Skip to comments.Owners of land taken over by feds (EPA) getting day in court (Supreme Court to take case)
Posted on 06/28/2011 2:29:10 PM PDT by WilliamIII
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider a determination by the federal Environmental Protection Agency that it controls what happens on a privately owned parcel of residential land in Idaho and the landowners must do its bidding.
The EPA had warned the owners, Mike and Chantell Sackett, they could be fined millions of dollars if they disobeyed the federal officials' instructions to undo the preliminary construction work they had begun on what was supposed to be their dream house. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled they would have to go through a $200,000 government application process even to get a judicial review of the decision.
But that changed when the high court notified the Pacific Legal Foundation, an organization working on behalf of the Sackett family, that it had accepted the dispute for review.
Read more: Owners of land taken over by feds getting day in court http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=316361#ixzz1QbjaIa6g
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Here is a link to the 9th Circuit’s opinion:
After the next election, private citizens and land owners need to tell the EPA where it can go, and what it can do.
The owners will lose. The congress gave the EPA the power to act
Looks like this is a ramification of removing the word “navigable” in front of “water” in what the EPA is allowed to do.
If that’s the case, let’s get it out in the open, ‘cuz something needs to be done to correct that.
If Congress gave EPA “power to act,” as you put it, then the Supreme Court may decide that Congress acted unconstitutionally. one of the issues in this case is whether the Sacketts have a constitutional Due Process right to judicial review of EPA “wetlands” designations.
-——lets get it out in the open-——
The policy has been effect for at least thirty years and is well known. Apparently the good folks in idaho didn’t get the word and hired a lawyer that took their money and didnot explain the precedents.
Really? The EPA is/was a Republican program.
So, are you in favor of the EPA as it currently operates?
If the policy is A-OK, and these people have no reason to gripe, why has the Supreme Court taken their case?
A local business associate was told that if he wants to remediate the erosion in the normally-dry drainage ditch behind his house that he will have to get a permit from the Corps of Engineers which entails spending on professional engineering services that start at $10,000. He was also told that the Corp doesn’t casually approve of such permits.
So, not only is the financial burden on this homeowner to eve apply for permission to stop erosion on his own property but he was told the process carries no assurance of approval or even the ability to estimate the cost of compliance to achieve approval.
And The One wonders why nobody is hiring.
PRIEST LAKE, Idaho - In November of 2007 officials from the Environmental Protection Agency told Mike and Chantelle Sackett they violated the Clean Water Act by filling in their Priest Lake property without first obtaining a permit because their property is on a federal wetland. The EPA issued a compliance order requiring the Sacketts to remove the fill material and restore the land to its original condition. The Sacketts say they were completely blind sided.
The guy is lucky he not being fined for the erosion’s effects on downstream water quality.
“...In November of 2007 officials from the Environmental Protection Agency told Mike and Chantelle Sackett they violated the Clean Water Act by filling in their Priest Lake property without first obtaining a permit...”
Where I live in the Pacific Northwest, almost everything having to do with water impacts salmon streams. It is possible to alter the seepage of ground water on your property by putting in a catchment basin, but you just don’t go ahead and do it - you talk to a land use planner with the county and get permits.
It is hard to believe the Sacketts would have done anything without at least going to the local county planning office and finding out whether they needed a permit.
I worked in a land use planning office with a county in Oregon during 1996. Could have had a permanent job there, but couldn’t stomach the draconian land use regulations.
Clinton was in the White House. The EPA has been behaving like a part of the old Soviet Union since long before W rolled into Washington, D.C.
You’re right. Reading up on the background of this case shows that the Sacketts had all the local permits required.
That is excellent! It is going to be an interesting situation at the Supreme Court.
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.