Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Supremes Rule Against EPA; Sackett v EPA
Topic Started: Mar 21 2012, 04:44 PM (217 Views)
Toast
Member Avatar

There is hope.
Reason TV: Sackett
Quote:
 
Sackett realized that dream when he and his wife, Chantelle Sackett, bought a plot of land near Priest Lake and started to build. After securing the necessary permits from local authorities, the Sacketts were only three days into the process of clearing the land when officials from the EPA showed up and put their dreams on hold.

The EPA informed the Sacketts that they suspected they were building on wetlands and had to cease work immediately. The Sacketts were stunned because their property was a completely landlocked lot within an existing subdivision. When Chantelle Sackett asked for evidence, the EPA pointed her to the National Fish and Wildlife Wetlands Inventory, which showed them that their lot... was not on an existing wetland.

The EPA responded issued what's known as a compliance order, which said that the Sacketts were in violation of the Clean Water Act and subject to fines of up to $37,500 a day.
. . .
The EPA refused to offer any documentation or evidence for its position, even after the Sacketts hired their own scientists to refute the wetlands claim. Feeling they had no other choice, they tried to take the EPA to court. Unfortunately, not even this was an option, because the EPA maintained that a compliance order is nothing more than a warning and that they cannot be challenged until they actually enforce the fines, which were racking up by the day.

"The only way the Sacketts could get judicial review that way, was by ignoring the compliance order," said Damien Schiff, attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which took up the Sacketts' case. "EPA still might just sit on its hands and let the possible fines pile up."

Schiff and the Pacific Legal Foundation lost to the EPA in lower courts, but this afforded them the opportunity to take the case to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in early January 2012. Schiff and the Sacketts both felt heartened by what transpired there.


Today, the Court ruled unanimously for the Sacketts and AGAINST the EPA:
VolokhConspiracy Blog: Ilya Somin (here quoting Justice Alito)
Quote:
 
"The position taken in this case by the Federal Government—a position that the Court now squarely rejects—would have put the property rights of ordinary Americans entirely at the mercy of Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) employees.

The reach of the Clean Water Act is notoriously unclear. Any piece of land that is wet at least part of the year is in danger of being classified by EPA employees as wetlands covered by the Act, and according to the Federal Government, if property owners begin to construct a home on a lot that the agency thinks possesses the requisite wetness, the property owners are at the agency’s mercy. The EPA may issue a compliance order demanding that the owners cease construction, engage in expensive remedial measures, and abandon any use of the property. If the owners do not do the EPA’s bidding, they may be fined up to $75,000 per day ($37,500 for violating the Act and another $37,500 for violating the compliance order). And if the owners want their day in court to show that their lot does not include covered wetlands, well, as a practical matter, that is just too bad. Until the EPA sues them, they are blocked from access to the courts, and the EPA may wait as long as it wants before deciding to sue. By that time, the potential fines may easily have reached the millions. In a nation that values due process, not to mention private property, such treatment is unthinkable."

Ilya Somin's commentary:
Quote:
 
The Court bases its decision on statutory grounds, ruling that the property owners are entitled to judicial review of their case under the Administrative Procedure Act. It therefore did not reach the issue of whether such review is also required by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which states that the government may not deprive individuals of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The scope of the decision is therefore limited. And, as Justice Alito goes on to explain, “the combination of the uncertain reach of the Clean Water Act and the draconian penalties imposed for the sort of violations alleged in this case still leaves most property owners with little practical alternative but to dance to the EPA’s tune.” He urges Congress to clarify the scope of the CWA so that property owners will at least have a clearer indication of the scope of EPA authority over their land. Despite these limitations, the decision is a significant victory for property rights, and a rare case of unanimity on an important property rights issue.

Edited by Toast, Mar 21 2012, 04:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
There's a case in Idaho of a couple trying to build their home on their land. They won in the Courts and the EPA sent them a letter saying, Congratulations on your Court victory but you still can't build on that area.

They sought building permits and received them - all Federal Maps showed it in area that was not prohibited from buidling for any reason - but the Federal Gov't really didn't care.

.

Edited by Mason, Mar 21 2012, 05:14 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toast
Member Avatar

This is Priest Lake, Idaho. Maybe the same case you are thinking about?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
Toast
Mar 21 2012, 05:23 PM
This is Priest Lake, Idaho. Maybe the same case you are thinking about?
.
You are correct!

Priest Lake didn't ring a bell - but it's one in the same.

Sorry for any confusion.


.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Mason
Member Avatar
Parts unknown
.
They EPA knocks the money out of you.

This couple was living in a trailer and had their resources decimated.

.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Toast
Member Avatar

Now that they are enabled to go to court, I hope they sue the EPA for what they've lost, tenfold.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply