Carefully Shaped Propaganda. Guess Who?

If you guessed "Little Pravda on the Lake" you are a winner, chicken dinner!!

...Justices heard oral arguments Monday in Sackett v. EPA, a longstanding dispute over a couple’s efforts to build a home on their property near Priest Lake in Idaho. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency contends the property contains wetlands that are protected under the Clean Water Act, prohibiting the couple from laying down sand and gravel to build their home. ...

...Wisconsin, in 2001, was first in the country to enact statewide protections for wetlands. That legislation remains today. But the Great Lakes and Mississippi River could be at the mercy of what other states decide or already have in place. ...

So Wisconsin's law will remain in place, but THE GREAT LAKES AND THE MISSISSIPPI ARE ENDANGERED!!!!!  OOOOOOH NOOOOOOES!!! DOOM!!!  DEATH!!!!  Children and women will SUFFER!!!!!

By the way, what's this "navigable waters" crap the EPA is using to torture the Sacketts??

...With the question of federal jurisdiction—and their homebuilding dreams—still in limbo, the Sacketts are returning to the Supreme Court. This time, they’re asking the court to clarify the scope of the EPA’s regulatory powers under the CWA. At stake is whether the EPA can expand the definition of “navigable waters”—which limits their authority—to include any semi-soggy parcel of land in the country....

A few decades ago, the City of Brookfield wanted to re-grade and re-pave a portion of Calhoun Road just north of the railroad tracks and just south of Burleigh Road.  The State of Wisconsin and EPA objected to the project.

Why?  Because once every 2-3 years, that road would flood briefly after heavy rains.  In the (alleged) mind of EPA and Wisconsin's DNR, that water-on-the-road was a "navigable waterway", thus the road improvements could NOT be made.  No matter that the floods were occasional and the road was dry 99.9% of any five-year period; it was "navigable."

This is the kind of crap that EPA and DNR pull all the time.  Pinning back the ears of EPA is long overdue.  Let's hope the Court reminds EPA of the difference between legislating and regulating.  It would be nice if the Court also demanded that EPA use common sense--but that's a bridge too far by miles.