Posted on 01/17/2012 8:11:13 AM PST by WilliamIII
Justice Samuel Alito seemed none too pleased last week with the governments argument in a case pitting property owners against the Environmental Protection Agency.
Four years ago, Mike and Chantell Sackett bought property to build their dream home near a lake in Idaho. After obtaining local permits the Sacketts began work, pouring in some land fill. But their work came to a screeching halt when they were visited by officials from the Environmental Protection Agency. The couple was slapped with a compliance order asserting that the land is subject to the Clean Water Act and that they had illegally placed fill material into protected wetlands on their property.
A violation of the compliance order could cost the Sacketts tens of thousands of fines per day. They sought to challenge the EPAs finding in court, but were told that that they needed to go through a permitting process first, and only after the EPA moved to enforce the order could they seek judicial review.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Any idea where Alito stands on Kelo?
did they know it was wetlands when they bought it?
Who said it’s wetlands? The EPA, maybe, but the Sacketts contest that.
California's Imperial Valley, a cornucopia of agricultural plenty, is also an irrigated desert btw.
If I remember correctly, their lot is surrounded by other homes which had been there for years, a few houses from the lake. There was a link awhile back to an overhead of the property.
Here's a pic of them on their property. Look like wetlands to you?
Here's another view:
>>It wouldnt surprise me if the EPA continues to try to schtick the $75K/day fines under the old law, but theyll be forced to remedy their processes which will help others in the future.
But what of the 8th Amendment?
They even called "wetland" right where a house had stood for over 100 years alongside a multi acre peach farm. They're nuts!!
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
The Sacketts were in possession of a building permit issued by the local municipality.
But that overlooks the larger question. Why should an agency of the federal government have any authority over property located in -- and administered by -- a small town in Idaho?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.