We know of no provision [...] which specifically provides a citizen the right to have a body of water that ‘flows, exists in its natural form, is free of pollution, and which maintains a healthy ecosystem

Politics
1

“Although it is an admirable goal, we know of no provision that is authorized in either general law or specifically granted in the State Constitution, nor has one been provided by Speak Up, which specifically provides a citizen the right to have a body of water that ‘flows, exists in its natural form, is free of pollution, and which maintains a healthy ecosystem,'” the judges wrote.

If it’s outside of a fence, it should be left how it’s found. If it has to be ruined, buy it. That should be the basic regulatory default.

2

allowing residents to sue, on behalf of the “Waters of Titusville,” any entities that violate the measure.

3

They should have standing to sue on their own behalf just as regular residents of the state, over any public body of water.

4

Must be a slow news day.

Water and air in general are far and away the cleanest they have been in my lifetime.

60 years ago environmentalists would have had a legitimate beef.

1 Like
5

I’m not sure I understand this. Who are they suing? I don’t believe anyone should be allowed to pollute any waterway. Did someone get away with something?

6

…and where do you want to begin this long discussion? :sunglasses: :tumbler_glass:

7

Who is being sued here?

8

Any resident of Titusville may bring a legal action, in the name of the resident or in the name of the
Waters of Titusville, in a court of appropriate jurisdiction to enjoin violations of the right to clean water. Remedies shall include injunctive relief to enjoin the violation and monetary damages to restore the waters to their pre-damaged state.

1000057572
10000575721043×1412 407 KB

One page in length. There are no gotchas. They want to be able to sue when someone pollutes their water.

They shouldn’t have go through all this effort. By default, every citizen should have the right to sue on behalf of public water.

9

Let’s get angry first thing in the morning. I say we just take the OP’s word for it and be angry. :rofl:

2 Likes
10

The Court said this is beyond the purview of a city, it needs to go through the state legislature. No ruling on the issue itself.

Faux outrage.

6 Likes
11

Ah, context!

12

No…I’m referring to the long story of the pollution across the US.

13

LOL I know. If you go back in history, it gets crazy. Just New York and what they had to do.

14

If a natural state of water is a good thing, then win support for it and create a law through the legislature or amendment to the constitution to create such a right. Don’t expect a court to pull such a right out of the air that has not existed for the last thousands of years.

15

That’s not what they tried though, is it?

They probably do if they can show harm.

16

I don’t think it’s particularly radical to assume the right is god-given. A good wordsmith could probably stretch the right to hunt into a right for unpolluted water.

17

That’s too high of a burden when the offending entities have no business polluting the water, at all, to begin with.

18

There are all sorts of rights to not have your water that affects you not be polluted. State laws are concerned with the free flow of water. The EPA gets involved with polluted water supplies like Flint. Just generalized standing for everybody whenever they notice water that is not in its pristine original state? Apparently not in Florida.

19

Could I sue if I found offending entities were not protecting our border in a manner consistent with immigration laws?

Court would toss it in a minute, even if I thought it was affecting my local traffic or school taxes.

I guess we could go to a system of anybody sues over anything they dont like.

20

…or another of the cazillions of Biden Executive Orders…amirite? :sunglasses: :tumbler_glass:

1 Like