June 28, 2011 in Nation/World, Idaho, Region

North Idaho landowners to get high court hearing

Associated Press
 
Tags:property rightsu.s. supreme court

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court has agreed to consider the rights of landowners when confronted with an order from the Environmental Protection Agency that they are violating the federal Clean Water Act.

The justices today added the case of Priest Lake, Idaho, property owners Chantell and Michael Sackett to their lineup for the term that begins in October.

The Sacketts contend that EPA left them with no practical way to object to the agency’s determination that work on their half-acre parcel violated federal law and tried to coerce their compliance through the threat of costly fines.

The Sacketts say they would either have to apply for a federal permit that could cost as much as the property itself, or wait for the EPA to go to court to force them to comply.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Recent stories in Nation/World
Recent stories in Idaho
Recent stories in Region
Five comments on this story so far. Add yours!

  • RedCedar on June 28 at 10:30 a.m.

    it sure would have been helpful if the writer of this article had included at least one paragraph explaining what the Sacketts were trying to do and why the EPA didn’t like it. The legal crux of the matter might be whether or not the EPA’s administrative appeals process was sufficient, but we ordinary non-legal readers would like to know what exactly it was that they were wrangling about with the EPA. The way the article’s written, it’s like a story about a murder trial that omits any mention of why the guy was murdered.

  • straighttalk on June 28 at 12:48 p.m.

    They filled in wetlands on their 1/2 acre property in order to build a house on it.

  • SpokaneLiberal on June 28 at 1:10 p.m.

    So in other words they should have to purchase the permit that cost as much as the land. It was probably so cheap because of the wetland issue.

  • RedCedar on June 28 at 2:23 p.m.

    Thanks, straighttalk. That was easy. Too bad the S-R reporter couldn’t provide that little bit of information.

  • MrNatural on June 28 at 2:24 p.m.

    I agree with you RedCedar a little more depth of information would seem to be necessary however if the journalist intended to present the EPA as the big bad oppressive government agency then the blurb is vaguely sufficient to sell papers to the easily enraged

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.