Support the Sacketts: EPA Suit Goes to Supreme Court
(Watch a companion video on this issue here.)
Michael and Chantell Sackett were building their dream home on less than two-thirds of an acre of land near Priest Lake in northern Idaho. They owned a small business nearby and had been looking forward to the day when they could stop renting — they purchased the property in 2005 for $23,000. In 2007, gravel was being laid in preparation for the pouring of a concrete foundation.
However, construction screeched to a halt upon the order of three agents of the Environmental Protection Agency. The property was a federally protected “wetlands,” the Sacketts were told, and they were served with a compliance order to immediately restore the property to its prior condition.
In fact, the EPA compliance order went even further. Relying on authority it claimed to have received under the Clean Water Act, EPA officials prescribed a set of conditions that went beyond the prior condition of the property when the Sacketts purchased it.
The Sacketts were ordered to plant “native scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous wetlands plants and [have the property] seeded with native herbaceous plants.” Further, they were ordered to fence the property and monitor plant growth for three years.
All of this came as quite a shock to the Sacketts because their sliver of land was located in a platted residential subdivision with water and sewer hook-ups, and was bordered by roads on the front and rear and existing homes on either side.
There wasn’t any natural running or standing water on the property. None of the surrounding homes in the community were designated as having occupied wetlands.
The Sacketts conducted regulatory due diligence before they bought the property. Even the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had been consulted. After buying the property, they applied for and received all of the pertinent local permits to build a residential dwelling as local zoning ordinances permit.
The EPA compliance order ended all of their hard work and saddled them with exorbitant financial costs. They faced monstrous-level fines — currently set at $37,500 for each day they failed to comply with the order.
Today, the Sacketts owe more than $40 million in fines.
Knowing there was an obvious mistake, the Sacketts attempted to administratively resolve the matter. They requested from the EPA documentation that would identify the property as wetlands. The federal government’s online wetlands inventory did not list their property, so the Sacketts asked the EPA to set aside its compliance order.
The EPA refused, claiming the Sacketts had no standing to question the agency’s decision.
The Sacketts faced a dilemma. It would have cost more to comply with the EPA order than the original purchase price of the property. So, they offered to surrender the property to the agency. The EPA refused and insisted the couple comply with the order.
This forced the Sacketts to file a lawsuit. They wanted their day in court to prove their property was not wetlands. The Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause offers them this very protection: “No person shall be … deprived life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”
They did not get their day in court.
A U.S. District Court judge ruled against the Idaho couple in August 2008 and granted the EPA’s request to dismiss the couple’s lawsuit and ordered a judgment in favor of the agency.
The agency had argued that affected parties did not have the right to judicial review of the agency’s orders, as this would “disserve” the interest of the government. The Sacketts, the EPA argued, must first comply with the compliance order and return the property to the condition as dictated by the EPA, apply for a wetlands development permit, be denied that permit, and only then could they have their day in court. Not surprisingly, such a cumbersome process usually takes several years and costs hundreds of thousands of dollars.
The Sacketts continued with their legal action, but lost their appeal with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in September 2010. The appeals court affirmed the lower court’s dismissal. The Sacketts’ request for a rehearing en banc was denied two months later.
The couple then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In June 2011, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.
This is a line-in-the-sand case. The EPA, a wholly unConstitutional organ of the federal government, is now asserting arbitrary and unreviewable power over private property in the absence of even a cosmetic justification. If the Supreme Court fails to rein it in, we will know, beyond all dispute, that there are no rights remaining to individual Americans…just permissions the government, via any of its tentacles, can snatch away at any instant.
Comment from the UK – very best of luck to the Sacketts with their Court appearance. Unbelievable arrogance & disdain from the EPA – a group of limited vision who should be disbanded immediately & have all their powers repealed.
The British did similar things to a country back in the 1700′s, though I’m not sure what they did was this egregious. The result of their actions was a war- where do I sign up?
You err in your recitation of the facts – nothing in the pleadings indicates that the Sacketts ever consulted the Army Corps of Engineers about the status of the property as wetlands.
That aside, the case is appalling because it is so completely commonplace – this kind of thing happens quite frequently. It is all traceable to the monstrous stupidity of Congress in giving EPA such intrusive powers. Lest anyone forget, it was Richard Nixon who supported the legislation involved and the creation of EPA – the “green” laws always have broad bi-partisan support in Congress and, it goes without saying, nearly worshipful support in the courts. This is what good intentions combined with utter scientific and legal cluelessness can bring about.
Richard Nixon was a liberal as any cursory check of bills passed, when he was president, will tell you.
“…three agents of the Environmental Protection Agency”. Where do these agents live?
What are their names?
It would be VERY illuminating (and let’s face it, fun in a slightly snarky/vindictive way) to use the EPA’s own criteria to conduct an extremely diligent impact assessment of the homes, property, vehicles, etc., of the agents in question, along with every one of their superiors. For the bonus round, a truly excruciating analysis of the local/regional EPA office facilities seems to be in order, too.
That is a really, really nasty and rotten thing to suggest!!!
I like it!
I like it a lot!
This is not a nasty thing. We need to start holding every single government employee and official to account by enforcing all the laws against them. I would love to start with a review of all senator’s homes and vacation homes for compliance with showerhead, toilet and lightbulb compliance.
The EPA consists of individuals and the old excuse of “I was just doing my job.” was proven to not be an excuse at Nuremburg. I think the idea of having the individuals of the EPA held responsible for their actions is a direction that needs to be explored. Anyone read “Unintended Consequences” by John Ross. Kind of the same scenario with the overreach of the BATFE.
Welcome to life in The West. The Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act have pretty much shut down development in The West except for projects potentially lucrative enough to justify a ten year or more delay for litigation. Whenever someone tells you that ANWR oil is a minimum of ten years away, what they’re saying is that the litigation surrounding development of ANWR oil will take at least ten years. The TransAlaska Pipeline was actually built in about three years through absolute wilderness in a state that had virtually no infrastructure to support such a construction project. The Kensington Mine, a hard-rock gold mine near Juneau took about ten years of litigation with the greenies insisting that tailings once removed from the mine and with no chemical treatment were nevertheless a pollutant and insisting that water used by the mine be put back into the Earth cleaner than it came out. The developer actively sought Alaska Native (Indian, Aleut, and Eskimo, mostly Indian in this region) as an attempt to blunt greenie opposition but it barely slowed them down, basically just made them change their cant. The Pebble Mine prospect in Southwest Alaska is an enormously rich multi-mineral province that is unlikely to ever be built because of greenie and fishery industry opposition. Southwest Alaska is sparsely populated has little infrastructure and other than relatively insignificant low-wage employment in the mostly Seattle based fishing industry has no economy other than State and federal transfer payments. The mine would provide thousands of jobs in the region during initial construction and hundreds of well-paid jobs during operation.
Both the CWA and ESA are so vague and the “science” so politicized that the laws require whatever a judge can be conned into saying it requires. The “science” of EPA and even to some extent the Corps of Engineers isn’t science at all but rather greenie activism. Unfortunately, the law is so vague that it gives the EPA broad regulatory discretion and great deference in judicial review. In a conflict with the greenies anywhere in the West, you may, just may, win in the trial court but you WILL lose at the 9th Soviet, excuse me, Circuit. Then you can take it to the USSC if you have the resources and hopefully get the 9th reversed; that’s what it took to open the Kensington. There was an attempt to reopen the Alaska-Juneau Mine, once the largest and richest gold mine in the World but that roused so much greenie opposition that the developer threw in the towel. For any who’ve seen the pictures of the Juneau waterfront, often featured in cruise ship advertising, the mountain behind Juneau has over 700 miles of tunnels in it. When gold was declared to no longer be a strategic material in 1944, the A-J lost its labor allotment and was forced to shut down even though still fully productive. When the price of gold was fixed at $35/oz. after WWII, the mine was not economical to reopen but with higher prices remains a very rich mine needing only to be brought up to modern anti-pollution and safety standards. Unfortunately for Alaska none of the mines here do any value added processing, somewhat because of cost but largely because of greenie opposition. Basically the rule in The West is if you can see it, you can’t do it, and this isn’t just on federal land, it is generally that way on private and state lands as well. The Kensington is on Indian land and the Indians were fully supportive of the mine just as the Native Inupiat Eskimo population largely supports ANWR development. The greenies don’t care.
A good rule is if you see a puddle on your property after a rain, quickly fill it before the EPA or some wandering greenie sees it and declares your property a wetland under the CWA. As quickly and quietly as possible remove any and all native vegetation and exterminate all fish, mammal, bird, and insect life lest your property be declared a vital habitat under the ESA. And if a protected creature wanders onto your property, shoot, shovel, and shut up.
And in response to comment 1, the CWA is a very vague law that gives the EPA very broad discretion. Remember, the USSC found that it was within the EPA’s discretion to declare carbon dioxide, one of the most common chemicals on the planet and the largest component of the atmosphere, a pollutant, so don’t get your hopes up too high on this one.
Art, I hate to admint it but I think we may have found something on which we agree 100%. I’m an exiled son of the once great West myself. I’ve chosen to live elsewhere because the West is no longer free. The EPA and its state equivalent zealots are the chief reasons why.
Great phrase, Art: “[S]hoot, shovel, and shut up.”
Thanks, wish I could claim it but it has been around in the West for a long time, at least as long as the US has been putting wolves back in parks and such. It is the preferred form of pest control, since it is illegal to control them any other way most places. Even here in Alaska there are stict laws on discharging a weapon along roads or in incorporated areas, but in a place where EVERYBODY is armed, you’re not going to be troubled with legal niceities when you come home and find a bear in your kitchen.
For different reasons the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is very strict with game laws. It used to be said that if you ever decide to shoot your wife, don’t miss her and shoot a moose out of season. You might well get away with shooting your wife, particularly in late winter when everybody has a good case of cabin fever, but you’d never get away with taking a moose out of season. You’ll be trolling along in your boat and you’ll see some scraggly looking old Boston Whaler or such with a couple of scruffy guys fishing nearby. Then all of a sudden they’ll come over, flash a badge and inspect your gear and catch, and you’d damn well not have any female king crabs or males under 7″ or king salmon under 28″ or more lines than you have licenses or more crabs than you have permits for. If you break F&G laws they can and often do confiscate whatever you’re using to break the law. Consequently, the Troopers and F&G have a pretty much unlimited supply of airplanes, trucks, boats, fourwheels, guns, and fishing gear of all descriptions.
From what I have read on this…the Sackett’s piece of land is in a residential area, a platted subdivision. It has all the required sewer and water hookups, and their attorney states that they obtained all the needed permits to build there.
I am taking for granted that the people that set up the land for this also had permits to put in the water, sewer etc…
If the agencies issuing the permits were not aware of any restrictions, were there any, or did the EPA make them up on the spot?
The property is across a road from a lake, and there are other homes near by.
The EPA s an out of control agency that needs to be shut down by this case! If the Sacketts lose, it does not look good for a lot of projects that they can then at will..shut down.
They pretty much make these things up on the spot, for reasons of their own.
I think it would be very illuminating to investigate the relationship, if any, between the Sacketts and whoever at the EPA started this. Is this a revenge ‘finding’ by someone at the EPA?
Or were the Sacketts politically active in a manner not approved by the EPA?
Inquiring minds want to know!
This strongly reminds me of the case of the Thompson family, originally from the US (Texas, I think), who moved to Australia to set up a cattle ranch. After several years in which they had experienced no trouble from their neighbours, they were suddenly persecuted by environmental activists, starting right after Matt Thompson made clear in a public meeting that he had his doubts about “global warming”. The bureaucratic machinery of Western Australia was turned against the Thompsons’ livelihood, which was arbitrarily closed down.
The saga has been ably documented by Aussie blogger Joanne Nova at
http://joannenova.com.au/about/the-thompsons/ .
I hope that the Sacketts and the Thompsons get their respective victories (with appropriate compensation) in 2012. Happy New Year, too, to contributors and readers at pjmedia.com.
Hi Art: I liked your posts in response to this piece; you write well and seem to know what you’re talking about. Would you drop me an email at seanpaige@msn.com when you get a chance, or provide me with an email where I can reach you directly? I’m looking for contributors to a new media project that will be dealing with just these sorts of issues, and having some eyes and ears in Alaska might be helpful.
Sean
Hell, sean, how do I know you’re not doing reconaisance for the EPA’s SWAT team? I think I hear a helicopter hovering over my house right now.
Only one real disagreement with your comment(s). Nitrogen is the largest component of the atmosphere at about 70% followed by oxygen at about 21%. Carbon Dioxide while indeed natural only makes up about .03% of the atmosphere hardly the largest component. It doesn’t help when you get the equivalent of 9th grade physical science facts wrong.
I make no pretense of being a scientist and I was frankly too lazy to go luck up what elements were in what proportion. But if you ever make a mistake about labor law or labor history, I’ll be right there to tell you how it doesn’t help.
Nitrogen is 78% +/- a few hundredths of a percent. CO2 is a trace gas, and would have to double in concentration several times before its a health hazard…except for the post normalscientist.this is just quibbling with the facts – and your point is well taken…when you base a theory on probabilities of probabilities you should be aware that if some assumption does’t mesh perfectly with your prediction, you will be wrong. That’s their dirty little secret, since it’s all based on assumptions.
I am unfortunately stuck here in CA. I have what seems an endless supply of local examples showing just how out of control gov’ts have become. The stories are of office after office, agency after agency, local to federal, and even global. In just everyday life, if one doesn’t bite you another one will. Sometimes many at once. But writing about them always raises my blood pressure so I’ll just comment.
It is mind boggling that being just a nobody, living Nowhere, if I have endless stories it shows just how out of control and suffocating gov’t has become. It affects everyone, everything, everywhere. And just think, with Obamacare everyone will be affected merely by being alive. (So by that definition, is it socialism or communism?)
I find it so ironic (hypocritical) that the live free hippies of yesteryear, who I remember (around here anyway) as being completely against any/all gov’t control, are now the very same people who’ve created exactly what they were protesting. Try living their “Mother Earth News” lifestyle now. They wont allow it.
I’ll never forget a caller I had on my last full time radio job here in the fab Fla. Keys a few years ago.
A listener had called in complaining that he had bought a piece of property and it had been rezoned wetlands because a year ago someone had run a bulldozer on the property, created a crevice in the earth ,it then filled with rainwater and was now termed a wetlands by the enviro Marxists!
They literally fly planes over the Keys monthly to see if there are any changes. And they are not too shy about making any changes the think they can get away with.
Its all an attack on capitalism and will only end when we get someone in dc who will stand up to these bozos and their legions of lawyers.
Elections have consequences,ever heard that one?
Hopefully, a Newt administration will close down all these idiotic left wing Marxist orgs.
That’s why its important we keep doing what we do here.
Administrations, both left and right, need “encouragement” from us.
Without it we get govt. abuses like what we read here.
The EPA should be completely ABOLISHED, it’s employees fired, it’s doors closed, windows shuttered, power cut off, signs torn down -FOREVER.
Any and all regulation of environmental concerns should be returned to the states and any legislation promulgated should have an automatic sunset provision.
Further, there should be SEVERE financial consequences for the government generally and for bureaucrats individually when law abiding citizens are caught in the capricious net of government regulation. $40 million in fines? How in the hell are they supposed to pay that? If they don’t pay it, do they get sent to prison? Do they have to shrug, pack a suitcase and sneak across the border into another country and establish citizenship there? Does anyone realize that if you go down to the local bar, get completely plastered, hop into your car and kill a family of five on their way to church that you would not face that kind of legal consequence?
Indeed, if this ruling stands, our God given inalienable rights are now subject to alienation by some faceless bureaucrat.
This government has gone too far!
I work for a State Environmental Protection Agency.
We also issue Consent Decrees(compliance orders) as allowed by state law. In fact, I have issued several(though nothing remotely approaching the ridiculous reason the Feds have issued this one apparently, we generally don’t touch home construction unless they are making one hell of a bloody mess and generally warn them to rectify things before any order is issued even then).
On the state lavel, the accused may refuse to sign the order and force the issue into the Civil Court system. He has a simple matter of recourse. Also, my agency has much more mimited rulemaking ability than the Feds. Our rules MUST be reviewed and approved by the legislature. Fiat rulemaking authority does not exist…..and that is the way it should be. The citizen needs to have a valid means of recourse that does not require bankrupting themselves to utilize. The feds MUST be reigned in.
Unconscionable doesn’t quite cover it. In a just world, those (still living and) responsible for this abomination would find themselves drowning in lawsuits that took every one of their assets for the equivalent of three lifetimes. They would then spend the balance of their feculent lives in solitary confinement, nourished only by swamp water and dried bullrushes.
Certain parts of American society have truly lost their way, to the detriment of all.
Welcome to the democrats vision of soviet america.
As of 2005 there’s no such thing as private property anyway. Look up Kelo vs City of New London. The effing supreme court basically ruled that if some developer can come along and make the case that he can generate more tax revenue with your property than you can as a Joe-schmoe home owner, then the state can force you out and give it to him. So in essence, there’s no such thing as home or land ownership anymore. It all belongs to the government, and we just pay them rent in the form of property tax. If another tennant comes along and offers to pay higher rent than you, then you have to pack up and leave. Oh, but don’t worry they’ll offer you “compensation”. The state will pay you what THEY assess as the property’s value.
Granted, Kelo didn’t happen to have anything to do with the EPA, but hey, if the government can take away your land in the interest of a developer, they can sure as hell snatch it away in the name of the all holy enviro-religion. Now they have precedent.
I know everybody loves to hate Kelo, but people should look at what it really did; it said there was no federal power to interfere with what the State of Connecticut did. It was CT law that allowed the taking for what was perceived to be a higher use. Knowing that part of the World, it was probably just a scam between the developer that wanted the land and the city government, but that isn’t the issue here. “Movers and shakers” and real estate developers, many of them nominal Republicans are trying to set up “development authorities” with powers like this all the time. If you don’t like it, and I certainly don’t, the issue is one for your local and state government
Tho’ Kelo was the SCOTUS holding up state power (similarly Roe v. Wade wasn’t an abortion decision per se but a “privacy” decision), I was still shocked at that decision.
Adding insult to injury, last time I checked, Suzanne Kelo’s property still sits empty and “undeveloped”, years after the decision. Reportedly, developers don’t have the cash to proceed with their plan.
I think a number of state legislatures passed a law, post Kelo, to prevent such seizures of private property.
“I know everybody loves to hate Kelo, but people should look at what it really did; it said there was no federal power to interfere with what the State of Connecticut did.”
Yeah, it’s a touchy situation from a states’ rights perspective. On the one hand the federal courts have no problem stomping all over states’ rights (CA prop 187), but then on the other, suddenly they have no jurisdiction when a state determines that emminent domain applies to tax revenue??? I don’t know that there’s a solution other than what you said, and I have already done – which is to re-locate yourself to a locale that “seems” safe from that kind of crap.
As some of us locals understood it, the question was whether “eminent domain” could be used by a government agency to appropriate property from one private owner by another. New London Development Corporation, a private, not-for-profit membership organization was acting as agent for the city. The city not only authorized the private agency to purchase properties in the area, but also to exercise eminent domain. The state had issued bonds to fund the redevelopment plan, though to me it’s not clear that there was approval by the state for the exercise of the city’s powers by a private agent). To me this would be like authorizing hired security guards to arrest and detain people the way the police do(Lord, I hope that’s not actually done yet!)Not sure the lawyers paid enough attention to the facts on the ground when framing the case, myself.
This makes the whole episode even more bone chillingly scary to me. Thanks for the info (I think).
Really read the Lacey Act and Cites. It’s not only for Gibson.
I ran afoul of california Hazmat agency, It is actually several agencies managed ala DHS.
Someone dumped a large quantity of crystalline rods in my dumpster, when country garbage came to collect in the early AM they noticed the rods and called the fire dept, which called Hazmat, which called toxic waste, etc, etc…in the end there were 7 state and 1 federal agency that sealed off the entire block by 10 AM. They made a spectacle of the situation, with helicopters taking air samples, hazardous material specialists taking samples dressed in full suits, etc.
I was asked to sign documents which refused to do, and was not allowed to leave my own property. We later learned had any documents been signed i would be held liable for cost of analysis and any work done, which came to 273,000.00 for state and federal agencies, the 9 hours they remained on site and were testing materials and stringing yellow tape. As it was environmental issue it is the property owner that is held liable for costs, which was myself.
The local Police dept kept state and federal agencies at arms length, they were also working a burglary nearby at a Wafer manufacturing plant and had a fair idea what happened ;
The rods were worth 11 million dollars, highly specialized material for 12 inch computer wafer manufacturing. As soon as value was established each agency tried to claim jurisdiction on the rods, however since company had chemical tracers etched into material the owner could verify and provide MSDS , the Police took over and kicked state and feds out as it was then evidence for a local crime. Had it not been a crime scene i would probably be sued for these costs by the state and feds.
A) Dont ever sign anything any state or federal agency requests
B) State and Federal agencies operate like any other business,
as soon as they show up the register starts to chime for Environmental
clean up, or medical waste, anything of that nature is money for them
C) The best manner to fight any agency is to use another agency. The Local
Police watched my back and kept state and feds at bay. Trying to fight
an agency yourself is a losing strategy. Make friends with local
authorities, they will stand their ground when it comes time.
This group seems to have tripped into the netherworld of environmental issues, which can devastate a small business. California is rife with these, the county inspector was a lunatic that wanted to shut me down several times, he was finally shipped off or promoted to do more damage at higher levels of government. I left California a few years after this, it was sad to watch the golden state become a cartoon of itself.
“Make friends with local
authorities, they will stand their ground when it comes time.”
You won’t have any friends among the “local authorities” when the federal regional director calls the mayor, governor, whomever, and tells them about the audit they’re about to do or the grant that they’re not going to award.
It will be interesting to see how the Obama court appointees rule. Taking this article at face value, it is hard to imagine how a judge could side with the EPA. $40mil in fines? This is just downright evil.
“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.”
You go, Rob. This is it as it is now exactly.
From the EPA’s own website http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/cwa.html
The CWA made it unlawful to discharge any pollutant from a point source into navigable waters, unless a permit was obtained. EPA’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program controls discharges. Point sources are discrete conveyances such as pipes or man-made ditches. Individual homes that are connected to a municipal system, use a septic system, or do not have a surface discharge do not need an NPDES permit; however, industrial, municipal, and other facilities must obtain permits if their discharges go directly to surface waters.
I didn’t get the sense this case involved a discharge but rather a disturbance of a “wetland,” a puddle if you will.
More likely it is a stormwater, I.E. sedimentation issue.
This is what the occupy people should be protesting against, however I am sure that most in the movement would support such tyranny.
The EPA is being used by the Obama administration as an end around for its failure on cap and trade. And any other way the agency might be used to impose by fiat what could not be imposed by law.
EPA head honcho, Lisa Jackson, has little or no scientific understanding of anything. She is such an obvious loser in congressional testimony that others in the agency now do that.
Jackson’s only job is to do her best to effect the extra judicial/extra legislative agenda of the Obama administration. Her equally moronic evil twin over at the department of (in)justice is Eric Holder.
It would seem that the only operative rule is that EPA diktats are not to be challenged or questioned, under any circumstances. Typical bureaucratic intransigence and arrogance.
One more glaring and shameful example of where this country is being taken under this crowd’s rule.
As much as I despise this administration, you have to understand that the EPA has been out of control for a long, long time now. Limp-wristed, city-fied Republicans are just as much to blame for these abuses as the current admin.
I do get it.
It’s just that this particular administration’s blatant disregard for the rule of law and its determination (even verbally acknowledged by Obama) to rule by extra legislative agencies (EPA and FCC most notable) and executive order are especially egregious.
Barry Goldwater famously said, “A government big enough to give you all you want is a government big enough to take it all away.”
Gerald Ford, building on that concept, said, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”
Obama’s diligent expansion of the IRS and EPA (to name just two aggressive, out-of-control agencies) is nothing short of a strategic attack on life, liberty and property. He’s weaponizing the federal government and criminalizing citizens and business.
This story is a cautionary tale for us all. Today: it’s the Sacketts. Tomorrow: it will be you, me, our neighbors, our businesses, our vehicles …
You forget the FAA and Homeland Security as arbitators of tremendous pain and suffering. A house 2 miles from the airport was sold to a developer. The deal was final and no one thought anything. The FAA stopped the deal in its tracks until it reviewed the safety on the approach path–a long ways away. The approval was given months later. The project still was not started when the Janet Incompetano team came in to the picture and wanted to see if it was safe. That took months also. In this shaky Obamanation the bank is now concerned and the changed the rules. So the project is in limbo. Everyone in government want justify their existence and kill the economy in the process.
In some combination of its own grasping for power and control and those being willingly allocated over a very long period of time, the federal government has extended itself far too broadly across the entire spectrum of human endeavor.
You buck it, you argue with it, and the bureaucratic nightmares (not to mention expense) will go on for years.
I’m glad the Sacketts are going all the way as a last bastion of defense against the insanity, although we can imagine how the SCOTUS decision in Sackett will shake out along ideological lines, exactly as it will in Obamacare.
USSA? And you wonder why there are financial problems?
This is stalinism.
The whole of our Constitution is written against this kind of authoritarianism.
Scary. The totalitarians are building the regime.
As mentioned above, it is helpful when local officials have your back when Jabba The Hutt comes calling.
Local sheriff defends farmer from FDA intrusion
“The U.S. Justice Department has withdrawn its subpoena of Indiana raw dairy farmer Richard Hochstetler to appear before a federal grand jury…The withdrawal came after Roger’s Sheriff’s Department told the FDA to back off”
this crap doesn’t come from nowhere. There is one person that started this nightmare and that person probably works in the government.
a johnny come lately that doesn’t want their view spoiled.
‘Fraid this is true, how in the world did the EPA hear of the Sacketts’ project as something to question?
“Someone didn’t want their view spoiled”. Sounds like a case here in the UK many years ago whan a couple who applied for planning permission to build a home were given it by the local planning authority, who dismissed an appeal against it by a neighbour, who said it spoiled the view from their house. This objector then went to the High Court to get an order revoking the planning permission, thus effectively ordering the demolition of this couple’s home. The objector was quoted as saying that they could’t possibly go on living there with that new house “spoiling” their view.
Hope the Sacketts win, and that over-mighty quango is called to account for its heavy-handedness.
Unbelievable! I would expect this type of tyrannical compliance from some communistic country, yet here we are seeing this implausible show of force from an agency and government who’s purpose it is to support and protect its own people. I hope there is a lawyer out there that will take this case pro bono and fight to the end AND win this ridiculously frivolous case and bring to light the unscrupulous use of intimidation the EPA is unethically and immorally showing in their quest to lynch honest tax paying citizens.
Wow, this abuse of power is simply unimaginable. The Sacketts are a helluva lot more patient than I am. If I were in their place, I’d likely be looking to rent a Ryder truck from Oklahoma City!
If it were me, and I were to lose this supreme court case, I’d salt the earth on the plot of land – make it completely uninhabitable for any form of wildlife. What the hell? They’re already 40 million in the hole. What’s another fine?
Bottom line…. election count! We all need to resolve to support our candidates with time, talent and treasure. We have to do more than forward an email of the latest travesty. If don’t get involved this slippery slope will reach a point of no return.
I would be interested in the Sacketts’ complete prayer to the court, what do they seek as a remedy? Per the article, they seek simple standing and ” …pre-enforcement judicial review of the EPA’s administrative compliance order ” I guess that the SC will return the case to some lower court after their ruling. One prayer is crucial. In other cases (I am not current) the EPA has claimed wetland jurisdiction over all surfaces, which might be hit by a rain drop. This includes desserts.
The problem lies with Congress; they pass lousy laws with no clear meaning. It is common environmental legal philosophy that lawyers will push the limit of the meaning of words, until some court stops them. Two generations of lawyers were taught this as good law: The Sacketts are required to clean up, not their land, but every thing downstream of their property. Forever. That is expensive.
The rational result is tyranny, in the name of goodness. America has reverted two centuries in personal freedoms, subjected to the whims of Washington D.C. regulators. It kept tricky Dick Nixon from impeachment but destroyed our nation. Reason and hard work are worthless efforts.
In that little phrase lies a world of evil.
It would be hard to imagine a “legal principle” that is more suited to removing all vestige of individual liberty and the rule of law.
After reading this article I’m left with the notion that the Sacketts pissed off someone in a position of power locally that have connections inside EPA. I may be wrong and the EPA is simply out of control but why otherwise would such a large organization like the EPA suddenly lock it’s bureaucratic gaze on 3/4 of an acre of platted land in Idaho?
A few but important facts have been left out of this article – like the fact that the Sacketts run an excavation company – the Sacketts didn’t bother to obtain the necessary permits in order to dump fill on their lot – etc etc.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2011/nov/06/private-land-public-battle/
I’m all for dismantling the EPA – Education too – just to name a few. I’m also all for making sure the reader has the facts on hand to make an educated decision as to whom may be at fault.
This is part of the problem. Why do they need a permit to dump fill dirt on their own property? It’s their property for Pete’s sake.
We here about some homeowners association banning the American flag, a small town fining someone for growing a vegetable garden in the front yard, etc etc.
It’s not just the feds that are out of control, it’s government in general from the local all the way up.
I think there needs to be some kind of control over who is dumping what where – don’t you?
On the one hand we have what is happening the moment – total (anal) control over what is going on everywhere – the opposite side of that coin is anarchy. There is a happy medium and we need to find that. Let the states run their own EPA.
My guess is this guy pissed off a few people while practicing his excavating business and is reaping the rewards. I can’t buy into the idea that someone with his business background didn’t know about that form 404 – whatever that is.
A 404 refers to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which regulates the discharge or placement of dredged or fill material in waters of the U.S., including wetlands.
To give you an example of how nit picky the EPA and the Army Corp of Engineers can be, you can cut down a tree in a wetland but if you remove the stump and dirt falls off the root wad when you remove the stump, technically you have just violated section 404.
KT – thanks for that link. Appears that there may be more to the story.
Methinks one of those EPA “agents” want the Sacketts’ property for himself/herself. Watch what happens to the property if the Sacketts lose.
If they will check the rulings they will find that if you have money you can get what you want ! John Tyson of TYSON FOODS was clearly in wetland violation building an animal food plant on the Red River in Miller ,County ,Arkansas but was allowed to build anyway . Many ,many instances are there in tne rulings . They need to file suit to stop proceedings but most of all check the most recent eco maps of the area .New maps were issued in 2003 redesignating wetlands.
The EPA and the Clean Water Act are not authorized under the enumerated powers of the federal government. If we are to ever get the federal government off our backs and reg in our liberties we must reestablish 10th Amendment federalism.
I’ve laid out the case and some first steps here: http://www.redstate.com/derkrieger/
Ladies and gentlemen, stop assuming that just because the federal government says or des something that they are correct. They are not.
If we don’t start fighting back they will continue taking more and more power over our lives.
Are you aware that the EPA wants to change its mission to sustainability? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/19/epa-ponders-expanded-regulatory-power-in-name-sustainable-development/?test=latestnews
Do you realize the implications of such a mission statement! It means taking unto themselves all powers they deem necessary to “save” the planet. They’ve started with our toilets, light bulbs, appliances and detergent but that is just a baby step. Sustainability will give them the power to regulate EVERYTHING in the name of the environment.
The goal of the environmental left is to force us all into small apartments in urban areas and for us to abandon the suburbs and countryside to Mother Nature. The EPAs sustainability mission lines up with the UN Agenda 21 initiative.
“support-the-sacketts-epa-suit-goes-to-supreme-court”
So how DO we “support” them? Where’s the link to give?
Tin foil hat on. I wonder if one of the three agents wanted that piece of property and was just pi**ed that the Sackett’s owed it. Tin foil hat off.
Courtesy of Occam’s Razor: Don’t multiply explanations when a simpler explanation will suffice.
Sorry Art Chance, you were not there when Feds and State officers were trying to put their hands in my pockets. Practical experience trumps theory.
The only agency impartial was local and county police, and they held everyone off and away from me until all was laid on the table. Local authorities will intervene and back everyone off, if you have good relations with them.
Ididn’t say I didn’t believe you, I’m saying that if the Feds yank a local government’s chain hard enough, and they will if pushed, the local government and even most states will just become the Fed’s Toby.
I want to know one thing: Why is the Fed EPA even involved? This should be a matter for the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. http://www.deq.idaho.gov/
Generally speaking, the states have primacy. This is like the FBI claiming jurisdiction in a robbery of the local 7-11 over the City PD or Sheriff’s Office! This is not the usual way of doing business. I half-wonder if there is some hidden political agenda here?
We had a similar case in North Houston a few years ago. A piece of property bought by the school district was deemed a wetland area. It was not a wetland area when they bought it but the SP railroad did not do their maintenance of drainage on their property. The school district had to go to court and have the railroad ordered to clean out their ditches and storm drains. In two years, it was no longer a wetlands so they were granted permission to build.
It is a shame that individuals are in a similar position. The school district has a litigation budget and taxpayers to go to for overages on budgets. Individuals have nothing.
I always thought that the GOP was just exhibiting their lunacy with their passion about eliminating the EPA, but now I see it is just another area of government out of control. It seems we can make 20 million exceptions to immigration law, but not one to EPA directions. That speaks volumes about where we are as a society when individual citizens have few rights protected any longer, but foreign nationals can do whatever they please in the US.
“That speaks volumes about where we are as a society when individual citizens have few rights protected any longer, but foreign nationals can do whatever they please in the US.”
So true. I have come to understand (and accept) that I am a second-class citizen. Because I am a citizen. I am also, according to Obama and ilk, an enemy of the people.
I therefore understand I will be treated as such.
Given the vagueness of this clause of the CWA, it would best if the Supreme Court struck it down and told Congress that they have to be more specific.
Regulators gone wild! sounds like a new movie
Who needs Congress when we have Regulators writing law, filling up buildings and spending money on conferences?
Hell, with Regulators who needs Obama?
How does one find out about this stuff? If the plat or CC&R documents of the property doesn’t show this sort of thing, where does the EPA get off with this nonsense? How is this not a “taking”?
And then the kafkaesque comedy in the Ninth Circuit Court –This is why people have so little respect for lawyers and Judges. One hopes that somehow, the Supreme Court will make some sense of this and tell the lower courts to do their damned job!
To paraphrase a line from “Cool Hand Luke”…What we have here is a failure to capitulate….
Having worked for my state’s Dept. of Environment and Natural Resources, this is an everyday occurrence and for the Federal EPA to be involved, the owners ticked off someone that called them in. A quick internet search shows a Mike Sackett, Inc. in that town that owns a excavator, site preparation company. My guess is he either ticked off a neighbor that didn’t want to have a house built next to him or tried to buy the lot but didn’t want to pay the asking price. Another explanation is through his business he ticked off the EPA for work done on another site and they could only go after the property owner and not the grading contractor. I’ve seen it happen with state and federal agencies repeatedly.
As a standup comic I heard one time say: it’s less of a hassle to shoot your wife than divorce her…you get out of jail sooner and you get to keep all your stuff…dealing with the EPA is about the same.
Wetlands are the ultimate no man’s land. I’ll give you an example. A local hospital wanted to extend their building for a new EMS/Ambulance building. The original construction on the hospital has caused the grading contractor to push trees and stumps and topsoil down to the far end of the property, and left it bermed up as “wildlife” habitat. No harm no foul, there were no regulations concerning it. Unknown to the hospital the adjoining property owner had done development work and pushed his clearing debris toward the hospitals. This created two sides of a triangle. To cap off the calamity, the Highway Dept. had cleaned and graded a ditch running behind these two properties and dumped the spoil from cutting the massive ditch, back along the right of way line thus creating the third side of the triangle. Over the years the area grew up. Heavy brush and trees and now…no way for the rain to drain out of the area inclosed by the 3 berms. Naturally, a bird landed in the area one day and took a dump and cat tails sprouted. You now have your Federally Protected Wetland. When the hospital got ready to build their EMS building it cost through the nose to get the permit and had to change the construction methods used to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars.
See my dear friends…you can create a wetland and once you do, the Federal Government has jurisdiction. And once they get control of something they don’t let go.
Wetland mitigation costs state governments and individual developers million every year in trying to create fake wetland to replace the ones affected by development. And in most cases you pay into a fund at the rate of 3 to 1. You tear up and acre of wetland you pay for 3 and as any real estate agent will tell you, waterfront(even swamp) property ain’t cheap.
Another example, a huge phosphate mining company had to get there water quality permits renewed. Without them they had to shut down. They were in violation of two mining permits but the agency I worked for said nothing even though it was supposed to keep them from getting the water quality permit approved. Supposedly this was a way to keep them in compliance by holding up a permit until they were in compliance with all permits.
To compensate for the destruction of the oh so important wetlands, the water quality dept. let them go 20 miles away and use old farm fields as mitigation sites. They would simply block up the ditches leading away from the property and plant trees. No way in hell these isolated farm fields with blocked up ditches act as the natural filters like the wetlands next to the sound and tributaries this mine was destroying.
But it was allowed. My department due to budget crunches started pushing for enforcement and fines against people like the Sacketts while letting Big Phosphates off the hook. I knew then it was time to go.
So be careful with what you do on your property. The old axiom of it’s better to ask forgiveness than ask permission from a government agency is over. They’re now out to make your life a living hell either way.
This federal land/property rights grabbing tyranny forced upon law abiding, honest, ethical Americans is due to the implimentation of AGENDA21 and the WILD LANDS PROJECT. These two “enviromental programs” end game goal is to render 50% of America off limits to ANY human activity. By using an increasingly complex system of “enviromental protection” regulations and abusive taxation mechanations the plan is to herd people into densely populated “sustainable/livable communities. In these “communities” Americans will be required to live, shop and work. Can anyone say work gulag? The plan uses federal tax dollars to coerce local governments into compliance with the help of non-government “working groups”. Please comletely familiarize yourselves on AGENDA21/WILD LANDS PROJECT and the real motives behind these “environmental protection” ruses becomes real clear.
The banker elites are chopping down our constitutional rights day by day and we still do nothing. Our freedom of speech, our right to bear arms, right to due process are all bearing decimated.
These good folks are getting SCREWED by the UNCONSTITUTIONAL EPA! FIGHT BACK!
You are all arguing symptoms not causes.
The fourteenth amendment created citizenship of the federal government. This status is a privilege granted by the government. All your “privileges” are controlled by Congress.
“We have cited these cases for the purpose of showing that the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States do not necessarily include all the rights protected by the first eight amendments to the Federal Constitution against the powers of the Federal government. They were decided subsequently to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment…”
Maxwell v. Dow, 176 US 598 (1900)
As 14th Amendment citizens we are chattel of the federal government and NOT protected by the Bill of Rights except as Congress has allowed.
The situation is more dire than you suspect.
Cute huh. Don’t beleive it? Read more about it, get “A Patriot’s Thoughts” on C. Francis Habeck’s facebook or email patriot1789 at hotmail for a copy.
Hopefully, the Sacketts will be able to win damages, court cost and attorney fees in the case. On the face of it, the EPA is clearly over stepping their authority and the Constitution.