Close
Primrose School of Kingwood

To preserve sensitive wetlands around Lake Houston that reduce f

To preserve sensitive wetlands around Lake Houston that reduce f
Go to top of page
Message Menu
BobRehak 13.9 yrs
~ 9 mos ago   Dec 10, '25 4:12pm  
To preserve sensitive wetlands around Lake Houston that reduce flood risk, please write a letter protesting a new definition of "Waters of the U.S." See why and how.
 
Loading Image...
 
reduceflooding.com/2 025/12/10/blc-letter -protests-redefiniti on-of-waters-of
CatalinaKitKat and sellbuy reacted
FASTLANE: This "Fastlane" discussion may cover sensitive, inflammatory, or controversial topics. See Fastlane guidelines »
Replies:
Message Menu
PatrickStar 1.3 yrs
~ 9 mos ago   Dec 10, '25 4:39pm  
The only way the proposed definition will be changed is if it can be argued that the proposed definition does not meet the criteria in the Sackett v. EPA decision.
 
It doesn't matter if the proposed definition has good or bad ramifications. The only thing that matters is if it is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. At this point, I truly don't think anything can be done. The public comment period is a farce unless an attorney can argue successfully that the new definition does not adhere to the ruling.
 
But even if it can be argued, we don't want it. The Supreme Court ruled those wetlands do not fall under federal jurisdiction. So what we need to do is ensure local and state laws are upheld. If laws are insufficient, fight to have laws proposed and enacted.
Spork, Sophos2 and StGetoffmylawn1 reacted
Message Menu
1836 Online 9.1 yrs
~ 9 mos ago   Dec 10, '25 7:33pm  
Isn't most of Kingwood built on wetlands?
 
Ketchupandonion : Shhh. You're not supposed to point out the hipocracy of folks thinking development is supposed to end at their property line.
Spork and Sophos2 reacted
Message Menu
Spork 11.5 yrs
~ 9 mos ago   Dec 10, '25 7:57pm  
The only way the proposed definition will be changed is if it can be argued that the proposed definition does not meet the criteria in the Sackett v. EPA decision. It doesn't matter if the proposed definition has good or bad ramifications. The only thing that matters is if it is consistent with the Supreme Court's ruling. At this point, I truly don't think anything can be done. The public comment period is a farce unless an attorney can argue successfully that the new definition does not adhere to the ruling. But even if it can be argued, we don't want it. The Supreme Court ruled those wetlands do not fall under federal jurisdiction. So what we need to do is ensure local and state laws are upheld. If laws are insufficient, fight to have laws proposed and enacted.
 
PatrickStar :
 
Loading Image...
Post a comment »

FASTLANE: This "Fastlane" discussion may cover sensitive, inflammatory, or controversial topics. See Fastlane guidelines »
« Back to Chat
Views: 305
# Replies: 4