By Rob Janicki
Finally! It's taken two private citizens to stand up to the Gestapo at the EPA and their terror tactics to destroy private property rights. This is no small issue. Property rights are one of the very basic and fundamental principles embodied in the U. S, Constitution and are exercised on a daily basis by property owners, unless, of course, the EPA decides to make up the law as they choose it to be and destroy anyone who opposes them with the massive force of government.
On to the specifics of this throw down between the Sacketts of Priest Lake, Idaho, and the EPA.
Washington Times
[...] The case stemmed from the couple’s purchase of a 0.63-acre lot for $23,000 near Priest Lake, Idaho, in 2005. The Sacketts had begun to lay gravel on the land, located in a residential neighborhood, when they were hit by an EPA compliance order informing them that the property had been designated a wetland under the Clean Water Act.
The Sacketts were ordered to stop grading their property and were told that they would face fines of up to $75,000 per day if they did not return the parcel to its original state. When the Sacketts attempted to contest the order, the agency denied their request for a hearing. [...]
Does this look just a little bit egregious? Let's look at that last statement.
[...] the agency (EPA) denied their (the Sacketts) request for a hearing. [...]
Set aside for the moment that the land in question is or is not a wetland under law. (It's not and it never was.) What happened to due process? So much for the 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process under law, when the EPA can dismiss, out of hand, any hearing to question the issue of an EPA determination and order pertaining to property.
Let's look to what the court system did for the Sacketts at the U.S. Appellate Court level, which should explain why the case made it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
[...] The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected the couple’s appeal in September, said the Sacketts had other avenues of relief, such as undergoing a wetlands permitting process - the cost of which would be as much as 12 times the value of the land. [...]
Justice Scalia put this canard aside when, in his opinion, he said, "Such an option hardly constitutes adequate recourse."
[...] “The federal government is an intimidating force against ordinary citizens, and standing up to its bureaucracy requires extraordinary bravery,” Mr. Labrador ( Rep. Raul R. Labrador, the Idaho Republican who represents the Priest Lake area) said in a statement. “The EPA is one of the many federal government agencies whose overreach jeopardizes our civil liberties and obstructs our pursuit of prosperity.” [...]
Score one for the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. It's about time.
Hell, yeah!
ReplyDeleteSacketts had other methods of comfort, such as going through a esturine habitat allowing procedure - the price of which would be as much as 12 periods the value of the area.
ReplyDeleteThe Sackett land had never been a wetland. As the land around theirs was developed, their undeveloped land became a repository for rain water runoff. That does not make it a natural estuary or wetland.
ReplyDeleteThe EPA claim that the Sacketts had other avenues to resolve the confrontation was ludicrous. The fundamental issue is that the Sackett's land was never a wetlands, thus the EPA had no authority over the land. End of story.
Good for the Sackett's! There was a lady on Beck yesterday
ReplyDeletesaying if you're gonna build a home, find a town with NO building
department. She went on to say that had it been their former
state (CA) it would have cost them almost 50K just in "permitting".
No Planning Dept. would be heaven. Our Planning Dept. suggested that our permits could be expedited if we were willing to trade a couple of dead presidents. Instead of being in our retirement home in three months, it took us six! Sometimes we wonder if swapping dead people might have helped, but we just could not bring ourselves to do it. In addition, they were inept. The PD, that is.
ReplyDeleteIt is really nice post.I am felling glad on this post.can you more share with me.
ReplyDeleteThanks for more sharing..............................
Vinny’s Towing and Recovery
Try these sites for greater detail on the Sackett's versus the EPA.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/sackett-et-vir-v-environmental-protection-agency-et-al/
http://www.law.upenn.edu/blogs/regblog/2012/03/rule-of-law-prevails-in-sackett-v-epa.html
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/erikajohnsen/2012/03/21/justice_is_sweet_the_sackett_v_epa_decision
http://volokh.com/2012/03/21/thoughts-on-sackett-v-epa/
I hope these sites provide a more detailed explanation to you, as to why the the Supreme Court decision was important, along with all the details of the case.
Was there actually a court ruling in favor of the Sacketts? I sure hope so.
ReplyDeleteThe whole gist of the Supreme Court decision is to give the Sackett's the right to appeal the EPA decision in an administrative law court. Prior to the SC decision the EPA issued an order and claimed there was no right to review by an administrative law court. Basically the EPA was saying the Sacketts were guilty and had to prove their innocence rather than the EPA having to prove the Sacketts violated federal environment laws. This is completely contrary to our system of jurisprudence wherein an enforcement agency has to prove a violation of law has occurred before it can mandate penalties on the alleged offender.
ReplyDeleteSince I can just about spit to Priest Lake, allow me to add something. The real question is - what's driving this? The EPA didn't just drive down that street and decide to pounce on the Sacketts. Best guess is that the neighbor that sits right behind them (and maybe the ones on each side) started this up to find a way to keep them from building. For years the neighbor to the rear of the property has had unrestricted access to the lake, both visually and by foot. Now suddenly Sackett comes in and fills the lot to build.
ReplyDeleteConsidering the price the Sacketts paid for the lot (about 25K) someone thought there was something wrong because that is an extraordinarily low price for that lot.
The locals think that the previous owner knew what was going to happen and dumped the lot. While we all agree it was not a wetland, we do think the previous owner didn't want the grief. The Sacketts were willing to do battle. Good for them. I hope I'm invited to their house-warming (except it probably won't happen because the EPA is just going to dig in and double down.)
These are very useful pieces of information that will be of great use to me in a good position future Pretty.
ReplyDeletePlease let me know when Will Profit is recovered from his medical conditions and ready to blog again. The blogosphere isn't the same without your articles and wit ...
ReplyDeleteWill has the keys to this little kingdom, so I have been unable to blog in his absence. Hopefully, the blog will return shortly.
ReplyDelete