non-political funny meme thread
- Thread starter Obliviax
- Start date
Sadly most of those guys are no longer with us. We still have Boog Powell.
Meister,
Your piss-ant spider should be in jail for ignoring Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, Pennsylvania DCNR, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Pennsylvania Game Commission & Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, building permits, ETC,ETC,ETC.
The site property is very small (0.39 acres); the proposed improvements included a small addition to a modest farmhouse and a garage; FEMA mapping included the site in the flood plain. The problem arose when the Township insisted the FEMA mapping was wrong, the site was never flooded according to their archived records. Sooooo, our survey crew cross-section 1/4 mile of Pine Creek for hydraulic flood plain analysis & mapping.
The site plans were completed in about 4 months
"Building Permit Plans dated 11/18/19 (4 copies) and last revised 2/13/20 and;
Stormwater Management Report dated 11/18/19 (2 copies) and last revised 2/13/20"
Developing the environmental submittals, reviews, re-submittals, correspondence, etc.
about 20 months
"August 30, 2022
LOMC Clearinghouse
3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22304-6426
Re: Yellow Springs Road – FEMA LOMA Resubmission
Project #144-........PA
Case Number 22-03........
To Whom It May Concern:
In response to the letter dated 8/12/2022, please find enclosed an updated MT-1 Form 2 Pages 1 and 2. We have updated this form by replacing the typed signatures on both pages with an actual signature.
We trust that these revisions satisfy FEMA’s concerns. If there are any questions or if additional information is required...."
BELOW ARE SITES THAT MIGHT BE OF SOME INTEREST
Home | PA Conservation Explorer
- DEP eLibrary
Total watershed-basin area ………………………………………………. (3,250 acres)
Paved Roads, Open Ditches, R/Way………………………………………. (65 Acres)
Farmsteads………………………………………………………………………….. (345 Acres)
Meadows ……………………………………………………………………………. (520 Acres)
Residential 3/4 Acre Lots…………………………………………………….……… (128 Acres)
Residential 3/4 Acre Lots…………………………………………………….……… (387 Acres)
Residential 1 Acre Lots…………………………………………………….……… (51 Acres)
Residential 1 Acre Lots…………………………………………………….……… (153 Acres)
Residential 2 Acre Lots…………………………………………………….……… (21 Acres)
Town Houses………………………………………………………………………….. (56 Acres)
Town Houses………………………………………………………………………….. (46 Acres)
Industrial ……………………………………………………………………………… (234 Acres)
Water ………………………………………………………………………………………. (9 acres)
Woods …………………………………………………………………………………….. (1,235 Acres)
Weighted Soil Cn Values for the entire Basin study:
Land Use Cn A x Acres Cn B x Acres Cn C x Acres Cn D x Acres
Roads, Ditches, R/W 83 x 17.1 89 x 37.6 92 x2.09 93 x 8.21
Cn x Ac = 1419 3346 192 763
Farmsteads 59 x 59.5 74 x 249.5 82 x 12.5 86 x 23.5
Cn x Ac = 3511 18426 1025 2021
Meadows 30 x 49 58 x 371.5 71 x 14 78 x 85.5
Cn x Ac = 1470 21518 994 6669
Residential ¾ Ac 52 x 32.45 69 x 105.81 79 x 326.28 83 x 50.45
Cn x Ac = 1688 7300 25776 4187
Residential 1 Ac 51 x 36.67 68 x 75.78 79 x 90.97 83 x 0.56
Cn x Ac = 1870 5153 7186 46
Residential 2 Ac 46 x 1.51 65 x 15.3 0 82 x 4.18
Cn x Ac = 70 995 0 342
Town Houses 77 x 36.48 85 x 12.09 90 x 44.69 92 x 9.7
Cn x Ac = 2803 1028 1014 892
Industrial 0 88 x 21.58 91 x 196.5 94 x 15.91
Cn x AC = 0 1900 17881 1495
Woods 30 x 402.61 55 x 647.15 70 x 28.4 77 x 156.83
Cn x Ac = 12078 35593 1988 12075
Sub-Acres = 635.32 Ac 1536 Ac 715.43 Ac 355 Ac
Total Basin Acres = 3,241 Acres
Weighted Group Soil Weighted Cn A Weighted Cn B Weighted Cn C Weighted Cn D
Values for the Entire **39 62 82 80
Basin
**Weighted Soil Values = ∑ (CnA x Ac) roads + (CnA x Ac) farmsteads +………… ÷∑ Acres of CnA
**Weighted values for Soil groups B, C, & D calculated similar
LOMC Clearinghouse
3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22304-6426
Ref: [.............] - house
Endangered Species Act for LOMR-F Submission
Department of Homeland Security and FEMA Team,
The Pennsylvania Department of Conversation and Natural Resources require a Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) be performed to provide the information needed on the location and status of important ecological resources such as plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, ecological communities, and geologic features. In lieu of the Endangered Species Act compliance for FEMA, ..... Engineering anticipates a PNDI search will be sufficient in identifying the at-risk species.
......... Engineering has submitted the essential PNDI search information on the subject property for review to the Pennsylvania DCNR, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The results and comments from the agencies will also be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Following final responses and reviews from the agencies listed, .......... Engineering will forward the information concerning the impacts to threatened and endangered and/or special species and resources within the project area to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Project Description
The subject property description for proposed improvements is triangular shaped property, 0.39 acres in area and located in a rural setting along Yellow Springs Road. The property elevation is approximately seven (7’) feet above Pine Creek.
The eastern property boundary is along the edge of Yellow Springs Road (paved) and farmstead land. Pine Creek bounds the western and southern edges of the property. Along the northern edge of the property is approximately two (2) acres of agricultural field and pastureland.
The proposed project improvements consist of constructing a 375 sq. ft addition to an existing (465 sq. ft) residential structure. The addition is to be two stories in height, flat slab foundation with a 2.5-foot crawl space below finished floor. The finished floor for the addition will be at elevation 270.69, the existing ground elevation at the addition is 267.5. It is anticipated, in October of 2020, approximately one (1’) foot of compacted clean fill soil (14 cu. Yds) will be placed in the location of the proposed residential addition and the proposed garage for minor grading.
Other proposed improvements to the property will be the construction of a 14’ x 21’ garage with a ten (10’) foot gravel drive, approximately eighty (85’) feet in length. Minimal grade shaping will also take place for the drive. To address the surface water runoff on the property, a subsurface infiltration bed (2.75’ x 12’ x 24’) is proposed.
The improvements to the property are scheduled to begin in the spring of 2020 and be completed by the end of this year.
Sincerely,
Results of Flood Plain Analysis
In 2020, [........] Engineering was requested to prepare a 100-year event flood plain study on the [..........] property located [ ] [ ] Road in [ ] Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania to corroborate or contradict the current FEMA mapping of the flood plain boundary. FEMA Flood Hazard Firmette Community Number ........., Panel 100 of 380 indicates the [.........]property Parcel UPI-34-4-....... is located within the Pine Creek 100-year flood plain. Several site visits to the property and review of the history of flood events in the area, indicate the 0.39-acre parcel was not at all inundated by waters of Pine Creek in the past.
To verify the [........] Property is outside the 100-year flood boundary, [......] Engineering performed a flood boundary analysis for the 100-year storm event utilizing the ACOE HEC-RAS River Analysis System. The study was taken along a 1200-foot reach at Pine Creek’s lower end, near the confluence of Pickering Creek at LAT 40.0875 and LONG -75.6120.
The information for selecting the basin drainage perimeter envelope that contributes the maximum discharge to the [.......]-Pine Creek Study was taken from the topography from the USGS Malvern and Downingtown Quadrangle Pennsylvania-Chester County 7.5-minute series. The quadrangle maps contours were then imported into Carlson-Civil software and flow directions determined from the ridges and peaks. Verified from the flow directions, the basin drainage envelope consists of 3250 acres.
The peak 100-year flow of 3,094 cfs from the drainage basin into Pine Creek was established utilizing the Natural Resources Conversation Service Soil Mapping and TR-55 Small Watershed Hydrology software.
A one-dimensional steady flow hydraulic analysis on the Pine Creek Study utilizing the HEC-RAS software to confirm the 100-year water surface profile and Base Flood Elevations at the [.........]property.
Following [........] Engineering’s of the Base Flood Elevation study along the Pine Creek reach adjacent to the ........ property, fill was added in the area of the proposed residential addition and in the region of the proposed garage.
In February of 2020, [.......] Engineering completed a revised study of the BFE at the [........]. property to account for additional fill on the property.
The revised hydraulic computations delineate the following water surface elevations along the study reach at the 0.39-Acre [.....] parcel:
- Reach Station 504….WSE = 265.7 elevation
- Reach Station 547….WSE = 266.3 elevation
- The existing residential structure on the ........ Parcel is at elevation 271.3 finished floor elevation
- Proposed addition to the existing residential structure will be constructed at elevation 270.7 finished floor elevation
- Proposed garage will be constructed at 270.0 finished floor elevation
Last edited:
Lemme guess….. original application was in 2019. You just now got permit to do work!Meister,
Your piss-ant spider should be in jail for ignoring Department of Homeland Security, FEMA, Pennsylvania DCNR, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Pennsylvania Game Commission & Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, building permits, ETC,ETC,ETC.
The site property is very small (0.39 acres); the proposed improvements included a small addition to a modest farmhouse and a garage; FEMA mapping included the site in the flood plain. The problem arose when the Township insisted the FEMA mapping was wrong, the site was never flooded according to their archived records. Sooooo, our survey crew cross-section 1/4 mile of Pine Creek for hydraulic flood plain analysis & mapping.
The site plans were completed in about 4 months
"Building Permit Plans dated 11/18/19 (4 copies) and last revised 2/13/20 and;
Stormwater Management Report dated 11/18/19 (2 copies) and last revised 2/13/20"
Developing the environmental submittals, reviews, re-submittals, correspondence, etc.
about 20 months
"August 30, 2022
LOMC Clearinghouse
3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22304-6426
Re: Yellow Springs Road – FEMA LOMA Resubmission
Project #144-........PA
Case Number 22-03........
To Whom It May Concern:
In response to the letter dated 8/12/2022, please find enclosed an updated MT-1 Form 2 Pages 1 and 2. We have updated this form by replacing the typed signatures on both pages with an actual signature.
We trust that these revisions satisfy FEMA’s concerns. If there are any questions or if additional information is required...."
BELOW ARE SITES THAT MIGHT BE OF SOME INTEREST
Home | PA Conservation Explorer
conservationexplorer.dcnr.pa.gov
- DEP eLibrary
greenport.pa.gov
Total watershed-basin area ………………………………………………. (3,250 acres)
Paved Roads, Open Ditches, R/Way………………………………………. (65 Acres)
Farmsteads………………………………………………………………………….. (345 Acres)
Meadows ……………………………………………………………………………. (520 Acres)
Residential 3/4 Acre Lots…………………………………………………….……… (128 Acres)
Residential 3/4 Acre Lots…………………………………………………….……… (387 Acres)
Residential 1 Acre Lots…………………………………………………….……… (51 Acres)
Residential 1 Acre Lots…………………………………………………….……… (153 Acres)
Residential 2 Acre Lots…………………………………………………….……… (21 Acres)
Town Houses………………………………………………………………………….. (56 Acres)
Town Houses………………………………………………………………………….. (46 Acres)
Industrial ……………………………………………………………………………… (234 Acres)
Water ………………………………………………………………………………………. (9 acres)
Woods …………………………………………………………………………………….. (1,235 Acres)
Weighted Soil Cn Values for the entire Basin study:
Land Use Cn A x Acres Cn B x Acres Cn C x Acres Cn D x Acres
Roads, Ditches, R/W 83 x 17.1 89 x 37.6 92 x2.09 93 x 8.21
Cn x Ac = 1419 3346 192 763
Farmsteads 59 x 59.5 74 x 249.5 82 x 12.5 86 x 23.5
Cn x Ac = 3511 18426 1025 2021
Meadows 30 x 49 58 x 371.5 71 x 14 78 x 85.5
Cn x Ac = 1470 21518 994 6669
Residential ¾ Ac 52 x 32.45 69 x 105.81 79 x 326.28 83 x 50.45
Cn x Ac = 1688 7300 25776 4187
Residential 1 Ac 51 x 36.67 68 x 75.78 79 x 90.97 83 x 0.56
Cn x Ac = 1870 5153 7186 46
Residential 2 Ac 46 x 1.51 65 x 15.3 0 82 x 4.18
Cn x Ac = 70 995 0 342
Town Houses 77 x 36.48 85 x 12.09 90 x 44.69 92 x 9.7
Cn x Ac = 2803 1028 1014 892
Industrial 0 88 x 21.58 91 x 196.5 94 x 15.91
Cn x AC = 0 1900 17881 1495
Woods 30 x 402.61 55 x 647.15 70 x 28.4 77 x 156.83
Cn x Ac = 12078 35593 1988 12075
Sub-Acres = 635.32 Ac 1536 Ac 715.43 Ac 355 Ac
Total Basin Acres = 3,241 Acres
Weighted Group Soil Weighted Cn A Weighted Cn B Weighted Cn C Weighted Cn D
Values for the Entire **39 62 82 80
Basin
**Weighted Soil Values = ∑ (CnA x Ac) roads + (CnA x Ac) farmsteads +………… ÷∑ Acres of CnA
**Weighted values for Soil groups B, C, & D calculated similar
LOMC Clearinghouse
3601 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite 500
Alexandria, VA 22304-6426
Ref: [.............] - house
Endangered Species Act for LOMR-F Submission
Department of Homeland Security and FEMA Team,
The Pennsylvania Department of Conversation and Natural Resources require a Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory (PNDI) be performed to provide the information needed on the location and status of important ecological resources such as plants, vertebrates, invertebrates, ecological communities, and geologic features. In lieu of the Endangered Species Act compliance for FEMA, ..... Engineering anticipates a PNDI search will be sufficient in identifying the at-risk species.
......... Engineering has submitted the essential PNDI search information on the subject property for review to the Pennsylvania DCNR, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The results and comments from the agencies will also be submitted to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources.
Following final responses and reviews from the agencies listed, .......... Engineering will forward the information concerning the impacts to threatened and endangered and/or special species and resources within the project area to the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Project Description
The subject property description for proposed improvements is triangular shaped property, 0.39 acres in area and located in a rural setting along Yellow Springs Road. The property elevation is approximately seven (7’) feet above Pine Creek.
The eastern property boundary is along the edge of Yellow Springs Road (paved) and farmstead land. Pine Creek bounds the western and southern edges of the property. Along the northern edge of the property is approximately two (2) acres of agricultural field and pastureland.
The proposed project improvements consist of constructing a 375 sq. ft addition to an existing (465 sq. ft) residential structure. The addition is to be two stories in height, flat slab foundation with a 2.5-foot crawl space below finished floor. The finished floor for the addition will be at elevation 270.69, the existing ground elevation at the addition is 267.5. It is anticipated, in October of 2020, approximately one (1’) foot of compacted clean fill soil (14 cu. Yds) will be placed in the location of the proposed residential addition and the proposed garage for minor grading.
Other proposed improvements to the property will be the construction of a 14’ x 21’ garage with a ten (10’) foot gravel drive, approximately eighty (85’) feet in length. Minimal grade shaping will also take place for the drive. To address the surface water runoff on the property, a subsurface infiltration bed (2.75’ x 12’ x 24’) is proposed.
The improvements to the property are scheduled to begin in the spring of 2020 and be completed by the end of this year.
Sincerely,
Results of Flood Plain Analysis
In 2020, [........] Engineering was requested to prepare a 100-year event flood plain study on the [..........] property located [ ] [ ] Road in [ ] Township, Chester County, Pennsylvania to corroborate or contradict the current FEMA mapping of the flood plain boundary. FEMA Flood Hazard Firmette Community Number ........., Panel 100 of 380 indicates the [.........]property Parcel UPI-34-4-....... is located within the Pine Creek 100-year flood plain. Several site visits to the property and review of the history of flood events in the area, indicate the 0.39-acre parcel was not at all inundated by waters of Pine Creek in the past.
To verify the [........] Property is outside the 100-year flood boundary, [......] Engineering performed a flood boundary analysis for the 100-year storm event utilizing the ACOE HEC-RAS River Analysis System. The study was taken along a 1200-foot reach at Pine Creek’s lower end, near the confluence of Pickering Creek at LAT 40.0875 and LONG -75.6120.
The information for selecting the basin drainage perimeter envelope that contributes the maximum discharge to the [.......]-Pine Creek Study was taken from the topography from the USGS Malvern and Downingtown Quadrangle Pennsylvania-Chester County 7.5-minute series. The quadrangle maps contours were then imported into Carlson-Civil software and flow directions determined from the ridges and peaks. Verified from the flow directions, the basin drainage envelope consists of 3250 acres.
The peak 100-year flow of 3,094 cfs from the drainage basin into Pine Creek was established utilizing the Natural Resources Conversation Service Soil Mapping and TR-55 Small Watershed Hydrology software.
A one-dimensional steady flow hydraulic analysis on the Pine Creek Study utilizing the HEC-RAS software to confirm the 100-year water surface profile and Base Flood Elevations at the [.........]property.
Following [........] Engineering’s of the Base Flood Elevation study along the Pine Creek reach adjacent to the ........ property, fill was added in the area of the proposed residential addition and in the region of the proposed garage.
In February of 2020, [.......] Engineering completed a revised study of the BFE at the [........]. property to account for additional fill on the property.
The revised hydraulic computations delineate the following water surface elevations along the study reach at the 0.39-Acre [.....] parcel:
[...........] Engineering concludes from the Pine Creek Study Report concerning the 100-year flood inundation of the [...........] parcel validates the existing residential structure, and proposed additions are above the water surface elevations and outside of the Base Flood Elevations boundary.
- Reach Station 504….WSE = 265.7 elevation
- Reach Station 547….WSE = 266.3 elevation
- The existing residential structure on the ........ Parcel is at elevation 271.3 finished floor elevation
- Proposed addition to the existing residential structure will be constructed at elevation 270.7 finished floor elevation
- Proposed garage will be constructed at 270.0 finished floor elevation
Sometime in 2020, contractor decided to start minor grading and foundations based on our FEMA flood plain submittal.
The contractor started work before our amended FEMA flood plans were finally approved in 2022.
@The Spin Meister
@Obliviax
When you two starting on Environmental concerns about the piss-ant spider, I remembered a case about the dilemma the Sackett's were involved.Very sad case, the Sackett family has been in court with EPA for 16 years.
The entire argument in the Sacketts’ case:
Whether the EPA can expand the definition of “navigable waters” to include any semi-soggy parcel of land in the country, giving themselves virtually unlimited regulatory power.
YOU SHOULD READ THE "CASE RESOURCES" BELOW TO GET A FEEL FOR EPA ACTING LIKE A FASCIST ORGANIZATION
CASE RESOURCES
- Photo Library
- Quotes and Video Clips
- Press Coverage
- Case Timeline
- FAQ
- Amicus Briefs
- Pacific Legal Foundation’s track record at the Supreme Court
CASE STORY
In 2007, Chantell and Mike Sackett started to build a home on land they own near Priest Lake, Idaho. Then officials from the Environmental Protection Agency showed up unannounced and demanded the Sacketts stop construction, kicking off a 16-year legal battle that reached the Supreme Court twice.The Sacketts bought their land in 2004, a $23,000 lot in a subdivision where they planned to build a modest three-bedroom family home. They obtained the necessary local permits. But the EPA alleged the property was a protected wetland under federal authority and issued a compliance order threatening the Sacketts with fines of tens of thousands of dollars per day if they continued to develop the property.
The EPA’s compliance order claimed the Sacketts’ construction violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) because their property was a federally regulated “navigable water” over which the agency had legal authority. While the Sacketts disputed this claim, the EPA provided them with no proof of any violation and no opportunity to contest its claims.
Represented by PLF, the Sacketts sued the EPA to confirm that the agency has no authority over their property. Lower courts refused to hear their case, so the Sacketts fought all the way to the Supreme Court, and in 2012, they secured a unanimous decision confirming they indeed did have the right to challenge the EPA’s order in a court of law.
For years afterward, the Sacketts’ dispute languished in lower courts without resolution. Finally, in 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the issue at the heart of the Sacketts’ case: whether the EPA can expand the definition of “navigable waters” to include any semi-soggy parcel of land in the country, giving themselves virtually unlimited regulatory power.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sackett v. EPA II on October 3, 2022. On May 25. 2023, the Court announced its decision: A 9-0 decision rebuking EPA’s claim to limitless regulatory authority and determining that the Sacketts’ land is not subject to the Clean Water Act. While all Justices agreed on the judgment, they had different theories on what exactly does fall under the scope of the Clean Water Act. The prevailing 5-4 majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, held that “the CWA extends to only those ‘wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are “waters of the United States” in their own right,’ so that they are ‘indistinguishable’ from those waters.”
The decision places significant limits on Clean Water Act enforcement, returning the law to its original purpose.
Sackett v. EPA: A timeline
Mike and Chantell Sackett have been fighting the EPA in court for 15 years. Here's a timeline of their case.
pacificlegal.org
Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
The Court rebuked the EPA's claim to limitless regulatory authority. Read more how this clarified the scope of the Clean Water Act.
pacificlegal.org
The “navigable waters” clause is the most abused phrase in history……except for the ‘regulate commerce’ clause.@The Spin Meister
@Obliviax
When you two starting on Environmental concerns about the piss-ant spider, I remembered a case about the dilemma the Sackett's were involved.
Very sad case, the Sackett family has been in court with EPA for 16 years.
The entire argument in the Sacketts’ case:
Whether the EPA can expand the definition of “navigable waters” to include any semi-soggy parcel of land in the country, giving themselves virtually unlimited regulatory power.
YOU SHOULD READ THE "CASE RESOURCES" BELOW TO GET A FEEL FOR EPA ACTING LIKE A FASCIST ORGANIZATION
CASE RESOURCES
- Photo Library
- Quotes and Video Clips
- Press Coverage
- Case Timeline
- FAQ
- Amicus Briefs
- Pacific Legal Foundation’s track record at the Supreme Court
CASE STORY
In 2007, Chantell and Mike Sackett started to build a home on land they own near Priest Lake, Idaho. Then officials from the Environmental Protection Agency showed up unannounced and demanded the Sacketts stop construction, kicking off a 16-year legal battle that reached the Supreme Court twice.
The Sacketts bought their land in 2004, a $23,000 lot in a subdivision where they planned to build a modest three-bedroom family home. They obtained the necessary local permits. But the EPA alleged the property was a protected wetland under federal authority and issued a compliance order threatening the Sacketts with fines of tens of thousands of dollars per day if they continued to develop the property.
The EPA’s compliance order claimed the Sacketts’ construction violated the Clean Water Act (CWA) because their property was a federally regulated “navigable water” over which the agency had legal authority. While the Sacketts disputed this claim, the EPA provided them with no proof of any violation and no opportunity to contest its claims.
Represented by PLF, the Sacketts sued the EPA to confirm that the agency has no authority over their property. Lower courts refused to hear their case, so the Sacketts fought all the way to the Supreme Court, and in 2012, they secured a unanimous decision confirming they indeed did have the right to challenge the EPA’s order in a court of law.
For years afterward, the Sacketts’ dispute languished in lower courts without resolution. Finally, in 2022, the Supreme Court agreed to consider the issue at the heart of the Sacketts’ case: whether the EPA can expand the definition of “navigable waters” to include any semi-soggy parcel of land in the country, giving themselves virtually unlimited regulatory power.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Sackett v. EPA II on October 3, 2022. On May 25. 2023, the Court announced its decision: A 9-0 decision rebuking EPA’s claim to limitless regulatory authority and determining that the Sacketts’ land is not subject to the Clean Water Act. While all Justices agreed on the judgment, they had different theories on what exactly does fall under the scope of the Clean Water Act. The prevailing 5-4 majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, held that “the CWA extends to only those ‘wetlands with a continuous surface connection to bodies that are “waters of the United States” in their own right,’ so that they are ‘indistinguishable’ from those waters.”
The decision places significant limits on Clean Water Act enforcement, returning the law to its original purpose.
Sackett v. EPA: A timeline
Mike and Chantell Sackett have been fighting the EPA in court for 15 years. Here's a timeline of their case.Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency
The Court rebuked the EPA's claim to limitless regulatory authority. Read more how this clarified the scope of the Clean Water Act.
I often use the ‘navigable waters’ clause when discussing government overreach and the nearly inevitable totalitarian future of government.
Thanks for adding detailed context!
Big mistake. When she first asked about horse the only answer is ‘I am fishing’ …..repeated as long as necessary.
This reminded me of the time I met a client at Pacific Beach hotel for a chat. I was telling him about this technology that you could use to scan a receipt and it would pull the data off the receipt so you could do a search on what was purchased. For example, if you bought a yard tool from home depo and it broke, you could search on the item name and it would pull up the receipt with date and other information making it easy to track purchases. He challenged me so I took a photo of a receipt he had in his wallet. The purchased item was 'Sex Wax". I was quite embarrassed. I started to stammer and he laughed and said "Obliviax, that is wax used on your surfboard, not for sex!"
LOL...right.
And the Peninsular Cricket Club of 1885 is still complaining about "toe in, heel out" call in the 4th quarter.
The Steelton Y still owes us a home game at Beaver Stadium to avenge that defeat!
Shhhhhh .............. If you talk to her real nice .......
....... I bet that she'll let you take her clothes off .......
😀 J/K
Get her in bed……she would be your Greatest Of All Time!Shhhhhh .............. If you talk to her real nice .......
....... I bet that she'll let you take her clothes off .......
😀 J/K
Best nfl video of all time from last year when the Jets were getting spanked
There is actually an ongoing program here in Allegheny County to utilize goats, sheep and even donkeys to eradicate foliage in difficult to access places.
They set up several of these fenced off areas for these animals in a park that we frequently utilize for walking and exercising.
They set up an electrified fence that is powered by solar and they allow the animals to 'go to work'. It was kind of neat.
A good buddy of mine who is a former Allegheny County official was at the park with his grandsons. The little boy commented that it looked like a Nativity scene form Christmas - minus the camels (lol) .....
On some of our operating solar projects, we have agreements with local farmers to have their goats or sheep periodically graze inside the fence to keep foliage from shading the solar modules.
Pittsburgh has used goats on Mt Washington hillside several times. I hear they love poison ivy and multiflora rose.
this is a great idea. When these things are hacked, they put them into a csv sheet so that they can mass exploit them. So this advice is to put a comma into your password. That way, when the CSV sees the comma, it will be confused with a separator. CSV stands for comma-separated values.
