The attorney for an Idaho couple that has been battling federal officials for years over the right to develop their own property asked the Supreme Court on Oct. 3 to rein in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s power to regulate wetlands.
Chantell and Mike Sackett had started building a new home in Priest Lake, Idaho, when the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers suddenly ordered them to stop all work. The two government agencies said they needed a federal permit and threatened more than $30,000 in daily fines. The EPA had determined years before that their parcel of land contained wetlands. The Sacketts say their lot lacks a surface water connection to any stream, creek, lake, or other water body, and it shouldn’t be subject to federal regulation and permitting.
Even though water is not usually visible on their land, the
government claims, based on aerial photography, the lot is home to a fen
wetland. Fens are “peat-forming wetlands that rely on groundwater input
and require thousands of years to develop and cannot easily be restored
once destroyed,” according to a USDA Forest Service report. Fens are
“hotspots of biodiversity” and “figure prominently in nearly all
scenarios of CO2-induced global change because they are a major sink for
atmospheric carbon,” the report claims............To Read More...
My Take - It boggles the mind this is still going on, which I've been following for all these years. No matter how many times the Sacketts win, they lose to petty tyrannical bureaucrats, giving ever more reason for the elimination of the EPA, and seriously curtailing the activities of all the rest.
I think everyone needs to see the background of this story, here's my Sackett file. Starting with my commentary, while out of order, it's filled with a lot of background on this:
The Sacketts: You Cannot Have This EPA and a Constitution
By Rich Kozlovich
I've been watching this for some time and I lost sight of it in the last couple of years as I thought it was resovled a few years ago. Wrong! I'm now shocked the Trump administration didn't fix this, but the fact is Trump came into office without a trusted group of followers, including the Republicans, who actually worked to undermine him in support of the Deep State. He even left former Obama people in their jobs, and I think some for his whole administration. I have to believe that will change after 2024. At any rate, here's the story going back ten years, much of what's appearing here is from Wikipedia at the end lending more background. ..................
Amendment to block EPA WOTUS rule blocked in House, as SCOTUS decision looms
There is no creature more vicious than a thwarted bureaucrat
By July 6th, 2022 Environment 22 Comments
Concerned that a Biden administration plan to resuscitate an Obama-era rule that would impose federal zoning across millions of acres of private land, Rep. Dan Newhouse (R-Wash.) introduced an amendment in the U.S. House that would bar the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from going ahead with the scheme pending the outcome of a landmark case before the Supreme Court. At issue is the federal government’s powers under the 1972 Clean Water Act (CWA) to regulate “waters of the United States” (WOTUS). The CWA grants EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers power to regulate “navigable waters of the United States,” initially understood, but not specifically stated, to include rivers, bays, lakes, and other bodies of water that are navigable. However, the lack of clarity in the statute has led federal regulators, often working with environmental groups, to extend the CWA’s jurisdiction to include drainage ditches, farm ponds, and ephemeral bodies of water that are in no way “navigable.”............
KNIGHT: Taming the EPA monster
Supreme Court ruling strikes a blow in ongoing battle
By Robert Knight - - Friday, March 23, 2012
Slowly, inexorably, the monster is being driven back to its lair. Its days of terrorizing villagers may soon be over. I wish I were talking about the federal government, but it’s the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), better known as the Environmental Protection-or-else Agency. At one time, it was a harmless little back-alley operation that stumbled upon a secret growth formula, downed the whole vat and began wreaking havoc. You won’t find this account on the EPA’s official website, but you will find ample evidence of the monster’s ambitions to control the world, such as its quest for “environmental justice.” On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court slapped the monster right across the chops in Sackett v. EPA. An Idaho couple, Chantell and Mike Sackett, were building a home but fell victim to an EPA compliance order in 2005. Their building permit was revoked.......To Read More...
Years after Supreme Court win, Sacketts lose fight with EPA
After winning the right to challenge EPA enforcement orders in a major 2011 Supreme Court ruling, Michael and Chantell Sackett have lost their case. A U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho judge ruled that the wetlands the couple are accused of illegally filling were indeed protected by the Clean Water Act. "The Court finds the EPA's determination was not arbitrary or capricious and is supported by the record," Reagan appointee Judge Edward Lodge wrote in a ruling on summary judgment last week. Tony Francois, an attorney at the Pacific Legal Foundation representing the Sacketts, indicated his clients would appeal the case.................
Out of Control: Part III - A Victory over the Ideological and Tyrannical Thugs at the EPA
In past weeks I posted a link to a video that was uplifting. This week is going to be different. This will outrage you!
In January, the Supreme Court heard the arguments for Sackett v. EPA, the case of an Idaho couple being persecuted for trying to build a home on a small plot of property the Environmental Protection Agency deemed "protected wetlands." The case is still under review and the Sacketts are waiting for a decision, but Reason followed up with a great vid breaking down the entire enviro-busybody boondoggle...................
Owners of land taken over by feds getting day in court Supremes to review EPA decision it controls residential parcel in Idaho
"With
this case, the Supreme Court confronts important issues for property
rights and due process. When the government seizes control of your land,
and you disagree with the justification, shouldn't you be allowed your
day in court? Just as important, should EPA be a law unto itself,
without meaningful accountability to the courts and the
Constitution?"……..
And it's not just the Sacketts' land that could be subject to such
orders. The foundation arguments suggest that private property across
the nation could be at risk. The legal team noted that between 1980 and
2001, the EPA issued up to 3,000 compliance orders every year across the
nation. "The reality of the Sacketts' situation is that they have been
unambiguously commanded by their government not to complete their
home-building project, to take expensive measures to undo the
improvements that they have made to their land, and to maintain their
land essentially as a public park until the property is 'restored' to
the satisfaction of the EPA. They have been threatened with frightening
penalties if they do not immediately obey; but they have been refused
the prompt hearing they should have received as a matter of right in any
court," Pacific Legal argued. .............
No comments:
Post a Comment