August 20, 2015

New WOTUS rule transfers Florida land management to D.C.

By Mark Miller Senior Attorney

JMIlogo1This week, the leading public-policy think tank in Tallahassee, the James Madison Institute, published a new WOTUS piece by M. Reed Hopper and yours truly. You can read the piece, a JMI Backgrounder entitled, “Waters of the United States: A Case Study in Government Abuse,” at this link. Although the article applies to all land across the country, we devote a portion of the article to how the new version of the WOTUS rule will affect Florida:

This expansion of federal power may be unrivaled in American federal regulatory history. The agencies’ new rule exceeds federal jurisdiction and usurps the power of the States, including Florida’s right to manage local land and water resources. It nullifies constitutional limits on federal authority and its implementation puts virtually all waters and much of the land in Florida under the control of the Army Corps of Engineers and the EPA.

As Instapundit often says: read the whole thing.

Thank you to Sal Nuzzo of JMI for asking us to submit the piece for publication under the auspices of JMI, and for dedicating so much time and consideration towards bringing this article to fruition.

learn more about

Waters of the United States

In 2015 PLF challenged the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed rule to stretch federal control to nearly every pond, ditch, and puddle in the nation as nothing more than an outrageous—and illegal—power grab under cover of the Clean Water Act. And under the Act, people who are harmed by such rules have six years to sue in federal district court. That is, until the EPA rewrote the rule, trying to prevent legal action by giving property owners just 120 days to sue, and then only in federal appellate courts. On January 22, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the EPA’s power play and unanimously ruled for PLF and property rights. The High Court agreed with PLF that the EPA cannot shelter its “waters of the United States” rule from judicial review by arbitrarily limiting where victims can sue.

Read more

What to read next