The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created as a steward for the environment. The purpose of it was to help create safeguards for the environment so that it is not irreparably damaged for future generations.
However, the EPA has long outlived its usefulness and become a significant hindrance to Americans and the industries upon whom they rely for a livelihood.
While few want a raping of our environment, communities across the country have been devastated by ever-increasing government regulations. The energy industry has been decimated by overly-burdensome regulations. Fishing has been similarly affected. My home state of Oregon has endured tremendous hardship as the timber industry has been so heavily regulated that it is a fraction of what it once was. AS a result, wildfires threaten communities without logging efforts to responsibly manage forests by clearing-away old growth.
The EPA has grown more toxic to Americans than any sludge from which they claim to protect us and now, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling that could have long-lasting implications for Americans seeking to push-back the green tyrants.
Hawkes Co. is a family-owned business that wanted to extract peat from wetlands that the company owned in Minnesota. The EPA has prohibited them from doing so even though the operation would occur on private land.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that allows companies and individuals to challenge EPA edicts when the governmental directive involves privately-owned land.
Reed Hopper, an attorney with the firm that represented the company, stated,
“Today’s ruling marks a long-awaited victory for individual liberty, property rights, and the rule of law.”
“The Supreme Court ruled that wetlands ‘jurisdictional determinations’ can be immediately challenged in court,” Hopper said. “Everyone who values property rights and access to justice should welcome this historic victory.”
The Court’s decision represents a radical departure from the EPA’ longtime assertion that they maintain the right to dictate policies for private land and that such policies are immune from legal challenges. For decades, the only means of challenging the federal tyranny is by appealing a decision only after having undergone a lengthy and costly permitting process to affect the environment on one’s one land.
Now, thanks to the Court’s ruling, businesses and individuals have a means of challenging the EPA’s edicts.
“For more than 40 years, millions of landowners nationwide have had no meaningful way to challenge wrongful application of the federal Clean Water Act to their land,” Hopper said. “They have been put at the mercy of the government because land covered by the Act is subject to complete federal control.”
“But all that changed today,” he concluded.
The decision could also have far-reaching implications for states being starved of water. The EPA has, in recent years, granted itself greater authority under the Clean Water Act to more-heavily regulate water usage- including water that resides on privately-held land.
32 states are currently suing the EPA for their stranglehold on water in America and the Court’s ruling not only provides legal ammunition for the suit, but also indicates how the Court might rule if the federal lawsuit makes it to the highest court in the country.
In short: President Obama’s radicalized EPA has been dealt a devastating blow. We must now keep up the pressure to eradicate this cancerous bureau.