Comments (13) | Add a comment
EDITORIAL
It's all wetlands: Supreme Court will hear property rights case
Tools
Updated: Jan. 6, 2012 | 8:57 a.m.
Mike and Chantell Sackett run an excavation business in the Idaho panhandle. Back in 2005, the couple bought a 0.63-acre lot in a subdivision about 500 feet from Priest Lake. There are several homes between the Sackett lot and the shore, The Washington Post reports. Mr. Sackett worked on the construction of one and says it required no special federal permit.
In 2007, the couple obtained local building permits and began to fill the lot in preparation for building their dream home. Three days later, officials from the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers ordered work to stop, claiming they thought the land might contain wetlands. "How can you call it a wetland when it's a lot in an existing subdivision that has a sewer hookup?" asks Mr. Sackett.
The agency subsequently ordered the Sacketts to restore the site to its natural state before construction could begin. Failure to follow the orders could make the couple liable for fines of up to $37,500 a day -- almost $15,000 more per day than they paid for the land.
The EPA contends that was "a starting point for negotiations," The Post reports. The couple respond by describing a bureaucratic maze that left them convinced they'd never be able to build so long as the EPA's contention that the land contained "wetlands" was allowed to stand.
This month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear their case.
"This is what happens when an overzealous federal agency would rather force compliance than give any consideration to private property rights, individual rights, basic decency or common sense," says U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho.
So far, lower courts have agreed with the government that the agency's compliance orders are not subject to judicial review. The Sacketts and the Pacific Legal Foundation respond that even the prospect of waiting to see whether the EPA will go to court -- it has years to make the decision -- deprives the couple of their property rights, leaving them "to the mercy and whim of EPA."
But putting aside the fact that the EPA now embraces a definition of "wetland" that can refer to a piece of land where water pools and stands for as little as a couple of days per year after a heavy rain, the issue before the high court is narrow: whether the Sacketts can challenge the EPA's initial finding that their lot contains wetlands.
The danger of a Sackett victory, argue environmental extremists, is that it could allow "major polluters" to tie up the EPA in litigation. Perhaps. But our constitutional protections -- in this case, the Fifth Amendment's takings clause -- don't exist to make things easier for the government. Precisely the opposite. Compliance orders and the threats of heavy fines are meant to intimidate targets into knuckling under while allowing heavy-handed bureaucrats to avoid worrying about such onerous rigmarole as the Fifth Amendment, property rights or due process.
And let's hope the court sees things in a similar fashion.
Comments
Terms & Conditions
The following comments are provided by readers and are the sole responsiblity of the authors. The Review-Journal does not review comments before publication nor guarantee their accuracy. By publishing a comment here you agree to abide by the comment policy. If you see a comment that violates the policy, please use the Report Abuse button.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Nah, "ask" permission; lets just let people do what they do. After all, that has always worked out well for everyone. Heck Enron shouldn't have had to "ask" for any permission to rob cheat and steal. What kind of "Big Brother" state do we live in anyway?
ALL serfs/economic slaves must ask permission first, from church, king, state . . .
nancy: The piece above says nothing but it does throw red meat to the types that this newspaper targets; mission accomplished. These people know nothing about the subject, but the mere use of the words EPA and environment gather the sheep together to bleat. Just a matter of counting "hits" now; seems a rather weak turnout even for this crowd.
The guys from the EPA think they are all Elliot Ness and that they can just about whatever they want and when they want it. They have this real bad attitude and could care less about abusing basic property rights. Forget about due process. It means nothing to these thugs.
All Laws and regulations spawmed from those laws are subject to Judicial Review. That is the whole concept of the 3 equal but separate branches of Government. Oh, and it does state that the Juducial Branch has the final word on any law or regulation the other 2 branches breed or enforce. There ruling are the SUPREME LAW of the LAND!!!! Oh, and is this not a government of the people for the people and by the people. If the PEOPLE don't want it, they do have the ability to change it. VOTE PEOPLE. VOTE!!!!! It's the only tool we have that can bring any elected or appointed official to their knees and make them cry.
VOTE....VOTE and MORE VOTE!!!!!!
lower courts have agreed with the government that the agency's compliance orders are not subject to judicial review.
BIG Governement.
Gary North recently wrote about this long festering and growing phenomenon of government bureaucracies being able to issue rulings which are not subject to judicial review.
His point was that the emerging administrative legal system -- one which operates without the safeguards of the traditional jury system -- poses the greatest single threat to Western liberties.
Too bad the EPA wasn't around in 1800. If it was, Washington DC would never have been built.
@ nancy - it is not a question of what was being used for fill. The fact is that the EPA can declare almost any piece of land to be a "wetland" and prohibit development. There have been cases where farmers have been EPA'd because they used earth from the same field to fill in a low spot to keep water from pooling on the cropland.
There needs to be a separation of Earth and State.
"We're from the government. We're here to help."
Read the Tenth Amendment. Go ahead. One sentence. Even Harry can read this! Quite straightforward.
Get rid of the EPA, the DEA, the USDA.
There is no mention as to what they were using to fill in the lot...could it polute the lake? Since they run an excavation business could they have been dumping waste from other sites they worked? I would say that this article leaves a lot of questions unanswered.