threatened them with $40k per day in fines until they returned it to its original condition.
Imagine making sure that a plot is buildable and then dumping $100k (don't know the actual price) on the property. Spend 10k for permits and another 20k for site prep. Then have the EPA come in and deem it wetlands, bringing the value of your $100k down to $5. You are obviously out the $10k for permits and $20k for site prep. Now the EPA is requiring you to spend your own money to return the site to its original state while fining you $40k per day till it is complete. You were doing everything right but the government took $300k from you. That is not right and the courts ruled unanimously (9-0) that the EPA was wrong.
At what point did "journalists" stopped reporting and became opinionlists
At the point when news died and propaganda took it's place.
You probably don't say that about Fox or Daily Wire. And any honest person with half a brain knows that you cannot completely omit bias, it's human nature so stop acting like you're some defender of truth. Lol, you probably think the election is stolen and that Biden is a communist xD
The constitution refers to navigable waterways, not wetlands
Not on the EPAs side on this case but just because the constitution says navigable waters that does NOT mean the Congress cannot pass a law, signed by the potus that addresses an issue surrounding wetlands. The constitution does not mention highways, and yet the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956 created our interstate system.
@@dcj3831 the constitution doesn’t say anything about navigable waters. All it says is congress has the power to regulate commerce. Commerce takes place on navigable waters between states. That used to mean congress only had the power to keep obstructions in the water from impeding traffic. But ok congress thinks that also gives them the power to regulate pollution even though polluting isn’t a commercial transaction. But the clean water act refers to navigable waters. The water on this couple’s property wasn’t navigable water. SCOTUS simply told EPA to obey the clean water act
But no congress doesn’t have the power to regulate every bit of water in the country. The power to regulate interstate commerce doesn’t encompass anything like that. Congress cannot do whatever it wants. It’s powers are enumerated in Article 1 section 8 of the constitution. All other powers belong to the states
@@gopher7691 I think you and I are mostly in agreement….my only point is the congress can pass laws dealing with these issues without the specific topic being spelled out in the constitution. But (as you point out) federal agencies must stay within the bounds of the laws passed. They can’t make their own laws. AND if the law is particularly clunky and unclear the court has to define those issues in question.
@@dcj3831 I’m sorry but the constitution only gives congress the power to regulate interstate commerce. It’s a stretch to say this gives them the authority to regulate pollution. But at least they must confine this regulation to only navigable waterways, something to do with interstate commerce. Congress does not have the authority to regulate every wet area in the US, only navigable waters.
I dispute that congress has the authority to regulate pollution at all since polluting isn’t an act of commerce.
@@dcj3831 read article 1 section 8 - the powers of congress in the US constitution. Congress isn’t allowed to do anything else
“I’m not surprised that this court ruled this way”🙄. These people wanted to build THEIR HOUSE on THEIR OWN LAND. Why would anyone have an issue with that. The EPA, literally, wants to call a drainage ditch a “wetland” - that’s not an exaggeration. They want control of all land, period. This is a reasonable ruling.
As someone who grew up with a chemist who worked at the EPA I can tell you this is patently untrue. The EPA wants to make sure places don't flood, your water, soil, and air are clean, and making sure companies don't pollute the community they operate in. Not everything's a conpriracy theory my dude.
@@Onomatopoeia4u Didn’t suggest any conspiracies and what I’m saying isn’t a theory. I’ve seen and been involved in some of their cases. What I’ve described is the literal truth. While they certainly have reasonable authority in many cases they have a terrible record of overreach and this SC case was one of them (where all 9 justices agreed by the way). And the definition of a conspiracy isn’t “anything you disagree with”🙄.
Power to the people! good job the government doesnt have more rights to our lands than the people do
Another victory for individual property rights
When I was a kid in the 60s our rivers used to catch on fire (if you're young, look it up). The smog was so bad in big cities that often you couldn't see 1 block ahead of you in the car on the freeway and people had to drive with headlights on in the middle of the day (if you're young, look it up). A Republican president, Richard Nixon created the EPA and we started cleaning our air, and water, and rivers. I guess we're going back--whether we want to or not.
There is a balance to everything. You know the court ruled unanimously that the EPA was wrong. This couple got all permits and verified the lot (which was adjacent to a bunch of other developed lots) was buildable. They then bought it and started building with the governments permission. The EPA then came in and deamed it wetlands and threatened them with $40k per day in fines until they returned it to its original condition.
Imagine making sure that a plot is buildable and then dumping $100k (don't know the actual price) on the property. Spend 10k for permits and another 20k for site prep. Then have the EPA come in and deem it wetlands, bringing the value of your $100k down to $5. You are obviously out the $10k for permits and $20k for site prep. Now the EPA is requiring you to spend your own money to return the site to its original state while fining you $40k per day till it is complete. You were doing everything right but the government took $300k from you. That is not right and the courts ruled unanimously (9-0) that the EPA was wrong.
We're going to be a huge Flynt Michigan.
I remember those days too it was terrible, couldn’t even see the mountains & the air had a chemical smell from all the smog. Thank you Mr Nixon for creating the EPA. Although in this case maybe they went too far, I don’t have all the info to have an opinion & I’ve learned not to jump to conclusions
@@Kenna198 Freedom should also mean the freedom to breath clean air and drink clean water. Freedom has come to mean freedom to do what I want no matter how many others it hurts.
They did the good work, they achieved the goals, now they are just grasping at straws, measuring pollution in parts per trillion , for reference that is one teaspoon in billions of gallons of water. The deep end has been reached.
Upon scrutinizing the current predicament, it becomes ostensibly apparent that the crux of the matter does not pertain to the accessibility of uncontaminated water, but rather hinges upon the government's encroachment on individual liberties. By necessitating a permit for construction in proximity to water bodies that fall under the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the government effectively supersedes property ownership rights. The EPA's delineation of what constitutes a government-regulated waterway is so expansive that it enables them to assert dominion over any aquatic feature or adjacent land of their choosing, irrespective of proprietorship. While the general populace often associates the agency with safeguarding clean water sources, a meticulous examination of this specific instance unveils that its actions are not grounded in environmental preservation, but rather in the unwarranted extension of its jurisdiction.
Excellent redaction, congratulations. I just desire that when we had ruined skies, waters, lands and wetlands, your magnificent prose will restore environmental quality because property rights were enforced 🤯
They are encroaching on the public’s right to clean water. You don’t build in wetlands. These idiots want to challenge every environmental safeguard.
@@Dude408f Dumbacrats really don't understand their place in Government and it is high time they get put down for their inablity to get their policies passed within the confines of the Constitution using the only correct stand of interpretation: the Originality Position as first put forth by Justice Story.
@@Dude408f
Let me guess: You live in a cardboard box?
If you don't, you already infringed on the "environmental quality". So now we have to decide on what's ACTUALLY eroding our environment, and when the government is over-reaching. This was simply the government saying that it was eroding water quality when it actually didn't. Moreover, suggesting that someone's property might damage wetlands (when the vast majority of us would get sick if we drank the water from wetlands) is preposterous.
Its akin to when the clean water act reduced the use of phosphates in detergent; not because phosphates are harmful to plant life. On the contrary, phosphates cause a tremendous surge in algae bloom. But because it made it harder to clean out the clean water intakes at filtration plants. How absurd is that?
@@johnabbottphotography you don't need to guess, you can ask.
You don't need to be angry, we all live in this planet, we share and need environmental quality for our children and grandchildren. We're not enemies.
EPA has a mandate and we need them to do it right.
Phosphate pollute water, I can explain you but it doesn't seem like you want to hear
How much money has Clarence Thomas received to sell his vote and opinIon.for this decision?
Was this the case where the land owners cleared a culvert of debris that was backing water onto their land because the local government would not?
There no end where the EPA wants to stop.
Good!
@@aleejones7508 You know the court ruled unanimously that the EPA was wrong. You know this couple got all permits and verified the lot (which was adjacent to a bunch of other developed lots) was buildable. They then bought it and started building with the governments permission. The EPA then came in and deamed it wetlands and threatened them with $40k per day in fines until they returned it to its original condition.
Imagine making sure that a plot is buildable and then dumping $100k (don't know the actual price) to buy the property. Spend $10k for permits and another $20k for site prep. Then have the EPA come in and deem it wetlands, bringing the value of your $100k property down to $5. You are obviously out the $10k for permits and $20k for site prep. Now the EPA is requiring you to spend your own money to return the site to its original state while fining you $40k per day till it is complete. You were doing everything right but the government took $300k from you. That is not right and the courts ruled unanimously (9-0) that the EPA was wrong. If we believe in democracy we must not give unelected agencies such as the EPA, too much power. I believe in democracy there for, I am skeptical of all agencies that act outside the democratic system.
That's kind of their job.
@@rekcusdoo There must be a balance. Currently the balance is much to far toward saving the environment at all costs.
@@crissd8283 - @"Currently the balance is much to far toward saving the environment at all costs." - No offense, but that has to be the craziest thing I've ever heard. When it comes to making sure we continue to have a habitable planet, there is "balance" needed. We need the planet to be habitable.
Either way, whether you agree or don't...it isn't the EPAs job to provide balance. It's their job to protect the environment.
This case was really about federal over reach. Any land that has surface water that flows into a drainage ditch could be considered "wet land". Farming, as we know it, would end. Say goodbye to your yard. The Federal Government would have owned it.
You haven't a clue to what the actual laws, regulations or legal definitions of wetlands are.
Are you just anti-government in general? Do you think anyone should do whatever they want with land, water and air?
@@spankduncan1114 Oh, how am I wrong. Please educate us. You know it as a 9-0 decision, right? A wetland, according to this definition, was any body of land that had standing water at any point of time that flowed into a body of water that connected to major tributaries and eventually the ocean. We live in a hill and there are times when we have standing water. They're called retaining walls, and they pool the water, standing water. Could literally apply to almost any land.
@@spankduncan1114 Yes, a land owner should do whatever they want with their land, other than allow toxic chemicals to flow into the water shed.
I have a perfect example. twenty years ago on our 60 acre horse ranch we built a half acre pond with about another quarter acre shallow area attached to benefit wildlife and...because we wanted a pond. Now, this is a man made pond, using a pond liner. Dug and shaped with backhoe and dozer.
Last year we decided to do a major cleanout because it had become choked with iris (they tend to take over shallow water and out compete everything else to the point you cannot see the water).
Someone, even though the pond is not visible from the road reported us to the EPA and we received a cease and desist letter with a statement that we were going to be fines about $20K for what was already destroyed and potential fines were over a hundred grand if we did not stop.
We were then visited by a green zealot who came steam rolling in ready for war...until he walked up to the pond and said "umm. this is a pond liner. Did you build this?"
"yup".
"ah. ok. sorry. you can ignore that letter"
well, no, you cannot "ignore" a federal agency that has started an action against you. It cost us about $4,000 in legal fees to actually make it go away.
So - a "body of water" that is not listed ANYWHERE as existing was automatically "protected" because it is shallow.
But the clean water act from day one does have verbiage saying "navigable waters". ANY separate body of water was outside their prevue, but they just ignored that and started regulating more and more and more.
The EPA was a great idea. And was and is needed. But ALL government agencies are living entities that must grow or die. And any regulatory agency over time attracts people who are FOR regulating whatever it is. The EPA started out run by scientists. Now it is run by environmental zealots.
Same is true for many other agencies. If you HATE "industry X" and there is an agency that regulated that industry, then you are motivated to join that agency. After a few decades everyone in power at that agency hates the industry they are regulating.
This is not a party thing. This is a human thing. People who really like a thing are not motivated to be part of it's governing body, but people who hate it are.
Nice observation (sincerely).
That really bites. What cost you $4000 was not keeping decent records that you dug that pond. I am sure you know now, but all that was needed was to ask "does this apply to man made ponds? Here's my records" and that would be that. Good recordkeeping goes hand in hand with good construction.
Nice anecdote, but there's much more evidence showing regulatory agencies are very close to the industries they're supposed to regulate (regulatory capture). Your story isn't one of over regulation but of a doofus that didn't do their job. That sucks, but it'd be a small price to pay to keep people from getting cancer from industry/agricultural spills or runoff.
I disagree with your last line. I know people who grew up hunting, fishing, trapping & lovers of nature who joined the state park rangers. One is working his way up towards leadership. Anecdotally I realize but I think people who like something go into that field out of joy at work, working at something u hate would make everyday suck. That's pure bs you lost 4k though
@@nolongerblocked6210 yes, but the state park rangers is an active group working to keep people safe and enforce the rules. They are not a "regulatory agency". I am speaking of state or federal agencies.
So Americans want to live in the world wall-e does? I honestly, do not understand most humans. I truly don't.
Lawyers ruling on science. sick joke
nine to nothing, so this is another cbs nothing burger that they wanted to spin.
The EPA defined a wetland as anything rain falls on. Thank God someone finally has ruled against the EPA and its seizure/ restrictions on private land.
The discription of what is considered a wet land is far to broad!
Tell the news caster to report the news and to keep her personal opinions to herself . Saying you were not surprised shows your bias. Reporters report ! That’s it!!
Oh like the Fox News people never do?! Ha ha ha!!
Thank God we have the 3rd branch of government to keep the other 2 branches in check when they try to overstep their authority.
Or when one of them (congress) decides to pawn off their jobs on others.
since when does the SCROTUS make laws about the environment??? overstepping much? f the SCROTUS.
Filling in a mudhole to build a house isn't a crime.
Who knew.
Obama era EPA would go so far as saying a mud puddle was a wetland.
The property didn't belong to the Government, so the people who shelled out the money for to could build a resort on it if they wanted to. There has been too much big gov. overreach towards its voting population.
Liberal media company calling out a conservative court that's just amazing who whatever thought.
EPA officials over step all the time they wait till you get 10 inches of rain then they say a small creek is a navigable river
Just wait until you find out about how private corporations over step and cause widespread environmental havoc in the pursuit of bottomless profit.....
I'm so shocked that the conservatives on the Supreme Court don't think the Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to protect the environment.
9-0 decision, it was unanimous.
There are some fanatics at the EPA who would make mankind extinct to "protect the environment". Don't you think that might be a bit much?
Overeach
I'm so shocked that a liberal on the internet doesn't have a clue what unanimous means
@Franzise Hi my name is Franzise and I don't know the definition of the word "Unanimous"... everyone pile on me and tell me what a clown I am because I tried to blame conservatives and now it backfired in my face, much like everything else I comment on...
The cost of building on actual wetlands is enormous. If the water level has extreme highs and lows, the structure will likely have to be on stilts. If this is the case, then the building will not affect the wetland flow. Good decision court.
Oh good, corrupted Justices trying to define scientific terms
Filling in wetlands to build a house creates flooding problems somewhere else. Water needs to go somewhere! Supreme Court should listen to civil engineers about wetlands.
Maybe they did, do you know for a fact they didn't???????
Did they favor personal property rights? 🎉. Did the Government offer to compensate the owner for the development/ conservation rights ?
Of course not
Lmao. Valuing personal property over water quality is exactly why we probably only have another couple hundred years left on this planet.
@@rabblerousin8981Is that kind of thinking coming from the same doomsday theorists that predicted so many world changing climate disasters that never happened?
The far-leftists who are angry about this don't believe in private property. They apparently think the liberals on the Supreme Court are "fascists".
@@SlyFan-mp8dc 😂 UMMMMMM What news channel do you watch? Cartoon Network?
Big win for property rights! Big win for freedom! Big win for the Constitution!
Go thru Congress and change the laws. Don't just give yourself "power" -- do it LEGALLY state and federal agencies.
That's literally the point of the agencies - to avoid every little nuance from ending up in front of Congress.
@@miked412 no it’s not, the point of these alphabet agencies is to manage and enforce the laws and policies enacted by congress. They are essentially stewards.
@@JoeSmith-fu9yx Congress typically gives them general authority on specific topics.
Congress does not give extremely specific lanes in which to work.
@@JoeSmith-fu9yx then why has the govt actively been muzzling and undermining these agencies due to lobbying interests... 🤔won't be any of us left to complain and fight about this once our wetlands are gone and we have effectively destroyed the planet's largest system of filtering clean water! ☺you think congress will invest in more water treatment methods then? or will they keep defaulting until we all die of thirst first?!
@@miked412 Congress needs to stop delegating their law-making power to these unelected bureaucrats.
Big win for the people who own that land and can build a house in their on their land. All of this homelessness and people are worried about codes, licenses and payments.
So before this if you took a leak in your yard the federal government could have declared it a wetland.
The EPA considers a mud puddle wetland. My town argued with the EPA because they considered a 20’x40’ area in the woods, just off a parking lot, that was only wet in the spring after the snow melted but there was still frost in the ground as wetland. It wouldn’t even hold water after a downpour but you couldn’t convince those idiots.
They are not idiots. They are shrewd. and they don't like people.
you’re such a deep thinker!! you show how selfish conservatives think and how’s it is all about me first. No wonder the world is in such a dangerous place.
What they want is unbridled power that is impervious to voters. An administrative state beholden to no one
@@rwstavros WTF are you talking about leftie?
This is why you have to NOT take the news media seriously most of the time. The just don't do their homework before spewing narrative. GOOD GRIEF!!