Yes, amazingly, that "abused child" is very same agency you and I know as the gang who kicked the Sacketts out of their dream home before the foundation was dug. 'Cos the building lot -- in among others already built on -- was a "wetland." Threatened them with huge fines unless they turned it back into a scrubby vacant lot at their own expense. The EPA maintained the agency didn't have to answer for it in court, they'd made a decision and that was that: comply now or be fined and still have to comply. Eventually, the U. S. Supreme Court disagreed, at least on the "couldn't be taken to court over it" part -- and so now the happy couple, having already had to argue their way to the top, has the Court's blessing go sue...a Federal Agency with an army of attorneys and pet experts. Here's one pair of citizens experience of Dr. Lame's "Agency...too terrified to do it's job:"
“The EPA used bullying and threats of terrifying fines, and has made our life hell for the past five years. It said we could not go to court and challenge their bogus claim that our small lot had ‘wetlands’ on it. As this nightmare went on, we rubbed our eyes and started to wonder if we were living in some totalitarian country.”Yeah, poor little EPA. Being forced to use "'science-based' studies" and actually stand up in court and defend their takings of private property, instead of relying on speculation and deeeeep intuitions about Mother Gaia.
My heart fair bleeds.
Or does that count as the unapproved discharge of an untested biologically-active fluid?