In January, the Supreme Court heard the arguments for Sackett v. EPA, the case of an Idaho couple being persecuted for trying to build a home on a small plot of property the Environmental Protection Agency deemed "protected wetlands." The case is still under review and the Sacketts are waiting for a decision, but Reason followed up with a great vid breaking down the entire enviro-busybody boondoggle.
So, this is what the EPA is about these days: badgering small-business owners about their small, private parcels of land, causing their business to suffer; preventing them from helping to grow the local economy; imposing fines and rules to plant non-native plants; all based on an apparently arbitrary decision about what is and is not a wetland. Wow, sounds like these 'environmentalists' really know a heck of a lot about stewardship and conservation! Not.
I'm fortunate enough to spend a good deal of my vacation time in Idaho, and I can say from first-hand experience, it is pristine out there. It is breathtaking and beautiful, and the people who live there have a vested interest in keeping it that way. That is why they take great care of their property (often improving the land, not hurting it -- unlike federal parks), and have strong communities and associations. Private property and markets can work for environmental quality, just as they've worked for improving technology and our standard of living. The EPA's greenie-power-tripping is costly to taxpayers and the environment, and is just a monumental waste of everybody's time and productivity.
Great Moments in Human Rights: Mandated “Emotional Support” Animals in College Dorms | Daniel J. Mitchell