Mast v. Fillmore County

1. Does credible evidence regarding the Petitioners’ water use habits, topography and soil conditions surrounding plaintiffs’ residences, and the bacterial and viral composition of gray water, coupled with plaintiffs’ admission that the government has a compelling interest in protecting human health and the environment, satisfy RLUIPA’s requirement that the government demonstrate a compelling interest as applied to Petitioners? 2. Does a government satisfy RLUIPA’s “least restrictive means” test if it, in addition to providing scientific support for its own regulation, provides credible evidence demonstrating why a water-treatment system permitted in a minority of states is not suitable for use within its own state?