Your complaint sounds like it is with the Florida legislature, not with the court. It is not the job of the court to find a way to get the political policy they like…at least ideally.
The right to unpolluted water doesn’t originate in a legislature. Both the court and the statehouse are wrong for pretending that it does.
Think about what you’re giving up to the government out of convenience. This is your right to clean water in your own neighborhood. They don’t even want to let you sue for it.
Good, because it’s just a power grab over private lands as usual from the left. That’s because the definition of pollution can be defined as almost anything.
4 Likes
And taht is exaclty why thos sort of thing should be left up to a legislature.
If I put a double dose of fertilizer on my lawn (or spit on the sidewalk) I am in fact polluting the water shed.
Should all my neighbers in a 2-mile radius be allowed to sue me for $5,000 each or for $5 each or for $50,000 each?
What about my neighbors 200 miles down stream.
Nope anyone who learned history and civics (instaed anti white propaganda) nwos that there is a reaosn we have separation of powers.
.
.
.
Oh and at leat five state have written some sort of anit-pollution protection into their constitutions. This is far far differnet from the caca being advised in the “news” article.
Loads of the younger generations don’t have a clue what real pollution is anyway.
In the 60’s many cities had thick smog hovering over them and raw sewage was being dumped into streams in some places.
1 Like
They have a right not to be poisoned.
1 Like
CORRECT, but if they don’t have standing and cannot show damages they have no cause to sue
Oh look micro plastics… Speaking of cults!
Is their water poisoned?
hint: they don’t own the water.
the public agency that regulates has standing to sue. they don’t
What entity polluted the water in this case?
The community should
- get statewide support of their initiative
- stop trying to legislate from the bench
- stop letting environmentalists use them
