Spokane7
59°
January 9, 2012 in Nation/World, Idaho
Justices criticize EPA’s dealings with ID homeowners
In this Oct. 19, 2011, photo, Chantell and Mike Sackett talk about their battle with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency over their right to build a home on a lot near Priest Lake. The EPA said that the lot included wetlands. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the couple.
(Full-size photo)
WASHINGTON — Several Supreme Court justices are criticizing the Environmental Protection Agency for heavy-handed enforcement of rules affecting homeowners.
The justices were considering whether to let a North Idaho couple challenge an EPA order identifying their land as “protected wetlands.” Mike and Chantell Sackett of Priest Lake wanted to build their house on the land. But the EPA says the Sacketts can’t challenge the order to restore the land to wetlands or face thousands of dollars in fines.
Justice Samuel Alito called EPA’s actions “outrageous.” Justice Antonin Scalia noted the “high-handedness of the agency” in dealing with private property. Chief Justice John Roberts said that the EPA’s contention that the Sacketts’ land is wetlands, something the couple disagrees with, would never be put to a test under current procedure.
The Sacketts were filling in a lot near Priest Lake in 2007 to construct a house when EPA officials shut down the project, saying the couple had filled in wetlands without getting a permit.
Seven months after the visit, the EPA issued a compliance order, telling the couple to restore the property or risk fines of up to $32,500 per day. The Sacketts wanted a day in court to argue that their lot wasn’t a wetland.
Attorneys say the case is really about judicial process – whether the Sacketts can challenge the wetlands designation on their property before the EPA seeks enforcement action against the couple through the courts.
The Sacketts are being represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, a Sacramento-based group that advocates for private property rights and limited government.
Numerous legal briefs from other organizations have been filed in the case. The National Homebuilders Association filed a brief supporting the Sacketts’ position. The Natural Resources Defense Council, which also filed briefs in the case, has called it a corporate-backed effort to weaken regulations of the Clean Water Act.
The justices will rule by summer.
© Copyright 2012 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Salmonella linked to chicken handling 
gmorton on January 09 at 9:33 a.m.
The Court should use this case to rule that if the gummint wishes to declare private property a “wetland” in order to confer the benefits of wetlands on the public, and that declaration reduces the value of the property to the owner, it must pay just compensation, as the 5th Amendment requires.
Jeffrey_Grey on January 09 at 9:55 a.m.
This is one of those rare situations where we agree, gmorton.
According to the above article, it sounds as if the ‘due process’ clause of the Fifth Amendment might have been violated as well. (In that there was apparently no hearing prior to the imposition of a highly punitive compliance order.)
idahocity on January 09 at 10:15 a.m.
they could get compensation through the u.s. court of claims. wayne hage won a huge takings case against federal agencies. sounds like these people just want to be left alone. that’s not the way this free country works though.
JoeThePimpernel on January 09 at 10:29 a.m.
Don’t you people get it?
All land belongs to the government.
We are merely sharecroppers.
We should be grateful if they allow us to do anything, and when they don’t we need to shut up or they will shut us up permanently.
mikeln on January 09 at 1:03 p.m.
Joe,we have become a company store nation. We are born in debt and most of us will die in debt, all for the enormous wealth of a few. One thing for sure, if a big oil company wanted to put a oil rig on this property it would have gone up overnight with no problem from the epa, which they own.
monkeyman on January 09 at 1:41 p.m.
Hi Joe (and Idaho, Mike etc. above),
Who is the “government” and “they”, as you understand it?
(Please put some thought in it, because if you say it is owned by private companies/interest, then it would be good from a capitalist point of view. If you say it is owned by the people, then you would be saying it is communism in disguise etc… Also, do you consider the Supreme Court part of the Govt.?!!)
WHS on January 09 at 2:07 p.m.
Wow, I too have to agree with gmorton…
Date, mark and stamp!
WHS
idahocity on January 09 at 5:06 p.m.
i don’t know exactly what kind of government we have. we’re supposed to be a representative republic but we’ve(u.s.of a.) practice all 10 planks of the communist manifesto.